Loading...
PL 11/08/1989 - 7105. � � PLANNIAG COMMISSIOP MEETING AGE1�A WEDNESDAY, POVEliBEB 8, 1989 7:30 P.M. public Planning Commission �"'� �^, , P � � �� City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1989 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING CONII�IISSION MINUTES: October 25, 1989 CONSIDERATION OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS CONSIDERATION OF CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATION OF 1990 MEETING DATES RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF OCTOBER 12. 1989 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: . '1 1 : ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1�lISBION MEETING� OCTOBER 25� 1989 w�rrw�w�. www�rw.w,ww.wrrw.rwrww.r�r.w.w.w.w.w�.►wr.w.w.w.w.arw�rrw.w�.rww��r�wr.rww.w.w.�.�.�.w.w.w1ww.wr.�.w. w. w. CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the October 25, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Plarnn�ng Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the October ^ 11, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. !"1 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRYED IINAIJIMOIIBLY. l. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED SITE PLAN FOR OSBORNE CROSSINGS. SBF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Farrell has requested that this item be tabled because he wants to review the changes in the site plan with the tenants who have signed leases. He is concerned about the legal implications to t�a�se tenants and wants �� make sure they will accept these refinements. The tenant� signed leases based on the original plan approved by the City. Ms. Dacy stated she would like the Commission �� discuss some other changes to the site plan that have been discu��ed with Mr. Farrell. She would also like to give a brief overview of what the HRA is considering. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission had received a revised site plan for Osborne Crossings. The changes staff wanted Mr. Farrell to address were those expressed by the Planning Commission: the type of access from the site back to Commerce Lane, and to try to improve the circulation out of the site onto the frontage road. � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 2 �"'�� The revised plan provides a full movement access from the site to Commerce Lane. Ms. Dacy stated staff reviewed the site plan with Mr. Farrell, and staff was concerned about the stacking distance from Osborne to the three lane intersection. Staff asked Mr. Farrell to look at an option of shifting the driveway farther to the south in order to accommodate more stacking on the frontage road and going both directions on Osborne Road. Since that discussion yesterday, Mr. Farrell has sent over two variations of that. Ms. Dacy stated that under this plan, if the 3 lane driveway is farther to the south and if the center spaces in front of the theater become 9 x 18 (assuming the City Council changes the ordinance on parking stall widths to 9 ft.), Mr. Farrell can provide 309 spaces--4 spaces short of the 313 approved by the City Council. However, if the parking space widths are not amended, and he has to maintain a 10 ft. stall width in the center of the development, he will lose 20 stalls for a total of 289 spaces. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Farrell has said 289 spaces is unacceptable to the theater. The theater wants 310 spaces in front of the theater. Mr. Farrell is trying to review these three site plans with the theater people in Texas, as well as with the people for the other building slated to be Hardees. � Ms. Dacy stated that while the intersection does achieve that extra stacking distance from Osborne, there may be a consideration of what it does to the on-site traffic. Because of the angle, probably half of the cars will be going out onto Commerce Lane and the other half onto the service road. It is not a true "T" or 90 degree intersection as it was on the original plan. Ms. Sherek asked what effect this reconfiguration will have on the northbound traffic stacking at the curb. The traffic on the frontage road moves very fast at 30-35 m.p.h., and it could be a hazardous situation. Is there sufficient visibility coming from the south? What is the line of sight? Ms. Dacy stated the engineers seemed to feel that the sight distance in that location was adequate. Sight distance was poorer south of Hardees. However, what it might do is stack and maybe block the Conoco station. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not think there was going to be that much problem with the traffic from the Conoco station. Ms. Sherek stated her problem was not with the traffic from the Conoco station, but the traffic stacking to turn into the theater site. ,� U � � ,''1 PLANNING COMMI88ION-MEETING, OCT. 25, 1989 _ PAG$ 3 Mr. Barna suggested the parking spaces be angled around the perimeter and this would draw people around the parking lot for better traffic flow. Mr. Kondrick stated the more they talk about this, the more he feels this is just not a good development for this site. It is just cramming too much onto this property. Mr. Dahlberg stated he met with Mr. Robertson and Ms. Dacy the previous day to discuss the proposed plan with Mr. Farrell. Mr. Dahlberg stated he expressed to Mr. Farrell that this revised plan was a 100� improvement over what was previously submitted. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the biggest consideration here is that the Planning Commission reviewed the first plan and recommended denial to City Council. City Council, in their judgment, approved the plan as submitted. It was his understanding that part of it was because this developer was not asking for any monetary assistance to proceed; therefore, the City was willing to make some concessions relative to the number of parking spaces, variances for setbacks, parking stall size, and number of parking spaces. This proposal as modified does not ask for any additional variances. Mr. Farrell is asking for the same variances he was given originally. He has retained about the same square footage, but he has improved the traffic considerably. Mr. Dahlberg stated the discussion yesterday with staff centered around what is truly the City's involvement in terms of financial obligation, because Mr. Farrell has come back asking for some financial assistance from the City. Mr. Dahlberg stated his understanding of the assistance being requested by Mr. Farrell is that it is not costing the City anything. Ms. Dacy stated the October 23, 1989, memo outlines the procedure the HRA has authorized, pending Planning Commission -and City Council approval of the revised site plan. The procedure is to create a tax increment financing district for this parcel, and also to evaluate adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west of this site. Ms. Dacy stated that right now, with the building on the site, the taxes generated are approximately $50,000 a year. Right now the schools get a portion, the County gets a portion, and the City gets a portion, based on mill rates, of that $50,000. Once the tax increment financing district is established, the schools, County, and City still continue to receive those portions of the $50,000; however, the amount of taxes generated from the development estimated at $150,000 a year and up would all go to the HRA. Ms. Dacy stated the financial consultant is recommending that for the first 3 years, from 1992 - 1995, once the project is built, PLANNINa CO�ISSION-MEETINa. OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 4 `'� /"�, the HRA, in essence, returns the first 2/3 of the taxes to SBF. The difference between what SBF gets and the HRA gets is to be used by the HRA until the district is retired. Therefore, the theory is that the HRA is gaining this amount of money to put back into the district to help other parcels in the district. In essence, the City or the HRA is not losing anything. They are getting back the money the development is generating. Ms. Dacy stated the tool they are using for the 3-year period is called a limited revenue note. That document is going to satisfy SBF's banks and financing people that the revenue note, at least for 3 years, is guaranteeing about $250,000 back into the project. Mr. Betzold asked what happens if the business that goes onto this property fails. He wondered what the long range viability is for movie theaters. Ms. Dacy stated the way it is set up, it is a"pay as you go" proposition. If the project does not succeed, then they do not get any money. Mr. Kondrick asked why the developer needs assistance. Why can't he get his own financing? Ms. Dacy stated the building currently on the site was built 20 � years ago, and the demands of the market are different. Mr. ' Farrell says he needs this particular amount of square footage to make it work. The movie theater is unique, and that does dictate some of the requirements he is getting from his financing people. She stated even if this was an all retail development, they would still have the same issues as far as parking and the ability of getting enough retail on the site to succeed in today's market. With this principle of the project having to pay for itself, it is ensuring a low risk option to the City. Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Rondrick earlier when he stated that too much is being put on this site. D� they want this development on this site in the first place? At least one time this Commission has said "no", that it is not an appropriate use for that site because of the traffic considerations and overbuilding of the site. