04-20-87 agendaS~/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 12
April 20, 1987
Issue Statement:
The City Council, at their meeting of April 13, 1987 referred the
text of a proposed zoning district which would be applied to a
portion of the ILN to the HRA for discussion and comment. A copy
of the proposed ordinance is attached.
Background:
On March 2, 1987 the HRA and Planning Commission met with the
City Council to discuss a strategy fos managing.-that portion of
the ILN south of 77th Street. .The primary management tool was to
be a new zoning district identified as C-3 High Density
Commercial.
The development opportunity which the city has in the ILN area is
unique and must be properly managed to realize its potential and
the established goals. In general the goals include: creating a
favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate
businesses; minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the
residential and commercial areas; broadening the tax base; and
providing for economic growth and employment opportunities.
It will probably take 10 to 15 years to accomplish these goals in
the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on the
market conditions and the LHN experience. In the LHN area, the
redevelopment plan was approved in 1975. Construction on the
first redevelopment parcel was initiated three years later in
1978. Nine years following, in 1987, the last redevelopment
project may be initiated. on the Graham Avenue site. Most of this
development took place in a very growth orientated market.
The city is ready for redevelopment in the ILN, but.-the market
for appropriate development is "soft". The market is not growth
orientated. The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment
potential of the area until the market is ready.
Staff has had discussions with developers and consultants. These
discussions culminated on February 10th when the BRW consulting
firm invited developers active in the greater Minneapolis market
to a meeting which was also attended by Mayor Hamilton, Chairman
Harms and staff. (Attached is a summary of the discussion).
Recommendation:
The HRA should urge the City Council to establish a new C-3
zoning district, and rezone the area south of 77th Street in
the ILN between I35W and the railroad track, to that of C-3. In
general, the ordinance would require that new development meet
minimum standards in terms of lot size and area. and floor area
ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single-
family and two family dwellings would also be included.
Four criticalelements of the ordinance warrant comment:
Subdivision 3, Subdivision 5 Subdivision 8 and Subdivision 10.
-- ~..~
Subdivision 3 addresses nonconforming uses.. Most all existing
buildings within the district would become .nonconforming. Under
this proposed ordinance such buildings could be expanded by no
more than ten percent within any two consecutive years. An
existing zoning ordinance, Section 3.29, Subdivision 2, addresses
nonconforming uses. There is one significant restriction in the
existing ordinance which would affect these structures. If a
structure was damaged to the extent that it lost more than 50% of
its value, it could not be rebuilt.
Existing uses which are not permitted under the proposed
ordinance would also become nonconforming. The nonconforming
uses would be those which rely on outdoor storage. Under the
provisions of Section 3.29, the use could not be expanded to
occupy a greater land area.
Subdivision 5 regulates floor area ratio. The FAR, or floor area
ratio, establishes a relationship between the number of square
feet of building and the square feet of lot area. This ordinance
proposes an FAR of at least 0.75. Thus, a lot of 100,000 square
feet would require a building of at least 75,000 square feet. To
accommodate development with this FAR, parking structures would
be necessary. This FAR is key to achieving the aforementioned
goals for the area. A model to help depict this concept will be
used at the HRA meeting.
Subdivision 8 prohibits buildings of a height which would cast a
shadow on land occupied by single-family and two-family dwellings
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. An exception could
be made to this restriction, however, if a developer proposed a
mitigating measure. An example of such a measure would be the
purchase by the developer of a solar access easement from the
impacted property owner.
Subdivision 10 deals with parking. The parking standards in this
ordinance vary from the present requirements of the city. For
example, retail parking in the proposed ordinance calls for one
space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Current
zoning guidelines indicate one space for every 200 square feet of
gross floor area. However, the lower requirements are justified
because the type of development required by this proposed
ordinance through the FAR and other minimum standards would
result in development with shared parking. Parking provided on a
shared bases is utilized more efficiently and thus the number of
spaces required is less. Restaurant parking is also slightly
less than the existing ordinance. For the office space the
proposal requires slightly more spaces than existing
requirements.
