Loading...
HRA 02/19/1998 - 29822CITY OF FRIDLEY �� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 19,1998 . � �-� � Chairperson Commers called the February 19, 1998, Housing and Red�velopment Authority meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ' • �� Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Jim McFarland Others Present: William Bums, Executive Director Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator Craig Ellestad, Accountant Dave Jellison, MEPC American Properties Leslie Jowett, MEPC American Properties � Jim Schlundt, MEPC American Properties ,.._� , � . .- ; ..; � ; � - , •. . •- M TIO by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the January 8, 1998, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: • � ; �-�• � ► • ' ii•� ► '� •: • � ; �-� • � •; • � • � ... • •- �� . -.- -• • --• -� _ . • � ; �-• • _; : i�_ � �•: - • � • �' ^ Ms. Dacy asked that this item be placed on the action agenda. HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 2 5. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES Mr. Ellestad requested approval of additional expenses as outlined in his memo dated February 19, 1998. OM TION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, and 5, including the additional expenses as outlined in Mr. Ellestad's memo of February 19, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ACTION ITEMS: . • � �� ;, i� •� •- • ;� ' �Il_G • .-�. . ,. Ms. Dacy stated this is one of three items regarding the Lake Pointe Technology Center being proposed by MEPC American Properties. The request is an amendment to the development contract which the HRA approved in January. At the January meeting, discussion was held regarding what the minimum market valuation would be to act as a � floor valuation for the site. In other words, the assessor would establish a minimum valuation for which the developer would be responsible. In the original draft of the contract, the proposed amount was $6 million. It was discussed that, if the developer would like to have that revised, the developer should come back and request a change. Ms. Dacy stated that since the January meeting, staff has met with the developer and the developer is requesting to change the minimum market valuation from $6 million to $5 million. This is not the valuation that it will be taxed at for increment purposes. It is establishing an agreement that the valuation will not go below the $5 million the developer is proposing. Ms. Dacy stated she researched some MEPC projects in other communities. She evaluated the proposed site plan as did the c'ity assessor. They are estimating that the construction of the 100,000 square foot building will indeed cost approximately $6 million exclusive of the purchase price for the land which is approximately another $1 million. Ms. Dacy stated that at the January meeting. Mr. Meyer had some concems about the cost per square foot. She thought those concerr�s had been resolved. She thought there was some confusion that the cost per square foot included tenant improvements, HVAC, as well as the site improvements. Staff has clarified that, reviewed the drawings� and looked at permit valuations in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie. MEPC is proposing to construct the shell of the building and complete the site work. When a tenant comes into � the building, they will include the HVAC and the interior improvements. Eacclusive of the tenant finish and the HVAC, the cost of the building will be approximately $3.8 million to $4.5 million plus the additional mechanical work plus the tenant improvements would be ^ HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 3 approximately $6 million. The staff recommendation on the valuation is such that the HRA amend the floor from $6 million to $5 million. Ms. Dacy stated the other two items on the agenda involve more detail around the exterior of the building and the site plan issues. Mr. Commers stated Mr. Meyer had some concems and asked if he was now satisfied with the answers to those concems. Mr. Meyer stated, yes. He is thinking they are looking at a building whose brick and mortar costs and built out with HVAC is perhaps on the order of $60/square foot. That is his general impression without receiving any additional figures. To his way of thinking, $60/square foot is a minimum building, but it is adequate in his mind. Mr. Commers asked MEPC if that is consistent. Mr. Jellison stated he thought the number is adequate. A big portion of these buildings is the tenant improvements which can vary greatly. Mr. Commers stated their concem might be that the tenant might want minimal ^ improvements in order to maintain a more reasonable lease arrangement. Mr. Jellison stated their standard allowance is $23/square foot for the office area. Cyber Optics ended up at approximately $18.50/ square foot, but they added $100,000 in improvements. Many tenants are going with an open space pattem with modular fumiture. The number of $55 to $65/square foot is fairly standard for this type of product. Mr. Meyer asked if the $23 included the total build out including the HVAC. Mr. Jellison stated, yes. When a tenant comes into the building, they would have the shell finished. From there, they start spending money for the HVAC, bathrooms, walls, entrances, etc. Average costs are $23/square foot for office area and $4/square foot for the storage area. Mr. Commers asked what the breakdown of the flex building will be for office and warehouse or storage. Mr. Jellison stated their pro