The URL can be used to link to this page

022299 EDA Official File Copy CITY OF NEW' HOPE EDA MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Febrttary 22, 1999 President W. Peter Enck - Commissioner Sharon Cassen Commissioner Don Collier Commissioner Pat LaVine Norby Commissioner Mark Thompson 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Regular and Closed Meeting Minutes of February 8, 1999 4. Public Hearing (Continued) - Resolution Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property to Senior Outreach Services, Inc. (Improvement Project No. 493) 5. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive (Improvement Project No. 603) 6. Discussion Regarding Potential Acquisition/Redevelopment of Regent Apartments at 7136 60th Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue and 7124 Lombardy Lane (Improvement Project No. 645) 7. Adjournment CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes February 8, 1999 Regular Meeting City Hall CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Enck, Collier, Norby, Thompson Absent: Cassen Staff Present: Sondrall, Hanson, Donahue, Leone, McDonald, Henry, Johnson, French APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 25, 1999, and the Closed Meeting Minutes of January 25, 1999. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. CLOSED MEETING President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Authorizing and Item 4 Calling for a Closed Meeting of the New Hope Economic Development Authority (Improvement Project No. 614). Mr. Donahue, City Manager, advised the Council that a resolution must be passed to allow the EDA to conduct a closed meeting so the City Attorney can report on his discussions concerning the Spur gas station at 7300 Bass Lake Road. EDA Commissioner Thompson introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION 99-03 adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND CALLING FOR A Item 4 CLOSED MEETING OF TI-IE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Norby, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Collier, Norby, Thompson; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Cassen; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to adjourn the meeting. All present Voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA February 8, 1999 Page 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes February 8, 1999 Closed Session City Hall CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the closed meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:12 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Enck, Collier, Norby, Thompson Absent: Cassen Staff Present: Sondrall, Donahue, Leone, McDonald IMP. PROJECT 614 Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, provided an update regarding the settlement alternatives and prosecution/defense strategies in connection with the Spur Gas Station (7300 Bass Lake Road) condemnation relative to the Project for Pride in Living, Inc. Project (Improvement Project No. 614). MOTION Motion was made by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Norby, to file the appeal to the Commissioner's Award. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Collier, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned its closed meeting at 9:16 p.m. Resp~ectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA February 8, 1999 Page 1 I I EDA I REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~Lment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section EDA Community Development 2-2/~ Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By:. 4 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) RESOLUTI UTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493) This is the continued public hearing to consider the conveyance of a portion of the city-owned property located at 5501 Boone Avenue North to Senior Outreach Services, Inc. for the construction of an adult daY care facility. The City Attorney prepared the enclosed correspondence, resolution and other documents for consideration at the hearing which was held on January 25th. At that time, Senior Outreach Services indicated that they had completed a more extensive soil analysis of the property and had discovered that soil corrections would be a more significant expense than they had anticipated. They wanted to present that information to their Board and determine if they wanted to proceed with the project. They requested that the public hearing be continued to February 22nd and that no action be taken by the EDA until they determine if they will be proceeding with the development. The EDA continued the public hearing to this date pursuant to their request. Subsequent to the January 25th meeting, the City Council has been focused on the sale of North Ridge Care Center to Minnesota Masonic Homes, Inc. and related financial issues. At the February 8th Public hearing on that issue, Minnesota Masonic Homes expressed their intentions with respect to the Care Break Adult Day Care facility. They indicated that they would explore affiliation with Care Break to become a division of Minnesota Masonic Home, that they would support Care Break's development of a facility more suitable in meeting the needs of its clients and programs than the current leased space at North Ridge and that they would be interested in utilizing the 5501 Boone Avenue Property for a new Care Break facility. Until all the details are worked out between North Ridge, Minnesota Masonic Home, Senior Outreach Services and Care Break, staff recommends that the public hearing be tabled. All parties involved agree and request that the EDA again continue the public hearing. Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued until the March 22nd EDA meeting. RFA-O0 ! ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PER MINN. STAT. §469.105 AUTHORIZING SALE,CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY AT 5501 Boone Avenue North ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE Notice is hereby given that the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 25th day of January, 1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. a~ the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider sale,conveyance of the following described property to Senior Outreach Services, Inc.: (5501 Boone Avenue North) PID No. 06-118-21-34 0021 Lot 2, Block 1, Science Industry Center 3rd Addition The public may see the terms and conditions of the sale at the City Hall and that at said public hearing, the Economic.Development Authority will decide if the sale,conveyance is advisable. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the sale,conveyance of the described property. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531- 5109). Dated the 28th day of December, 1998. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 6th day of January, 1999.) J:ENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At La~ 8525 EDINBiiOOK CROSSING. STE, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 5~443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEF~ (612) 493-5193 SFE~EN A. SONDR~LL DEA~ A. T~O~GA~D¢ ~rk McDonald OF COU,'SaL Co~uni~ Development Director LORENS Q BaYNESTqD Ci~ of New Ho~ 4401 Xylofi Avenue No~ New Hope, MN 55428 Re: ~o~sed Conveyance of SS01 Boone Avenue No~ to Senior On.each Semites, Our FBe No.: ~.11198 Dear ~rk: Plea~ fred enclosed ~e follow~g Resolution an~ d~uments relating to ~e EDA's propo~d convey~ce of a potion of ~e "Doyle~ pro~ at 5501 Boone Avenue No~ to Senior Ou~each Se~ices, ~c. for development ~d cons~ction of an adult day care facili~: l. Resolution au~or~g ~e conveyance of cemin real pro~w to Senior Outreach Se~ices. Inc. 2. Redevelopment Agr~ment for Cons~ction of Adult Day Care Facili~ by and Be~n ~e ~ono~c Development Au~ori~ ~ ~d for ~e Ci~ of New Hope (EDA) ~d ~nior Ou~each Se~ices, Inc. (Develo~r) ~cluding a~c~en~; 3. Pro~sso~ Nora; 4, ~ Agr~ment (~d a~chmenm); and 5. Mo~gage ~d Assig~ent of Ren~ and Securi~ Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement. ~is ~aer is on ~e Janua~ 25, 1999 EDA agenda for a public hearing. However, it is my undersmnd~g Senior Outreach Se~ices, ~c. has requested ~is maaer ~ pos~oned. Ra~er ~ conducting ~e public hearing on Janua~ 25~ and acting on ~e agreements, it is my r~o~endation ~at we cont~ue ~e public hearing until such time as Senior ~each Se~ices, Inc. is ready to ~ke a co~i~ent to ~e EDA to cons~ct ~e adult day care facili~ ~ consideration for ~e EDA's gr~t of pro~ for ~is pu~o~, 'R~ Pfope~y Law C~mti~ ay The Mtn~ta Stat~ g~ ,~fi~ ADR Neutr~ January 20, 1999 Page 2 Basically, the enclosed documentation will affect the transfer of 1.93 acres of the property for the adult day care facility's use. The documentation will also require said use for a period of thirty (30) years, a PILOT payment to the City in lieu of real estate taxes if the facility is tax exempt and an agreement to either repay the City's acquisition cost for the property or convey the property back: to the City in the event there is a violation of any terms and conditions outlined in the Redevelopment Agreement. Again however, I would not recommend that the EDA act on the Resolution or the Redevelopment Agreement and suggest that this matter be continued until such date that the developer is ready to act on this matter. Please contact me if you have any other questions or comments. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue Valerie Leone EDA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope (hereinafter EDA) is fee owner of certain real property known as 5501 Boone Avenue North, located in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as (hereinafter Property): Lot 1, Block 2 Science Industry Center 3~ Addition and WHEREAS, the EDA is considering the conveyance of the South 1/2 of said Property consisting of 1.93 acres to Senior Outreach Services, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on such terms and conditions as are set forth in the attached Redevelopment Agreement For Construction of An Adult Day Care Facility, and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to consider such sale has been published in the official City newspaper, and WHEREAS, the EDA has determined that said sale will conform to the requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 469.001 through 469.047, will conform to and be in furtherance of Redevelopment Plan 85-2, as amended, covering the Property, and be in the best interest of the City and its people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority of the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated by reference. 2.That the attached Redevelopment Agreement to convey the Property to Senior Outreach Services, Inc., is approved, and the President and Executive Director are hereby directed and authorized to execute all necessary documents to effect the conveyance and the Executive Director is directed to take such other actions as are necessary to implement and complete said conveyance. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope this day of ,1999. W. Peter Enck, President Attest: Daniel J. Don~ue, Executive Director -2- REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY BY AND BETWEEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE (EDA) AND SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. (DEVELOPER) This Redevelopment Agreement is made as of January 25, 1999 between the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "EDA") and Senior Outreach Services, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (hereinafter "Developer"). WHEREAS, the EDA was created pursuant to state law now codified as Minnesota Statutes, Sectio ns 469.001 through 469.047 (the "Act") and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota ("City"); and RECITALS: WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the EDA has undertaken a program for the redevelopment of blighted, vacant and Unused areas of the City and in this connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subdivision 12 (the "Redevelopment Project"); and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement there has been prepared and approved by the EDA and the City Council pursuant to the Act a redevelopment plan for the Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the EDA is the owner of that certain real property located in an area subject to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Area") and legally described as set forth on Exlaibit A, on which the Developer has proposed to construct a square foot adult day care facility (hereinafter "the Project"); and WHEREAS, the EDA believes that redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to this Agreement is in the best interests of the City and benefits the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and complies with the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Redevelopment Plan has been undertaken and is being assisted. WHEREAS, to assist the Developer in the development of the Project, the EDA agrees to convey to the Developer for One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration a sufficient portion of the described real property to construct "the Project" pursuant to the terms and conditions as more fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Developer acknowledges and agrees that the EDA's acquisition of "the Project Area" was by condemnation at' the request of the Developer pursuant to Minnesota's eminent domain law found in Minn. Stat} Chap, 117 and that the EDA's base acquisition cost for "the Project Area" was $376,764.00 exclusive of interest costs, court and litigation costs and appraisal fees and that said condemnation of "the Project Area'' was for the purpose of developing the real property with an adult day care facility as proposed by the Developer; and WHEREAS, the funds used by the EDA for acquisition costs came from two sources. Specifically, $100,000.00 of the funds are Community Development Block Grant funds (hereinafter "CDBG Funds") provided to the EDA per an agreement entered into by the EDA with the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (hereinafter "County") by and through its Office of Planning and Development (hereinafter "OPD") identified as the "Land Deposition Agreement", Exhibit B attached and an agreement entered into with the City identified as the "Third Party Agreement Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program", Exhibit C attached. The additional acquisition funds came from tax increment financing funds (hereinafter "TIF") available to the EDA for redevelopment projects like the instant project; and WHEREAS, the EDA and Developer desire to provide a written agreement with regard to the development, construction and operation of "the Project" in "the Project Area". NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants, conditions and promises set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469,047. "Adult Day Care facility" means the construction and operation of a facility providing services to adult persons physically or mentally incapable of independently caring for themselves including, but not limited to, the following: meals, recreation, between the hours of a.m. to p.m., Monday through Friday, pursuant to licensing regulations, if any, by appropriate governmental agencies and the terms of this Agreement including construction of the facility according to the construction plans and plans as defined herein. "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended or supplemented. ,2' "Certificate of Completion" means a certificate in the form attached as Exhibit E, to be provided to Redeveloper pursuant to this Agreement. "City" means the City of New Hope, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation. "ConstrUction Plans" means detailed plans and specification for the adult day care facility in the form required to be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. "Developer" means Senior Outreach Services, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. "Event of Default" means as set forth in Section 8.1 hereof. "EDA" means the New