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not agree, he thought what the Planning Commission said previously was that the use on that site was o.k., but that much use on that site was not o.k. Ms. Sherek stated as far as she was concerned, the developer is still saying he wants to do the same thing. He is still looking at parking easements with Perkins and parking easements across Osborne Road with no assurances that there is a livable traffic situation on Osborne Road. They are still looking at an overbuilt i"� site. � � i"'1 � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ, OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 5 Ms. Dacy stated if this was all retail, she believed they would have more traffic problems. She thought the theater is an advantage to the site. At least with the theater, they have some off-peak usage. There are some trade-offs on the site. Nineteen thousand square feet of retail space during the day is not going to overflow that system. Mr. Barna stated he did not see any major traffic problems during the daylight hours. Mr. Dahlberg stated that since they do not have to make any decisions on this at this meeting, it would be helpful for the Commission to have more information, especially regarding traffic. When are the peak times? What is the traffic generated? Ms. Dacy stated staff could put that information together as peak hour traffic counts were taken at the Osborne/University Service Road intersection. Ms. Dacy stated that from her point of view, if the parking stall reduction is not approved by the City Council, this alternative then ends up reducing the parking spaces on site to 289, and they know that is unacceptable to the theater. The Commission should be aware that if the parking stalls stay at 10 x 18, they might have to go back to the original plan in order to get the parking needed on site. Mr. Kondrick stated the main reason the Planning Commission recommended denial of this development in the first place was because they did not like the idea of parking easements across Osborne Road. That was a key issue at that time. The City Council and staff worked out parking easement arrangement with Perkins to make shared parking possible. That changed things in terms of the number of parking spaces. Again, he just did not like this development for this site. Ms. Sherek stated the concern she had with the tax increment financing district and HRA district for this site is that this developer is going to cram every possible inch of this site. There are surrounding properties that are going to want to do likewise, and they will point to this development. The City is going to hear the same argument from other developers saying it is too costly to develop and they need to cram the site. Mr. Rondrick stated he wou��l not _he in favor of moving the driveway farther to the south. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed. Moving the driveway might be exacerbating the problem. Stacking is going to happen here anyway. PLANNIN(3 CO1rII�I8BION MEETINa, OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 6 Mr. Dahlberg stated that from a traffic standpoint, however, from his experience in working with site plans, moving the driveway south will improve the potential problems on the frontage road. It will allow more stacking on the frontage road. That is more important than ease of maneuvering on the site. People will find they cannot get onto the frontage road, and they will be forced or encouraged to go to Commerce Lane, which is good. If the driveway to the frontage road is farther to the north, people will not perceive that they can get out onto Commerce Lane. Mr. Betzold asked if it was possible to have signage saying "No exit" onto the service road. Mr. Dahlberg stated that is a possibility. Some people will obey the sign, and some people will not. But, by means of some kind of traffic sign, they can encourage more traffic to work the way it should. Mr. Dahlberg consultant or site plan and work or not. stated it would be helpful to have a traffic engineer to at least do a visual analysis of this give the Commission some input on whether this would Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought that by creating the drive that cuts through the site on the east and on the west, once people get to that point, they have to make a decision to go right or left. Mr. Kondrick stated that once people experience this site, they are going to realize traffic is bad and they will find the avenue of least resistance to get out of the site. Mr. Saba stated he definitely did not like the parking easement across Osborne Road with Bob's Produce. Mr. Barna stated it was his feeling that if it comes to the point where the development cannot go without more parking spaces below 9 feet, retail space can be given up on the other building. Ms. Dacy stated that at the next meeting, staff will bring back information on the traffic circulation and peak traffic hours, an update on the parking stall sizes, and what Mr. Farrell's tenants have to say about this plan. Staff will also have a recommendation to the Planning Commission. 2. �EVIEW PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received a memo dated October 23, 1989, explaining the revision to the Landscape Ordinance. Staff is inserting the new requirements into an existing section in each of the zoning districts, commercial and industrial districts, and they are proposing R-3, as well. That section will expand from A- C to A- L with a number of � � � N �"� PLANNING COMMI88ION 1dE$TING, OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 7 subsections. Staff reorganized the ordinance to what they thought would be most easily read by a developer or person of what is required as far as landscaping. Ms. Dacy stated she summarized some other changes in the memo, but the major point is how will the ordinance requirements work on sites within Fridley? Ms. McPherson had handed out a memo dated October 25, 1989, summarizing twa tests she did of the proposed Landscape Ordinance requirements on the proposed McDonalds site at 81st/University Avenue and SBF Development at Osborne Road/University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated staff feels strongly that this standardizes the City's landscaping requirements. Staff has modernized the requirements to be consistent with what other communities require. They feel it is going to be a fair ordinance for property owners within the community�and will set some standards the Planning Commission and City Cou�cil can be comfortable with. Ms. McPherson stated she chose McDonalds and SBF Development because they are very recent developments that have not been constructed. However, older developments that may come in for expansion were not tested. �'� Ms. McPherson stated that with the provision in the ordinance for the three year allowance for the installation of landscaping, this will help alleviate a lot of fears the Chamber of Commerce has been expressing to Jock Robertson. It will not require such a large expense in the first or second year. This will probably help a lot of businesses, as well as enable the City to get what it wants as far as improving the environment. n Ms. McPherson stated of the two developments, McDonalds is more heavily planted than SBF Development. She reviewed the results of the new landscape ordi�s�nce require�ents for each development. Ms. Dacy stated currently McDonalds does not iaa`r� a berm and a 3 ft. continuous hedge along a portion of tiae sit�. Mr. Dahlberg stated then it is not practical to have a 3 ft. hedge along the University Avenue side, because the roadway is 4-5 feet above the elevation of the parking lot.. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance is not saying they have to screen 3 ft. above the elevation of the roadway. It is staff's interpretation that a 3 ft. hedge should still be required to screen the parking lot from any public right-of-way or adjacent property, even though in McDonalds' case, there is a 4-5 ft. elevation change. Otherwise, they can get into the argument of how tall does the road have to be above the property to stop requiring hedges? PLANNING COlrIIrII88ION MEETING. OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 8 � Mr. Dahlberg stated that, using The Wholesale Club building adjacent and to the west of the new McDonalds as an example, the requirement for the berms and 3 ft. landscaped buffer was not from the parking lot 3 ft. high, but 3 ft. above the street/curb right- of-way. If the intention is to screen the parking from the right- of-way or adjacent development, then the 3 ft. high landscaped buffer interpretation does not make sense. So, in this case, how valuable is that requirement? Mr. Barna stated in this situation does it make sense to screen the parking lot from the University Avenue right-of-way or the parking lot from The Wholesale Club's parking lot, etc.? Whether or not the screening is there is immaterial, but it looks nice. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in defense of staff's interpretation, because it is a public right-of-way and there is a large amount of traffic on University Avenue, the cars that are parked in the McDonalds parking lot facing University Avenue in the evening or night with headlights shining toward University Avenue, with the 3 ft. berm, those headlights will not be a glare and have a significance influence on the traffic on University Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated the way the ordinance has been in the past is that there has been some flexibility relative to interpretation or working with a given development to evaluate these kinds of things. � He still thought the City should still have that kind of position or attitude about the landscape ordinance and not look at the ordinance as the "letter of the law". Ms. Dacy stated she is looking at the ordinance maybe in a less flexible fashion, but she feels it is very important that they try to be as consistent as possible. It gets to be a judgment standpoint for staff, and she would prefer to tell a developer that the 3 ft. hedge has to go all the way around the parking lot. To make a judgment as far as 4 ft. versus 5 ft. of elevation down to 3 ft. might be going a little bit too far. Mr. Betzold stated each piece of real estate is unique, but he thought the philosophy is that a developer has to come in with a landscape.plan following these guidelines. Each developer is going to have complaints about certain parts of the ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated his only point is that staff should have a certain amount of flexibility to be able to negotiate with each project. Ms. Dacy stated she wanted the minimum amount of trees and hedge. There is a section of the ordinance that does give some flexibility for existing developments. Mr. Kondrick agreed with Ms. Dacy. It is important to have some !