Loading...
HRA 10/25/2007 - 29538� CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMNIISSION October 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers Pat Gabel William Holm John Meyer Steve Billings Others Present: Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director Jim Casserly, Development Consultant William Burns, HRA Executive Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director ACTION ITEMS: 1. Approval of expenditures. MOTION by Commissioner Holm, seconded by Commissioner Billings, approving the expenditures. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIltPERSON CONIlV�RS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. • 2. Approval of Commitment to Fund Portion of Northstar Project. 3. Approval of Resolution to seek reimbursement for Northstar egpenditures. MOTION by Corrunissioner Billings, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, removing Items 1 and 2 and adding an Informational Item (No. 1 below). UPON A UNA1vIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON CONIlVI��RS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Update on Fridley Northstar Rail Station. Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, stated it is no secret the corridor between Minneapolis and St. Cloud is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and actually one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Since about the mid-1990's when folks started to look at alternatives to move people through that corridor, Northstar using the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe has been viewed as an option. In 1996 the Northstar Corridor Development Authority was formed. Going back to 2000, where Highway 169 enters Highway 10 the capacity is 6,600 and, even in 2000, they were over that by almost 2,000 cars. They project by 2025 it will be about double the capacity that it is meant to handle. Northstar is commuter rail, meaning that it runs on those existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe lines. It is not like light rail, such as the Hiawatha line where tracks actually had to be put into place. Mr. Bolin stated the first phase of this project is going run from Big Lake to downtown Minneapolis. There are stations that will be constructed in Big Lake, and work has already started there. Elk River and Anoka have a station. Coon Rapids has one station that wi11 be in the initial run of construction at Riverdale. Then in Minneapolis there will be a station that will allow folks to connect onto the Hiawatha line. Mr. Bolin stated at this point in time the Fridley station is officially deferred in all the planning documents. It is no longer really a question of whether the Northstar is going to happen. The $156M of federal funds is going to be released to the State on December 17, and they will see construction start soon after that on some of those other stations. The station proposed for Fridley is located at 61 St and Main Street. They are also looking at doing a park and ride and other amenities on the east side of the tracks as well. Commissioner Holm asked is it correct that Burlington Northern has now deferred and designated a decision from them until Nove�nber 13? Mr. Bolin replied, correct. Commissioner Holm asked is there any action needed by the County Board in approving any of this or is it just the Rail Authority? Mr. Bolin replied, just the Rail Authority. Commissioner Billings stated, however, in Anoka County the seven commissioners make up the Rail Authority. Commissioner Holm asked, in looking at the Memorandum of Understanding, the "Whereas" referring to the HRA adopting a redeveloping plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and as included in the area for Fridley station as Redevelopment Project No. 1, has this already been done by the HRA? 2 Mr. Bolin replied, correct, that is part of the City's original overall tax increment plan or project area if you will. Commissioner Holm asked, so this was done several years ago? Mr. Bolin replied, yes. Commissioner Holm asked, finally, we are in effect providing the funding for the acquisition of property that ACRA would negotiate or take the lead in the event ideally we do not have the funding in place by the time we need to make that land acquisition? Mr. Bolin replied ideally we will end up only providing a guarantee of funding. Mr. Bolin replied, you can tell from the language there is still some discussion about who would be the best entity to try and acquire that property and there are provisions to work with Anoka County with the Regional Rail Authority over the next several months if it takes that long to make that determination. Commissioner Holm asked why would the Anoka County Rail Authority or whoever is designated be "unable to acquire the necessary property?" What are the legal or operational hang-ups in Anoka County Rail Authority acquiring that property? Mr. Bolin replied that "unable" can have a couple different meanings. "Unwilling" he thinks might be a better term. Attorney Casserly has done a lot of research on which entity is probably the best to do the land acquisition, and it looks like the Rail Authority is that body and not the HRA. Attorney Casserly stated in an ideal set of circumstances, it would make sense for the Authority to be involved in the acquisition. We clearly have looked at trying to develop adjacent parcels. There are a number of plans that have been discussed, and a portion of the property is not needed for the Rail Authority. It would be that portion of the property we could encourage development on and, if we had more control over it, we could clearly govern the development of that property. Those parcels are also part of our special legislation. They are included within special legislation that is in the tax bill which we hope will be picked up again next session and ultimately passed. It is that special legislatio.n that allows to recover some of our costs in this development or potentially all of our costs in this development. Attorney Casserly stated since we are closer to all of this, the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority would prefer to have the HRA take the lead. On the other hand, his reading of the statute is very clear that they have the