Hope Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota. "Loan" means the loan to secure the conveyance of property made by the EDA to the Developer in accordance With Article 6 hereof. "PILOT Payment" means an annual payment made on or before January 30~h to the City in an amount equal to the City's proportionate share of real estate taxes which would have been due and payable if the property were taxable. The PILOT Payment share be calculated on the current market value of the property as determined by Hennepin County for the year in which the PILOT is payable upon which the commercial/industrial tax capacity rate will apply. "Plans" means the concept plans, specifications, drawings and related documents for the adult day care facility which shallinclude a site survey and plan of the Project Area; dimensioned site plan; grading and drainage plan; utility plans; landscaping plans; colored building; elevations showing the exterior building treatments; property fence detail and any other documents that must be submitted to and approved by the EDA and the City under their site and building :.lan approval process. "Project" means the adult day care facility, all as further described in. the Plans and Construction Plans. The Project will proceed in accordance with Article 3 hereof. "Project Area" means the land legally described on Exhibit A attached, to be conveyed by the EDA to the Developer in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. "Project Financing" means financing to he obtained by the Developer in order to pay the Costs of the Project. "Redevelopment Plan" means Redevelopment Plan of the EDA which relates to the Redevelopment Property. -3- "Section" means a Section of this Agreement, unless used in reference to Minnesota Statutes. "State" means the State' of Minnesota. "Unavoidable Delay" means a failure or delay ~n a party's performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or during any cure period specified in this Agreement which does not entail the mere payment of money, not within the party's reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God, governmental agencies, the other party, strikes, labor disputes (except disputes which Could be resolved by using union labor), fire or other casualty, or lack of materials. ARTICLE 2 Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. By EDA. EDA makes the following representations to Redeveloper: (a) EDA is an economic development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota. Under the provisions of the Act, EDA has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The EDA .has taken att actions necessary to make this conveyance of "the Project Area" as described in Article 4 hereof. Section 2.2. By Developer. Developer represents and warrants that: (a) Developer is a non profit corporation duly organized and validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, has power to enter into this Agreement, and by proper corporate action has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. (b) Developer will, subject to acquisition of "the Project Area"; receipt of all approvals required by the City; receipt of the proceeds of its Project Financing; and Unavoidable Delays; commence construction of and complete the Project by July 1, 2000 in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. (c) Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of Developer, ~the City or EDA with respect to "the Project Area" may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. Developer is aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure with respect to "the Project Area". (d) Neither the execution or delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and -4- conditions of this Agreement is prevented by, limited by, conflicts with, or results in a breach of, any restriction, agreement or instrument to which Developer is now a party or by which it is bound. (e) The Developer would not undertake the Project but for the land conveyance of "the Project Area" being provided by the EDA hereunder. (f) No member of the governing body of the (City or EDA or any other officer of the City and EDA has any direct or indirect financial interest in the Developer, the Development Property or the Project. ARTICLE 3 The Project. Section 3.1. Planning'. (a) Developer shall submit to the EDA and the City plans and specification for the Project including without limitation the Plans and Construction Plans. The EDA shall have the right to approve the Plans and Construction Plans, as to the Construction Plans approval shall be given so long as the Construction Plans conform to the Plans, the terms of this Agreement and applicable codes and ordinances. No change in the Project which shall be inconsistent with the Plans shall be made after the Plans have been approved and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion without the prior approval of the EDA. (b) No approval by the EDA shall relieve Developer of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. No approval by the EDA shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. Any disapproval of the Construction Plans shall set forth the reasons therefor, and shall be made within 30 days after the date of their receipt by the EDA. If EDA rejects the Plans, in whole or in part, Developer shall submit new or corrected Plans within 30 days after written notification to Developer of the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Plans shall continue to apply until the Plans have been approYed by EDA. Section 3.2 Construction of the Proiect and Certificate of Completion. (a) Subject to acquisition of the Project Area; receipt of all necessary permits and approvals, including any required rezoning, conditional use permits or variances and requirement for a site improvement agreement required by the City's site and building plan review process, and receipt of Project Financing, Developer shall promptly begin the Project and diligently prosecute the Project to completion. Developer shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the EDA, as to the actual progress of Developer with -5- respect to the Project. All work with respect to the portion of the Project consisting of construction shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans approved by the EDA. (b) After completion of the Project in accordance with this Agreement, Developer will provide the EDA with a certificate in form satisfactory to the EDA executed by the Redeveloper certifying that the Project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and the Construction Plans. Upon receipt of such certificate and verification of those facts, the EDA will furnish Developer with an appropriate Certificate of CompletiOn as conclusive evidence of satisfaction of the agreements and covenants of this Agreement with respect to the obligations of Developer to complete the Project. (c) If the EDA shall refuse or fail to provide the Certificate of Completion, the EDA shall, within 15 days after the Developer provides the certificate referenced in Section 3.2(b), provide Developer with a written statement specifying in what respects Developer has failed to complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts will be necessar~y, in the opinion of the EDA, for. Developer to obtain the Certificate of Completion. (d) Not withstanding the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, Developer shall continue to allow representatives of the EDA to monitor and inspect the Project during normal business hours and after at least one business day notice, or earlier in the case of emergency. ARTICLE 4 Agreement to Convey Real Property_ Section 4.1 Conveyance by EDA. The EDA shall convey to Developer by Quit Claim Deed 1.93 acres, more or less of the southerly t/2 of "the Project Area" to provide for Developer's construction and operation of its proposed adult day care facility. The EDA shall not be required to provide title evidence and may reserve such utility easements for the benefit of the City as it may deem necessary, · Section 4.2 Conditions of Conveyance. The EDA's obligation to convey the Project Area shall be contingent upon the Developer entering into this Redevelopment Agreement, the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and any other documents and agreements required by the EDA. Section 4.3 Reversionary Clause. The conveyance of the Project Area shall be subject to a Right of Reverter in favor of the EDA. The Right of Reverter may be exercised in the sole discretion of the EDA, upon any event of default as set forth in this Agreement. Exercising this right will cause title to the property to revert back to the EDA. '6- ARTICLE 5 Developer Obligations Section 5.1 Developer's additional' obligations under this Agreement shall including the following conditions. Any violation of these conditions shall constitute an event of default as defined in this Agreement. (a) Construction of the Project per Article 3 of this Agreement and Developer obtaining all necessary governmental approvals including, if necessary, any and all zoning, conditional use permit, variance and site and building plan approvals needed from the City to construct the Project. (b) The Developer shall replat at no cost to the EDA, all of Lot 1, Block 2 Science Industry Center 3r'~ Addition to reflect the partial use of said Lot 1 as the Project Area for the Project. The plat shall be recorded in the appropriate offices of Hennepin County prior to closing. (c) The project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved site and building plan, or any approved amendments thereto, and the project shall be used and operated as an adult day care facility as solely determined by the EDA for a period of 30 years from the date the Developer receives its Certificate of completion from the City. (d) The Developer shall make a payment in lieu of real estate taxes (hereinafter the "PILOT Payment") to the City for the City's proportionate share of real estate taxes if for any reason the Project Area and/or Project becomes exempt from payment of real estate taxes. Any PILOT Payments required by this Agreement shall not be payable until the 2000 tax year in the event the real estate and adult day care facility is exempt from payment of real estate taxes. (e) The Developer agrees to enter into a loan agreement in the amount of $188,382.00 with the EDA which represents the EDA's acquisition cost for the proportionate share of the real property conveyed to the Developer evidenced by a Mortgage Note and a Loan Agreement and secured by a Mortgage encumbering the property. Said loan shall be forgiven by EDA if all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement are satisfied by the Developer. ARTICLE 6 Defense of Claims Section 6.1 Defense of Claims. Developer shall indenmify and hold harmless the EDA and the City and their respective officers, employees and agents for any loss, damages and expenses (including attorneys' fees) in connection with any claims or proceedings arising from damages or injuries received or sustained by any person or property by reason of any actions or omissions of Developer or its contractors, agents, officers or employees or arising out of or relating to this -7- Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, other than claims or proceedings arising from any negligent or unlawful acts or omissions of the EDA, the City or their contractors, agents, officers or employees. Promptly after receipt by the EDA or City of notice of the commencement of any action in respect of which indemnity may be sought against Developer under this Section 6.1, such person will notify the Developer in writing, of the commencement thereof, and, subject to the provisions hereinafter stated, the Developer shall assume the defense of such action (including the employment of counsel, who shall be counsel reasonably satisfactory to the EDA or City, as the case may be, and the payment or expenses) insofar as such action shall relate to any alleged liability in respect of which indemnity may be sought against the Developer. The EDA or the City shall have the right to employ separate counsel in any such action and to participate in to defense thereof, but the fees and expenses of such counsel shall not be at the expense of the Developer unless the employment of such counsel has been specifically authorized by the Developer. The Developer shall not be liable to indemnify any person for any settlement of any such action effected without its consent. The omission to notify the Developer as herein provided will not relieve it from any liability which it may have to any indemnified party pursuant hereto, otherwise than under this section. ARTICLE 7 The Loan Section 7.1 Collateral. The Developer shall also enter into a loan agreement, mortgage note, mortgage, and any other documents required by the EDA to guarantee repayment of the EDA's $188,382.00 acquisition cost for the Project Area from the Developer per the terms and conditions of said agreements. ARTICLE 8 Prohibition on Transfer or Assignment Section 8.1 Transfer or Assignment of Agreement. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by the Developer. Section 8.2 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and constitute a binding obligation upon the EDA, the Developer, and their respective successors and assigns. Any assignee, successor, buyer, lessee, or transferee of the Developer shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Section 8.3 The Developer may sell, transfer, or assign its interest in the Project and this Agreement to any buyer which expressly assumes all of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement. No such sale, transfer, or assignment shall be effective until the EDA has received written notice from Developer and has given its written approval. Section 8.4 Notwithstanding anything in this Section 7 to the contrary, the Developer may transfer ownership of any portion of the Project, provided that the Developer continues to maintain controlling ownership in the Project itself, expressly remains liable under the terms of -8- this Agreement, and retains authority to act on behalf of any other owners With respect to this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 Events of Default Section 9.1 Events of Default. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides), any one or more of the following events which occurs and continues for more than 30 days after notice by the EDA to Developer of such default (and the term "default" shall mean any event which would with the passage of time or g~ving of notice, or both, be an "Event of Default" hereunder): (a) Failure of Developer to complete the Project as required hereunder. (b) Failure of Developer to observe and perform any other covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder. (c) If Developer' shall admit in writing, its inability, to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the Redevelopment Property. Section 9.2 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 8.1 occurs, the EDA may take any one or more of the following actions: (a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from Developer deemed adequate I~y the EDA, that Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement. (b) Terminate all rights of Developer under this Agreement. (c) Withhold the Certificate of Completion. (d) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the EDA to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement and/or to foreclose the Mortgage received by the EDA. (e) Enforce all rights and remedies provided by the loan agreement and mortgage. In the event any action is commenced against the Developer by the EDA or the City upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the EDA or the City shall l~e entitled to recover costs and expenses of such action including reasonable attorneys fees from the Developer. -9- Section 9.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the EDA is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be Cumulative and shall, be in addition to every Other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power car shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the EDA or Developer to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required Under this Agreement. Section 9.4 Waivers. All waivers by the EDA, shall be in writing. If any provision of this Agreement is breached bY either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. ARTICLE 10 Additional Provisions Section i0.1 Conflict of Interests: EDA and City Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, official, employee, or consultant or employees of the consultants of the EDA or the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, consultant or the consultant's employees or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested. No member, official, consultant or the consultant's employees, or employee of the EDA or the City shall be personally liable to Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the EDA or the City or for any amount which may become due to Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Section 10.2 Equal Employment Opportuni.ty. Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Project it will comply with any applicable affirmative action and nondiscrimination laws or regulations. Section 10.3 Restrictions on Use. Developer agrees for itself, and its successors, and assigns, that Developer, and such successors and assigns, shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the use or occupancy of the development Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Section 10.4 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in Construing or interpreting any of its provisions. -10- Section 10.5 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or deliyered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally as follows: (a) in the case of Developer, addressed to or delivered personally to Developer at: Attention: With copy t6' (b) in the case of the EDA, addressed or delivered personally to the EDA at: Daniel J. Donahue, Executive Director New Hope EDA 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 With copy to: Steven A. Sondrall Jensen, Swanson & Sondrall, P.A. Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 201 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 or at such other address zenith respect to any such party as that party relay, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other parties as provided in this Section. Section 10.6 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 10.7 Survival of Covenant~. All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties herein and in deeds or other documents delivered pursuant to this Redevelopment Agreement shall not merge into and shall survive the execution and delivery of deeds or other documents, and shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first above written. SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of , 1999, by and , the and of Senior Outreach Services, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE By Its President By Its Executive Director -12- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of !.999, by and , the and of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public t REQUEST FOR ACTION cOoriginatl~,.g Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section mmuni~y Development 2/22/99 EDA Specialist ff Item No. By:Susan Henry ~ 5 / RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 603) The property at 7819 has been forfeited to the County for nonpayment of real estate taxes. In November of last year, the City and the EDA passed resolutions requesting 7819 Angeline Drive be sold to the EDA for the appraised purchase price, but not to exceed $5,000. The County required a reassessment of the property by their staff, and the results of that reassessment are completed. The County has determined that the property is worth $5,000, and the EDA can now purchase 7819 Angeline Drive for that sum plus incidental expenses totaling $223.70. This property has a fair market value of $13,700. It should be noted that the County will not deduct the existing special assessments against the property, in the amount of approximately $1,830, from the purchase price. The City Will need to write off those special assessments if the EDA goes forward with the purchase. The purchase of 7819 Angeline Drive would be accomplished with available CDBG funds. If the property at 7819 is acquired with this resolution, staff's intent would be to pursue the acquisition of the adjacent property at 7813 Angeline Drive. Currently, that property is privately owned. The property at 7813 Angeline Drive has a fair market value of $17, 700. Once the two properties are acquired, City staff recommends utilizing the site for a scattered site housing project and constructing a handicapped accessible twin home on the site in the future. Staff recommends approving the attached resolution to proceed with the City purchase of 7819 Angeline Drive. MOTION BY ~ SECOND BY ~ ! JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. ~tttorneys At Law ' -~ 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, aTE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TEL£FAX (612) 493-5193 GORDON L. JENSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON ST~VEN ^. SOND.^U- M^RT~NP. M^LEC~^ February 15, 1999 C. ALDEN PEARS0NT DEAN A. TRONGARD SULIE ^. THILL Daniel J. Donahue OF COUNSEL LO~ENsQ. B~N~S~^~ New Hope EDA 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Purchase of 7819 Angeline Drive Our File No. 99.11214 Dear Dan: The property at 7819 Angeline Drive has been forfeited to the County for nonpayment of real estate taxes. In November of last year the City and the EDA passed Resolutions requesting 7819 Angeline Drive be sold to the EDA for the appraised purchase price, but not to exceed $5,000. The County required a reassessment of the property by their staff, and the results of that reassessment are in. The property is worth $5,000, and the can purchase Angeline sum plus EDA 78 1 9 Drive for that incidental expenses totaling $223.70. The details of the incidental costs are shown on the enclosed Purchase Costs Spreadsheet. Note that the County will not deduct the existing special assessments against the property, in the amount of approximately $1,830, from the purchase price. The City will need to write off those special assessments if the EDA goes forward with the purchase. If the EDA wishes to proceed with the purchase of 7819 Angeline, the enclosed Resolution can be passed at the next EDA meeting. Then a certified copy of the Resolution, along with a check in the amount of $5,223.70 must be sent to the County. The County will then internally approve the sale, and then submit the sale to the State for approval. After the approvals, the City will receive title to the property. *Real Property Law Specialist Certifie~l By The Minnesota State Bar AsSociation *Qualified ADR Neutral Daniel J. Donahue February 15, 1999 Page 2 Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Assistant City Attorney Enclosures cc: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development (w/enc) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)~--- Larry Watts, Director of Finance Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist (w/en¢) Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney EDA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of NeTM Hope (EDA) as follows: WHEREAS, the City of New Hope (the City) was notified by Hennepin County that certain real estate known as 7819 Angeline Drive, PID No. 08 118 21 22 0075, (the Land) has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for failure of the owners to . pay taxes, and WHEREAS, the EDA wishes to obtain title to the Land, for future combination of the Land with at least one adjoining parcel and construction on the Land of a dwelling for Iow to moderate income housing, with the Land to then be returned to the tax rolls, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 98-168 on November 9, 1998, a Resolution Confirming Non-Conservation Classification and Authorizing EDA to Request Purchase of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive, and WHEREAS, the EDA passed EDA Resolution 98-11 on November 9, 1998, a Resolution Requesting Purchase of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive, and WHEREAS, the EDA has been informed by Hennepin County that the appraised value of the Land is $5,000.00, and a purchase of the Land by the EDA at private sale will involve incidental expenses of $223.70, in addition to the purchase price, and WHEREAS, the existing specia! assessments, currently in an amount of at least $1,830, will not be deducted from the purchase price, and WHEREAS, the purchase of the Land by the EDA for the sum of $5,000.00 plus incidental expenses of $223.70 is in the best interests of the City and its people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are .i~c~)rporated by reference. 2. That the EDA approves of the purchase of the Land from Hennepin County at private sale for the purchase price of $5,000.00, plus incidental expenses currbntly estimated at 8223.70. 3. That the President and EXecutive Director, and the. EDA staff, are authorized and directed to take such actions as are reasonable and necessary to complete the purchase of the Land as set forth above. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope this 22nd day of February, 1999. President Attest: Executive Director 348~71 ~ FEB-lO-X999 15:47 ~ CO PROPERTY TAX ~489716 P.01/01 From: Ray 8all - Hennepin County Tax Forfeited Lands (;all 348-8848 if fax problemsl NER# PURCHASE COSTS SPREADSHEET Assessed Value $5,000.00 Specials After Forfeiture 0.00 Assurance Fee (3%) $150.00 State Deed Preparation Fee: $25.00 Filing Fees: {'r~'L ~o =lc d=d} $30.00 State Deed Tax: ~ $ ~.?o ~ s.~oo o~ p,~ ~c~f. ~ ~ ~ $18.70 IF FULL PAYMENT REQUIRED: Total: ~ _$5,223.70 CERTIFIED FUNDS PAYABLE AT TIME OF APPLICATION MAKE PAYABLE TO: HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBJECT PARCEL: 78f9 ANGELINE DR PlO NUMBER: 08..118-21.22-0075 ~P~,~.[~ ;ot~ NEW HOPE MARTIN MALECHA FAX #: 493-5193 Calculated 10-Feb-99 TOTAL P.O1 0 0 ROAD WINNETKA ~'q ~-z. ST. RAPHEL ELEMENTARY ~'6t4- CATHOLIC SCHOOL e;/i~, = CHURCH ~'0~ 55 TH ~%~ ST. RAPHAEL ~41U e4m ~ ~ t.~ ~ ~ q~ _ ,.; N. 53R0 K/al /~ ..... ~S[ AVE. N~ . a ~ ~ AvE. N. . RF. UI T FOR ACTION ~orlglnatln. g ~pment . ~pm~d for ~enda ~enda SecUon mmumw ~eve~opmen~ 2/22/99 EDA Kirk McDonald Ite~ No. ~: Sue Henw ~ 6 DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL ACQUISITION/REDEVELOPMENT OF REGENT APARTMENTS AT 7136 60TM AVENUE, 6017 LOUISIANA AVENUE AND 7124 LOMBARDY ~NE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 645) At the July 27, 1998, EDA meeting, the EDA considered a request from the owners of Regent ApaAments for financial assistance for the potential rehabilitation of the three building, 36-unit multi-family housing complex they own located at 7136 60th Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue, and 7124 Lombardy Lane. The improvements discussed included replacement or repairs of windows, repair of parking lot, roof replacement, installation of perimeter drain tile systems, potential repair or replacement of inoperable outdoor swimming pool, some new appliances, interior work including hallway carpet and carpet replacement in some units, replacement of some kitchen cabinets and floors, repair of leaking air conditioning units, and adding landscaping to the propeAy. Staff also discussed with the owners the possibility of adding, garages to the site (there are currently seven garages for 36 units) and discussed improved prope~ management. The total cost of the improvements without garages is estimated at $180,000 - $200,000. The cost of the garages is estimated at $225,000. The EDA responded that they would consider a loan, not a grant. The EDA also indicated a potential interest in acquiring the prope~ for redevelopment purposes and told staff to convey that to the owners, which staff did. The EDA has targeted the entire 62~ Avenue and West Broadway area as an area for future upgrading and redevelopment. The propeAy is located in an area where TIF funds can be spent that are generated from other districts. Subsequent to the July EDA meeting, staff fudher discussed the potential rehab project with the owners and the EDA comments regarding redevelopment. The owners submi~ed a letter stating that the Regent Prope~ies' padners would be interested in exploring the possibility of selling the prope~ies to the City at a fair selling price. They inquired if the EDA would be M~ON BY SECO~ ~ Request For Action Page 2 willing to proceed to have the properties appraised and to explore a purchase of the buildings from Regent ProPerties. At the August 24 EDA meeting, the EDA authorized staff to obtain appraisals of the properties. The buildings have a current market value as follows: 71.36 60th Avenue $48,000 land / $216,000 building = $264,000 6017 Louisiana Avenue $48,000 land / $2271000 building = $275,000 7124 Lombardy Lane $48,000 land / $216,000 building = $264,000 $803,000 At the November 9, 1998, EDA Meeting, staff presented the completed appraisals to the EDA and indicated that the market value of the three 12-unit buildings was $1,000,000 or $27,777.77 per unit (based on 36 units). Staff also obtained an estimate from a relocation consultant indicating that the estimated cost to relocate the 35 tenants residing in the buildings would be approximately $258,000. Staff indicated that if a major redevelopment were to occur on this site, the EDA may want to consider incorporating the two adjacent single family homes into the project area. The 1998 market valve of the two single family homes is $93,000 (7128 60t~ Avenue) and $81,000 (7104 Lombardy). Staff indicated that the preliminary estimate for acquisition and relocation was follows: Acquisition of Apartments $1,000,000 Relocation of Tenants 258,500 Acquisition of Single Family Homes (2) 174,000 Total Preliminary Estimate $1,432,500 Four options were presented to the EDA for consideration on November 9, 1998, ranging from declining to proceed with any type of project to obtaining redevelopment concept plans and conducting a preliminary financial analysis for the potential redevelopment of the site. The EDA directed staff to proceed with concept redevelopment options and a financial analysis. Subsequent to that meeting, staff and the City Attorney met with the owners and indicated that the EDA may have an interest in redeveloping this property, the planning consultant met with staff and prepared the attached redevelopment concept plans and report, and these concept plans were then presented to a financial consultant who prepared the enclosed financial analysis. The purpose of placing this item on the EDA agenda is to present the completed information to the EDA for review and comment so that the EDA can give further direction to staff as to how to proceed. The owners of the property will also be in attendance at the meeting and have received copies of this information. They would like to receive some feedback from the EDA as to whether the City is still interested in acquiring the property or Request For Action Page 3 not. Staff has been contacted by several developers who are interested in the site and if the City does not proceed with its own project, on the site, the owners have indicated they may still be interested in cooperating with the City on a rehabilitation or redevelopment project at this location. Redevelopment Concept Plans Northwest Associated Consultants has prepared the attached concept development options. Note that the options are based on two different geographic areas: One including property only on the west side of Louisiana Avenue and one including property on the east and west sides of Louisiana. The report includes an existing land use map and an existing conditions map. The design options include multi-family, mixed use townhomes and twinhome units, all townhome units, rehab of existing buildings with the addition of garages, mixed use elderly apartment and twinhomes, and mixed use apartment/twinhomes. Site preparation costs are outlined for each design option and each area option. Financial Analysis Krass Monroe prepared the attached financial.analysis on four options based on the concept redevelopment plans, including townhomes, apartments and a mixed use of twinhomes and senior apartments. Several of the scenarios are based on the original project area and several are based on the expanded project area. All of the scenarios are based on the creation of a new redevelopment tax increment financing district and outline projected expenses and revenues, less expenses. All of the scenarios are based on certain assumptions and a cash flow and present value analysis is prepared for each option, as is a sources and uses statement. All of the scenarios show that there would be a deficit to the City when sources and uses are compared. The higher the density, the less the deficit. Any of the projects would also have less of a deficit if the original project area was maintained instead of expanding the project area. Some of the deficits could be substantially reduced if some of the basic assumptions were altered. Staff will discuss these reports in greater detail with the EDA at the EDA meeting and staff will be requesting direction from the EDA on how to proceed from this point. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AgENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes November 9, 1998 Meeting #8 ~ City Hall CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 8:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Otten Staff Present: Sondrall, Hanson, Dona.hue, Leone, McDonald, Henry, French, Schuster, Johnson APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Otten, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the EDA minutes of September 28, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. IMP. PROJECT597 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Discussion Regarding 9200 49th Ave. N. Development of City-Owned Property at 9200 49~' Avenue North (Improvement Item 4 Project No. 597). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that over the past 16 months the City has received several inquiries from industrial/commercial businesses and developers who have had a potential interest in the property. In July the EDA directed staff to develop a request for proposal that outlines the type of development the City desires for the site, present it to the EDA for approval, and seek RFPs from interested persons. A draft RFP has been prepared. However, staff has recently met with Gary Nordness, President of Essence Real Estate Services, Inc., and with the owners of Contract Hardware Company, Inc. who are interested in negotiating with the City for the purchase of the property and who have presented a concept plan that would maximize development on the site. Mr. McDonald described the type of business and the proposal. Mr. McDonald asked whether the EDA is desirous of having staff pursue negotiations with ERSI and Contract Hardware Company for the potential purchase of the city-owned property at 9200 49~ Avenue North. The EDA agreed that the proposal appears to be a compatible use and directed staff to proceed with negotiations. Mr. McDonald stated his intention to report .......... : ......... back to the EDA within a month. IMP. PROJECT 645 ~',~ President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Discussion Regarding Appraisal Regent Apartments j of Regent Apartments at 7136 6ffh Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue and 7124 Item 5 .. Lombardy (Improvement Project 645). Lane No. Mr. Kirk McDOnald advised the EDA that the appraisal of the properties revealed a value of $1,000,000. He also estimated the cost to relocate the 35 tenants would be $258,000. He illustrated the redevelopment area and suggested incorporating the two adjacent single family homes at 7128 6ffh and 7104 Lombardy to the project. ,, New Hope EDA November 9, 1998 Page 1 He presented four oPti°ns fo? Conslderation. by the EDA. Commissioner Norby emphasized the need for high density housing such as townhomes for moderate income residents. Commissioner Collier}nquired whether the area is in a Tax Increment District. Mr. McDonald affirmed that the properties are in a plan area and TIF dollars can be expended. ) Mr. Dan Dona_hue, City Manager, stated that due to the complexity of the project, ? he suggested authorizing a planning firm to conduct a financial analysis. He noted ~./ the importance of determining how to best stage the process. M~/ Commissioner Cassen recommended including the entire area if a project is undertaken. , ~'~-The EDA directed staff to hire a planning firm to conduct a financial analysis and " (. several concept plans for potential redevelopment in the area. IMP. PROJECT 603 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 6, Resolution Requesting the 7819 Angeline Drive Purchase of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive (Improvement Project No. Item 6 603). Mr. Donahue stated staff has recentlY learned that' the City needs to pay the appraised value of the property in order to purchase it. The property at 7819 Angeline Drive has an assessed value of $1,000 and a fair market value of $13,700. Staff is requesting authority to purchase the property for no more than $5,000. He noted the lot next to 7819 Angeline Drive may be available next year and staff would like to acquire both properties to pursue a scattered site redevelopment project. RESOLUTION CommiSsioner Norby introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA 98-11 "RESOLUTION REQUESTING PURCHASE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND Item 6 AT 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Collier, and Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Norby, seconded by Commissioner Collier, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. The New HoPe EDA adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA November 9, 1998 Page 2 PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Troy D. Hagen / Alan Brixius DATE: 22 January 1999 Revised: 1 February 1999 RE: New Hope - Regent Apartments Site Re-Development FILE NO.: 131.00 - 98.11 BACKGROUND At the July 27, 1998 Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting, the EDA considered a request from the owners of Regent Apartment regarding financial assistance for the potential rehabilitation of three 12-unit buildings located on the northeastern edge of the City of New Hope. The owners of the Regent Apartments requested improvements that would include replacement or repairs of windows, repair of parking lot, roof replacement, installation of perimeter drain tile systems, potential repair or replacement of the inoperable pool, some new appliances, interior work including hallway carpet and carpet replacement in some units, replacement of some kitchen cabinets and floors, repair of leaking air conditioning units, and adding landscaping to the property. Staff discussed with the owners the possibility of adding garages to the site (currently eight garages for 36 units) and improving property management. The EDA has targeted the entire $2nd Avenue and West Broadway area as an area for future upgrading and redevelopment. Therefore, the EDA indicated an interest in acquiring the property for redevelopment purposes and told staff to convey this interest to the owners, which it did. The owners of the Regent Apartments expressed, in writing, their interest in selling the property to the City for a fair selling price. The EDA then authorized for the appraisal of the property, along with the two single family homes adjoining the property. Upon reviewing the appraisal figures, EDA directed staff to obtain a preliminary redevelopment financial analysis from a professional firm to more clearly identify project costs, calculate the potential tax benefits to the City if a redevelopment would proceed, and investigate the 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 6 ! 