� standards. l� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 9 Mr. Barna stated it is alright to have standardization as long as the standard is something below the general standards, and also so part���a�ar types of vegetation on an island, or on the end of a driving aisle or internal driving aisle, � for example, not be so high as to block the viewo Ms . Dacy stated there should be ane� staf f did intend to include some site distance requirements. Thase will under Section J. Installation. � Mr. Betzold stated apparently the Chamber of Commerce was concerned about up front costs. Suppose a developer agrees to do certain things, but a couple of years later has not done those things? What recourse does the City have? Ms. Dacy stated �� City would retain the letter of credit or performan�e bond until the Iand�caping is completed. They will need to retain the letter of credit or performance bond for a longer period of time with the 3 year installation period. That is more of an incentive to complete the landscaping as soon as possible, because it does cost the developer more to carry a performance bond for another year. ''� Ms. McPherson stated the McDonalds and SBF Development landscape plans were ex�ples to show the Commission how the new landscaping restrictions �aiTl be calculated and how they will work administratively. Mr. Dahlberg stated that now there is a provision for landscaping to be done over a 1-2-3 year period. He would personally like to see some of the over-story t�ees planted in the first year. The proposed ordinance says that all that needs to be done the first year is grading and sod or seed and screening for residential. He would like to ��e son�� plantirag in the first year other than scre�ning from residentia�. He suggested adding an item 5) under Section 6.J.(2).a) that would require a reasonable percentage of over-story trees or shrubbery or plant materials in the first year. Mr. Dahlberg stated the language in the ordinance should in no way prohibit a developer from doing all the landscaping in the first year. The sooner the plant material� are gaut in, the more they are going to enhance the project. Mr. Saba stated he saw the perfo�an�e bond as the leverage to get the landscaping �.�ne as soon as possible. Mr. Dahlberg stated maybe there could be a preliminary statement under Installation that encourages developers to do all the landscaping in one year. Also, under 6.J.(2), it should say "up � to three (3) years" rather than just °three years". PLANNIN(3 CO1+IIrIIBSION MEETINC3. OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 10 �` Mr. Dahlberg �tated he wondered how this landscaping ordinance is going to be included in the Zoning Ordinance. The way he understood it is that in every zoning classification where landscaped requirements are going to be mandatory (10-11 districts), staff is proposing to include� all 8 pages of the landscaping ordinance in each zoning district. That means adding 80-88 pages to the Zoning Ordinance. Is that efficient? Ms. Dacy stated staff has discussed this. The way staff is doing it now is if a developer comes in and wants to do a project, staff qives that individual that zoning district's packet of material. The way the original writer of the Zoning Ordinance set it up, everything is all in one district. The efficiency point could be addressed to the whole Zoning'Ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated he understood what Ms. Dacy was saying, but when he goes to a City, he prefers to have the whole ordinance, rather than a part of the ordinance. The issue then is reprinting the entire ordinance and having multiple copies available for any one requesting them at a certain monetary charge. Landscaping is the kind of section where it applies to so many districts that maybe in each district, they could just have some basic "boiler plate" information about what the landscaping requirements are, and then refer to the landscaping section, the signage section, etc. � Ms. Dacy stated that is a good suggestion. The Commission members commended Ms. McPherson and Ms. Dacy for an excellent job in revising the Landscape Ordinance. 3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 19 1989 JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY/ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the September 19, 1989, joint Environmental Quality/Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARSD THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 2. 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the October 2, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPERSON BETZO?rD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. RECEIVE OCTOBER 10. 1989, APPEAIS COMMISSION MINUTES: ^ c� 0 � PLANNINC� CO1rIIrIIBSION MEETINd, OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE il � O�i TION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the October 10, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DLCLARED THE MOT�ON CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. f��Z�Ii�;�:l�lai���N MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, s��oa�d�d by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Opon a voice vote, all votinq ape, Chairperson Betzold declared the oatober 25, 1989, Plan���q Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, GZ� Lynne ba Recording Secretary � �, � 0 � � � cinroF fRIDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: C011I1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' MEMOR.ANDUM November 3, 1989 Planning Commission Members Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Liqht Rail Transit Station Locations After the Commission's discussion on October 11, 1989 regarding ,. the Columbia Arena site as the primary park-and-ride facility with a walk-and-ride station at Mississippi Street N.E., we met with BRW and Anoka County in order to respond to the Commission's concerns. Through this process, we have developed a new recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider. �, Analysis Locating the park-and-ride station at Mississippi Street has the following advantages: 1. Location at the City's proposed major activity center, or its "downtown". � 2. Additional retail sales generated by the transit traffic (although BRW economic consultants state that it is not a significant factor. 3. 4. The ability to provide parking across University Avenue at the Holly Center and the redeveloped southwest quadrant. East/west feeder bus access is provided by Mississippi Street. 5. The light rail transit station would be compatible with a commercial redevelopment project at the northeast corner of the site. 6. The University Avenue corridor plan had already anticipated improvements to the intersection to be more "pedestrian friendly": a. Changing the timing of traffic signals for pedestrian users. b. Consideration of construction of pedestrian shelters �1 waiting for the lights to change. � Light Rail Transit Station Locations November 3, 1989 Page 2 c. Construction of sidewalks from Holly Center and redevelopment at the southwest corner to the intersection. d. Better crosswalks across the intersection. The disadvantages of the park-and-ride facility at Mississippi Street are as follows: 1. A Mississippi Street station has better east/west access for feeder buses in Columbia Arena; however, Mississippi Street does not go as far into Ramsey County as does 73rd Avenue. 2. Renegade parking may occur; however, renegade parking is always an issue ayt both park-and-ride and walk-and-ride sites . 3. Depending on the development plan for the northeast corner of the intersection, light rail transit parking spaces could be located at sites across the street; however, some perceive crossing the street as a disadvantage. This occurrence may be common place throughout the corridor, especially along the Central Avenue portion of the alignment. � Staff's previous memorandum regarding this topic listed the following items as advantages to having the park-and-ride facility at Columbia Arena: 1. The site has a large number of parking spaces. Given that the property is owned by Anoka County, any potential conflicts with Arena events could be rescheduled. Overflow concerns could be addressed. 2. The peak hour community traffic (6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; 4:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m.) should not conflict with Arena events. 