forma is 50% office, 50% warehouse. They will park at 75%/25%. Most have ended up to be 90%-95% office. The project in Eden Prairie is 91,000 square feet with 4,000 square feet for storage. The rest is office. The Cyber Optics building has approximately 2,000 square feet of storage space out of 71,000 square feet. Another tenant has 4,000 square feet of storage. n Mr. Jellison stated that when talking about minimums, they are saying no matter what happens to the economy they will pay taxes on a$5 million building. In the real wo�id, ^ HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 4 they would be assessed every year for the value in the markets. The minimum valuation is what they must pay no matter what the economy is like. That is what they are concemed about. They could buy real estate at 25 cents on the dollar just six years ago. The valuation at the minimum is something they have to pay taxes on no matter what the value is. Mr. Commers stated that as long as the value is high enough, there is not an issue. From the HRA's perspective, they want to make sure there is a minimum assessment on there that brings back the proper amount of tax increment to assist with the improvements made on the property. Ms. Schnabel asked if there was any way that the HRA has a guarantee of how much office space will be there versus how much storage or warehouse space. Mr. Jellison stated their contract states no less than 50/50. Ms. Schnabel asked if the tenants put in a lot of improvements. Mr. Jellison stated that depended on the tenant and the tenant's needs. Their allowance is $23/square foot. ,._.� Ms. Schnabel asked, when talking about the $5 million, is that the building alone and not the land? Ms. Dacy stated that in the contract, the $5 million is the total figure—building and land. Through the S-2 zoning and as a stipulation of approval, each tenant occupancy is to be approved by the City. The intent is a Class A offlce environment in a one-story structure. If the uses do not meet the intent of that or if they are more of the traditional warehouse use, they will not be permitted. If there is a disagreement about that, there will be a public hearing. The City will screen tenants. Mr. Commers stated that if the building is 50/50, one would have tenant improvements of $1.4 million plus the shell which $3.5 to $4 million plus the land. Ms. Dacy stated the assessor applied two methods of calculation to the shell and tenants so his calculations came to $� million without the land. All figures came in about the same. Mr. Meyer stated flguring $3.5 million for the building and $1.4 million to flnish the 50/50 interior is $5 million at the most conservative. Mr. Jellison stated their experience is that they will not attract warehouse users. It is not set up for heavy truck traffic. Many of the dock doors will be panels. Mr. Prairie asked if the example of 85% and 90% office was an average or was that just an example? ,r--� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 5 Mr. Jellison stated the two new buildings in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie have leased to 90% and over 85% office. In Eagan� it is about 85% office with 12�000 square feet not leased. These are not the multi-story offlce buildings. These are designed to fit the needs of the tenants as they come along. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Meyer, to approve the minimum assessed value at $5 million for the flrst development. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • � " ll 1� ' ` • 1 1 �� -�- - Ms. Dacy showed the video of the projects in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie. The Golden Valley project is an L-shape with the opening to the rear. The rear is painted rock-face block. The exterior is 21 feet in height, the interior is 15 feet in height. They have a cafeteria area and a conference area. The dock area is very small. Ms. Dacy stated the Eden Prairie building is an I-shape with the docks at the rear. It has a brick and glass finish with a roof screen as proposed for Fridley. Across to the east is a multi-story office building. �� Ms. Dacy had asked the developer for a site they could visit to illustrate the sandy rose brick color in a multi-story building. MEPC suggested they visit the West Health building in Plymouth. This building shows the sandy rose color and buff or tan accent. Staff wanted to show the HRA what the developer is proposing for the exterior of the building and discuss in the public forum the challenge that, as each development is proposed, they architecturally integrate the developments and look at that prior to initiation of construction. Ms. Dacy stated the building is to be located at the west end of the office campus on approximately 10 acres. The building is 106,705 square feet in a C-shape with surface parking. About a 30-foot opening is planned for access to the loading area. The center of the loading area will be striped for parking cars. Ms. Dacy had asked the petitioner to provide several perspectives of the building as it would appear from I-694, from the rear of the site, and from the single family homes to the north. The design elevation shows a sawtooth comer design. The entrance to the loading dock area is landscaped to hide that area. The developer is also proposing two wing walls to help hide the loading area. Ms. Dacy stated the purpose of the preliminary plan approval in the development contract is to assure the HRA that the project submitted is consistent with the minimum standards �\ and to make