ability to acquire it either voluntarily or involuntarily. He thinks that is abundantly clear in their statute allowing them to function. So nobody is looking to have an involuntary acquisition. Ideally we would acquire the property on a voluntary basis. If it is on a voluntary basis, it clearly does not make any difference who does it as a practical matter. As an authority we clearly have the ability to buy property and develop, that is our function. They clearly have the ability to buy and acquire the property even through the use of eminent domain if it is for the purpose of furthering the railroad. That is what we are still sorting 3 out. There is no particularly bad way to go on this. They are trying to figure out which is the most logical way to proceed and which way would be the easiest to conclude this. Commissioner Gabel asked if they were going to buy it, and still wanted to have some control over it, can they buy a portion of it and then we work it out later? Attorney Casserly replied if it is a voluntary acquisition, it is very clear that really everything is possible. If it is involunta.ry then there is a different set of rules that are going to apply. That is not the way we want to proceed. They have the ability to make this project work. If it means only acquiring a portion of the property, they have that ability. The problem with acquiring a portion and, he thinks Chairperson Commers can probably elaborate on this more. Oftentimes when you try to buy a portion of a substantial parcel, the court will determine as a practical matter you need to buy the parcel. That may happen in this case in any event. We hate to speculate on too many of the alternatives or options because they all assume that we are going to have an absolutely worst-case scenario, and there is no reason to have to assume that. It is really about money and so the only reason to use a forced acquisition is to try to have a third party in this judicial branch oversee the acquisition and make sure the price being paid is a fair price. That is the only reason we would want to be involved in any kind of forced acquisition. Commissioner Holm asked, will there be any more formal actions completed by the time of our next meeting on November 1 in terms of finalizing the agreement between the State and Anoka County Regional Rail? What more information will they have by the next meeting compared to now? Mr. Bolin replied they will have the HRA's comments on the MOU. They will be able to sit down with the staff at the County and get some more feedback from them, and hopefully bring back to them next Thursday an MOU between the City and the County they feel comfortable adopting. They will try and get some more specifics on acquisition and some of the different scenarios under which that might happen. Attorney Casserly stated they anticipate having an e-mail in the next couple of days verifying Burlington Northern Santa Fe has extended the date in which to execute some of these agreements so they should have that prior to our next meeting. They will also specifically ask if the State has got any issues with the Memorandum of Understanding that the Rail Authority is entering into with the State. We will want to know about any problems because clearly the Rail Authority cannot proceed unless the State approves their Memorandum of Understanding as it is really the Rail Authority that is being designated by the State. If the State does not agree to that, the Rail Authority cannot proceed. That is a critical piece, and we will ask very specifically if the State has any reservations, or if they have any issues then we will be aware of that before the next meeting. We are led to believe this is not going to be a major problem and that this format has been used by the State with other entities. Commissioner Meyer stated he now sees they have between $1.3 and $1.6 million, and he understands the extra difference of the $300,000 is wrapped up in soil conditions. He asked whether any soil borings have been taken? Why is there a question? � Mr. Bolin replied because they have not done soil borings that he is aware of. The bids were private between Burlington Northern and their three contractors of choice. There is always a possibility that once they get partway beneath those tracks they could hit some poor soils. That $300,000 is built in there as a contingency. Commissioner Meyer replied he is absolutely astounded that no soil borings have been taken. They take soil borings for buildings and structures one-quarter of the cost of that. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the point might be what type of soil borings have been taken; they are at 90 percent design on the tunnel itself. Soil borings that have to do with the structural footings and the tunnel itself have been taken. But, as Mr. Bolin said, the Rail's standard practice is to assume there is going to be some sort of contamination they will encounter through the course of their project. That being the case, they want to be protected in case there is some contamination. If he is concerned soil borings have not been taken, understand the structural part has been done. The contamination piece of it, had their been random borings to see exactly where contamination is. No, that is the kind of borings that Mr. Bolin is saying that they have not taken. However, they plan to deal with contamination if they encounter it as they move ahead on construction. Commissioner Meyer asked, is there an insurance policy that Burlington Northern is requiring we take for damage to the tracks or anything like that? Attorney Casserly replied, no, the insurance issues all have to do mostly with the operation. Even though we were not involved in the construction, Burlington Northern Santa Fe is the party actually doing the tunnel. There could be other issues involved in insurance. He thinks one of the reasons we were quite comfortable recommending this format is that we are not a party to any of these other agreements. It is the Rail Authority who will be executing the agreement on behalf of the State, and the Met Council will be executing other agreements. We do not own the line, we will not maintain it, and we do not operate it. Commissioner Meyer asked, for example, if the