The parking standards in this proposed ordinance are based on the
experience of the consulting firm of BRW and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
S-3
Basis of Recommendation:
The new zoning district ordinance and the. rezoning of this
property to the C-3 designation are critical to the successful
management of the ILN area. The goals of broadening the tax
base, providing for economic growth and employment opportunities,
fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses and
eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial
areas, can best be achieved this way.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject the proposed zoning ordinance definition.
2. Reject the designation of the area south of 77th Street
as C-3.
3. Modify portions of the proposed ordinance.
4. Modify the area proposed to be rezoned.
Decision Mode:
1. If a new zoning district is to be utilized as a management
tool for a portion of the ILN, it must be in effect prior to
September 22, 1987 when the building permit moratorium
expires.
2. The City Council also referred the concept to the Planning
Commission which will be holding a public hearing on the item
April 28, 1987.
3. Two informational meetings have been scheduled. On April 21,
a meeting has been scheduled for business people from the
area at 8:00 a.m. at the American Legion. In the evening at
8:00 p.m. a meeting has been scheduled for the residents. It
will be held at Emerson Avenue Congregational Church. The
HRA received a copy of the letter which invited people to the
meetings.
4. Staff has met with some of the existing property and/or
business owners in this area who have indicated an interest
in redevelopment in this area to review the future direction
of the city in this portion of the ILN.
Respec ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ex utive Director
-y
_~~
~._ ``
~ ~_"~ ~,
'~~t~ ' ~
BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. THRESHER SQUARE
PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 PHONE 612/370.0700
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
DATE: April 15, 1987
FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP
Ron Batty (LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brian, and Drawz)
SUBJECT: ILN Study Freeway Zone Regulations
Draft
Following is a draft of the recommended zoning regulations for the freeway fron-
tage between West 77th Street and I-494 in the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN)
Redevelopment Project Area.
The regulations are designed and intended to be applied in portions of the ILN
Redevelopment Project Area for the purposes of implementing the ILN
Redevelopment Plan and accomplishing the public purposes of that Plan. As part
of the overall goals and objectives for the ILN Redevelopment Project Area, the
ILN Redevelopment Plan calls for the preparation of ".., guidelines and/or ordi-
nance provisions for the issuance of construction permits which would help
assure that proposed development would be in conformance with the. redevelopment
plan activities and would realize the full potential of the unique location of
this area in terms of development intensity, employment opportunities, economic
growth, and tax base."
3.33A. USE REGULATIONS FOR "C-3" HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the "C-3" high-density commercial district
are to insure that:
(1) Land in this district is developed to its maximum potential.
(2) Fragmentation of land parcels is minimized.
(3) Development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and intent of the
city's comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plans established for the
district.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. In the "C-3" high-density commercial district, unless
otherwise provided in this chapter, the following uses are permitted:
(1) Retail or service businesses, but not including businesses which involve
outdoor storage of goods or materials.
DAVID J. BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E. JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A. AMUNDSEN
DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN B. McNAMARA DONALD L. CRAIG RICHARD D. PILGRIM DALE N. BECKMANN DENNIS J. SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX
~S
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 2
(2) Office buildings.
(3) Hotels/Motels
(4) Residential. buildings.
(5) Parking structures.
(6) Other businesses which are determined by the council to be of the
general character as the uses listed in this section and which would not be
obnoxious~or detrimental to the area in which they would be located.
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Uses. All provisions of Section 3.29 shall apply to
this district except that:
(1) A nonconforming structure may be expanded within any consecutive two
calendar-year period by no more than ten percent (10~) of its gross floor area
provided the expansion meets all other applicable city ordinance requirements.
Subd. 4. Procedures. All proposals shall be reviewed under the site plan
approval process as set forth below:
(1) Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval it shall
be unlaw u to o any o the following within the "C-3" district:
(a) construct a building;
(b) move a building to any lot;
(c) expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land or modify
a building, accessory structure or site or land feature in any manner which
results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for addi-
tional parking;
(d) grade or take other actions to prepare a site for development,
except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan; or
(e) remove earth, soils, gravel or other natural material from or place
the same on a site, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan.