sure they are proposing a project that is consistent with the expectations set out in the development contract. In her memo� she outlined the building materials, concrete construction with the fascia in two tones, and talked about the rooftop screen. �—� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 6 The site improvements will be extensive. They need to construct what engineers call the National Urban Runoff Protection Standard (NURP) pond on the west side of the site. In addition to the 33 existing trees on the site, MEPC will plant 111 additional trees. In addition, they propose shrubbery around the exte�or of the building. Ms. Dacy stated staff is suggesting that the HRA approve the preliminary plans which are consistent with the expectations of the development agreement subject to the final approval of the construction plans. Mr. Commers asked if the sign requirements are consistent with the ordinances. Ms. Dacy stated those will have special review by the City Council on March 2. Because the site is located in the S-2, Redevelopment District, there is a planning and development type of approach to the signage. The original master plan approval required they submit those two identifier-type of signs. They have done that, and it will be evaluated on March 2. MEPC is proposing for signage attractive identfier signs - one across the street from this particular project and one at the entrance to Lake Pointe Drive. A monument sign is proposed at the entrance of the flex site. It is a very classy, sedate way to introduce signage to the property. � Ms. Dacy stated that during the Planning Commission meeting, staff did have a suggestion on the wall signs. The developer had proposed a metal wall panel. Staff suggested a stipulation to have a sign band with the letters individually installed. The developer indicated they would agree, and it was passed. Apparently, they are proposing this type of signage for a project in Bloomington. Mr. Commers asked if Mr. Meyer had an opportunity to look at the plans. Mr. Meyer stated he had seen just the plan for the elevation. The rest is the site. He did not have any negatives. It does not tell much about the materials. He asked if the developer would be using jumbo brick. Mr. Jellison stated, yes. Mr. Meyer stated these are soldier courses also. He asked if there was a lot of difference befinreen the standard brick size and the jumbo brick size. Mr. Jellison stated that for residential buildings, the standard size brick is appropriate. For this size of a building, they generally use the jumbo brick. He did not know of an office building that uses standard brick. Mr. Meyer stated he did not think the jumbo brick has the appearance of standard brick. The jumbo brick is unusual. In his experience for Class A buildings, they use jumbo brick ;—,, sparingly. He asked what kind of back up would be used. Mr. Schlundt stated this would be steel stud. ,�-� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 7 Mr. Meyer asked if the metal screen was necessary. Mr. Jellison stated they did not use the screen in Golden Valley. To hide the mechanical from view of the office building, he thought it appropriate and attractive. They put it up because it looks attractive. It is set back 15 feet and covers all HVAC units on the roof. Ms. Dacy stated that after the joint meeting in July, the Planning Commission reviewed the plans and this was a comment from the Planning Commission. As you travel westbound on I-694, the elevation is higher than the site. They wanted to make sure that the rooftop equipment would not be seen. For the continuous metal screen, they asked how that would be constructed and how the structure would be integrated with the construction of the roof system. It appears to be a good addition to the building. Mr. Meyer stated it seems good to see the screen kept in the background. Mr. Jellison stated the example shows the metal screen and he thought it blended in nicely. Mr. Meyer stated he has heard comments from other prospective users of the property who worry about the appearance of the roof system from a nearby building. There is �.,\ probably not much that can be done to address that problem. There is no opportunity to put the HVAC units in the center court. Mr. Jellison stated if they do 100% office, they have to get the HVAC service to the back part of the space. For storage areas, they can have a unit inside the space for heating, but not for office. Mr. Meyer stated that regarding the brick, is there a difference in cost between the jumbo brick and standard brick? Mr. Jellison stated he did not know. Mr. Meyer stated he believed the jumbo brick looks cheap. He is used to the standard brick. Mr. Jellison stated they use jumbo brick. He did not think it looks cheap. Hopefully, the building will endure and be attractive for many years. In their experience, they try to build a quality building, and MEPC has built a reputation that way. Mr. Commers asked what the next approval would be. Is there a final approval on materials? ^ Ms. Dacy stated Section 4.2.b of the development contract requires the HRA to approve the final plans which are essentially the construction plans. The HRA would approve those just prior to the initiation of construction. The purpose of this review is to let the � HOUSIIVG & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 8 HRA know where the developer is headed with the construction materials. Mr. Commers stated it is difficult to envision. Mr. Jellison stated they would be happy to take anyone to a project. They want the HRA to be happy with what they build. If the HRA is not happy, they will not go ahead. They will wait for an office user and build a tower. They think this project is going well and that it will attract tenants. This is what they would build for the marketplace today. Ms. Schnabel asked which of the two buildings in the videotape would most closely resemble the exterior of this building. Ms. Dacy stated the Golden Valley building would be more similar. Mr. Jellison stated the Eden Prairie building is more white with a green accent. The Golden Valley building is the sandy rose b�ck. The Metro West facility is also the sandy rose brick. Ms. Dacy provided pictures of the Golden Valley and Eden Prairie buildings to a ° comparison of the exterior colors. � Mr. Jellison stated the third building in Golden Valley is like the flrst and second. They have negotiated with a company to come from downtown to take 86,000 square feet of that building. He thought its design was attractive and that users find it attractive also. Mr. Prairie stated he thought it was hard to tell from the pictures. If he saw it, it would be easier to visualize. Mr. Commers stated he liked the brick better than the exposed iron beam. Mr. Jellison stated the computerized rendering is pretty close to what the finished structure would look like. Mr. Commers stated that at the last meeting, they had discussion about the flex building and how that design would carry over to the rest of the design in the park. What was the result of those discussions? Mr. Casserly stated the developer is concerned about a building of lesser quality. He made a representation in the agreement that any subsequent building would be at least an equivalent qualiiy to this building. Then they moved it into the restated contract for exclusive negotiations. They were going to continue to commit to work on that agreement to make sure they have quality and standards established that are acceptable throughout �.,_, the site. They were talking about trying to make property restrictions. The developer felt comfortable with the representations and the HRA's comm'rtment to work on standards so they will not be putting restrictions or covenants on record. -� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIIVG, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 9 MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the preliminary plans as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. CONSIDER PROJECT PLAN AND REVISED SITE/MASTER PLAN FOR LAKE POINTE TECHNOLOGY CENTER MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC Ms. Dacy stated the S-2 zoning distri�t requires each use or project to obtain approval by the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council. The majority of the site was rezoned to an S-2 district in 1986 after the City executed an agreement with Woodbridge. A small portion of the site along the northeriy edge was retained with R-1 zoning. Within that is the 35-foot buffer strip north of the right-of-way and an additional 40 feet south of the right-of-way. The staff report reviews the expectations of the site plan and referred to what would occur on the remainder of the property. Ms. Dacy showed the revised master plan. The tech flex building would occupy 10 acres at the westem portion of the site. There is still room on the office campus area for finro 125,000 square foot office multi-story buildings and two ramps. There is no change to the � commercial uses which are proposed in the 8-acre portion of the property. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and the master plan on February 18. They had an extensive discussion, and members of the public attended to testify. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan and master plan subject to the stipulations from 1996 on the master plan. There were also a number of stipulations on the site plan pertaining to requiring the City to review each of the tenant uses, c�mpliance with the Engineering Department issues, protecting existing trees during construction� changing the method of signage on the wall signs, making sure the developer complies with the requirements of the development contract and other zoning approvals, and the rooftop screen and to add additional screening or vegetation as necessary for the multi-story building. Staff recommends approval to the City Council for the site plan and the amendment to the master plan subject to four stipulations: 1. The revised site/master plan is required to meet the 1996 Master Plan stipulations previously approved by the City. 2. The project plan and related land use requests shall be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and shall include resolution to the exterior finish, rooftop screening, and other site issues which may affect successful integration with the adjacent multi-story development. �, 3. Approval of final construction plans as required by the development agreement. 4. City approval of all uses prior to occupancy in the building. �---, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 10 Ms. Schnabel stated that when they talked about the screening, was that between the proposed first building and the second office building? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. This referred to the rooftop screen. If it was required and/or requested, they would go back and look at the appearance of the roof from the multi-story development in Phase II. Ms. Schnabel asked if the parking comes right up to the proposed second building. Mr. Dacy stated it is 5 feet away from the new roadway. There probably will be a setback of 30 to 35 feet between that lot line and the building. It is not immediately adjacent to the first building. Mr. Meyer asked staff to again go over the potential future vegetation on the rooftop. Ms. Dacy stated that is an idea from some of the buildings from downtown Minneapolis where they have created a park space on top of the building. This may or may not become an issue. That depends on how the multi-story buildings are placed on the property. It is an issue which should be evaluated and looked at when Phase II occurs. ,..,� Mr. Meyer stated that regarding a garden on the roof, roofs are designed for 40 pounds/square foot load and there will be no capaciiy for earth or anything of that nature. The screen will require an extra load to take care of the draft load requirement. Beyond that, there is zero capacity for vegetation in the future. This would require a reinforced concrete roof. To the extent that this is important, he thought they could cancel that thinking. Ms. Dacy stated the recommendation is to take a look at it. Construction and safety of the roof is a good point. However, it may be an issue. They are trying to build in the flexibility to take a look at it. Mr. Commers asked if the Planning Commission was approving the amendment to the site plan or the preliminary plan. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission recommended a stipulation of approval of the site plan to evaluate a rooftop screen when Phase II occurs. Mr. Commers stated there can be no stipulation for that if they do not have the roof required to meet that requirement. He is not sure what is meant by that. Does that mean that if that provision is not included, they do not recommend approval of the amendment to the site plan? �, Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to include that sentence in their approval. If the Cit�r Council does not include it in the approval, the issue is then mute. ,� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 11 Mr. Meyer stated that whether it is vegetation or other screening, the roof will be designed for the recommended screening. If someone decides to change that after the roof is built, the roof would have to be redesigned. To that extent� it is important that this is not a practical requirement because they are not going to require MEPC to rework the roof system for screening, vegetation, etc. What they see is what they will get. Mr. Commers stated he hesitated to mislead anyone that this is a practical issue in the future. The reality is that this cannot be done. Without a major revision to the roof, they either have to make a recommendation of the preliminary plan itself or otherwise someone will see that and think there is some benefit to that provision being there. Ms. Schnabel stated that if it is not proposed now, it is misleading to include that language because it is not feasible. This would have to be added to the entire construction language which she did not think MEPC was planning to include. Ms. Dacy stated she understood the intent. If they are going to do something about that, look at the preliminary plans. They have not be able to do that up to this point. This is to be the jewel in the crown for the city. When people drive by (and they are trying to attract good users), these things are going to come up. If they are going to do that, it must be done now and not create false expectations. Mr. Commers asked if they should strike that sentence from their recommendation. Ms. Dacy stated she thought the opinion of the HRA would be clear in the minutes. The stipulation was a Planning Commission action. It is not in the recommended stipulations for the HRA. It is included in the memo for reference. Mr. Commers stated he would not like to make that recommendation. It is not realistic and not practical. With two recommendations to the City Council, they should understand the issue. He did not see why they should include it if they are not serious about it. If someone feels strongly about it, they should do something about it. Mr. Meyer stated it might be dangerous to leave something in that is not enforceable and that would be an embarrassment to all. If they try to tackle it now, that could avoid the possible problems with tenants down the road looking down on the roof. He asked MEPC's initial reaction to something like this. Mr. Jellison stated they had talked about the best way to screen when designing the building. If they put an office tower next door, what will they do? They have American Express next to a one-story building. They put the president's oifice on the opposite side of the building so he does not see it. They put other offices on that side, and some people are very happy to have a window. They want to look nice also, but they have to be somewhat practical. The screen will cover a portion of it. You would have to be pretty high to see over the screen. They had talked about putting in pods and covering them. It is hard to do that when you do not have the building leased for life. You have to be able to relocate the HVAC according to the need of the tenants. You do not know where they „—� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 12 will go until you start laying out the space requirements. It is difFcult to lock in where the units will be and never change them. Mr. Meyer asked if he was saying this and the white rock are things that are probably out of the picture. Mr. Jellison stated it is not only