tunnel is put under the tracks, and we are paying for it in some way or another, there is no way to come back to us because the tunnel collapsed? Attorney Casserly stated we are not responsible for the tunnel. We are not paying for it, we are not responsible for it, and we do not own it; we are just simply removed from that. Commissioner Meyer stated bids were taken and he had asked to see those documents way back before the bids were taken, do we have those documents we could examine? Specifically telling the bidders what they are bidding upon? In other words the details for the tunnel construction. Chairperson Commers referred to details provided to them by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) of the tunnel and their sectional view shows a width of 12 feet. Mr. Bolin stated as far as the bid packet goes, Burlington Northern is a private corporation doing business with private contractors and they will not share that information with them. They have 5 given us a summary of where the two bids came in at with some detailed breakdown but still it is just a half a page spreadsheet. He cannot get those documents. Chairperson Commers asked what is this internal memorandum from Paul Danielson to Mark Bishop dated November 9, 2006? It gives the dimensions of the tunnel and also attaches drawings of the tunnel. Mr. Bolin replied those are drawings we were provided and were done by the NCDA. Kimmerly Horn (sp.) is a contractor for NCDA. They have done a lot of the design work on the tunnels with Paul Danielson, an engineer who is actually an employee of NCDA through Kimmerly Horn (sp.). Chairperson Commers asked are these design items on which the bids were done? Mr. Bolin replied, yes, those designs have been in place and reviewed at the county, state, and federal level for almost ten years now. Mr. Hickok stated even at the HRA level they may recall they �had a work session meeting and they had a packet of information about 1%2-inches thick with a plastic ring binder which showed pages and pages of detail; and the details Chairperson Commers had are extracts from the engineer's designs but certainly a 1 1/2-inch binder is available. They can check it out and review it. Mr. Bolin stated the bid packets were put together in conjunction with Paul Danielson, the engineer for the MCDA. All those specifications in all of those documents are the ones that have been approved by the Federal Transit Administration. Because of those designs that is how we have gotten this far in the process. Everything has been reviewed and approved. There have been no changes done to those. Burlington Northern, like any other private company, can do what they want with their bids. They do not need to share it. He is sure that folks at the NCDA maybe saw the entire bid package because he knows Paul Danielson helped them put it together. Tonight we have been removed from the tunnel. The Anoka County Rail Authority has agreed to take on the burden if you will of making the commitment in funding the tunnel. Mr. Hickok stated though we were taken out in the 11�' hour of the federal funding package, that does not mean the design of our tunnel changed because we were taken out of that federal funding package. The contractor cannot pick and choose what they want out of that packet. Now the tunnel, the platform, the elevators, and the stairs have been designed to meet FTA requirements; and that would be what they were bidding on to give a construction value. Commissioner Meyer asked if the stairs and elevators are in there? Chairperson Commers stated the stair width is in here. Chairperson Commers stated it does say, temporary culvert and plugs two in this design. It says precast box culvert, 18 x 10 x 12 feet wide, 1-foot granular pad beneath the limits of the culvert, waterproofing on three sides at 3,500 square feet, and a temporary restraining wall that 0 looks like for construction. He certainly thinks Commissioner Meyer is entitled to look at that stuff although it looks like to him the materials they were given, if these are what they bid on, do answer some of these questions. Commissioner Meyer asked if that has been around for a while, why are they so reluctant to tell them what the bids are on? Mr. Hickok stated he is able to look at any and all of the items that go into our station design platform, elevators, stairways, and box culvert. All that was designed by NCDA folks as part of the Northstar program and is available to you. He would be glad to have him take a look at that. That was all designed by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) and their engineers who are the consulting engineers for this project. William Burns, HRA Executive Director, stated the details of the tunnel are important to the HRA, but at this point in terms of the work of this Board, the important decision is, do you want to accept a guarantee on the acquisition of the land and have the County go ahead and assume the financial responsibility oi the tunnel. If we do not get closer to deciding that, we will have wasted our time here tonight. It is important to know the details of the tunnel to be sure we are getting a good product but, if we do not get into the direction of the critical decision, then we are spinning our wheels. Commissioner Meyer stated, alright, he personally has a lot of time here to talk about it. He hopes he is not wasting other peoples' time. He has all the time in the world. It is $1.3 to $1.6 million of public monies. Dr. Burns stated but we are not being asked to buy that $1.3 to $1.6 million. Commissioner Meyer stated we are being asked to expedite the creation of a certain entity, and he thinks it behooves us, and this entity is for the City's good. Dr. Burns stated we were asked to expedite the tunnel, but the County has come along and has said we are ready to build the tunnel with our money if you are willing to give the HRA some sort of a guarantee on the acquisition �on the land. So that really becomes the issue, are we are going to agree with the County or not? Commissioner Meyer asked, can we divorce ourselves from the validity of the entity? Mr. Hickok stated he did not think they are equipped to debate the validity of the installation. In all due respect if Commissioner Meyer would like to take the time to review the plans in their entirety and would like to forward his comments to Kimmerly Horn (sp.) for the deficiency in the design, he is sure they would welcome his input. However, they are not here tonight on an engineering mission to decide they were adequate in the engineering design of this project. Dr. Burns stated on the other hand if we disagree with this proposal and we are taking over the tunnel and insist that is our part of the project, then those details become much more relevant. 7 However, at this point, they are asking do we want to agree with the County in that they take over the tunnel? Commissioner Meyer asked Chairperson Commers if that was his understanding of the situation, that we have no interest in the validity of the installation? It is merely to address the legalities of things? Chairperson Commers replied it is his understanding in the way it is being structured, and are telling them tonight, that rather than the HRA being responsible for the construction of the tunnel, that the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority is going to take that responsibility over and build it. What our responsibility is going to be instead of constructing the tunnel and paying for it is acquiring any land that might be necessary for parking although he is not sure if in the first stage they are going to have to acquire any land. It may need a temporary construction easement to build the tunnel which is really not an acquisition of land. However, he does not disagree with Commissioner Meyer that they should confirm for themselves the tunnel is being constructed in a manner that it is not going to have some issues with it. He does not know why Commissioner Meyer could not talk to Kimmerly (sp.) people or to the chief engineer that was here and try to confirm some of these things and to confirm the plan and designs that have been given to them previously. Somebody out there besides Burlington Northern has to know what is going on. They cannot expect to keep it a mystery. Mr. Bolin stated Paul Danielson from NCDA did work with Burlington Northern in putting their bid packets together. He has seen those, Burlington Northern does not want those, just their bid packets. All of their designs are designs that we have on hand. He would be more than happy to call and see if he can get a copy of the actual bid packet from Burlington Northern for Commissioner Meyer to review. Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin if he could arrange a conference call with Commissioner Meyers and Mr. Danielson for a few minutes so he can ask him those questions? He is our expert in that area and has designed these things for many years and to a certain extent we want to make sure we are comfortable about this even if we are not buying it. There could be something that we do not like about it. However, the representations that were made for the HRA initially in terms of the size, width, and end plugs and the waterproofing they have talked about because of the O'Bannen (sp.) issue. They want to make sure that they have tested that to make sure that is going to happen. That it does not need a drain or that the waterproofing they are suggesting is sufficient. He would think Mr. Bolin could arrange something like that in the next couple days before their next meeting so Commissioner Meyer could report back to them. Commissioner Meyer stated he would be glad to swing over to anyone's office. It is no problem for him to find a little time. He asked attorney Casserly, for example, a year from now the tunnel is in and there is no station there yet. If water comes in and someone has to pay $100,000 put in a proper drain. Who would be responsible for that installation? Attorney Casserly replied if it was not part of the bid project and was not done properly, then it would either have to be the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority or the Metropolitan Council. : Commissioner Billings stated it would not be the City of Fridley because we are not doing anything with the tunnel. All we are being asked to do is to guarantee the acquisition of the parking lot on this side of the tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside of Burlington Northern's tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside Burlington Northern's right-of-way other than the possibility of some of our residents using that tunnel in the future to get from one side of the tracks to the other. It is strictly NCDA, Anoka County, Met Council, and the State of Minnesota Highway and Transportation Department in conjunction with Burlington Northern that are doing things inside Burlington Northern's right-of-way. Is that correct? Chairperson Commers stated that raises one question in his mind. When constnxction occurs on that property who is responsible for the inspection? Who checks to make sure it is being constructed in accordance with the plans, and who finally passes the permit for the construction on that property? Does the City have responsibility for that? Mr. Hickok replied, no, all the inspections will now be taken on by the State, whether they have Kimmerly Horn (sp.) or some other MnDOT inspectors do that, it will not be our responsibility at the local level. That has already been discussed by the City's inspectors and the Sta.te. Attorney Casserly noted there is a line item in the package for $43,000 for inspections, engineering and geotechnical inspections. Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin to follow-up on that and get a little bit more information and contact Commissioner Meyer so he can get some informed information for the technical issues. Commissioner Meyer stated he is reassured that they have no responsibilities but he would certainly be glad to look over the documents. Commissioner Billings stated the upsides to this particular proposal are good and downsides are minimal from the standpoint that we are being asked to either acquire, or on a temporary basis, guarantee the financing for the acquisition of the parking on the east side of the tracks. If there should be some surplus this would put the HRA in the driver's seat for being able to do something with that surplus, particularly if it is an agreeable acquisition with the landowner. If it does have to go to condemnation, then all of the new laws come into play. He is not sure anyone is aware of the total implications of those new requirements by the State. He thinks this puts the HRA in the best possible position that we could be in, in terms of controlling development and having input on the development of any surplus on the east side. It takes the City out of the responsibility that is happening inside the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Mr. Bolin stated they do not have a date for when they come in and ask for more agreements to commit to that funding. He does not see it happening before the first of the year. A1 Stahlberg , 8065 Riverview Terrace, asked is who is going to pay for the end caps, stairways, and elevators when it comes time? Also, who is going to pay for the maintenance of those things, the patrolling and the safety? G� Attorney Casserly stated right now, in his reading of the documents, the State has designated the Metropolitan Council to operate this line. They would be responsible. Mr. Stahlberg asked about the policing? Commissioner Billings replied it would be the Metropolitan Council Transit Police. There will be cameras and two-way dialogue capability on the platform. Ben Venowetz, 1232 Hathaway, stated they are strong proponents of having a station here in Fridley. In fact they would be willing to put in money as a Fridley resident, and he thinks they have neighbors that would be willing to do that also. He asked, even if the funding goes through etc. are they talking four years out when the station will be completed? Mr. Bolin stated if the funding goes through and the Met Council is able to provide the funds early next year, if we get some money from the State, theoretically they could be up and running in 2009 when the other stations open. Chairperson Commers stated just to understand the four years is the outside by which it must be built. It is not necessarily the earliest date by which it would be constructed if they were to go that route. ' 2. City Comprehensive Plan Update Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated she is in charge overseeing and creating the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She stated she appreciated everyone taking the time and looking at a couple of chapters. Staff is very much interested in the HRA's input and everything that staff is proposing as far as redevelopment in the community in the housing portions of our Plan do coincide with the policies and the plans they have in mind for Fridley's future as well. Ms. Jones stated they used a consultant to help them create the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This time around we did not have the funding to do that it is primarily being done internally with staff. A lot of it has been extremely cumbersome and difficult to take on such a huge task like this on top of their normal duties, but she really thinks they are going to have a much superior product in the end. They have been involving departments and managers of every division of the City in various committees, and have a committee established for almost every single chapter of the Plan. The great thing about this is that the very people that are going to need to implement this plan and make things happen when it is complete are the people that are involved from the very beginning of looking at the challenges before us, looking at the resources we have, and figuring out recommendations for how they can improve things. Ms. Jones stated they have had citizen participation through neighborhood planning meetings they had this past spring which were well attended. The goals and objective they see in the first chapter of the plan have come out of those meetings. In addition to that they will incorporate several questions into the bi-annual citizen survey this fall. In those neighborhood meetings several things were recommended or discussed, but they wanted a little more feedback from the entire population of the City. 10 Ms. Jones stated right now they are in the midst of their commission review process where they have various advisory commissions in the City looking at the various chapter of the Plan that pertain to their area of expertise. Through the neighborhood meetings and various staff committees where they have had lots of discussion, it is interesting to see the assets of the community really come forward and being looked at. Ms. Jones stated one thing they have realized through this is that we are close to the central City, and they really see that as an asset to the community economically. We have great road access. Business owners will often comment to them that is why they want to stay in Fridley or they want to buy a piece of property in Fridley and move here. We are lucky to have lots of key facilities in this community. Not all communities can boast they have a hospital and several clinics. We have more jobs than workers in Fridley. The public fairly sees the Mississippi River and Rice Creek as wonderful natural amenities, and Medtronic world headquarters facility came up time and time again in the meetings as something people were proud of. Ms. Jones stated one of the challenges that came out is the traffic congestion. Only 21 percent of the people that live in Fridley work in Fridley. We also have a greater aged population than any other city in Anoka County. Baby boomer generation aging is going to greatly increase and impact Fridley. We also have aging housing infrastructure and aging businesses. There was a lot of concern raised in the neighborhood meetings, and they saw that in the redevelopment area map and in the plan about some of the retail centers really needing some redevelopment. We have an aged infrastructure. We have done a lot to rebuild our streets and just have one more year to finish those reconstruction projects. We have aged sewer and water systems. As everywhere else we have limited financial resources as well. Ms. Jones stated through all of her conversations with citizens, etc. she has found the City is really in a pivotal stage of Fridley's history. In history section put together in the Comprehensive Plan, there are certain times in Fridley's history where Fridley had to