3. A smaller Mississippi Street station would accommodate those employees going to Target and other employers at the intersection. Originally, we had concerns regarding the amount of peak hour traffic that would be travelling through the Mississippi Street and University Avenue intersection. This amount of traffic is minimal compared to the amount of traffic that is to be generated by the redevelopment projects. Further, despite the location of the station at Columbia Arena or Mississippi Street, neighborhood impacts may still be perceived by � the neighborhood. One neighborhood would be requesting location of the park-and-ride in the other location. � Light Rail Transit Station Locations November 3, 1989 Page 3 At our meeting with BRW, Anoka County agreed to investigate with the Regional Rail Authority the process by �which Anoka County would initiate acquisition of the northeast corner at this time in order to preserve the property as the preferred station location. Anoka County could then continue to receive income from the property by leasing it to the existing uses. Further, they may also consider acquiring the single family home that is currently for sale on Mississippi Street, because the extra length to the parcel will be needed for additional left turn lane stacking and to gain additional area for redevelopment. The issue of renegade parking will have to be addressed,' primarily with the Target Office building site. Target will have to employ management techniques, such as signage, permits, towing policies, etc. Despite the park-and-ride facility at Mississippi Street, Columbia Arena may still be needed in the future. We have determined that if the Columbia Arena site provided for 500 parking spaces, and if we assume that all 500 people use 73rd Avenue, it would only constitute an 8.75� increase in traffic. The traffic would occur at peak times, when the roadway is already at peak use. It is logical to assume that a proportion of the cars will come from the �''`� north, southbound, and use University Avenue to access the station at Columbia Arena. Anoka County has advised us that in three to four weeks, they will have a determination from the Regional Transit Board as to the timing of the installation of the various corridors now being planned by Ramsey County, Hennepin County and Anoka County. The Anoka County Northeast Corridor remains in the top four corridors for consideration due to the�ridership projections. 57th Avenue Station As to the size and location of the proposed station at 57th Avenue, we will need to return to this issue at a later point in time. Because the Central Avenue alignment through Columbia Heights to I-694 is still being considered, there appears to be an argument that a park-and-ride facility would not be necessary at 57th Avenue, but could be located at the Target store, south of I-694, and along Central Avenue. Another consideration is the location of the tracks if a University Avenue or Central Avenue alignment is chosen. With the Central Avenue alignment, the light rail transit•will be located along the north side of I-694 and then northbound along University Avenue. If the University Avenue alignment is chosen, the light rail transit may be elevated over I-694 and return to an at-qrade station north of 57th Avenue. This �..1 is because the light rail transit must be elevated over the freeway ramps north of I-694. � Light Rail Transit Station Locations � November 3, 1989 Page 4 Other Plannina Commission Concerns The Planning Commission also wanted information as to why the tracks were to be located on the east side of University Avenue. BRW advised us that when they considered the aligrunent in total, locating the tracks on the west side affected more single family residential properties. They preferred to locate the tracks along the east side parallel with commercial and industrial development. While it may appear that there is more vacant land on the west side of University Avenue, that occurrence is limited to Fridley. The Commission also wanted to determine a schedule so that a public meeting and public hearing schedule could be established. On November 8, 1989 the Technical Review Committee will hold its regular meeting. The public meeting and review process is an agenda item. We will update the Planning Commission as to the discussion from that meeting on Wednesday evening. SiJNIIKARY Staff recommends the Planning Commission concur with locating the �"1 park-and-ride facility for up to 300 parking spaces at the Mississippi Street and University Avenue station. Various factors affecting the location of the station at the northeast corner will have to be analyzed in more detail in the future. The Planning Commission should also recognize that the Columbia Arena site may also be used as a park-and-ride facility in the future. BD/dn M-89-677 � � � , unroF fRlDLEY � �, DATE: TO: PLANNING DIVISION MEMURANDLiM November 3, 1989 Planning Commission Members FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Central Avenue Plan The City Council directed staff at its July 31, 1989 conference meeting to develop a plan for Central Avenue that could be implemented in five to ten years. Using the "diamond model", staff analyzed the previous recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff. To follow is an explanation of the diamond model and staff's analysis and implementation plan for Central Avenue. Diamond Model The diamond model charts four interdependent dimensions of any given issue in the following way: / / / i POWER: Energy or passion. � \ \ \ MISSION: Purpose or vision of the future. RESOURCES: � Money or tools to accomplish the mission. \ \ \ \ S�U�: Form, plan or governing body. / / / / '�1 � � Central Avenue Plan November 3, 1989 Page 2 When analyzing a problem, the four components of the diamond are arranged in the following hierarchical order: Mission Power Structure Resources The goal is to solve a particular problem one level up from where it is first diagnosed. For example, if the problem is identified as a resource problem, one should proceed "up" the model for solutions. Based on our discussions with Commission, staff evaluated the model as follows: MISSION: the City Council and Planning four components of the diamond City Council - Improve the compatibility, appearance and tax base of Central Avenue in a cost effective a manner as possible. Staff - Build on the synergy of Moore Lake Commons in the south half in the near term (three to five years). Continue the momentum northward in the long term, linking Medtronic, Onan and other properties in the north portion of the corridor. POWER: City Council desires compatible land uses, an upgrade in appearance, and maximum tax revenue. HRA desires self-supporting projects with TIF for both small industrial developers and large, such as the Onan redevelopment district. Anoka County desires to turn back Central Avenue to Fridley. Will there be Minnesota State Aid funds available to the City in return for taking Central Avenue? Or, can Anoka County improve Central Avenue prior to turnback? STRUCTURE: Comprehensive City Code CIP Budgets Plan HRA Policies & Guidelines HRA Development Agreements County Transportation Plan & CIP� SBA 504 20 Year Loans � Central Avenue Plan November 3, 1989 Page 3 RESOURCES: Tax increment limited in the short term - Onan and Moore Lake redevelopment districts are a lower priority than Lake Pointe and the southwest quarter for the next three years for tax revenue to start. * Code Enforcement - general appearance of private properties. * Urban Design Standards * Public Works and R/W * CIP * General Fund * Private Development of vacant land. * County - Anoka County Highway Department * ACBAN With that analysis, staff developed the following phased implementation plan. Phases I and II can occur independently or simultaneously depending on the market forces. Phase I: (1990 - 1992) ^ 1. 2. 3. 4. � Update the land use plan for the entire corridor as part of the Comprehensive Plan revision process. Rezone and market vacant land along the entire corridor in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Continue systematic code enforcement of the area. Explore the issues concerning the future fate of Central Avenue. The components of Phase I respond to the Council's mission of land use compatibility and appearance. Land uses will be analyzed not only for their compatibility along the corridor, but also for their compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods within the context of the comprehensive plan. Continued systematic code enforcement will insure that the minimum standards set forth in the code will be met. Phase II: (1990 - 1994) 1. City decides whether or not to expand Moore Lake TIF district or create a separate TIF district to redevelop the northeast corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. �,..� Central Avenue Plan - November 2, 1989 Page 4 2. Private property owners may replat and rezone vacant parcels along the east side of the Central Avenue corridor south of Mississippi Street in response to market forces. A potential street improvement project exists between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road to enable the lots adj acent to Central Avenue to subdivide. 3. Existing uses may expand on west side of Central Avenue, south of Mississippi Street (e.g. Sandees). 4. Onan decides whether or not to move forward with its redevelopment project. The Phase II components depend on market forces to determine the timing of the various components. Work continues on upgrading land use compatibility and appearance. PHASE III: (1992 - 2000) Continue the momentum of Moore Lake Commons to the area north of Rice Creek. Emphasis and energy is concentrated north of Rice Creek. � 1. With Onan's Redevelopment Project: a. Pace will be faster, more accelerated b. Spin-off redevelopment projects may develop c. Select a key junkyard redevelopment project(s) as a catalyst to rejuvenate industrial area d. Accelerated street improvements 1) frontage road along T.H. 65 from 73rd Avenue to Fireside Drive 2) other streets to be created for redevelopment of industrial area 3) Central Avenue boulevard improvements 2. Without Onan's Redevelopment Project: a. Pace will be much slower; timeframe much longer. b. Rearrange tax increment district boundaries to include additional blighted lands and vacant parcels. �"`� r°� Central Avenue Plan November 2, 1989 Page 5 c. Energy is concentrated on enhancing Osborne Road to Fireside Drive development/redevelopment potential. d. Possible Onan/Medtronic replat for a business park near railroad tracks and Medtronic's east building. e. Minimum street improvements with the emphasis on the area south of Rice Creek. The Phase III components emphasize economic development and redevelopment. In this phase, the upgrade in appearance could be dramatic. New projects will be compatible with existing land uses. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that staff include their analysis as appropriate within the comprehensive plan and proceed with the activities as outlined in the three phase plan. � �°'1 �► PLANNING D IVISION � � 11/IEMORANDI,iM u-nroF FRlDLEY DATE:� November 3, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator SUBJECT: 1990 Meeting Dates Attached are two calendars for the proposed 1990 Planning Commission meeting dates. We have discussed with the City Council a proposal to alternate the City Council meetings on one week and the Planning Commission meetings on the next week. Currently, the schedule is established so that the City Council meets the same week as the Planning Commission.. We have found that this method produces an irregular schedule for the Planning Commission because the City Council tries to arrange their meetings around the holiday Mondays and to avoid major events such as the ^ National League of Cities conference (see attached memorandum). The current schedule also is difficult for staff to prepare two agenda packets in one week. In some cases, there may be three or four packets being prepared, depending on the calendar for other commissions (Appeals, Parks & Recreation, or HRA). Attached is one proposed schedule which maintains the City Council meetings on the first and third Mondays of the month, and shifts the Planning Commission to the second and fourth Wednesdays. The disadvantage to this proposal is that it may cause a delay for applications to be considered by the City Council from the original ten to 14 days to 14 to 21 days. The other schedule is the list of dates if no changes are made. The City Council does not have a concern regarding the additional delay, however, it was important for them to maintain meeting on the first and third Mondays of each month (note: In 1990, because of the holidays, they have to meet on the second and fourth Mondays of January and February). RECONII�lENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 1990 calendar such that the Planning Commission meetings are on the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month. ,� BD/dn M-89-673 c�nroF F�a� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M EMO RAN D L1M l�uqust 23, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator City Council and Planninq Commission Meeting Dates It is our understandin�j that the current procedure for establishing Planning Commission meeting dates is to schedule them the same week as the City Council meetings. Scheduling the Planning Commission and City Council meetings the same week poses the following concerns: 1. We are unable to provide the Planning Commission, the general ,.� public and developers an easy and consistent statement as to when the Planning Commission meetinqs are held, such as "the first and third Wednesdays of the month". In reviewing the 1989 schedule, the folloving pattern occurs: ,� A. B. C. D. For seven months, the Planning Commission meetings are on the second and fourth Wednesdays. For four months, the Planning Commission meetings are on the first and third Wednesdays. For one month, the Planning Commission meetings are on the third and fifth Wednesday. Foz four months, the Planninq Commission meetings are not on the same week as the City Council meetings. The irreqularity results from schedulinq the City Council seetinqs to avoid the I�tonday holidays which occur in January, February, September and October. Althouqh meetinq dates are currently published in a variety of publications, an irreqular Planning Commiesion meeting �chedule is more difficult to administer. we currently have a schedule of application deadlines, Planning Commission �oeeting dates and City Council �eeting dates, but the administration of this , 1990 Dates -� Auqust 23, 1989 Page 2 schedule would be easier if the Planning Commission and City Council date could be established on certain days and weeks of the month. 2. Preparing for tWO agenda packets in one week strains not only the planners, but also the secretarial staff. In some instances, reports for both aqenda packets may be in the process of revision or corrections on Friday mornings. 3. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority agenda packets and other Commission packets may also be in preparation at the same time. Multiple agenda packet weeks are further complicated if Lynne or Debbie are delivering agenda packets to the members. Because they are unavailable during the afternoon hours due to delivering, additions or changes to agenda packet items cannot be made in a prompt manner. RECOr'IIrIENDATION Attached is a 1990 calendar. Marked on the calendar are proposed City Council meeting dates on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Also marked are proposed Planning Commission meeting dates ^ on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. This way, the Monday holidays are avoided except for May and December. However, for these two months, the City Council can switch to the first and third weeks. It may mean a City Council conference meeting would be interspersed between regular City Council meeting dates; however, it appears that this has occurred in the�past. Because Planning Commission and City Council consistently have the most agenda items, it should siqnificantly improve our efficiency. The public will also be better served with a consistent, easy to remember meeting schedule. BD/dn cc: Lynda Averette'� M-89-503 ,� � D � o r�'o w C 't7 n � � � � o' ... n �D O r't I N 1� N W N �I y OD N z � � z� r ►-� c� n n o n � o0 o n az� 0o w u� M rt tn N �• �• w w o r� r �' c� [� � o �. r• � rr rt i-n `c r• (D fD rt C] f!i fD O � � ri rn m m ri m �� � � � � ❑ � rd rr w � � r• � 00 (� Og B r• � y r• 0 � d w rt m y 0 � c� r• rt � � 0 � f) N• r� C7 w R � � w �C N V) � � � � �p �� tO��T1 � 1 � W 01 -i � -� A V TI -+ tD N N � cDN�OD�(n0 N N � W-'dV (nn � � V � �D G� N � � OW�tON--1 � A �O�W G N --� -+ (11W��. -� N-+� Q� cD N tJ� �l -+ ca V O LJ O') (n O � Z _`A (n0 < O � Q W� -i� AD � tG N CJ1 CU � '� W N � o w c� cc iv �t -- CC O CJ (n O O� GNJQ�tDN (Ac� �� n � A�'`J � � N�� Q (J� OD -+ A --� � N -+ -+ C � N� c NN-+ VOW� � NN-+ CD -+ A V Z1 -+ N N -� � tG N (7� OD � !q O vowa� tn d �� 3 � tNCNV1CD-+-� O�Q�aN c WN�-+ -+ d V O GJ -1 N -+ -+ U1C��A'11� t0 QNftDNNlAO AVOW In� N -� � C7� A �S N � � �tDNU� � �I��p � N N � m�AV -� N N � tDNCnW-+'T1-+ CJN� c�p OC»cDN(n0 N N � L �D N tT OD � (n C � W N � O N ? WN-+� �AVOW--i L� CA -+ A � N -+ -r � GG N (T1 --� NN-+ •� � w a� �t -r tD W-�AV CAO n��� D O) �O N tJ1 in C � n� � � N N � OD -+ A V � � � �o� � W N -+ OWO�tDN-1 WN�� -+AVOW11-+ t0 N-+ -+ tp U��-+A(n0 N N � �- � � A V (!i � n�l!0�-• c ��yv� � � OW 01tDN -1 -"�:�w � N-+� N OD � ,A► -� G�I�NC1117-+ tD voc:�rntno (11��A (/:� �� �� N N -+ � V O W Q� -j � �N Ap � N -� N tT� OD -� --i N -� W Q� cD N '�1 -+ N-�-+ � AVOGJ(n0 �a � �� � 1 rn �� V O -1 N A�C C N N � tD N (Jt OD � -i w r� � ocarnccrv�� � -r A V�i VI O NN � tC N CT1 07 -+ i!! � O t�c0 N�� N � � AVOW� � �� C �� G N � -+ � t0 N tJ1 � N N � vowo�-n� �O �NAV NO � ca co 0 H � H H N 0 z � � c� txi7 C7 � � 0 � f� H H �C c'� O � z c� H r � � �d r z z H � C] � H � � H O z � � H H z � a H � � � � %�'�� D � O f�D '� w b n rr � fD C � � � O K � N 1�N"� N �I W ooNz °D r � " c� � � o Cy � 0 0° 0�o N � M r'T y m r• r, y � O � o °�' �, M n � c� o �. r• � rt rn � r• �D tD ri n y � O n � m �^ m n (D � � � a I ro r w � � �� Oo c� O � r• � � r• 0 r"y d w � (D N 0 I c� r• n � n O G � () r• r d w R � N � t0 N Vl � � � �� :A .�� 1 �+ � W Qf � A v 'T1 � ��p tNDN�T��(n0 � ��AV iAA O �D N �J1 -+ � c�9 O� 4» �O N -� 1 ����w� N�-+ �J1 CA -+ A -i N-+� Q� t0 N Cl1 1"i � voc:�c�cno � Z �A (nO < � �� �i � (J Q� � � �� � N N -+ �O N (Tt OD -+ "'1 W N � O W O� cD N�l � co �iowtl�O O� W Q� c0 N fn tD n � � A O � � LTO��i1 �� �� � N N � vowo� -I N N � Q� -+ A V �'1 � �O tDNNCa�(n0 VOWOf V�d �� � � cNONV�ao-� -� o�v�N � 4� N -+ � �AVOW � N � � CT1W�A 11� �tON�l1 (�O N�� L v v O ca t/f � N � d �� O�i cD N cJ� -� �p� � ��AV � N N � �DNV1Ln-+ il � co OUQ�tC1N(1)O �NCna��(J�� � o w�� W N �J �� �AVOG�-1 ��A� N -r -+ G1 �D N �T1 -� N N � VOW�T-+ ca m�AV (AO n��-� D Q� �D N t1� (n C tG �'_`V �N ��AV -i �l�p� � WN� O W C� cC N-i WN�-+ -+AV04�11� t0 N-+� �C NOD�AinO �NAV N� �� �� OGNJ01tDN-1 ��I V i3JW � N�-+ �71CD-+A-1 N � � C� t0 N G1� 1'1 � VOWO�(�O CJ1 � -+ A (/i � � � � d VO W� --1� 1�l�"'� V G N (It �A -+ � N � 41 Q� �D N 'T1 � dVOW(AO � cNn ao C/� �, ca � ? N N V O � �'='�� � NN � tC N (1'� O� -+ -I WN-+ O (J C� cD N 'Tl � co �A V�.1 iAO t0 N (1� OD � fn � ON� N�—. AVOW� ��DA � N -+ -+ � t0 N (J1 -� N N � VOWC�T� tD ��AV in0 � co co 0 ro O ro O � � d � C7 x ta t7 � � 0 � n H H ►C C7 O z c� H r � ro r z z H z^ M` C� O � H � � H O z � H H z c� d a H � � ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING� OCTOBER 12� 1989 ........_........�....��.._........_...._..............��.............._..�........�.._�..__.._.....,........__ CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the October 12, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Steve Billings, City Councilmember Jim Casserly, Casserly Molzahn & Associates Jerry Farrell, SBF Development Corp. Bob Boisclair, Boisclair Corp. Dick Bienapfl, Boisclair Corp. Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction David Sebold, Ron Clark Construction '� Sid Inman, Publicorp Inc. Hugh McCloud, rep. SW quadrant land owners APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10. 1989, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the August 10, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON COl�IISERB DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF OUTLINE FOR CREATING A TIF DISTRICT AND FOR A REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SBF CORPORATION: Mr. Robertson stated the SBF Cinemark proposal for redevelopment has gone through the City Council with all the permit procedures. On August 4, 1989, staff received a request from SBF for the City to consider assistance with tax increment financing because SBF had been unable to obtain their primary financing. At the August 10, 1989, meeting, the HRA authorized staff to proceed with a financial analysis. Under discussion at that time was underwriting a part of the SBF's financing. Staff asked Jim Casserly to analyze � 80IIBING � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 2 that. Mr. Casserly responded in a memo that a loan guarantee would not be cost effective, and he recommended instead a limited revenue note as a no-risk option. Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Farrell has informed staff that the second mortgage option is really unavailable because Trustco, their Canadian equity partner, has already taken a second position on the project. Mr. Robertson stated staff has discussed with Mr. Farrell either the 3-5� grant for land write-down or essentially a"pay as you go" proposal. Staff is recommending the "pay as you go" proposal in which the HRA would create a redevelopment district and enter into a development agreement to pay back the developer a limited revenue note of approximately 2/3, a conservative estimate of the total tax revenue the project.can generate over a 3 year period, for a total of approximately of $250,000. Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commission, Planning Commission and City Council approved several permits for the project. When the Planning Commission and �ity Council were informed that Mr. Farrell was now asking for financial assistance, they requested that those permit approvals and some of the questions about the site plan be re-reviewed. Mr. Robertson staff has met with Mr. Farrell, and he has submitted a revised site plan staff believes will address most of the problems raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. However, if the HRA wishes to proceed with the creation of a tax increment district, staff recommends the approval be contingent upon Planning Commission and City Council approval of the revised site plan. Mr. Jim Casserly stated this is really quite identical to the Lake Point concept. Of all the different methods of providing some assistance, this method will probably have the least risk for the HRA. It requires positive action by the developer to get the return. Mr. Meyer asked what happens if the developer gets the project going, but has to leave the proj ect one year later, where does that leave the HRA? Mr. Casserly stated the note is designed so that if there are no taxes being generated, nothing is paid. P � Y /"� � Mr. Commers stated the questions facing the HRA are: Philosophically, is this the kind of project that deserves some priority right now? What will it do for the community? Should the HI2A offer this type of assistance on this kind of a project? � � '�..� HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTt3.. OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 3 Ms. Schnabel stated another issue is how this fits into the long range plans for spending the money they have available and where their emphasis is going to be. Mr. Commers stated this project would stand on its own. As he understood it, it will fund itself in three years and presumably at that point the balance of the increase in increment would go to the taxing authorities. So, it is not a long range thing which is good. It will turn over some additional tax dollars in a short term period of time. That is the real positive thing about this project. � Mr. Robertson stated it would be a redevelopment district, not an economic development district, in that the property qualifies as a redevelopment project. Mr. Commers asked staff's thoughts on the project. Mr. Robertson stated the actual TIF would be self-contained on just this site, but they would create a larger redevelopment area to include some older properties to the north, west, and south. They have not done a feasibility study on it yet. �, Mr. Casserly stated the HRA already has a redevelopment program. All �hey do�is expand the boundary lines of the existing program ��� amend the existing program and create a very small tax :°�ement district, probably just for this site. :�:. Robertson stated this is similar to Tax Increment District #9 that was set up for Onan Corporation. Mr. Meyer stated one negative thing is that the current building that will be torn down is a building that is more flexible for other kinds of uses, whereas a theater is not a easily convertible building for other uses. Mr. Farrell stated that is true; however, there have been quite a few proposals for this site as it is, and no one has been able to do anything. He stated structurally the building is alright, except for the asbestos. This project has seemed to work out the best for this site. Mr. Robertson stated staff has done some research on the building, and the building has been occupied less than 25� of the time over the last 7-8 years. The building inspector has looked at the building and, in addition to the roof, it does not meet the present energy code. The roof insulation, as well as the asbestos, the boiler, the unit heaters and the air conditioning all do not meet code. � �OIISING i� REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 4 OTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize staff to initiate the process of creating a redevelopment tax increment financing district to include, not only the Cub Foods site, but possibly the older commercial properties on the north side of Osborne Road to the corner of Osborne and University Avenue, based on a limited revenue note approach for a total of $255,000. The final agreement is to be contingent upon reapproval by the Planning Commission and City Council. In a report from the Building Division inspectors, the following was documented: 1. Repair damage to the electrical 2. Repair all exit lights 3. Repair all exit doars 4. Repair leaks in the roof 5. Repair/replace the floor tiles 6. Following items do not meet the a. roof insulation b. boiler c. unit heaters d. air conditioning 7. The building was occupied less the last 7-8 years. panel (asbestos) Energy Code: than 25� of the time for Mr. Casserly stated it is very important that the HRA, City Council, and staff consider this as a redevelopment project. That is because there are specific exclusions in state law about using tax increment for theaters and other uses. The reason for creating this tax increment district is to involve themselves in a redevelopment activity, not to provide assistance to a theater activity. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUBLY. Mr. Robertson stated representatives from Ron Clark Construction and Boisclair Corporation are at the meeting, and he would recommend the HRA move item #5 to item #2 at this time for the convenience of these representatives. 2. INFORMATION ON RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION ATLAS DEVELOPMENT, AND BOISCLAIR PROPOSALS FOR THE SOUTHWEST OUADRANT OF UNIVERSITY & MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mr. Commers asked about the Atlas Development proposal. Mr. Robertson stated that when he called representatives from Atlas to remind them of this HRA meeting, he was told that there had been a miscommunication and that they had not planned to attend this meeting. Several principles are out of town. Representatives from Atlas asked that consideration of their proposal be held over until the November 9, 1989, meeting. -� ; r"� �'`1 � � . ^� � �ODSING i� REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 5 Mr. Commers asked if Atlas has provided a financial analysis. Mr. Casserly stated Atlas' proposal was to have the HRA enter into a governmental housing bond that has some very different characteristics. Mr. Robertson stated Atlas submitted a 5 page outline which was included in the packet. Staff did not enter into a financial analysis because staff did not know �f the HRA even wanted to go in this direction, because it is so r��stically different than anything the HRA has done before. Mr. Commers stated the HRA is familiar with that kind of proposal, and it is not anything the HRA is really interested in doing. � Ron Clark Construction Mr. Robertson stated that on August 10, 1989, the HRA authorized staff to undertake a preliminary analysis of the Ron Clark Construction proposal to develop approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of retail space and three 100-unit apartment complex. The important point here is that the Clark project is very comparable to the Tanurb project. The Tanurb project was unable to proceed because they were unable to secure an anchor tenant. Both the Clark project and the Tanurb project have approximately $1.6 million available for developer reimbursement because of the value. Mr. Robertson stated he feels the Clark project is essentially close to the HRA's criteria of "breaking even". There are some details that have to be worked out. Mr. Robertson stated staff inet with Mr. Dave Sibold and Sid Inman, the consultant, on Tuesday, October 10, and Mr. Sibold and Mr. Inman have concluded that, given the two analyses that Mr. Casserly has run, they are very close in terms of the feasibility of the project. Mr. Sibold, Mr. Inman, and Mr. Ron Clark are at the meeting. Mr. Sebold stated Ron Clark Construction has been in business for 15-17 years as a builder developer of residential projects, single family, multi-family, and townhouse projects and also have done some for-rent multi-family projects. Over the last seven years, they have become more involved in commercial construction development as well as residential. In that seven year period they have remodeled or built over one million square feet of commercial retail and industrial property. Within the company, they not only provide the construction services for development, they also do their own property management and leasing. HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 6 ,r� ' Mr. Sebold stated they are confident that a retail development on this site will be a success. They have done their homework on rental housing and feel 100 units of for-rent, probably a townhome flat concept, would be most successful for them. The townhome project would be on the west portion of the site and the retail project would be in a"L" shape facing University/Mississippi. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Sebold to describe the type of construction. Mr. Sebold stated the townhome portion of the project would be a wood frame, three-story building, of low maintenance materials, gabled roof, with attached and some detached garages. They have not gotten into a discussion with the HRA on the construction details for the retail portion of the project, but he envisioned a one-story town square, more colonial style, brick and stucco, with pitched roofs. � Ms. Schnabel asked if they would be using low income tax credits, or would these be market rate units? Mr. Sebold stated these will be for-rent market rate units. Mr. Casserly handed out a"Comparison of Proposals for Development of Southwest Quadrant of Mississippi Street and University Avenue � N.E." He stated the City has had a wide range of genuinely legitimate development proposals. So, he thought it would help the HRA to see some of the comparisons between these proposals and maybe that would help the HRA focus on the public policy issue of they "pay for what they get". Mr. Casserly stated the way all these proposals have been designed is that the HRA is not purchasing the land. The developer is purchasing the land, and the developer is doing the public improvements, demolition, and relocation. If necessary, the HRA will enter into a condemnation in the event of a holdout, if the HRA gets the proceeds from the developer first to make the acquisition. About one year after the project is under way, the HRA will then issue its bond and reimburse the developer from what can be gotten from the bond proceeds. So, in each of these projects, the developer will do the acquisition. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is the c�eveloper might be able to get better prices, have more control over the development, and might be able to do things more efficiently. Also, the obvious advantage to the HRA is it greatly reduces the risk to the HRA. This is an important feature in all of these proposals, and for purposes of analysis, that is the assumption. Mr. Casserly reviewed the "Comparison of Proposals" information comparing Tanurb, Boisclair, and Clark Construction. �. '/-.1 HOIISINa � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.. OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 7 Mr. Sebold stated their intent is to not ask for funds outside the district. They would like to reserve the Burger King site for the future. They do not need that site right now for �thear proposal. Mr. Hugh McCloud, broker representing the Zand owners, the S�'s and Levy's, asked if there was any information on how the land owners would � compensated. Mr. Casserly stated ail proposals assume the same thing--that the developer acquires the land. In the event of a holdout, the HRA � condemns the property, and the developer carries, which is a cost not factored into this because that requires a lot more refinement. Mr. Meyer asked what the projected taxes were for the City and for Lundgren before his project fell through. Mr. Casserly stated the taxes of rental ranged from $900 to $1,900. The City projected in the $1,100 range. There was a lot of low and moderate income housing involved in it. The Clark project is very much market rate, and the developer could anticipate the taxes per year to be in the $1,400 range. Mr. Ron Clark stated this is a townhouse-style development with r� more square footage per unit than other proposals the HRA has had for this property, and that will push the tax rate higher. Mr. Meyer stated one of the ultimate evaluations for the HRA is going to have to be on whose units are better than the others, because that is where the tax projections are based. Mr. Commers stated size and quality are going to be very important. Mr. Casserly stated that in all these summations, he has tried to use the developer's best judgement on what they think they will be paying in taxes. His vision of the development agreement is going to place the risk substantially on the developer to perform to generate the kind of taxes they are estimating so they can get their return back. Maybe just the difference in size of the units can contribute substantially to the difference in taxes. They could have equally high quality exteriors and all the amenities could be identical, but the difference in the size of the units can make the difference in the taxes. Mr. Casserly stated the HRA has had a variety of proposals presented to them and while a lot of these are approximations, at least it gives the Commission a feel for what is required for the different kinds of projects. He will definitely work with the Boisclair representatives to get a better understanding of the numbers. � 4 HOIIBING i� RBDEVELOPMENT AIITHORZTY MTG., OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 8 �� ` Mr. Commers asked if the Clark Construction people had any comments for clarification on their proposal. Mr. Inman stated Clark Construction represents a standard transaction of worth. They just completed a development in Golden Valley that is similar in size to this proposal, and the HRA could check the tax numbers on that project. Mr. Commers stated that regarding the Burger King site, does this proposal meet the commitment that somewhere there is third phase that would pick up the Burger Ring site? Mr. Inman stated they have not gotten that far i�nto the proposal. He stated he thought there were two options: (1) To pay an inflated price for a piece of property just to remove the building, but that is not economical for Clark. ( 2) To try to make the site self-supporting with what is there now and what they perceive the market to be. Mr. Inman suggested the City Assessor look at the concept of both proposals. � Boisclair Corporation Mr. Boisclair stated he wanted to re-emphasize that they have $1,280,000 so that parallels the bottom line. They push from the standpoint of doing a redevelopment project that enhances the site and makes a statement. It would be a complete project on a phased basis. They feel office is not viable in this area. As far as taxes, they will not know that until they look at the rents. They are building a little more density which creates more population base which creates more volume of purchasing power. The second phase includes the Burger Ring. Ms. Schnabel stated neither proposal really includes the Burger King site in the first phase. Mr. Casserly stated the bottom line costs on both these proposals of what has to be contributed by the developer in cash includes the Burger King site. There is a further refinement the Clark proposal would like to make. Ms. Schnabel stated it is real "iffy" whether either proposal will buy the Burger Ring site. They should figure the proposals both with the Burger King site and without the Burger King site. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boisclair to outline phase I. /'1 � � ^ / \� ,� � HOIISIN(3 h REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTt�., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 9 Mr. Boisclair stated it will include acquiring the liquor store and all the vacant property behind it, the Levy property, the Dairy Queen, Riffe's Automotive, the City street portion, and the car wash facility. Mr. Inman stated basically phase I was the same for Clark Construction. Mr. Boisclair stated that regarding taxes, he would also suggest that the City Assessor look at both proposals and give them a quote. Mr. Casserly stated the developers have responded to some direction from staff. Staff has told them to be conservative as possible. The reason for that is this system assumes they are going to issue a tax exempt bond, and that assumes the City has some risks. The developers are not going be guaranteeing debt service, so they want some margin f�r error. Mr. Commers stated he had hoped the HRA could review these proposals at this meeting and start to move on this but, for whatever reason, the Atlas Corporation, was unable to present their proposal at this meeting. Mr. Commers asked what Clark Construction's time line was if Clark Construction's proposal was chosen. Mr. Sebold stated they would like to be in the ground by June 1990. They would need a decision from the HItA by January 1, 1990, at the latest. Mr. Boisclair stated they contemplate their first phase starting in June 1990 as well. Their concern is the bond inducement for the low income housing revenue bond, and they need to be in line the first week in January. Mr. Commers asked about the status of Mr. McCloud's clients, the Levy's and Suh's. Mr. McCloud stated they had spent quite a bit of time on the Tanurb proposal. They have had discussions with the Boisclair Corporationr and the Boisclair project is an acceptable project to them. They are not aware of the Ron Clark Construction proposal. He stated they have been trying to get the momentum going after being exposed to the process for many years without success and being caught in between condemnation and not being able to do something. Mr. Commers stated this is a big project and a very important project. They might be in a position of committing a significant amount of money, and he felt they should spend whatever is needed HOIISING � REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MT(3.. OCT. 12. 