Loading...
HRA 03/04/2004 - 29528CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MARCH 4, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Schnabel called the March 4, 2004 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: John Meyer, Virginia Schnabel, Pat Gabel and Bill Holm. Members Absent: Larry Commers Others Present: Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Eisenmenger, HRA Accountant Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary Mr. Hickok introduced the new recording secretary, Rebecca Brazys. MOTION: Mr. Holm moved and Ms. Gabel seconded to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2004 meeting. The following corrections to the minutes were requested: • Page 3, Paragraph 8— the word "dog° should be changed to "jog." • In several locations, Ms Gabel's last name was misspelled. • Page 3, the paragraph following the interest rate motion, should read "Ms. Schnabel voiced concern". • At the bottom of Page 3, in the voice vote paragraph, "all voting aye" should be removed as the actual vote is recorded at the end of that paragraph. • Page 4, the second paragraph under Item 4, Mr. Fernelius's name is misspelled and the sentence should state healing and cooling "costs". • Page 3, Paragraph 4— the first sentence should read "Ms. Schnabel indicated that she felt "it" is appropriate...". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 5, 2004 MINUTES AS AMENDED. CONSENT ITEMS: There were no consent items scheduled for this meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Consider Claims and Expenses Mr. Meyer asked for clarification on finro items. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPM_ENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 4. 2004 PAGE 2 Mr. Eisenmenger explained the $10,000 item is the February 2004 loan principal interest payment by Industrial Equities for a loan they have with the HRA for the John Allen project on 73'� and University Avenue. The CRF payment represents principal and interest payments received by the HRA from CRF for the various mortgage loans we have. There will be more details provided at the next meeting. Ms. Schnabel questioned why the city expenses are not reflected on the documents provided. Mr. Eisenmenger explained the city expenses are reflected on a quarterly basis. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to accept the documents for claims and expenses as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Consider Assignment of Redevelopment Contract and Limited Revenue Tau Increment Note from McGlynn's Bakeries, LLC, to Sparky Acquisition Company. Mr. Fernelius stated that McGlynn's has notified the HRA that it intends to sell its frozen foods business, which is called Concept 2 Bakers, to Sparky Acquisition Corporation, a subsidiary of Ralcorp Holdings. The sale involves the McGlynn's facility in Fridley. McGlynn's is asking the HRA consent to an assignment of the development agreement and revenue note to the new buyer. McGlynn's entered into a development agreement with the City and the HRA in the early 1990's. They have fulfilled all of their obligations under that agreement and currently receiving revenue note payments of approximately $37,000 per year. These payments continue through August 2009. Ralcorp Holdings is a large corporation that owns a number of food companies with total sales last year of $1.27 billion. They will operate the Concept 2 Bakery under their Bremner Foods division. Staff talked to John Pritchard in early January and he felt confident that the change in ownership would not impact the Fridley operation or employment; as such he felt this is a good thing. Part of the rationale for the decision to sell the business is that the McGlynn's family is no longer in a position to continue to invest and grow the company. Staff recommends that the Authority approve the consent agreement. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Femelius to clarify the financial aspects of this agreement. Mr. Fernelius explained as part of the redevelopment contract, McGlynn's receives TIF payments to help recover some of the redevelopment costs for the property. In this case, the payments total around $37,000 per year. In 1992, the Authority issued a revenue note for $700,000 and we're paying against that using the available tax increment that the project generates. The TIF district ends in 2009. It's quite likely there will still be a principal balance owing at the end of 2009, but our obligation will cease at that point. In terms of what McGlynn's is paying back to us, they agreed to make up the difference in the local government aid penalty that the city incurred as a result of this project and those payments are around $9,000 per year. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 4, 2004 PAGE 3 Mr. Meyer stated there is no question about either the HRA or the petitioner being put in jeopardy because of our potential agreement to this consignment; we're protected and the successor to McGlynns is protected. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. As long as they continue to pay taxes, we will continue to pay increment back to the new buyer. Ms. Schnabel asked if we have a similar arrangement with any other development. Mr. Fernelius stated we have a number of development agreements in place. It is not uncommon for developers to reassign their interest in development agreements, however staff is not aware of other projects in Fridley where there has been an assignment to a new buyer. Mr. Holm stated, as he understands the arrangement, Sparky Acquisition Corp assumes responsibility for payment of the real estate taxes and in exchange receives $37,000 per year. McGlynn's is completely removed from this transaction in the future. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. Ms. Schnabel asked about the fresh bakery division currently operated by McGlynn's and the fact that Ralcorp did not purchase the fresh bakery division. Will the fresh bakery continue to operate? Mr. Fernelius explained that his understanding is that as of last October or November, McGlynn's shut down their fresh bakery operation and were operating the frozen food business only. Ms. Schnabel stated she understood there is also a cake decorating division. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct but it is not a part of this agreement and he believes that business will continue to be operated by McGlynn's. Ms. Schnabel also stated that Ralcorp has indicated they intend to operate at this facility and that no jobs will be lost as a result of this sale. MOTION by Mr. Holm, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the assignment of the redevelopment contract from McGlynns Bakeries, LLC to Sparky Acquisition Company. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 4. 2004 PAGE 4 INFORMATION ITEMS: 3. Spring Valley Estate Development Mr. Hickok explained the location of this development is in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central. Mississippi Street is on the north and Old Central is on the west. This is a private development being proposed by John DeMello who was born and raised in Fridley. This is not a development in which tax increment dollars have been invested or in which the HRA is involved. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and recommended on a 6-1 vote to approve this project to the City Council, which will take formal action on the request on March 8th. Each one of the elevations for the residential building has been done in such a way to allow for a four-sided complex and that is one of the things we look for developers to do so that all sides of the building are equal. The architect carried the theme through the residential and commercial area. The developer is hoping to complete the residential area in one phase, but if they have to proceed in two phases, the first phase will have a completed appearance. The commercial building is designed to be four-sided so that there is no back of the building facing the condominiums. Mr. Meyer asked what material will be used for the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Hickok explained they will use a combination of brick, stone, concrete-board siding and stucco with a standard asphalt shingled roof. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Hickok to delineate the line between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the residential building. Mr. Hickok explained Phase 1 will consist of 35 units and Phase 2 will have 36 units and will be the curved portion on the south end. There is a garage entry in Phase 1 and the traffic will be two-way in the garage area. In Phase 1, residents will enter and exit from the same location. In Phase 2, there will be a second garage entrance enabling the residents to loop through if they so choose. Ms. Schnabel questioned the entrance to the property. Mr. Hickok explained that access to county roads is limited. The county and city worked together on this proposal to determine where the access sites would be best located. We have two county roadways on this site. The residential access point is on Old Central. There is no connection roadway-wise befinreen the commercial and the residential areas. The commercial area has an entrance and exit point on Mississippi and Old Central. These have been specifically designed to line up with the two points across Old Central for the development proposed and approved for that property as well as the new drive for Sandee's Restaurant. This is a much safer and more efficient way of laying out the access points. Mr. Meyer asked who the architect is for the Spring Valley development. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 4, 2004 PAGE 5 Mr. Hickok stated the architect is Peter Billard of Architectural Works Billard Inc. Mr. Meyer asked what control from this point on would we, the Planning Commission and the City Council have with regards to the exterior appearance and the interior. Mr. Hickok explained the controls we have are in the stipulations placed on the plat and on the rezoning. The master plan and the plat are a part of the rezoning and include stipulations tying down the architectural elevations to dated plans and we tied down the materials to plans and dates that are very specific. We also tied down the other elements. Any modification of the approved plan would have to come back through a process to have modifications approved. So we're comfortable with the stipulations that have been placed on this project and that is the typical process we use to make sure that the project presented is the project built. Mr. Hickok presented details of this proposal explaining that the petitioner is requesting finro separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, not from the HRA, this is just to give you a sense of what has already been acted upon by the Planning Commission. There's two separate actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct the 71 unit senior owner-occupied condominium units and the retail complex on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The plat is being requested to create two new parcels from 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6401 Central Avenue, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue and 1341 64�' and 1357 64�' Avenue. That's the addresses of the properties you would see today if you went out and drove this site today. • The first building to the north is a 13,420 square foot retail building. • The southern parcel will be used for the construction of 71 owner-occupied senior condominiums. • The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the east side of Old Central between Mississippi Street and 64�' Avenue. Currently there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. • The petitioner has stated that he envisions the commercial building will house neighborhood retail businesses such as a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream / sandwich shop and a hair salon. • The retail complex will include at least 54, 10 food wide parking stalls for customers which meets code requirements. • The residential development will be a 4-story 71-unit independent senior condominium complex composed of 71 owner-occupied units comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. � The development will include 73 underground parking stalls and 30 surFace parking stalls which meets the requirement for a senior complex. • The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. HOU$ING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 4. 