Notwithstanding the above, .site plan approval shall not be required for enlarge-
ment of a building by 10 percent or less of its gross floor area or changes in
the leasable space of a multi-tenant building, provided no variances are
required and the modifications do not significantly intensify use of the site.
S~
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL. MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 3
(2) Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the
city planner on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the
following:
(a) a plat or map of the property showing the proposed improvements;.
(b) project phasing and timing;
(c) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
(d) a fee as specified in Appendix D;
(e) complete building elevations and typical floor plans, signed by a
registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other appropriate
design professional; and
(f) such other information as may be required by the city.
(3) Public Heari~~n~~~. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for a pu6~ic~iearing before the planning commission. The hearing will be
held no less than 10 days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of proper-
ties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 45 days
after. the close of the public hearing the planning commission shall submit its
recommendations to the city council-. Following such notice and hearing as the
city council deems appropriate, the city council shall make a decision regarding
the application.
Subd. 4. General Criteria and Standards.
(1) General Standards. In evaluating a site plan, the planning commission
and city council shall consider its compliance with the following:
(a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's develop-
ment guides, including the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plans
established for the district;
(b) consistency with this ordinance;
(c) preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent prac-
ticable by minimizing tree and soil removal;
(d) creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces
with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a
visual relationship to the development;
7
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 4
(e) creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and
site features, with special attention to the following:
(i) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the
site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community;
(ii) the amount and location of open space and landscaping;
(iii) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an
expression of the design concept and the compatability of the same with .the
adjacent. and neighboring structures and uses; and
(iv) vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways,
interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to
the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and
amount of parking.
(f) promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orien-
tation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures
and the use of landscape materials and site grading; and
(g) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reason-
able provision for sound and sight buffers, preservation of view, light and air
and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which
may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
(2) Architectural Standards.
(a) It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly
when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site plan. However, it
is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural
design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.
Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified person
acceptable to the city planner and shall show the following:
(i) elevations of all sides of the building;
(ii) type and color of exterior building materials;
(iii) typical floor plans;
(iv) dimensions of all structures; and
~~
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 5
(v) the location of trash containers and of exterior electrical,
heating, ventilation, and .air conditioning equipment.
(b) Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and un-
finished metal, except naturally weathering metals such as copper, shall not be
permitted as exterior materials for buildings. This restriction shall apply to
all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except those accessory
buildings not visible from any exterior property line.
(c) All rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and exterior
trash storage-areas shall be enclosed with materials compatible with the prin-
cipal structure. Low profile, self-contained mechanical units which blend in
with the building architecture are exempt from the screening requirement.
(d) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substan-
tially renovated structures.
(3) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a
landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city planner,
drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equaling 50 feet and showing the
following:
(a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
(b) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads
and other improvements;
(c) proposed grading plan with at least two-foot contour intervals;
(d) ,location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and
shrubs;
(e) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and
botanical names,. size of plant materials, root condition and special planting
instructions;
(f) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant
material;
(g) locations and details of other landscape features including berms,
fences and planter boxes;
(h) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded or seeded;
(i) location and details of irrigation systems; and
S-7
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 6
(j) details and cross sections of all required screening.
(4) Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
(a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required
parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of
overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials.
All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an underground mechanical irrigation
system. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery,
trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with
the following table:
MINIMUM LANDSCAPING UALUES
Project Value
(Including building construction,
site preparation, and site
improvements) Minimum Landscape Value (All
construction costs including
plant material and installation
except design fees and other
administrative costs)
Below $1,000,000 = 2%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000 = $20,000 + 1% of Project
Value in excess of $1,000,000
$2,000,0001 - $3,000,000 = $30,000 + 0.75% of
Project Value in excess of
$2,000,000
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000 = $37,500 + 0.25% of
Project Value in excess of
$3,000,000
Over $4,000,000 = 1%
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site
prior to its development, the application of the standards in this subdivision
may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that
such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
(b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing
trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan.