make a decision early what county they were going to become and chose to become part of Anoka County. She thinks right now there is a strong feeling they need to either embrace the fact we are a first-string suburb and we can see the towers of Minneapolis or we can fight it and try and keep it a rural community. The Comprehensive Plan really embraces the fight that we have a lot of potential of becoming a more urbanized community. There is huge support from the community to not only bring a rail station here but also to finance it. Ms. Jones stated they have come up with a plan to connect Medtronic Parkway to 57�' Avenue to East River Road. They also have related to road connection, a redevelopment plan they have sketched out for there. They are calling it City View. They are focusing heavily to meet Council's requirements but partly because they see a real opportunity there. They are focusing on getting more cycle transportation connections in the community and pedestrians connections to our bus stops and park and ride sites. Ms. Jones stated they are supporting the safe route to school program to get more kids walking and biking to school instead of dropped off by their parents. They are looking at how they can forge a better partnership in regards to improving our roadways. The City has invested a lot in 11 improving through streets, but our county and state roads are looking very tired and in need of help. They strongly that if we are going to bring quality developers to this community to try and get things redeveloped, we need to address those roadways. Ms. Jones showed an aerial view to help visualize what they are talking about in connecting 57`� Avenue. Their concept is to connect Medtronic Parkway to the residential neighborhood, 57�' Avenue, and then across University further over to the west and on over past the Cub Foods, past Home Depot, to what was an industrial site owned by JLT. They see a great opporlunity to do this right now because that site that is vacant, it is going to be replatted, and likely to obta�n easements necessary to continue that roadway. This of course involves building a bridge over the railroad tracks. Ms. Jones stated this is a rather aggressive concept, but they have many reasons why they feel it is very important. The main reason that came out early in their staff ineetings and land use committee meetings with the Police and Fire Departments is they really need for public safety another east-west connection in the community. Obviously 694 is very jammed up during rush hours. In terms of flooding they cannot get underneath the railroad tracks on Mississippi Street because it floods. So that leaves them going across Osborne or 85�' which they have to hope and pray that there is no train passing at East River Road. Ms. Jones stated it was kind of surprising to them they heard in the neighborhood meetings there is rumbling about people wanting to have a walkable downtown in Fridley, such as Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove or the Silver Lake shopping center area in St. Anthony. Staff asked some more questions about that in the telephone survey and they thought about this, too, in their meetings because they asked where would a walkable downtown be. However, with this connection from Medtronic Parkway over East River Road, it seems like a great area and an opportunity for that because we could create this parkway with bikeways, walkways, new mixed use development where we could have some retail and housing mix and create that type of environment. Ms. Jones stated she and Mr. Hickok have had some discussions with some of the retailers in that area and would create some retail excitement because all of a sudden they see the opportunity of connecting Fridley's largest employer, Medtronic, with our key and largest commercial area in the City. Also, it would also connect that area to the Northstar Rail Station site which would be very close by. Ms. Jones stated it is also a redevelopment opporiunity for some new senior housing which we have heard loud and clear in our meetings and in the telephone survey that people want and are going to need in the very near future in Fridley. The projections are about 10 years out when we are really going to need that housing in a big way in our community. Particularly assisted living has come out as the key type of housing that people see a need for. Ms. Jones stated it also offers another recreational connection to the Mississippi River which we have heard about a lot in our neighborhood communities. She did not know they had so many bikers in Fridley that are interested in another east-west connection, and they have also been interested in the tunnel at the Northstar Rail site as another east-west connection for bikers and pedestrians to get over to the regional trail along the Mississippi River. 12 Ms. Jones stated she thinks the City View plan involves the neighborhood that would be impacted by bringing through Medtronic Parkway to the west. The architectural student who worked as an intern for the City last summer put together drawings. It offers a mu�ed-use development along the new roadway. One of the panel experts at the Corridor Housing Initiative meetings talked about the redevelopment area on University Avenue between 61St and 57�', and there was a real desire to put some senior housing there. However, it was difficult in a small site without having a larger site in a community of a hub where they could have a lot of those key services for transportation and the congregate dining etc. for seniors. Ms. Jones stated they see a real opportunity to have this area as one of those hubs where you could have different types of senior housing in one continuum of care type area where you can have separate single-family homes and cottages, apartment, assisted living, and memory care in separate buildings and all within one area. Of course it addresses that concern about meeting assisted living care here in Fridley. Ms. Jones presented a drawing of how the area could look with a tree-lined parkway with the commercial development on the first floor of those buildings along the new parkway with outdoor cafe type seating outside and housing up above on the second level. A section of the street could actually be blocked off for special events that may be a craft fair or farmers market or something like that and create more interest in the area for people to walk and bike through the area. The overhead utilities buried and some decorative lighting put in place. Ms. Jones stated they developed a redevelopment area map as part of the plan based on a lot of the feedback that they have gotten which includes 11 different redevelopment axeas for the community. A lot of these areas came up of community interest and they are explained in the economic and redevelopment plan they have before them. That is really what she wants to really concentrate on. Staff would like to get some feedback and make sure they are in the right direction on those things. Ms. Jones stated only a small percentage of workers in Fridley are actually living here. They would like to ask employees in a survey what their employees are looking for in housing and amenities. We are obviously supporting the Northstar Rail Station site in that plan and have figured in there that the HRA or the City would continue to seek what special legislation to help fund that station site in the redevelopment around it. They want to encourage retail development. They are not saying in the plan that the City is going to fund retail development, but try and do everything they can to encourage some of those sites that are on that map. Ms. Jones stated they think that the City should look into creating this walkable downtown and put some resources in that direction to create some excitement in our central retail area and hopefully some of those other areas will develop spurt upon interest around them. They would like to continue the redevelopment review committee to help keep businesses here. This is a staff committee that meets every Tuesday morning where they encourage businesses that are looking to expand or possibly move into a new site to meet with them to try and work with them early on to help solve some of the difficulties of redevelopment. L3 Ms. Jones stated probably the most unique thing they have in the plan is the idea of putting a restaurant on the river. They have heard loud and clear in the last Comprehensive Plan that people want more sit-down restaurants in Fridley. They have heard it very loud and clear again this time around. One of the ideas they came up with is we have these beautiful park axeas in Fridley, and would it not be wonderful if we could come up with a way to put a restaurant in one of those park areas in Fridley to kind of create some interest and getting more people to the river and opening that up. Ms. Jones stated as far as the housing plans and the action in steps, they are putting in there that we should consider adoption of a housing maintenance code. Again in the telephone survey there was public interest in doing that and again funding it as well. Our housing stock is aged and, although it is in very good condition, they feel that the time to look at that is when things are still in good condition. Staff feels strongly that the HRA should continue the housing program that they have in place. It has been very successful and seems to very much still be needed. Staff feels the City should support any senior townhome or condominium development that comes our way because again there seems to be strong public desire for that type of housing. It is also going to be important for the City to support services for seniors to have them stay in their home. Statistics show that a lot of elderly folks want to stay in their homes absolutely as long as they can but in order for them to do that, they need in-home medical services, good transportation services, and yard care services. That would be a challenge in the future with the change in the dynamics of the age distribution of the population. Ms. Jones stated they support loans for retrofitting homes to help seniors stay in their homes, installing ramps, and anything that could create a one-level living situation for them in their existing homes. Also because they want those homes to turn over to new first time home buyers and help our school district in getting new families move into the community and also continue the first-time home buyer program. Staff feels the City should look into promoting private redevelopment of our aging rental structures. It would be difficult to do using public funds and would be more of a private venture but, again, she is interested in what they think about that. The City should recognize there is a need for subsidized housing that has been very difficult to deal with when those cases have come before the City. However, if you look at the numbers in the plan, there is definitely a strong need for subsidized housing. They have long waiting lists for the existing facilities. Staff thinks the City should carefully evaluate the continued participation in the livable communities program. It is getting to be more and more difficult for us to meet those requirements. Ms. Jones stated the staff likes the idea of developing a housing manual for new homeowners and actually another similar idea is partnering it within the parks and trails chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would like to be sure that all our rental property is licensed as they see a potential problem. They have an idea of recognizing the historical significance of some of the particular architectuxal styles of ramblers we have in the community, perhaps have some signs at some homes in certain areas. Ms. Jones stated they need to look at amending the Hyde Park zoning to allow redevelopment of our current multi-family properties to new multi-family properties. The current zoning only allows the property to be redeveloped into single-family homes. They see that as a real problem 14 because how is anyone ever going to be interested in reinvesting if they own a multi-family property. Knowing at some point when that is building is beyond its useful life, all they can ever build there are single-family homes. Obviously the economics are not there to have anyone interested in owning a property like that. Particularly with the Northstar Rail coming through people will have a real interest living in that particular neighborhood. � Ms. Jones stated on the Plan before them there will probably be a requirement to put in our Plan room in the City for another 116 affordable housing units somewhere by the year 2020. Staff had said this early on in the process, they had confirmed the number, and it is more than feasible to be able to accommodate those affordable housing units in existing property that is zoned R-2 or R-3 that has single-family homes in it now. She believed 215 properties could be redeveloped without any change in zoning. They have had properry adequately zoned right now to easily accommodate that in the plan. Commissioner Gabel asked the 116 more units, is that what they need to meet Met Council's requirements? Ms. Jones stated Metropolitan Council knows that there is an affordable housing need in the metro area. They took a look at the amount of affordable housing they felt each community needed and divided that up by Cities. They took into account the amount of affordable housing a city already had, how well they were connected to public transit, and different criteria. There were several cities in Anoka County that have to provide over 1,000 units. Ours is much less because we already have a great deal of affordable housing. Over half of our housing right now is considered affordable. The timing of that is a little bit different because of our Plan being a 2030 plan, those numbers are from 2011 to 2020. Not to necessarily build that housing or finance that housing but they just want to ensure in the City's plan that we have enough space in our City and land is properly zoned to accommodate that level of affordable housing in our community. Commissioner Gabel commented back in the 70's and 80's, she was on the Planning Commission and that was one of their goals in the Comprehensive Plan at that time. It seems like it is so very difficult to do because of how our City is divided with the four school districts and the major highways. She asked Ms. Jones if the parkway would be a way of trying to overcome that? Ms. Jones replied, yes, partially. She thinks a big part of it in talking to folks who were familiar with the restaurant business, that it is very key in locating a fine dining restaurant. To have solid nighttime population nearby interested in patronizing that restaurant. However, the daytime traffic is important for the financial feasibility for such a restaurant. They see the inclusion of the Medtronic world headquarters here, even though they do have their own cafeteria at their facility. However, if they want to wine and dine an executive who is coming to town and visiting for the day, for example, where are they going to go in Fridley? They see an opportunity with the daytime traffic with the large daytime business community we have here in the City. She thinks connecting it to the river is a key piece, too, because people do not go out just to eat anymore, they go out for an experience. She thinks they could provide a very unique experience 15 here in Fridley by having a location right on the river and in the midst of a beautiful park where people could go out and enjoy the park before and after dinner as well. Commissioner Gabel stated she does agree with the concept of doing something with those rental units but they are going to scream bloody murder. It is like climbing a mountain. Mr. Hickok stated there is some irony in that one of the things they hear from the public through the housing forums and through the public input sessions is that folks in Hyde Park thought the City should concentrate on fixing up the apartments. One of the most common answers is, well, fix up the apartment buildings. However, there is a disincentive to fix up those buildings when their destiny is to become single-family lots. When you look at the development potential, the yield they could get, they might have an 11-unit building on a piece of land that could only yield 2 1/2 single-family lots. Commissioner Gabel stated she thinks the timing could be right because she has noticed the houses are going in on Third Street, an apartment building sprucing things up and planting things and making things look better. There could be some domino effect there. Commissioner Holm stated as noted the City is facing limited financial resources. When he sees the nice future of a walkway from Medtronic Parkway all the way across to East River Road, he sees big dollax signs for that and maybe that should be 2050. In terms of limited financial resources also, when you talk about services for seniors there should be some recognition to seniors that has to be on a need basis rather than on an overall provision of services to seniors. As a senior himself, he does not expect the taxpayer to pay for services to him that he can afford himself. There has to be care in how they use our financial resources so that they do not overspend in some areas. He is just using that as an example. Ms. Jones stated the copies she provided were very early drafts and a lot of things have actually changed since those were written. Commissioner Gabel stated she does think they need to do something about senior housing. The Commissioner member who left last ended up moving to Blaine because she wanted a single-story townhouse and there was nothing like that in Fridley. She would have stayed in Fridley if she could have found what she wanted. There are other people in their age bracket that the same thing has happened to. She thinks there is a huge need for it now. Ms. Jones replied, yes, she would agree. Commissioner Gabel stated she was not sure that is going to go either, but she thinks the need is definitely there. Commissioner Holm stated a lot of that also is market-based and seeing the difficulty that private developers have had in developing projects for seniors. ADJOURNMENT: 16 MOTION by Commissioner Gabel, seconded by Commissioner Holm, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOITE, CHAIltPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, �-��� � �, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 17 CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING � `� �S—O � Name and Address Agenda Item of Interest �2�.�� ,�� ��� l/� c,� � ° � ., s- �� �. ! � �/ � ' �� � B /C� ( �I !� G� � e� � � � � // - � / e 1V �� — I�'�l�c �Zf l e2 i��� e,P��. ��v