2004 PAGE 6 • The site will include several ponds, a gazebo, and a trail system with landscaping that surrounds the property. Site ponds are required to slow down storm run-off and allow it to be cleansed before it enters the storm sewer system. • Rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. • If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City Council, any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. • Review of the master plan would also need to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. CITIZEN CONCERNS • The walking path should be around both structures so residents could make a loop around the entire complex. This has been shown on the site plan. • Is parking adequate? Visitor parking? The parking does meet the code requirements. • Pedestrian tra�c / tra�c on Old Central and Mississippi was a topic of discussion. All indications are that with this development and the new development across the street, the traffic impact will be minimal. No additional traffic controls will be necessary. • Pond Safety. Our standard is not to fence ponds but to have them created in a way that they are amenities on the site and not treated as utilities, landscaped and meant to be a feature. The pond slopes will not be severe, but will be gradual and shallow. • Setback from Property Line. The developer has used the standards of an R3 Multi-family Development. There have been no requests to forgive setback requirements for this project. The only modification is the parking area is a 3 foot area to allow parking which is acceptable in a master plan for such a development. • Removal of Existing Homes. That is an impact of this development but should be used as a positive exchange as this project will provide very nice additional housing of a different type. � Comprehensive P/an not a law, ordinance or statute. That is not true. The comprehensive plan is identified in the statutes and case law as the governing factor in making determinations on zoning. In our recent comprehensive plan we did highlight this property and the property across the street as redevelopment districts. So this rezoning and the subsequent master plan is in line with the comprehensive plan. • Ownership of property. There were some folks that were concerned about the ownership of the property. This proposal is no different from many other such projects where negotiations are done and deals are made contingent upon approvals at the local level. After reviewing the facts, staff is comfortable with this proposal. • Tall building in the back yard. This particular concern was expressed by the homeowner finro lots away. There is going to be a 4 story building, so it does HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 7 change the scale a bit, but that is one of the outcomes of development. We don't believe this is detrimental to the neighborhood and the residential building has been designed to curve away from the existing house as best it can. • Cost of staff time. There was some concern about the amount of staff time involved in the review of this type of development. Mr. Hickok explained that we are looking at significant fee increases for development applications. • Fit in the neighborhood. To give a sense of relationship as to the height of this structure, Mr. Hickok pointed out that the Medtronic parking ramp is 35 feet to the railing of the upper deck with an additional 10 feet for the canopies at the comers. The residential building in this proposal has a mid section height of 47 feet. • Breaks up core of the city. Mr. Hickok stated that is a matter of perspective. But this proposal could be viewed as a very nice opportunity for an additional and needed type of housing for the city. • Area is getting run down. One citizen welcomes the opportunity for a new development to provide a much-needed change in that neighborhood. � Need something like this for seniors. One individual spoke of the need for this type of housing in the city. • Sca/e of the building. The staff has evaluated a number of different site plans and they believe this is the most appropriate layout for this site. HOUSING STUDY Mr. Hickok explained that the petitioner hired Ma�eld Research, Inc. to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. Ma�eld determined the area would support 189 housing units and that a senior housing development would be the most marketable project for this site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner-occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Mr. Hickok stated the staff utilized a number of sources to determine the possible impacts that 71 senior owner-occupied condominium units and the commercial complex may have on the local traffic patterns. Staff consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated. • The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service D. • The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley and surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 8 • At 10,000 vehicles per day, Old Central will be carrying 71 % of the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. • The petitioner hired Traffic Data Incorporated, a data collection, traffic engineering and transportation planning firm to perForm a traffic analysis. • The consultants perFormed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7�' Edition, which was published in December 2003. • The consultants used the Senior Adult Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. • The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. • TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: o No build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Elderly Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue). o Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Elderly Housing project). • The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue / 64�' Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street / Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. • The only change seen is during the AM peak hour at the Central Avenue / 64�' Avenue eastbound intersection where the level of service would change from LOS B to LOS C. • To complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which governs the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. • The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. • These