S-/0
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 7
(c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from
the growing. site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall -have a minimum caliper of
2-1/2 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height.
Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches.
(d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots,
driveways, patios or similar hard-surf ace materials shall be covered with sod or
an equivalent ground cover approved by the city.
(e) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be
composed of one species. No required tree shall be any of the following:
(i) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to
be immune to Dutch Elm disease;
(ii) box elder; or
(iii) female ginko.
(5) Screening.
(a) The following shall be screened in accordance with the requirements
of this subdivision:
(i) Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces
shall be screened from streets located within 50 feet and from lots which are
used for any residential purpose.
(ii) Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public
roads.
(iii) Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines
and public roads.
(b) Required screening may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms,
hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architec-
turally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a
slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
(c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No
screening shall be located on any public right of way or within eight feet of
the traveled portion of any street or highway.
s- y
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 8
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance to the
contrary, screening required by this section shall be of a height needed to
accomplish the goals of this section.
Subd.. 5. Minimum Floor-Area Ratio. The minimum gross floor-area ratio (FAR)
for any lot sha a 0. 5.
Subd. 6. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum .lot width shall be 150 feet.
Subd. 7. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be 1.5 acres.
Subd. 8. Height Regulations. No building shall be so tall that a shadow is
cast onto a single- amii~ly oror two-family land parcel between the hours of
9:00 a.m, and 3:00 p.m. on any day of the year. The city council may make
exceptions to this requirement if the applicant can prove to the council's
satisfaction that measures have been taken to mitigate this solar access
requirement.
Subd. 9. Setback Requirements. The following minimum requirements apply to all
improvements hereafter erected or structurally altered in a "C-3" district, sub-
ject to modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter.
(1) Buildings and Parking Structures.
(a) Building and parking structure setbacks along public streets shall
be 40 feet.
(b) A building or parking structure may extend to an interior lot line
if that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with such placement in
mind and a compatible relationship of uses, including circulation drives, open
space, parking areas, and glazed facades, results. Otherwise, the setback from
the interior lot line must be 10 feet or equal to at least one-quarter the
height of the building up to a maximum of 20 feet of setback.
(2) Surface Parking Areas:
(a) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any public street
right-of-way 10 feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of a
landscaped screen or berm with an average height of three feet between the
street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area.
(b) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any building 10 feet
or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping designed to sof-
ten the appearance of the building if such building is visible from any public
right-of-way.
s'-~ 2~
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 9
(3) Vehicular Circulation Aisles: Internal driveways shall be set back
from interior lot lines or structures 10 feet or a distance sufficient to allow
the placement of landscaping intended to soften the appearance of the driveway
from a public right-of-way or an adjacent building or parking ramp.
Subd. 10. Parkin Requirements. The following minimum off-street parking.
requirements sha a observe .
(1) Retail businesses: One space for every 250 square feet of gross floor
area.
(2) Restaurants and taverns: One space for every three seats plus one for
every two employees on the maximum shift.
(3) Office Buildings:
Gross Leasable
Square Feet Required Number of Spaces per 1,000
of Floor Area Square Feet of Floor Area
to 50,000 5.0/1,000 S.F.
50,001 to 100,000 250 spaces + 4.5 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 50,000 S.F.
100,001 to 150,000 475 spaces + 4.0 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 100,000 S.F..
over 150,001 675 spaces + 3.5 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 150,000 S.F.
(4) Residential Buildings: One and one-half spaces per housing unit plus
shared parking for visitors at the rate of one-half space per housing unit.
(5) Hotels: One space per sleeping room plus one space for every two
employees on the maximum shift.
The city council may reduce these parking requirements if the applicant can
prove to the council's satisfaction that fewer spaces are needed by benefit of
shared utilization of such parking among two or more uses or other special
characteristics of the particular activity.
Subd. 11. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective
agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and
free from refuse and debris. All landscape material and ground cover which are
required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be
replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for
compliance may be extended up to nine months_by the city planner in order to
allow for seasonal or weather conditions.
S-i3
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 10
Subd. 12. Security Required.When screening, landscaping or other similar impro-
vements to property are required by this ordinance security accpetable to the
city shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-
half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements. The
security shall be conditioned upon. reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the
city for engineering, legal. or other fees in connection with making or
completing such improvements. The security shall be provided prior to the
issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to
one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. In
the event construction of the project is not completed within the time
prescribed by building permits and other approvals,. the city may, at its option,
complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping
if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the
developer. Extensions may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions.
When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as
it .deems appropriate.
Upon completion of the improvements and inspection and final approval by the
city, the security may be released.
Subd. 13. Terms of Approval.
(1) A building permit shall be obtained and construction of the project
shall begin no later than one year following the date on which site plan appro-
val is granted, unless a different time period is specified and approved by the
city council or in a developer's agreement with the city. After the expiration
of such period the approval shall be null and void unless the city council
grants an extension of time or a building permit has been issued and substantial
work performed on the project. Upon request by the applicant, the city council
may grant an extension of time for a site plan approval.
(2) The city council may impose conditions in granting approval to site
plans to promote the intent of this section or to protect adjacent properties.
(3) Site plans shall be valid only for the project for which approval is
granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in substantial compliance
with the plans and specifications approved by the city council. Compliance
shall not be considered substantial if there is:
(a) more than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
(b) more than a ten percent change in the original approved separation
of buildings;.
s 'y
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987
Page 11
(c) more than a ten percent change in the original approved setbacks
from property lines;
(d) more than a 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the
building;
(e) any decrease in the ratio of off-street parking and loading space
to gross floor area in the building; or
(f) any increase in the height of any structure.
If the project is not in substantial compliance with the approved plans, then
the project shall be subject to review as specified in Subdivision 4 of this
section.
5-i 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 1987
T0: City Council/xRA
SUBJECT: Summary of ILN Redevelopment Project Workshop with
BRW Consultants, City Staff, Policy Makers and
Developers
LOCATION: BRW Office - 700 Third Street, Mpls.
Peter Jarvis, a principle with BRW opened the meeting by stating
the purpose. Three primary questions summarized the purpose.
1 Within the next 5 years, is the market for the area in
question (1494 freeway, property frontage west of Lyndale
Avenue) going to be as strong as was perceived when the
planning study was initiated 2 years ago for office, retail
and residential development, i.e., should the-city continue
to pursue dense development for the area?
2 How important is it for the city to be involved in site
assembly vs. developer being responsible for most of the site
assembly and allowing the development market to define
redevelopment?
3 How might the city rezone the area to allow higher density
development? (Identify the incentives which a developer
may need), i.e., minimum FAR, minimum parcel size
Arijs Pakalns gave a synopsis of project history and reviewed the
Redevelopment Plan.
Peter. Jarvis then asked each developer to respond to the
identified questions with their thoughts, be they positive or
negative. As you-will note, the responses were not always.
directly related to the questions but are still instructive.
Comments from: Boyd Stofer, Senior Vice President of United
Properties
The CDR site on an A to D rating scale is a B- to C+ site due to
several factors:
-Site is land locked (it is not on a full diamond freeway
interchange)
-Area lacks a positive environmental image
-Lyndale Avenue is the "front" door which needs to portray an
attractive image. t~uality of I494 & Lyndale Avenue sets
~-/-6
~ the mood for COR site. (Structures west of Lyndale Avenue
should be removed, at least the area should be cleared)
-This location is probably third in the southwest market
after the I494 area and west as far as Eden Prairie, (this
includes an overbuilt office and hotel market) There are
many sites in these areas which have better access and
higher quality environment. The airport area and stadium
site would be ranked after I494 and 35W
-Timing for Richfield's development in this area may be
5 years away.
Comments from: Bill Schatzlein, Vice President of Project
Development with M. A. Mortenson Company
-Area has an identity problem it is not clearly paxt of
a "neighborhood"
-When looking at the site it is questionable as to how one
would get there
-To be suitable for residential development, the area would
need 30 to 50 residential units/acre to be feasible but
marketability of that many units would be questionable
-Multifamily housing is currently overbuilt
Comments from: Warren Beck, Managing Partner of Gabbert do Beck
-site is not a discretionary retail store location
-It's questionable as to whether or not a retail project
could compete in the market place even if the market was
right due to the neighborhood image problem. Also
appropriate retail development may not be dense enough to
support TIF.
-The intersection of Lyndale and 494 should be developed
first
-buildings should not incorporate office, retail & housing
into one structure
-Mixed uses do not work well structurally & physically
Comments from: Chuck DuFresne, Executive Vice President of
Lincoln Properties:
-With the Mega Mall development on the east the market
along 1494 will improve and thus the land value in this area
will increase
-Office, and hotel markets are tight at this time
. .- ..
Conclusion:
S -i~
What should the city's development strategy be for the
future?
City Should:
-Not rely on the timely development of the CDR concept
-Develop an overall concept plan
-Get feedback from developers regarding concept plan
-Develop a master plan, with development phases, &
implement by year 2000
-Select a developer or developers and give them a 4 to 5 year
period to put together tenants for specific developments
y~
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 11
April 20, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to initiate demolition and site clearance at 6514
Irving Avenue and 6632 Fifth Avenue; proposed sites for 1987/88
Vo-Tech projects.
Background•
As part of•the single family home rehabilitation program, the HRA
acquired the identified sites in November, 1986. Bids have been
received by staff to initiate demolition and site clearance.
Seven contractors were contacted and provided specifications for
each site. The work required includes:
-removal of existing structures and trees that will interfere
with development and the use of the site with another single
family home.
-capping the existing wells, in accordance with city and state
requirements.
-posting a performance bond and insurance protection for the
work.
-work be completed by June 15, 1987.
The two sites were bid separately with the job to be awarded to
one contractor. Two experienced bidders with which the HRA has
worked before responded:
6514 Irvin 6632 Fifth Total
Doty & Sons Excavating 7,550 6,275 13,825
Turner Excavating $7,840 $6,054 $13,894
CDBG Year XII funds have been budgeted for the work. The 1987
budget estimated demolition costs at $10,000. The additional
$3,825 cost is associated with removing two large cottonwood
trees and capping the wells. Since the acquired sites were not
known at the time the CDBG budget was prepared, these additional
costs could not have been anticipated in advance. Relocation
expenses were estimated at $6,500 in the budget. However, no
benefits were paid as the owner-occupants agreed to forego them.
Thus, the additional revenue will be provided from the relocation
line. This summer, the HRA will be asked to authorize the next
step in this project:
-a construction contract with Vo-Tech to build a house on
campus and to relocate the house to 6632 Fifth Avenue.
-a contract with Vo-Tech, relocating a house from
6301 Portland Avenue to 6514 Irving Ave.
Staff will maintain the sites .free of litter and tall grass
during the interim period until construction starts.
y-z
Recommendation:
The HRA authorize Doty and Sons, Inc. to perform the site
clearance activities at 6514 Irving Ave. So. for $7,550 and 6632
Fifth Avenue for $6,275; all in accordance with the bid and
specifications. The total authorized amount is $13,825.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Doty & Sons, Inc. submitted the lowest total bid.
2. The selected contractor is experienced at performing this
type of work.
3. The sites have to be cleared to initiate the Vo-Tech
projects.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not accept the lowest total bid
2. Do not initiate site clearance at this time
Decision Mode•
Both houses are
timely manner.
vacant and removal should be accomplished in a
Respe lly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Exe tive Director
JDP/eja
3-/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYY
HRA Letter No. 10
April 20, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute Notices of Adverse Claims with respect
to the Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program.
Background•
The Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program administered by the
Richfield HRA, requires that a Repayment Agreement be filed as a
lien against each property improved. The lien is repaid to the
HRA if the property is sold within 30 years of the date of the
Agreement.
The Repayment Agreement for property with a Torrens Title cannot
be filed without the Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title.
Cases have arisen in which the Owners Duplicate Certificate of
Title has been unavaiable. The Repayment Agreement isn't filed
until the rehabilitation work is completed. The cost of the work
may fluctuate once it is initiated and the exact amount isn't
know until the work is done. Thus, there can be no filing until
the work is complete.
Without the Owners Duplicate, the HRA is not able to secure a
lien on the property. A Notice of Adverse Claim form has been
developed by legal counsel to enable the HRA to file a lien for
the property without the Owners Duplicate of Title. A copy of
the form is attached.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
which authorizes the Executive Director to execute Notices of
Adverse Claim.
Basis of Recommendation:
1 The HRA has no present means of filing a lien on Torrens
property without the Owners Duplicate of Title,
thereby, the ability to file a lien is controlled by the
homeowner.
2) Failure to promptly secure a lien on a property could
result in the loss of security to the HRA for funds it has
expended to homeowners. It would be difficult for the HRA to
collect on a loan if a property were sold prior to filing the
Repayment Agreement. .
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of Notices
of Adverse Claims. However, this would prevent the HRA from
ensuring prompt filing of Repayment Agreements to secure liens
for Torrens types of property.
3 - z-
Decision Mode:
There are currently three Repayment Agreements to be filed for
which the HRA has been unable to obtain the Owners Duplicate of
Title. Further delay in filing these Repayment Agreements would
jeopardize the HRA's ability to recover loan repayment if a sale
were to occur on any of these properties. It is important that
these Agreements be filed as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Ex c tive Director
33
HRA RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM
NOTICES OF ADVERSE CLAIMS
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. S462.445 Subd. 1(3) permits a Housing
and Redevelopment Authority to "delegate" to one or more of its
agents or employees such powers or duties as it may deem proper;
and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield
(hereinafter the "HRA") is an agent of the HRA; and
WHEREAS, it is a proper function of the Executive Director
of the HRA to execute "Notices of Adverse Claims" with respect to
HRA Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "HRA") that the Executive Director of the HRA is
hereby authorized to execute Notices of Adverse Claims (Minn.
Stat. S508.70) with respect to HRA Home Rehabilitation Deferred
Loans.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1987. ~
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
3-~
NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. S508.70
Pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. S508.70, the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
the state of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the "HRA"),
does hereby claim an adverse interest in property located in the
County of Hennepin, legally described as follows:
which is registered land as evidenced by that certain Certificate
of Title No. found at Volume , page on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota and that said interest is claimed by
reason of that certain agreement, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein specifically by
reference, which agreement was entered into between the HRA and
the
owner s) of said property, for the purpose of securing the
repayment of a home improvement deferred loan the HRA has given
to said owner(s) for the subject property. Despite the fact that
said owner(s) has/have voluntarily entered into said agreement,
said owner(s) refuse(s) to surrender the Owner's Duplicate
Certificate of Title, thus preventing the adverse claimant from
filing its interest with the Registrar of Titles. The HRA's
address ("residence" for purposes of said Section 508.70) at
which all notices may be served is 6700 Portland Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BY
James D. Prosser, Executive Director
3-5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
James D. Prosser, the Executive Director of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is
the Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Richfield; that he is duly authorized to
sign on behalf of said HRA by Resolution No. ; that he has
read the foregoing statement and knows the contents thereof; and
that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to those
matters therein stated on information and belief and as to such
matters he believes them to be true.
James D. Prosser, Executive Director
of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 1987.
Notary Public
Approved for Filing
Date:
Deputy Examiner of Titles
a~
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 9
April 20, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute an agreement which will pro-vide Fraser
Independent Living Project, Inc. (Fraser) with approximately
$100,000 in CDBG funds to assist with the costs of site
acquisition to develop Section 202/Section 8 housing for lower
income, developmentally disabled persons at 2500-2516 W. 66th
Street.
Background•
Fraser is planning to construct 30 units of housing for lower
income persons. The HRA received a special allocation of CDBG
funds in 1985 to be used for site appraisal, tenant relocation,
and a portion of the cost of site acquisition. Independent
market appraisal estimated the value of the property at 2500-2516
W. 66th Street to be $254,000. Fraser has entered into a
purchase agreement with the owner to acquire the property for
this dollar amount. A portion of the cost of acquisition is
being provided by resources available to Fraser. Approximately
$90,000 to $93,000 of the CDBG funds will be provided to Fraser
from the HRA to cover the cost of the acquisition balance. A
remaining $7,000 to $10,000 is being committed to the site
appraisal and tenant relocation costs. Von Klug and Associates,
the HRA's relocation consultant, is assisting the tenant in
locating replacement housing. The exact dollar amount of the
tenant claim is still being determined. The owner will receive
no relocation benefits since the project was originally conceived
as a "voluntary sale" and the benefits are waived.
The agreement requires:
-the HRA to contribute the $100,000 to the project
-Fraser to secure the final mortgage commitment from HUD
and to initiate, complete, and occupy the project as
Section 202/Section 8 housing
-a lien to be placed on the property to recover the $100,000
if Fraser does not proceed, complete and occupy the
residence. Additionally, the lien would be paid back at
some future time if the project no longer benefited low
and moderate income persons
-a Certificate of Completion to be issued by the HRA once the
building is ready for occupancy
-Fraser to clear the site of existing structures
-Fraser to be responsible for hazardous, wastes, if any.
This agreement is required by
condition to allowing the HRA
corporation. Closing and con
June, 1987. The City Council
already approved the rezoning
plans.
HUD and Hennepin County as a
to pass CDBG funds onto a nonprofit
struction start is scheduled for
and Planning Commission have
of the site and the development
Z - ~--
Recommendation:
Authorize the Chairperson and Executive Director of the HRA to
execute the "Housing Project Agreement" with Louise Whitbeck
Fraser Independent Living Project, Inc. and any other documents
as required to facilitate closing.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA secured the CDBG funds for this purpose
2. All the necessary approvals have occurred to date (HUD,
Hennepin County, City Council, Planning Commission)
3. The agreement provides for the return of the CDBG funds if
there is a unanticipated default
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the pass through of CDBG funds to Fraser
2. Return the $100,000 CDBG allocation to Hennepin County
Decision Mode:
HUD cannot provide final loan approval to Fraser without the
agreement. Delaying the HRA's commitment of funds may prevent a
construction start and occupancy this year. The agreement would
be executed at the end of April, following verification from HUD
that the project has received environmental clearance.
Respect ully submitted,
James D. Prosser
Exe tive Director
,~ - 3
HRA Resolution No.
Authorization To Execute Agreement Between
HRA and Fraser
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield (HRA) assist in the development of housing
on scattered sites, and
WHEREAS, the HRA has secured $100,000 to assist in the
development of housing at 2500 and 2516 W. 66th Street, and.
WHEREAS, Louise Whitbeck Fraser Independent Living Project,
Inc., also known as Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services,
Inc. (Fraser) has developed a project that will benefit from the
HRA assistance, and
WHEREAS, legal counsel has prepared an agreement so that the
HRA may contribute the $100,000 to the appraisal, relocation, and
acquisition activities related to the Fraser project.
WHEREAS, a housing opportunity for low and moderate income
persons will occur by this agreement provided all U. S.
Representative of Housing and Urban Developments, Hennepin
County, and city approvals are also secured.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield:
The Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized to
execute the "Housing Project Agreement" with Louise Whitbeck
Fraser Independent Living Project, Inc., and other documents
that may be required to facilitate acquisition.
PASSED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield this 20th day of April, 1987.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary