Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2007 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, March 12, 2007 6:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty, Commissioner Hull, Commissioner Mueller 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes and sign in on the sign-in sheet located on the podium. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 22, 2007 EDA Minutes will be approved at the next EDA Meeting. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 7. EDA BUSINESS A. Resolution 07-EDA-230 Consideration of a Request for Demolition Assistance, Housing Replacement Program, 2617 Sherwood Road B. Premium Stop Redevelopment Update C. Review Draft of Mounds View Economic Development “Toolbox” Document 8. REPORTS 9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, March 26, 2007@ 630pm 10. ADJOURNMENT Item No: 7A Meeting Date: Mar 12, 2007 Type of Business: Business Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Request for Demolition Assistance for the Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road Introduction: Gary and Margaret Krig are the owners of the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road. Purchased in 2006, the Krigs desire to demolish the building and construct a new home in its place. To help achieve their redevelopment vision, the Krigs have requested funding through the City’s Housing Replacement Program. The program has two funding options, the first being an acquisition of the property from a willing owner with the City coordinating the demolition and marketing of the site to a developer for a new home, the second option providing only demolition assistance to existing property owners who would like to tear down their older, blighted home and construct a newer home in its place. The intent of the second option is to encourage residents to stay in the community while promoting new housing to enhance property values (and tax base) for the subject property and neighborhood in general. Discussion: The house located at 2617 Sherwood Road has been the source of many enforcement actions over the years, prior to the Krigs’ ownership. This report will not detail the past enforcement history of the property or its previous owners, except to say that the home was posted unfit for habitation with approved court orders to abate all code violations or face condemnation by demolition. An offer was made by the City to acquire the property in 2005 however the offer was rejected. Minimal work was subsequently done by previous owners to avert demolition and the property was sold to the Krigs in 2006. Staff received a letter from Gary and Margaret Krig, the new owners of 2617 Sherwood Road, requesting participation in the Housing Replacement Program (HRP). The Krigs have requested Option #2 of the HRP. Option #2 provides for funding by the EDA for the demolition of an existing home for the purposes of constructing a new home on the same lot. The property is located a block west of Long Lake Road (see attached location map). The owners do not presently occupy the property. Staff has completed an inspection of the proposed property to verify the eligibility as outlined in the HRP policy. Item G of the HRP policy states: G. Property Eligibility Criteria Program Staff shall evaluate each property for which an application is received to determine its eligibility for the Program based on the criteria in this section. Program Staff shall prepare property fact sheets for each property for which owners have expressed an interest in participating in the Program, and shall make a drive by inspection. Properties will be evaluated based on the following criteria outlined below. To be eligible for participation, the house on the property must have one of the characteristics noted in 1, 2, 3 or 4 below. HRP Funding Request 2617 Sherwood Road March 12, 2007 Page 2 1. Substandard as to condition, property value, size or usage. 2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located. 3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties. 4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block. If it is determined that the property is eligible for participation based on the condition of the house, it must also meet the following criteria as outlined in 5-8 below. 5. A geographic mix of properties is achieved. 6. The site can be developed with a single family home within city code requirements, including zoning and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The property must be owner-occupied or vacant before the owner makes application to the Program. 8. Prior to approval by the EDA for participation in the Program, properties over 50 years old must be evaluated for historical significance. This will be accomplished by forwarding general property information and a property photo to the Minnesota Historical Society for review. The EDA will not enter into a purchase agreement or award funding for demolition on a property which qualifies for the National Registry of Historical Structures. Staff has determined that the subject property meets the characteristics as noted in items 1, 2 and 4 above. Because the property meets at least 1 of the 4 outlined criteria; it must also meet item numbers 5 through 8 of the policy to be considered for assistance by the EDA. The property meets the criteria in item numbers 5, 6 and 7. The home is more than fifty years old, however the house is not identified for historical significance, thus number 8 is satisfied as well. The Krigs believe that demolishing the house and building a new home would be in the best interest for them, the City and the neighborhood. Staff agrees. Policy Considerations: The 2007 EDA budget has funds set aside to support the HRP program, and utilizing Option 2 of the program is a more cost effective way to leverage EDA dollars to accomplish the goals of the program. Had the City’s offer of $140,000 been accepted by the previous owners, the EDA would have funded the demolition anyway and would have marketed the vacant lot to a developer for construction of a new home. Assuming the lot sold for $100,000, the City would have un-reimbursed expenses in excess of $50,000, which would represent the City’s re-investment back into this property. Over time the City would be made whole by the additional taxes generated by the property. Funding the demolition alone would result in a much lower investment by the City and a much shorter “pay back” time frame. The HRP Policy guidelines do not place an upper limit on funding for either option. The last demolition-only agreement entered into, the EDA funded 100% of the demolition. There are no general criteria for participation in the program, thus any property owner may request funding, regardless of how long they have owned the property or their financial need. HRP Funding Request 2617 Sherwood Road March 12, 2007 Page 3 Consistent with past practice, Staff directed the Krigs to obtain and submit three demolition quotes from licensed demolition contractors. Three estimates were received, outlined in the table below. Contractor Estimate Ray Anderson & Sons Co. $8,900 Robarge Excavating Inc. $8,700 Classic Construction $7,945 If the EDA supports moving forward with the funding request, staff would draft a demolition and redevelopment agreement to be executed by the Krigs and the City outlining the limits of the City’s financial participation. No funds would be paid out until after the existing house had been successfully demolished and removed from the site and only after submission of the contractor’s invoice and lien release. Recommendation: Staff fully supports the funding request for demolition and recommends adoption of EDA Resolution 07-EDA-230 which authorizes reimbursement of demolition costs not to exceed $8,000 and authorizes the preparation and execution of a Demolition and Redevelopment Agreement. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Photographic Documentation Front view of the home located at 2617 Sherwood Road. 1 City of Mounds View Code Enforcement Memo To: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing /Code Enforcement Inspector Date: March 8, 2007 Re: Evaluation of 2617 Sherwood Rd On Tuesday March 6, 2007 inspector Anderson conducted an evaluation of the single family detached home at 2617 Sherwood Rd. The scope of the inspection was documentation of the property’s condition to establish eligibility for the City of Mounds View Housing Replacement Program. This dwelling is a vacant 1,300 sq. ft two bedroom home originally constructed in 1938. An addition to the kitchen area was partially constructed in the late 1990’s. The property has numerous housing maintenance code violations including but not limited to: Lack of basic facilities: water; sewer, electricity, and heat; holes in walls; incomplete electrical wiring, the load center is dismantled; and has missing/removed copper water supply pipe throughout. This dwelling is substandard in design, size, construction, and is in a major state of disrepair. Therefore the property does meet the threshold for eligibility in the City of Mounds View Housing Replacement Program. Photo Log 2617 Sherwood Rd 03-06-2007 Page 1 of 3 Photo 1: Street View Photo 2: Living room Photo Log 2617 Sherwood Rd 03-06-2007 Page 2 of 3 Photo 3: Kitchen Photo 4: Bathroom Photo Log 2617 Sherwood Rd 03-06-2007 Page 3 of 3 Photo 5: Electrical Load Center Zoning Map – 2617 Sherwood Road Aerial View – 2617 Sherwood Road Unimproved Greenwood Dr. Right of way EDA RESOLUTION 07-EDA-230 MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COUNTY OF RAMSEY ST ATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOME AT 2617 SHERWOOD ROAD AS PART OF THE EDA HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 The Authority has the powers provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134 and 469.090 to 469.108 (collectively, the "Act"). 1.02 Pursuant to and in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote development and redevelopment of certain land within the City of Mounds View and in this connection is engaged in carrying out the Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project") within the City. 1.03 There has been approved pursuant to the Act a Project Plan for the Project. 1.04 The Housing Replacement Program has been adopted under and as part of the Project Plan. 1.05 The redevelopment of property within the Project is a stated objective of the Project Plan and the Housing Replacement Program. 1.06 In order to achieve the objectives of the Project Plan, the Authority has determined to provide substantial aid and assistance through the financing of certain public costs of Development. 1.07 The stated purposes of the Housing Replacement Program include reducing the social costs of blight, making better use of public infrastructure, and redistributing tax base to communities with higher levels of fiscal needs. The Housing Replacement Program's objectives include replacing smaller, lower-value housing on scattered sites throughout the City with larger, new and higher-value housing designed for families, the elimination of blighting influences and substandard housing, and the increase of available quality housing for families within the City. 1.08 It has been proposed that the Authority provide funding for the demolition of the home located in the City at 2617 Sherwood Road (the "Property") and that the Authority enter into an agreement (the "Agreement") with the owners for the clearance of the property for redevelopment. EDA Resolution 07-EDA-230 Page 2 1.09 The Property has been inspected by City staff and has been determined to qualify for funding through the Housing Replacement Program Section 2. Resolved. 2.01 The Board hereby determines that the Authority's execution of the Agreement and the subsequent clearance of the Property would be in furtherance of the Project Plan and the Housing Replacement Program and hereby approves and authorizes said actions, including the execution of the Agreement by the officers of the Authority in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate. 2.02 Upon execution and delivery of the Agreement, the officers and employees of the Authority (including members of the City Staff, acting in their capacity as staff to the Authority as well) are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be appropriate or necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the Agreement, including the demolition of the Property's building, which is being accomplished for redevelopment purposes. 2.03 That the Board of the Authority hereby determines that the execution and performance of the Agreement for redevelopment of the Property will help realize the public purposes of the Act and are in furtherance of the Project Plan and the Housing Replacement Program and authorizes the President and Executive Director to appropriate a maximum of $8,000 in tax increment funds to arrange for the demolition of the building on the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority this 12th day of March, 2007. _______________________ Rob Marty, President ATTEST: ______________________ Kurt Ulrich Executive Director Item No: EDA – 7B Meeting Date: March 12, 2007 Type of Business: EDA Business Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Update Regarding the Premium Stop Redevelopment Plan and Neighborhood Meeting Introduction: On February 15, 2007, a neighborhood meeting was held at the Mounds View Community Center to discuss and review the draft redevelopment plans prepared by DSU / Bonestroo for the Premium Stop Redevelopment area, which is an area along the south side of County Road 10 from County Road H2 south to Woodale, including the Robert’s parcel at 2400 County Road H2 (refer to the graphic below.) John Slack from DSU / Bonestroo presented the plans to the residents in much the same way he did with the EDA on December 20, 2006. Premium Stop Report March 12, 2007 Page 2 Neighborhood Meeting All property owners within the redevelopment area and those who own property adjacent to and south of the area were notified of the meeting and invited to attend. In all, about 75 notices were sent out. Fifteen property owners attended the meeting. Mr. Slack reviewed the goals of the redevelopment and presented the various development scenarios. The residents in attendance seemed impressed by the proactive nature of the planning process and appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback at this early stage of the redevelopment vision. Most residents expressed support for the plans, those who live next to or rear Robert’s liked the idea of residential as opposed to the present use, and the property owners on O’Connell abutting the Everest parcel (the largest of the single family parcels on County Road 10) unanimously preferred the residential development over the corporate office complex. Next Steps Staff has been contacted by a variety of developers and property owners interested in this area, some of whom include existing business owners such as Scott Soo Suh (owner of Taiko Sushi restaurant), Tony Moussa (owner of the Best Steak House) and Chuck Durand (owner of the Holiday Stationstore.) Staff has communicated to these individuals as well as other developers interested in the project area that direction would need to be given by the Economic Development Authority to proceed with the marketing of the City’s parcel consistent with the redevelopment vision. Offers would likely be accepted through a specific point in time, such as May 1, 2007, by which time the EDA could consider entering into a purchase and redevelopment agreement with a developer based upon their submitted plan and ability to carry out the City’s redevelopment vision. Staff has communicated to all interested parties (including those property owners within the development area) that the City would not be involved in any further parcel assemblage and that the use of eminent domain would NOT be considered. Any planned redevelopment beyond the property lines of the former Premium Stop parcel would need to include the willing participation of any affected property owners. The City would not and will not entertain development proposals for which purchase agreements or consent of the owners have not been obtained. Overlay Consideration One of the themes and design characteristics of the Premium Stop redevelopment area planning process was the desire to locate the buildings closer to County Road 10 than what the present zoning code permits. With such an expansive corridor width, maintaining the 30- foot setback requirements serves to increase the perceived width of the corridor and reinforce an auto-dependant development. Bringing the buildings closer to the corridor lends a more “human” scale to the development and with appropriate trailways linkages from the County Road 10 trailway through to the adjacent neighborhoods, developments become more pedestrian friendly. This design theme is consistent with the fundamental principles of the Active Living Ramsey County group which encourages cities to encourage “walkable communities”. The other benefit of pulling buildings closer to the corridor is that it frees up additional space to the rear of these parcels for more landscaping and trailway connections, which provides enhanced buffering and setback from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Premium Stop Report March 12, 2007 Page 3 Staff will continue to work with the consultant and other communities to research overlay options and considerations that would work well on the County Road 10 corridor. In addition to setback issues, enhanced architectural and site design guidelines would be considered to help attract and achieve the type and quality development envisioned for the County Road 10 corridor. The redevelopment vision for this area would be incorporated into the next revision of the Comprehensive Plan, due to be completed by January of 2008. Residential Versus Corporate Office Campus The redevelopment plans prepared by DSU have two alternate long term scenarios—one of which is residential (80 new dwelling units) or office (60,000 square feet of corporate office space.) Given the proximity of the business parks to the north and south of this development area, staff felt that the corporate office scenario would be more appropriate from a land-use perspective and potentially more palatable to the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood. The residents who live adjacent to this area, however, indicated their preference would to develop as residential rather than corporate office. Given that this area is slated as the last to potentially redevelop, it may make sense to retain both options for future development consideration. While the City will always have the “final say” though its Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, the regional market may ultimately dictate how the area is to develop and the City will need to consider changing market realities over time. Residential Plan Premium Stop Report March 12, 2007 Page 4 Corporate Office Plan Recommendations: Staff is seeking direction from the EDA regarding the marketing of the Premium Stop site. A Request for Proposal (RFP) or a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) could be considered by the EDA for the Premium Stop site. An RFP process provides the City with competing plans as to what can be done with a challenging redevelopment opportunity. It is used especially for larger projects and requires developers to spend money on engineers and architects to come up with viable development plans that are evaluated by the EDA commissioners. (The City followed that process with the Hidden Hollow residential development.) An RFQ process provides the City with a list of qualified developers who have an interest in pursuing a project in Mounds View. Submittals should list lead staff and recently completed redevelopment projects, among other things. (The City of New Brighton recently used this approach with the Northwest Quadrant.) Premium Stop Report March 12, 2007 Page 5 Given the limited amount of property the City controls at the site, the RFQ process may be preferable. If neither approach is used, then the EDA will need to market the site in a number of ways. Staff would explore the cost of posting an announcement in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal and we would submit press releases to both local newspapers. A deadline for proposals or qualifications could be articulated (such as May 1, 2007) or it could be left open ended and offers would be reviewed with the EDA as they are submitted. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Premium Stop-County Road 10 Redevelopment Area Neighborhood Meeting Thursday, February 15, 2007 14 neighbors and property owners attended, Lillie Suburban and Sun Current Newspapers, and John Slack with DSU/Bonestroo Comments and questions from the attendees: - Seems like in the past, a developer has been able to come in and do whatever they want here - Everest Development tried to put a parking lot on their vacant land at one time - Planning Commission & City Council in the past have let businesses come in and they’ve given them the red carpet treatment - How is the County Road 10 new trail going to be paid for? - Concerned about the County Road 10-Greenfield-County Road H2 access and intersections road alignment, and how would traffic go west on County Road 10 from the Premium Stop site? - Thought Mounds View didn’t want any more multi-housing, but I guess senior housing is different - Where is the data showing that seniors would want to live on the Roberts site where it is so busy and there is a restaurant across the street? She can’t imagine seniors wanting to live on that site - Pointed out the senior housing on Long Lake Road & County Road 10, and Silver Lake Road & County Road 10, thinks that is a busier area than the Roberts site – seniors many times want to stay in their same community - Maybe have something other than residential on the Roberts site? - Isn’t there usually an issue with the Fire Department when closing a road? (Greenfield) – how would the FD access the area? - Likes the idea of losing all the pavement on the Roberts site and likes the idea of mixing housing into these redevelopment plans – would rather have housing on the vacant lots though - Is there a way to put a different sort of physical barrier – like a mound with trees on top – as a buffer between the commercial and residential areas? She would rather not have the existing neighborhood (O’Connell Drive area) level with a commercial use and the parking lot. - How much vacant office space is in Mounds View now? - What is going on with the vacant land in the County Road 10 & Quincy area? - How will the individual lots be developed? What about if there are still people living in the houses on County Road 10? Can it still be developed then? - Many businesses want TIF – do they still pay taxes if they get that? - The vacant parcels would be developed all the way back to O’Connell Drive? - So how will this work? Will developers come to the City? Will the City ask developers to come here? **The O’Connell Drive area neighbors would like their neighborhood buffered somehow so it creates a real residential neighborhood, instead of how it feels like just an extension of County Road 10 – since it’s wide open now due to the vacant lots **The neighbors near Everest Development’s corner site prefer the housing idea for that area Page 2 Print Page Premium Stop site redevelopment could begin in '07 By Anne Culver Sun Focus (Created: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:15 PM CST) Breaking ground this year on the Premium Stop redevelopment project off County Road 10 is a realistic goal, said Mounds View Director of Community Development Jim Ericson at a neighborhood meeting Feb. 15. The City of Mounds View acquired the abandoned Premium Stop gas station property at 2390 County Road 10 in 2006, and eliminated the dilapidated building to encourage meaningful redevelopment. To help determine the best re-use of the property, the Mounds View City Council authorized a market analysis and planning study to be conducted on the site, including adjacent and nearby undeveloped and underdeveloped areas along County Road 10. The council's goal in authorizing the study was to create a vision for the area, rather than reacting to development proposals as they were submitted. "We're hoping we can identify what the vision is," Ericson said. "So when [the developers] come in, they can do something consistent with the vision." According to the City of Mound View's web site (www.ci.moundsview.mn.us), on which detailed information regarding the Premium Stop redevelopment planning process can be found, "The Premium Stop Redevelopment Area plan envisions the creation of a compact, 'walkable' commercial node with a mix of retail, office and housing." The firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DSU) prepared the study in conjunction with city consultant Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA.) Council members expressed their support for the consultants' redevelopment scenarios at a Dec. 11, 2006, City Council meeting, and called for a neighborhood meeting with property owners within and adjacent to the study area. John Slack, of DSU, presented six concepts at the neighborhood meeting, ranging from short- to long-term redevelopment. The first of the scenarios, Concept A, projected to begin this year, contemplates the construction of a 5,000-square-foot office/retail building on the Premium Stop site. The existing Japanese restaurant would remain, with a shared parking lot; and streetscape, trailways and landscaping would be introduced. C1 and C2, the intermediate-term scenarios, suggest adding another 3,000-square-foot building where the existing Japanese restaurant could be relocated. Robert's Sports Bar could be replaced by a mix of townhomes and senior housing, as the market study showed a demand for this type of residential development. The plans also incorporate a 5,000-square-foot office building, with new trail elements and additional landscaping. The last of the scenarios, D1 and D2, which, according to Ericson, could take place anywhere from 10 to 20 years in the future, show the residential area at the corner of County Road 10 and Wooddale Drive replaced with 60,000 feet of corporate office space in a pair of two-story buildings. Residents raised questions at the meeting about what would happen to the current property owners in the projected redevelopment areas. "It's up to the developer to negotiate with the property owners," Ericson said. "This is a vision. These aren't marching orders; they aren't eviction papers." Several residents expressed concern over the potential lack of separation between residential and Page 1 of 2Sun Newspapers - MNSUN.com - Premium Stop site redevelopment could begin in '07 3/5/2007http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2007/02/27/news/fo22mvredevelopment.prt commercial areas. In response to these concerns, Slack suggested creating a "buffer," such as a row of trees or a hill, between homes and businesses, in order to keep their neighborhoods as "residential" as possible during and after redevelopment. Ericson said residents' input has been essential in developing a plan for the property. "Previously, we haven't done any vision process," he said. "We're trying to prevent the developer from coming in and doing whatever they want. [The City] doesn't want to sit on the property, but they want to make sure it's done correctly." Mounds View resident Katie Murr, who lives near the self-serve car wash on County Road 10, said she appreciates the City's new approach to redevelopment planning. "The reality is, it's empty lots, or lots that aren't used in a way that's beneficial to residents," Murr said. "This is really different from what we've seen in the past. There was [previously] no sense of plan or vision, but this time they seem to be taking the high road. We like that." This site and its contents Copyright © 2006. Sun Newspapers - Main Office: 952-829-0797 suninfo@acnpapers.com - Page 2 of 2Sun Newspapers - MNSUN.com - Premium Stop site redevelopment could begin in '07 3/5/2007http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2007/02/27/news/fo22mvredevelopment.prt