warrants are primarily based on the tra�c volumes flowing through the intersection. • A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street / Central Avenue intersection. • To complete this analysis, TDA staff performed a turning movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi Street / Central Avenue intersection. • None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be met if the elderly housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. • According to this anaylsis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. • The conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue / 64�' Avenue intersection operate at HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 9 • LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. • The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. � A traffic signal is not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal will not be warranted at the intersection after the proposed development is completed. WETLAND Mr. Hickok reviewed the wetland review for this site. The petitioner has been working with the Rice Creek Watershed to determine if the project area has a wetland. The petitioner has hired Tom Bremen, with Acom Consulting, to delineate the site for any possible wetlands. Currently, both the petitioner and the Rice Creek Watershed are waiting for the delineators report. PHASING PLAN Mr. Hickok reviewed the phasing plan for this proposal as follows: • The petitioner has indicated to staff that their intentions are to build the entire 71 unit senior owner-occupied condominium project all in one construction phase. • If the bank required unit pre-sales are slower than predicated by the market report, then they plan to phase the project. • Phasing the project would involve constructing the senior complex in finro phases (finro buildings). • The first phase would be 35 units and the second phase would be the remaining 36 units. � Phase one would commence upon selling the bank required percentage of units in the first half of the building, removal of the existing homes, and soil corrections. • Phase one would tentatively commence in August 2004. • Phase two would commence when the pre-sales are met for the first part of the second half of the building. • In the meantime, sod, landscaping, and parking would be installed. � Phase 3 involves the retail space. • Simultaneously with the residential property the retail building would be pre-leased. • When the building is completely leased, the building will be constructed. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Mr. Hickok stated the City Staff recommends approval of the Redevelopment Master Plan as presented. Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Provides housing opportunities for seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. � Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley. Ms. Gabel commented that she likes the four-sided retail space, but wondered how they plan to handle the refuse. Mr. Hickok explained they plan to have a dumpster enclosure. They're looking at the southeast corner of the property in an area that is fully screened and finished off so it doesn't have any impact on the residential building. Or possibly an area attached to the building that would be fully enclosed so there will be no viewing from adjacent properties. Mr. Meyer asked what the projected cost of the residential sector will be. Mr. Hickok estimated the cost to be in the area of $15 to $17 million. Mr. Meyer asked how many units are included in the Town Center project across the street. Mr. Hickok stated there are 53 units in that proposal. Mr. Meyer asked if the traffic study included those 53 units. Mr. Hickok stated that area was included. Mr. Meyer expressed concern about the height of the project and asked if the underground parking could be lowered to lessen the overall height of the building. Mr. Hickok explained that they would certainly lower it if they could, but ground water is an issue and will control where that footing elevation is. They have done an incredible amount of analysis and provided that information to us regarding this matter. Mr. Meyer stated he hopes the variation in ground water at different times of the year has been taken into consideration. He also stated it seems that it would be better to allow access from the residential area to the retail area. Mr. Hickok responded that all options have been explored and the determination was made that separating the traffic would be a better solution for all involved. Ms. Schnabel asked if there is a walking path included. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 11 Mr. Hickok stated there is an area on the site plan that has been designed to create a walking loop to give the residents an opportunity to walk up to the retail area or to simply utilize the path for taking a walk. Ms. Schnabel asked if the retail area will be fairly small businesses. Mr. Hickok explained they will be small retail users, broken up into say five small spaces. If an office use wanted to come in and lease half of the building, they would be perfectly fine with that as well. The petitioner does need to live by the standards of the commercial zoning district for that complex. Mr. Meyer asked if the store entrances will all face north. Mr. Hickok replied the building is designed to be an interactive opportunity with glass entrances on the south and north sides of the building which provides access for the senior residents. Mr. Meyer was concerned that the south side of the commercial building not become a utilitarian area which the residents of the senior housing will be forced to view. Mr. Hickok again explained that they have designed the retail area to not have a"back door look". Once the plan has been approved, the developer must follow the approved plan or request approval of any modifications. Ms. Schnabel asked how closely detailed are such items as the exterior finish of the buildings so that there are no changes during actual construction. Mr. Hickok stated to this point the petitioner has not objected to the stipulations that outline the materials to be used on the exterior of the buildings. Again, he explained that any modifications to the plan would require review and approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Schnabel asked how many acres are included in the total area. Mr. Hickok responded that there are 4.1 acres included in the plat and the rezoning. Ms. Schnabel asked how many acres how many units and how many acres involved in the Gateway West project. Mr. Hickok replied there are 90 condominium units on approximately 3.5 acres. There's a total of 8 acres, but that included townhouses and additional parking. Gateway East included a little over two acres with 28 units. Ms. Schnabel stated the purpose of this discussion is informational only. Mr. Hickok explained that is correct, but if the HRA members would like to pass a recommendation on to the Council they are welcome to do so, or they may simply pass it on without comment. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 12 Ms. Gabel stated she believes this is a good thing for the city as she has had many friends who have left Fridley because they were unable to find such housing after they sold their homes. Mr. Fernelius clarified for the members and the audience that this is not a public hearing. The public hearing was held by the Planning Commission and will go before the City Council March 8 for additional public input. Mr. Meyer repeated his concern that the traffic should be allowed to flow from the residential to the commercial area and he was concemed about the location of the access to the roadways. Mr. Hickok explained this proposal has been carefully reviewed by the petitioner's engineers and the city engineers as well as the county. This is the alternative that works best. He added that the county is very restrictive as far as access allowed to county roads. Ms. Gabel commented that if she lived in the condominium units on this site, she would rather not have the traffic from the retail site coming into the residential area. Mr. Meyer also expressed concem about the mixture of materials for the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Hickok stated he trusts the architect's integrity on this and also the staff's ability to review plans and to only approve plans that they recognize as being of quality construction. Mr. Meyer stated it is money that drives such decisions. Ms. Schnabel commented that this proposal has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and then will be presented to the Council. Mr. Meyer felt it is also the HRA's job to pass comments onto the Council. He remained concerned about the traffic and the different materials to be used on the exterior of the buildings. Ms. Gabel stated she does not believe it is the HRA's role to get into the details of this project, but that the HRA should simply be concemed with the overall concept of the plan. Mr. Hickok replied that is correct. Mr. Meyer stated it seems that the HRA's responsibility goes beyond just the general concept. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Meyer what he wants to see done differently as far as the traffic. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 13 Mr. Meyer stated it seems that the one main entrance and exit point is halfway up the street. If that was dropped down further south and the other entrance near the retail was broadened to serve the retail and the residential area it would �free it up" and not create a bottleneck. Mr. Hickok reiterated that we are very much governed where access can be taken on county roads. Not only do we need to consider what happens on this site but also lining up driveways across the way so we don't end up with a 57�' Avenue situation again. It's very important to segregate the commercial traffic from the residential traffic. Ms. Schnabel asked if there is any access from the residential area behind Holly Center into Holly Center. Mr. Hickok stated there is not. The concept here is to have a cohesive yet independent development with distinct and different uses so that the people can shop in the retail area yet keep that traffic from the residential area. Ms. Gabel suggested it may have been helpful for the HRA members to have seen the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting where these issues were probably discussed in detail. Mr. Holm stated he likes that the rear of the retail area will not have a"back doo�' appearance and asked if there will also be parking spaces on both sides. Mr. Hickok replied that there is. Ms. Schnabel asked if we want to make specific recommendations to the Council or will the minutes suffice? She added that she believes there is a need for this type of housing in Fridley. Mr. Meyer agreed that this is a needed development. He asked if there is an income cap on the condominium units. Mr. Hickok explained they are not asking for any sort of assistance, it is all private dollars. Since the city is not involved in any part of the financing of this project, the pricing is up to the developers. MOTION by Mr. Holm moved, Ms. Gabel seconded that the HRA affirms there is a need for this type of housing and that we generally concur with the concept of the development as approved by the Planning Commission and the general design. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 4 2004 PAGE 14 4. 2004 North Metro Home and Garden Fair Mr. Fernelius explained that this event would be held this Saturday between 9:00 and 2:00 p.m. at the Mounds View Community Center at 5394 Edgewood Drive off Highway 10. This event is free and open to the public. There will be a total of 72 booths with a large variety of contractors and landscaping companies as well as other information. There will also be a series of workshops. We'd like to invite the HRA members and the audience. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Holm to table the next finro agenda items (Oreel Condemnation Case and Follow-up on Housing Program Discussion) to the next regular meeting. 5. Follow-up on Housing Program Discussion 6. Follow-up on Oreel Condemnation UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Monthly Housing Report Mr. Femelius stated there is nothing out of the ordinary on these reports. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Holm, to adjoum. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 4, 2004 HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary