052615WorksessionCompleteAgendaSPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
MAY 26, 2015
6:00 PM
Call to order
Consideration of the ranking of development proposals received for the Cedar Point Housing
Redevelopment area.
Council Staff Report No. 77/HRA Staff Report No. 20
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least
96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
AGENDA SECTION: Special Meeting Items
AGENDA ITEM #
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NO. 77/HRA STAFF REPORT NO. 20
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5/26/2015
REPORT PREPARED BY: Karen Barton, Community Development Assistant Director
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
5/19/2015
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
5/20/2015
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the ranking of development proposals received for the Cedar Point Housing
Redevelopment area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2004, the Cedar Point Housing area was designated by the City Council as a redevelopment project area
included in the larger Cedar Corridor Redevelopment. The Cedar Point Housing area, bounded by 63rd
Street to the north, 65th Street to the south, 16th Avenue to the west, and Richfield Parkway to the east is
guided in the City of Richfield 2008 Comprehensive Plan for High -Density Multi -family housing, calling for a
minimum of 24 units per acre. The zoning of this area was changed in 2010 to reflect this designation.
Over the past several months, a number of developers have approached the City offering development
proposals for the Cedar Point Housing area. The developers were invited to present their proposals to the
City Council and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) at a work session on April 14,
2015. Given the large number of proposals, the Council and HRA directed staff to gather additional
information from the developers and subsequently held a second work session on May 12, 2015 to further
discuss the proposals.
At this time, the developers are eager to have the Council and HRA select a preferred developer for the
project to ensure a timely commencement of the project and avoid delaying construction.
In an effort to facilitate this process, City Council members and HRA commissioners will be asked to
individually rank their development proposal preferences at tonight's meeting. Staff will subsequently compile
the rankings and provide the Council and HRA with a follow-up memo detailing the results.
Once a preferred developer is selected, that developer will be asked to begin the development process by
commencing a comprehensive public input undertaking to refine their proposal in such a way that
incorporates the community needs and desires to the fullest extent possible.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No Formal Action Required.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
• The Cedar Point Housing area was designated as a redevelopment area in 2004.
• The Cedar Point Housing area is guided in the City of Richfield's 2008 Comprehensive Plan for
high-density, multi -family housing at a minimum of 24 units per acre.
• The Cedar Point Housing area is currently zoned for high-density, multi -family housing.
• There have been several proposals for development of the area between 2008 and 2014.
• City Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in 2008 and two Request for Proposals
(RFP) in 2008 and again in 2013.
• The HRA selected LaNel Financial to develop a senior housing project for the area in 2008.
However, due to the economic downturn, the development did not materialize.
• In 2013, Sherman and Associates presented a proposal for the development of senior housing in
the project area. However, policy makers were not interested in a senior housing development at
that time.
• In 2014, Projectus International submitted a proposal for a market -rate rental housing
development in the project area. Projectus later withdrew their proposal.
• In the past several months, six developers have approached the City with various development
proposals for the project area.
• Letters have been sent to the neighbors across from the project area notifying them of the current
proceedings.
• Community and resident feedback was solicited via Richfield Connect, the City's Website,
Facebook, Twitter, and mailings. A summary of the comments received was provided to the City
Council and HRA in a memo dated May 21, 2015.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
City of Richfield 2008 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
• Ensure sufficient diversity in the housing stock to provide for a range of household
sizes, income levels, and needs.
• Ensure redevelopment and infill projects maintain the integrity of existing
neighborhoods.
• Maintain an appropriate mix of housing types in each neighborhood based on available
amenities, transportation resources and adjacent land uses.
• Limit redevelopment of single-family neighborhoods into other uses except where such
neighborhoods are directly adjacent to commercial areas or areas adversely affected
by major roadways, the airport, or other major developments.
• Maintain a housing supply that meets changing needs while sustaining the integrity of
existing neighborhoods.
• Develop residential standards (scale, density, etc.) for redevelopment areas that
creates neighborhood character.
• Maintain and provide quality amenities and a safe living environment.
• Maintaining a diversity of housing types and price ranges.
• Provide housing options for all points in a person's life.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Selection of a preferred developer is critical in ensuring timely commencement of the
development process and avoiding delay of construction.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The developers have expended significant time and money preparing and presenting the
preliminary proposals.
• Development of the Cedar Point Housing area will likely require the use of Tax Increment
Financing.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
None.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
None.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Representatives from the six development teams.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
❑ Cedar Point II May 20, 2015 MCD Backup Material
❑ Cedar Shores Letter to the City of Richfield Backup Material
❑ Boisclair additional information 05202015 Backup Material
❑ Olson-Tushie Additional Information 05212015 Backup Material
nn
C;3
MESABA CAPITAL
11ARTNE,,
CEDAR POINT II HOUSING - RICHFIELD, MN
Mesaba Capital & Trident Development
Our proposed site plan has been informed by four overarching design objectives:
1. Provide a park -like transition from existing neighborhood: 16th Avenue Park.
2. To comply with all existing zoning requirements without requests for variances.
3. To enhance the community through design excellence.
4. To engage the community in the process.
16th Avenue 'Park':
• A key driver of the site concept is the 50'-0" boulevard 'park' along 16th Avenue, from back of curb. We have
removed the surface parking in this area and relocated underground. The depth of this boulevard park is
equal to a five story building.
Our priority is to preserve the character of the residential neighborhood and the natural amenities of the site,
including — and especially - the large, mature boulevard trees along 16th Avenue.
• The boulevard park will provide a pedestrian and bike connection to Taft Park and beyond.
• Parking surfaces will be heavily screened with beautifully landscaped berms, and not visible from the
adjacent single-family properties.
• Primary vehicular access to the site is from Richfield Parkway, minimizing traffic impact to 16th Avenue and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Zonina Reauirements:
• Our team understands the importance of zoning regulations. We have diligently reviewed, met with City
Staff, and incorporated the zoning ordinances, without future requests for variances.
• Parking - We also understand the importance of providing the required parking on site, to ensure that the
surrounding neighborhoods do not feel the impact of additional street parking. We have provided parking to
code. *Note: from our original site plan (April 14), we have reduce surface parking and increased
underground.
■ Upscale Market Rate Apts. - 320 Stalls TOTAL (88 surface & 232 underground)
■ Assisted Living — 114 Stalls TOTAL (40 surface & 74 underground)
• Open Space and Building Lot Coverage — meets and/or exceeds the zoning ordinances.
Design Excellence:
• The vertical built elements are concentrated on the east side of the site along Richfield Pkwy, with the
proposed structure set back over 100'-0" from back of curb on 16th Avenue.
• Shadows from the new construction will be cast on the development site and NOT on the existing adjacent
residential neighbors.
• First floor units will be town home -style, providing pedestrian activities and entries at the ground level.
• Architecture will provide articulation and scaling elements that will address both its residential and
commercial neighbors.
Engaae the Community
• We understand that people are the most important component of all our projects; those we work with, those
who occupy the buildings, those who visit, and those who live in Richfield.
• To gain public support and help reduce potential conflicts, citizen input is essential. Our team has a depth
of expertise in public participation. Mesaba Capital Development will host public meetings in partnership with
the City of Richfield.
Assemblage of single-family homes:
• Our team has the depth of experience required to assemble the single-family homes.
• However, should there be a hold-out, we can move forward with our design with minor modifications along
16th Avenue.
Pg. 1 05.20.2015
May 20, 2015
LOMMEN ABDO
MN/WI/NY
Karen Barton
Community Development Assistant Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Barton:
Cedar Shores Development Group thanks you for the opportunity to offer a final overview of
our proposal. We will highlight its unique features and demonstrate that our proposal is the
most financially feasible option and creates the most value for the City.
Driving this project is the cost of land acquisition. With an assessment in excess of $780,000 and
the cost to relocated existing homes, land acquisition will be at least $3,750,000. This requires a
careful consideration of density balancing construction costs and supportable rents. The site is
suited for up to 500,000 square feet of living space. Weis Construction is confident that our
design can be realized at a cost of $115/ square foot. The market will currently support market
rate rent of $1.60/ square foot and affordable units at $.095/ square foot. We anticipate an initial
TIF contribution of $550,000. Current financing rates are favorable, but rates and construction
costs will increase over the life of this project. Considering these parameters, the highest and
best use of the property is market-based apartments with a 20% affordable component. Lower
density options are simply not viable. We propose 296 units consisting of 23 studio, 100 one
bedroom, 28 one bedroom plus den, 116 two bedroom and 27 three bedroom units. The average
rent will be in the $1,500 range. The revenue generated from this mix will cover the cost of
development and fairly compensate the investors. This mix can be modified as residents are
given the opportunity to voice their preference.
Our proposal also adds the most value to the City. The design is groundbreaking and offers the
same type of urban lifestyle product in a suburban environment as is seen in the Excelsior &
Grand development. Key to our proposal is an open design that incorporates amenities that are
available to the neighborhood, not just the residents, building a true sense of community. The
buildings are integrated into the landscape, with warm earth colors and wood siding to create a
more intimate feel. Sound and light mitigation are built into the design, along with sustainable
technology such as solar powered utilities, green walls, wind powered lights, rain gardens to
buffer the boundary, community gardens, an art park, and an open piazza to draw neighbors
into the development. We believe you will find the value offered by our proposal to be
unmatched and the financial viability will ensure the project's success.
Very truly yours,
U , -�vL-
Michael R. Moline
Michael R. Moline �mmoline@lommen.c_om 1000 International Centre lommen.com
Attorney at Law tel 612.336.9354 920 Second Avenue South 800.752.4297
Locomen Abdo, P.A. fax 612.436.1479 Minneapolis, MN 55402
BOISCLAIR
C O R p O R A T 1 O N
Developing and Managing Real Estate Since 1974
Cedar Point II Apartments
Cedar Point II Townhomes
Richfield, MN
May 20, 2015
On behalf of the entire Development Team we want to extend our Warmest Thank You for the
opportunity to submit our proposal for Cedar Point II Apartments and Cedar Point II Townhomes.
Below is additional information on our proposal since its submittal.
- Tax Increment Financing — We understand the district to be a Redevelopment District and as
such affordability restrictions do not apply. It is a corporate mission to promote and include
affordable housing in our developments. We strongly believe; the inclusion of mixed housing
promotes economic and social integration. If deemed appropriate for Cedar Point II we would
propose to include a set aside of 20/50 Area median income or 46 units.
Project Development Plan — Our original proposal included two phases, however due to the
flexibility of our site plan; would like to stress that our proposed development plan could be
phased out in one, two or three phases.
- Financing — Ready for deployment to existing Lender relationships.
- Property Management — Cedar Point II will be owned and managed by Boisclair Corporation.
Boisclair Corporation has been developing and managing closely held investments in real estate
for the past 41 years.
Our mission is to provide residents with exemplary service in a safe, quality -driven home environment,
to provide partners and clients with maximized real estate asset values and provide communities with
increased tax base, ease their housing needs or add more jobs to the community. We quickly adapt to
the diversity of individual investors, markets and residents through sound leadership, an unparalleled
industry expertise and our unwavering commitment to service.
Cedar Point II will be a jewel in the City of Richfield given its sound leadership of the Mayor, City
Council, HRA and Community Members.
Sincerely,
Lori Boisclair
Karen Barton
From: Gary Tushie <GaryT@tmiarchitects.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:51 AM
To: John Stark; Karen Barton
Cc: 'kristilind@outlook.com'; 'Rick Fenske'
Subject: CEDAR POINT REDEVELOPMENT
Attachments: 201505131019.pdf
John/Karen;
Thank you for including our team in consideration for the redevelopment of the remaining Cedar Point site. Last night's
workshop session was an interesting discussion with the 6 developers. We would like to bring your attention to some
key points that were not discussed.
1) Senior housing with services, which is what we are proposing, not only is in strong demand by Richfield
residents (see the attached article) but offers a unique opportunity to future Richfield residents by freeing up
their affordable single family homes to new families and young professionals as these current older residents
transition into our new building at Cedar Point.
2) Senior Housing with services is the lowest traffic generator, by a wide margin, of all the proposal's submitted
which reduces the traffic impact to the surrounding single family neighborhood.
3) The special design requirements for sound mitigation on this site do not allow for individual outdoor decks or
patio's. Since all of the proposals, except ours, included market rate apartments which typically have this
feature. Are they aware of this requirement?
4) 1 don't think it was made clear last night that our project does include 60 memory care units which is in very high
demand in Richfield, more so than market rate or affordable apartments.
5) It was apparent from the site plans submitted that our plan had the greatest amount of green space which is of
great value to the surrounding neighborhood.
6) Although I am a strong proponent of affordable housing, based upon our past experience in Richfield, Richfield
residents do not appear to support this kind of housing as they feel Richfield already has enough affordable
housing. So proceeding with a decision on a specific proposal that includes an affordable component without
sufficient public input may lead to unfavorable political issues latter in the process as they did with our previous
project. I think this discussion needs to occur both internally and publically.
Once again, thank you for working with our Team on this project. We look forward to moving forward with the next
phases of this process.
Gary Tushie ; E °rar';IilE:frf
'FUSHIE MONTGOMERY ARCI.1U1-FC`1'S
y, .i:.,r Averrm, ;t fA
i oih .� i • 1: � � 41iS: • F.... , . ,i.
Architects I Space Planners I Landscape Architects I Interior Designers