1989 -__PAGE 10 to get as accurate an analysis as possible and should authorize Mr. Casserly to do it right away. Mr. Prairie agreed. Ms. Schnabel agreed. She would like to see an analysis of Boisclair and Clark with and without the Burger Ring site. Mr. Meyer agreed. He stated he would also like to see a more exact tax appraisal. Mr. Commers stated that timing is also important. So, if Mr. Casserly can get an analysis done fairly soon, the HRA should probably have a working meeting devoted to these proposals so they can arrive at a conclusion possibly in November. Mr. Casserly stated he would work with the developers, put the analysis together, and then let the developers react to the analysis before it is brought back to the HRA. Mr. Commers stated staff should notify Atlas Development to get their nwnbers in quickly so that Mr. Casserly can incorporate them in his analyses. Mr. Commers stated staff should get some tax assessment comparisons from Anoka County for other projects that have been done. Mr. Clark stated he would recommend they use new projects that are comparable, projects that have been completed within the last year or two, because there is a considerable difference between what new projects are being assessed at and what older projects were assessed at. Mr. Sebold stated that the project ownership will be Ron Clark for both the retail and the rental. They have no re�iance on outside investors. Mr. Commers tentatively set a working meeting for Thursday, November 2, 1989. Mr. Commers thanked the representatives from Boisclair Corporation and Ron Clark Construction, and Mr. McCloud representing the landowners, for coming to the meeting. The HRA members expressed concern about not having enough background information on the Boisclair Corporation and Ron Clark Construction. ►' n � Mr. Commers stated maybe the City can get some Dun & Bradstreet ^ reports on these companies. � , . r � �OIISING i REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RZTY MTG.. OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 11 Mr. Meyer asked if it would be possible to urge Clark Construction to submit some type of overview of their project--a plot plan and an architectural sketch rendering of their project. 3. CONSIDERATION OF PLAZA LANDSCAPE REVISIONS: Mr. Commers stated that according to Mr. Robertson's memo dated September 7, 1989, he suggests the HRA wait a year before taking any further action on the Plaza landscaping. Mr. Robertson stated that although it is clear to the Landscape Architect that the trees are beginning to show distress, the HRA might want more time to look at other alternatives. In his memo, he outlined several options: 1. Do nothing at this time and wait several years until more trees have died before replacing. 2. Replace all the trees at this time as recommended by Public Works. 3. Remove all trees and replace with paving materials � instead. 4. Remove dead trees and those with 50� or less healthy canopy. 5. Remove all trees and replace with fewer, more widely spaced larger trees. Mr. Meyer stated this is a very central part of a very lovely quadrant. They have a newly remodeled Municipal Center. If they have a second rate prominent feature, it just seems like such a contrast. It seems they should go first class in this area. MOTION by Mr. Meyer to authorize the Plaza landscape revisions as soon as possible as outlined in Mr. Flora's August 24, 1989, memo. Ms. Schnabel stated she is uncomfortable with the dollar amounts. There is also the philosophy about the best time to plant, and she feels spring is a better time to plant than fall. Mr. Meyer stated he had no problem with specifying that the planting be done in the spring. Mr. Newman stated that if they are going to wait until spring, maybe they should ask Michele McPherson, the Landscape Architect, to put together a recommendation for the HRA to consider. n MR. MEYER WITHDREW HIS MOTION. t r- HOUBIN(� i REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.. OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 12 /"� MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to table discussion on the Plaza landscape revisions and authorize staff to develop a plan for HRA review. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERSON CO1�IIdERB DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 4. INFORMATION ON PARKING RAMP CONSTRUCTION COSTS: Mr. Robertson stated that at the August meeting, the HRA requested staff to put together a breakout of Municipal Ramp costs. That was done by Mr. Flora in his memo dated September l, 1989. Attached to the memo was additional materials to describe many of those proposals. Mr. Commers stated his biggest concern has always been all this landscaping. He did not know how the City can contend that it is part of the ramp itself. They are talking $100,000 for landscaping and for the bridge. If the City Council wants these things, they should pay for them. Why is it lumped into the cost of the ramp? Mr. Commers stated the HRA made a commitment to build a ramp at a cost of $750,000. They are now at a number that is unbelievable in terms of overages. Now the landscaping costs are being lumped � in with the ramp costs, and he did not think the HRA should have to pay for it. Mr. Robertson stated it was consciously omitted at the time the contracts were let because the plans and the specs for the landscaping and the signage were not prepared at the time they went to bid the project. Mr. Commers stated the HRA was never told that these were to be included in the costs. That might have happened, but the HRA was not made aware of it. Mr. Billings stated that when the bids were coming in, the Municipal Center came in some $250,000 over budget, and the ramp came in at $250,000 under budget. The City Manager, Mr. Qureshi, decided to put the landscaping with the ramp. So, the lines of communication between the HRA and City Council were not very good. Mr. Commers stated he certainly appreciated this information. Mr. Meyer stated he had requested this informatior►, and Mr. Flora's memo is a good summary for the record of how the changes came about. � �8 w �` �OIIBINQ & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 13 5. INFORMATION ON BIDS FOR ANTI-GRAFFITI SEALER FOR PARKING RAMP: Mr. Robertson stated $5,000 was allocated for the white paint, and the HRA decided to see what it would cost for anti-graffiti sealer. The low bid came in at $16,940 and paint was $8,250. Since there has only been one isolated incident, he would recommend any action on this expense be delayed until next summer. The HRA concurred with staff's recommendation. 6. INFORMATION ON OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PRO- ENGINEERING: Mr. Robertson stated this was an information item. 7. ESTIMATE: RAY JORDAN & SONS - MOORE LAKE COMMONS & LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the estimate for Ray Jordan & Sons in the amount of $1,739.80 and $1,680.00. r,.-� IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON CO1�II�IERB DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 8. ESTIMATE: GREENMASTERS. INC. - LAKE_POINTE MAINTENANCE MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the estimate for Greenmasters, Inc., in the amount of $29,331.43. �PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 9. CLAIMS: a. Biilinq for Personal Bervices for Auqust � Beptember Mr. Commers stated he has noticed that for the last several months, the HRA has been getting additional expenses they never used to get. The expenses he is referring to are under Operating Expenses: long distance telephone calls, electricity, microfiche service, inspection service, etc. The HRA always paid its prorata share of the Labor Detail, and if the HRA was paying for these operating expenses in the past, he would like to know how those were charged. He was not saying it was not an appropriate change, but he would like to know why it has been changed. Ms. Schnabel stated she wondered what Inspection Service was under �, Operatinq E�enses in the amount of $716.48. It was the same dollar amount for both the August and September billings. She HOIIBIN(i i REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12,_1989 - PAGE 14 � would also like to know what the irrigation supplies include under the Operating Expenses in the August billing. OM TION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the Billing for Personal Services for August and September 1989. IIPON A VOICE 90TE, CO1�II�iERB � PRAIRIE, MEYER VOTING AYE, BCHNABEL ABSTAIIJING, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-1. b. Check Reqister (1932-19�8) MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the check register as submitted. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• } 0 MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the meeting. tJpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Commers declared the October 12, 1989, Housinq and Redevelopment Authority meetinq adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ^ Respectfully submitted, � � ` , � Q �U-1L� Lyn Saba ' Recording Secretary � 1 I �