financial but also practical. They need fle�cibiliiy to put in the units. The screening does as much as they think they can to cover this. Mr. Commers asked what the difference was. Mr. Jellison stated they need the ability to handle heat and cooling on different portions of the building. They have to be able to take care of those spaces depending on the solar load. The solar load varies depending on the side of the building an office is located. Lights and people also have an effect on the heating and cooling demands. There may be a separate HVAC unit for a conference or meeting room. For tenants, they design the office space and then give it to an HVAC specialist to design the system. Mr. Meyer stated there are ways to modify that. You can pipe HVAC from one sector to another. You can centralize. If they are concemed about it, it would be realistic to tackle �-.� it now. Mr. Commers asked Ms. Dacy to read to them the specifications from the Planning Commission relating to the finish screening, etc. Ms. Dacy stated she did not have the specific language in front of her. Perhaps as an altemative in a motion, the HRA could specifically state its preference that this issue is not to be included. Other stipulations included that the drainage be in compliance with the engineering comments, compliance with the development contract, the plat request and special use permits be approved, landscape requirements be met, wall signs be changed from panels to individual letters, and the inclusion of a rooftop screen. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to recommend approval of the amendment to the site plan and master plan with the exception to strike the recommendation of the "park” or "garden° rooftop screening. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy provided an update regarding the Lake Pointe intersection improvements. As staff has been working with the developer on the details of the project, one issue is the timing of the Lake Pointe intersection improvements. Over the course of the last three or �� four months, the HRA authorized SEH to prepare the final plans. Six months ago, staff was hoping that the entire intersection project could be done in the 1998 construction season. MnDOT stated this would not be possible. Staff is trying to get a letter from � HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 13 MnDOT that would state construction would be initiated June 1,1998, and that they would start the intersection improvements by starting with reconstruction of the Lake Pointe leg and the Central Avenue leg of the intersection first and complete that in 1998. In 1999, they would finish the highway construction and the work on the interchange loops. Ms. Dacy stated the staging and timing of each element of this project is extensive. MnDOT wanted to break up the project into two construction years because it was too much for one season. As a result of this, staff is working with the developer as to when the closing on the property would occur and constrvction initiated. The developer stated it is crucial for the project to have the Lake Pointe leg construction done before the building opens to be leased. Staff will be coming back to the HRA with an update as to when those dates would occur. This is different from the January meeting. Mr. Casser�y stated they will have to modify the contract to reflect what was discussed here. Before doing that, he wants to have a clear understanding of what MnDOT will do. If this construction is not initiated, there is the possibility that they will not have a closing. ti • � -;• • � - � ; -•: �_ ' � � • •' . n Ms. Dacy stated the purpose is to have the HRA approve the professional services agreement with the Robert Gerloff architectural team to produce the contents of what will be a plan book sponsored and published by up to 15 communities in the metropolitan area. In February, the HRA agreed to act on behalf of the 15 cities and enter into a contract w�th the architect. She has sent an invoice for $5,000 to each of participating cities. Once the money is in the bank, the HRA will sign the contract to initiate the work. Ms. Dacy stated that along with the invoice, she sent out a letter of understanding so that each city would understand what the money would be used for and to identify the parameters of the arrangement, Three of the cities had their attomeys review it, and they have suggested modiflcations. A copy of the agreement was distributed. Essentially, two changes have been made. Paragraph 3 of the original letter of understanding contained a hold harmless statement to protect the Fridley HRA. The attomeys suggested there be some type of language suggesting that the hold harmless would not be applicable if there was any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduet of the HRA. In the letter of understanding, she referred to the other cities. The attomeys were concemed that this was getting close to a joint powers agreement which is not the intent of this group so the language referring to the Exhibit 2 was deleted. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the HRA approve the revised agreement and the letter of understanding which would be executed with all of the other participating c'rties ^ and to approve the proposed contract with the Robert Gerloff architectural flrm. Mr. Commers stated this is contingent upon all of the other cities agreeing. � HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORIN MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated they would not sign the contract or authorize initiation until there is $60,000 in the bank. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve execution of the Professional Service Agreement contingent upon the written agreement by all the participating cities and receipt of their contributions. Ms. Schnabel stated she had a question regarding the letter of understanding. Paragraph 4 includes a sentence, "This may include� but is not limited to, requesting additional senrices ..." Would that be included in the amount of $5,000 that each of the cities are paying? � Ms. Dacy stated that sentence is not in the revised agreement. If more communities were participating, the group of communities may want photos to be included or cost estimates of the recommended plans. This would cover other features which were not included in the piece originally intended. Ms. Schnabel stated she had concems about cost overruns. Who is going to be responsible? � Mr. Meyer stated he assumed someone in the firm is a registered architect. Ms. Dacy stated, yes, Mr. Gerloff is a registered architect. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � • • • ;� 1 � �- Mr. Commers stated this was an ongoing contract with ACCAP for the past few years and he believed this is a renewal of that contract. Mr. Femelius stated this is an extension of the contract through the end of this year. Mr. Commers asked what they were working on now in the city. Mr. Femelius stated ACCAP has several single family rehab projects. They have completed or are working on a total of seven projects that would be funded under this contract. Mr. Commers asked to how many projects had the HRA provided assistance. Mr. Ferr�elius stated the HRA contribution under this contract is $24,335. Of that amount, � $89,000 is to be used for housing and rehab grants and the balance used for administration. The HRA provides a 20% to 25% match as part of this program. The HRA is funding a portion of the rehab that is being done. ^ HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 15 Mr. Commers stated he thought the HRA had purchased a building and then tumed it over to ACCAP to rehab. Mr. Femelius stated this building is a transitional housing program. FHMA funds were given to ACCAP. The HRA bought the building, leased it to ACCAP who subleases it to a social services agency. OM TION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer� to approve the extension of the service contract with ACCAP through December 31, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. •1 • • ' • 1 •' � Gi • ll � . Ms. Dacy stated staff is asking the HRA to approve a resolution to authorize the HRA to execute the development contract with Noah's Ark of Minnesota. Noah's Ark is proposing to build a 108-unit elderly housing building at 85th and University Avenue. The deadline for the date of execution has expired. Noah's Ark is flnalizing their bonding application through the City and finishing up the details for a permit, so this would extend the ,.� deadline to execute to July 1, 1998, and the deadline for completion of construction is extended to June 30, 1999. Mr. Commers stated the HRA had originally approved the agreement but the time has run out. Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The deadline to sign and execute the agreement has passed. This is the second extension. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve a Resolution Authorizing an Extension of Time for the Execution and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Beiween the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Fridley and Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1NFORMATION ITEMS: 12. �H AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Ms. Dacy stated the total cost of the projects is approximately $862.000. The city has worked very hard to put together a cost sharing program. The city would participate, the � owners abutting 57th Avenue would be assessed 1/4 of the cost, the HRA is proposed to participate and the County would also cover a portion of the project. ^ HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 16 Ms. Dacy stated the project is to improve the traffic conditions and capacity on 57th Avenue. While the corridor is being expanded to allow for the additional capacity, they would also like to install amenities to improve the appearance of the area. This intersection is a gateway into the communiiy from University Avenue. Concurrently, the Holiday Store is initiating a program to rehabilitate their building and to expand their operations. They are proposing a modfication to the exterior of their building and they have completed significant improvements inside the building as well. They are taking a renewed interest in the site. The asphalt area on the south side between the building and I-694 will be part of a landscape plan to dress up that side of the building. Ms. Dacy reviewed the proposed plans for 57th Avenue. Essentially, the plan calls for fewer access drives which will be aligned, tum lanes added, the roadway widened and landscaped, decorative lighting installed, and the installation of a decorative fence. Ms. Dacy stated that during the budget process, it is estimated that the HRA would participate in the amount of $86,000 based on 50% of the landscape and irrigation costs and 50% of the lighting costs. Based on the estimates received from the consultants, the landscape estimate is $113,260 X 0.5 for $56,630. The decorative lighting estimate has increased in order to add two additional standards to the east side of Universit�r Avenue to continue the theme to round out the intersection. The current estimate is $81,450 X ,.� .50 for $45,726. This totals $102,355. No action is requested at this time. These are � preliminary estimates. The project will be going to bid next month. Once the bids come back, staff will come back to request approval of the amounts. Ms. Dacy stated a neighborhood meeting was held on February 3. Two property owners abutting 57th Avenue showed up for the meeting. No one attended from the residential area to the north, but staff did make an effort to call a neighborhood meeting. �-- � • •- • � Ms. Dacy stated this item was included on the Consent Agenda. Because of the postponement of the HRA meeting, staff did file the applications in order to meet the deadlines. , •� . . •� .��:••� Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Femelius had provided a draft of a home remodeling plan book that staff would like to hand out at the remodeling fair to be held April 18. She asked the HRA to review the handbook and forward their comments to staff. Mr. Femelius stated the handbook would be printed in March. At the next HRA meeting, they would have a better draft. This is a rough draft. They do not have all the plans of �...� the different rambler styles that they will be featuring. Mr. Commers asked what the difference is between this and the R. Gerloff plan book, � HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 17 Ms. Dacy stated the Robert Ge�off plan book would be published in 1999. It will take a longer time to put that together. The regional approach is that this will cover the cape cod, the rambler and the split entry styles. Because this is representing 15 communities, they had to cover those three different styles of housing. For the remodeling fair, staff wanted to focus on altemative designs for ramblers. In terms of production and appearance, the regional plan book has a grander scale and broader appeal. Mr. Commers asked if this duplicates some of the efforts in the regional plan book. Ms. Dacy stated what R. Gerloff comes up with for the rambler may be similar, but the regional plan book is of a different scope and extent that what they are trying to do here. The intent of the regional plan book is to address the issue from a broader scale. Cooperatively the cities are saying that the inner ring suburbs have options available to them for people to improve and expand their homes, and it is an attraction tool for people that may be evaluating whether to live downtown, in the inner ring, or move to the outer suburbs. It is another way to try to motivate people to take a second look at the inner ring suburbs. Mr. Commers stated he understands that, but if they are going through the effort to do this and the only thing they are missing is perhaps another style of home, it seems to him ,� they are close to covering all of the options for Fridley. He was not sure that the broader picture was going to be worth the gain. This plan book looks pretty detailed. What other kinds of remodeling would there be other than the rambler? Ms. Dacy stated the regional book would include the split entry, the rambler and the cape cod. Mr. Commers stated the split entry would be the other style in the ciiy other than the rambler. Is that a concem in Fridley? Ms. Dacy stated the majority is the rambler. The split entry would be right behind that. Fridley does not have the cape cod. The other is the small style of house such as you would see in Hyde Park. Mr. Commers stated he was trying to make sure they get some value from the regional plan book that is not in this plan book. It may be that they do their own plan book and add the split entry. With the detail shown, it looks like a good job. Someone should look at whether they really need the other. Ms. Dacy stated this has been debated in house. They can take advantage of a broader effort by cooperating with other communities. She thought it important for the communities to cooperate and use any tool available to take a second look at the housing �—,� in our communities. � HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEB. 19, 1998 PAGE 18 Ms. Schnabel stated an architect might come up with something totally different which may be beneficial to the homeowner to see both ideas. There may be something to gain by having both plan books. � Mr. Meyer stated the draft of the handbook has a page about financing issues. There is a world of possibilities to get valuable information out to people. He hoped the book excites people to get something done. This has some very interesting topics to get questions answered and gives hope that there is a way to do some things. He thought it would be great to spend a page or two answering those questions. What are the govemment sponsored programs? Who is eligible? What are the criteria? How can I afford to do this? Are you aware of the costs? There could be information on bank financing. How much are you comfortable spending? Some people may not understand the terminology. It seems to him that when you get people interested, you then need to know how to do it and pay for it. He would like to see an attempt to answer the questions. It seems that is companion information along with the floor plans. Mr. Fernelius stated those are good points. This is a rough draft. They will elaborate on those points. ,A,DJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 19,1998, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, cLv�y.,,�, � Lavonn Cooper � Recording Secretary n