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM creation of a new housing redevelopment tax increment financing district. As part of the precedin~ 'request, the City authorized Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. to provide an analysis of design options to enable the City to decide of which land use option would be best for the site. The design options include twinhome, townhome, and multiple family concepts, which integrate the housing types into the surrounding neighborhood. Much of the design concepts are in response to a report conducted by Ms. Nancy Reeves, entitled LJfe Cycle Housing Study for the Year 2010. This study will be analyzed later in this report. SITE CONTEXT Study Area. The study area is located on the northeastern edge of the City (Exhibit A). The subject site is bound by Broadway Village Apartments to the north and west, Louisiana Avenue North to the east, and 60th Avenue North to the south. The site is zoned R-4, High Density Residential and R-l, Single Family Residential. The study area consists of a total of eight lots. Site Size. As illustrated on Exhibit B and Exhibit C, there are two land area options within the study being considered for redevelopment. Area Option 1 includes five lots shown below consisting of 3.39 acres. Area Option 2 consists of eight lots, and a portion of the Louisiana Avenue North right-of-way, resulting in a 4.98 acre redevelopment site. Area Option 1: Lot Address Lot Size Land Use A 7124 Lombardy Lane 1.24 acres Multiple Family B 6017 Louisiana Avenue North 0.82 acres Multiple Family C 7136 60th Avenue North 1.03 acres Multiple Family D 7128 60th Avenue North 0.30 acres Single Family E 7i04 Lombardy Lane 0.26 acres Single Family Total Area 3.39 acres 2 Area Option 2: Lot Address - Lot Size Land Use Area Option 1 3.39 acres F 7101 Lombardy Lane 0.23 acres Single Family G 6908 Louisiana Avenue North 0.23 acres Single Family H 7104 60th Avenue North 0.23 acres Single Family Louisiana Avenue North 0.90 acres R-O-W Total Acreage 4.98 acres Land Uses. The study area includes the Regent Apartments and five single family dwellings. The Regent Apartments are located on three lots zoned R-4, High Density Residential zoning district. The apartments are consistent with the land uses of the R-4 zoning district. The apartment buildings each contain 12 units and are three stories in height. The site contains accessory parking lots, eight garage spaces and a swimming pool. Review of the site reveals that the exterior of the buildings may have recently upgraded, however, the general condition of the overall apartment complex is marginal. The swimming pool has fallen into, disrepair. The site is non-conforming with regards to the amount of parking and the~.lack of garage space for its residents. The single family dwellings are zoned R-l, Single Family zoning district. The single family homes are rambler style homes. The homes east of Louisiana Avenue North and north of Lombardy Lane exhibits signs of disrepair and non-maintenance. The surrounding land uses are illustrated in the Exhibit D. They range from high density multiple family to single family residential. To the north and west of the study area is Broadway Village Apartments, a 252-unit apartment complex equipped with indoor and outdoor pool, badminton and tennis courts, horseshoe pits, and garaged parking. There are nine 24-unit buildings and one 36-unit buildings, each three stories high. There is a small retail development off of Broadway near the Broadway Village Apartments. It contains a liquor store, barber shop, dry cleaner, and video rental store. To the south of the site lies Krystal Kourt Apartments. Krystal .Kourt contains three 12-unit buildings, also three stories tall. Access to the parking lot is gained from both Broadway and 60th Avenue North. These apartments offer only garage parking as an amenity. 3 Northeast of the site is the City of Crystal's North-Lions Park. The park contains a softball diamond, tennis courts, a fitness course for children, and a soccer field. The park access ' is convenient to the sit~,' adjacent diagonally.. East and southeast of the site, beyond the three single family homes included in the study area, lies the City of Crystal. This area is characterized by older smaller single family homes with detached garages. Topography, The topographic maps of the area indicated that the subject site is flat (Exhibit E). The City Engineer has indicated that the water table in the area is extremely close to the surfaCe, about four feet below the ground surface. The recommended depth of development should be not deeper than t, vvo to three feet below grade. This will restrict underground parking as a design option. Street & Utility Corridor. The study area is accessed by 60th Avenue North, Louisiana Avenue North, and Lombardy Lane. Utilities (sanitary sewer and water) are located within the Louisiana Avenue North and Lombardy Lane right, of-ways. If Area Option 2 is chosen for redevelopment, portions of both Louisiana Avenue North and Lombardy Lane could be vacated to increase the buildable area of the site. However, with the street vacation, a 30 foot utility easement would need to be retained over the existing utility lines. The utility location does influence the overall design of the study area. Zoning, With one exCeption, the redevelopment conCepts have been prepared within the design guidelines of New Hope's zoning standards. To accommodate the proposed redevelopment design option changes in zoning may be needed, including R-2 zoning for twinhomes, R-3 for townhomes, and R-4 or R-5 zoning for apartments. Within each of the zoning designations, the following lot area and setback restrictions must be applied. Lot Area Per Unit. The type of housing determines the maximum number of units allowed. As established in the Zoning Ordinance, the lot area per unit is as follows: Two Family: 7,000 square feet Townhouse: 5,000 square feet Multiple Family: 3,000 square feet* Elderly Housing: 1,000 square feet * 4,000 square feet in an R-3 District. 4 Setbacks. The setbacks present yet another restriction which affects the site design. The ' setbacks for the appli~l~le zoning districts are as follows: Setbacks R-2 R-3 R-4 Front Yard 30' 30' 35' Rear Yard 25' 35' 35' Side Yard 20' 20' 20' Due to the depth of the three single family lots located east of Louisiana Avenue North, the front and rear setbacks limit the buildable envelope with an east/west building orientation. The setbacks for the R-2 District (for twinhomes) and the R-3 District (for townhomes) would provide a 30 foot and 20 foot buildable lot depth, respectively. Other than one design option, twinhomes are the only housing type to best fit at this location. Even so, instead of three lots, there can only be two lots, with the homes placed in a north/south configuration. The City may wish to consider a new zoning district reserved'strictly for redevelopment opportunities. This zoning district would allow increased densities and modified setbacks, in order for the City to minimize costs related to the project. This is illustrated in Design Option 7.. Housing Study. As previously mentioned, a housing study was conducted in the City of New Hope. The study analyzed the current housing market in the City and the projected future housing needs. The study indicated that there is an over-supply of singie family homes. The City has a need for new construction of additional housing units primarily for attached housing units, both rental and ownership, including townhomes, cooperatives, and condominiums. These housing types would be most suitable for the growing number of empty-nesters and older people. Of the forecast housing needs of 298 housing units by the year 2010, 58 percent is recommended to be ownership units. The focus of the redevelopment designs are toward introducing twinhome, townhome, and multiple family housing to the site. Some of the alternatives present a combination of housing types, for example, twinhomes and townhomes or apartments and twinhomes. 5 I EXISTING LAND US :.~. SITE LOCATION LEGEND =~ ~.~..>=_ = A/city Boundary ~ Low Density Residential ~ Low Density/Medium Density Residentia ~ Medium Density Residential ~ High Density Residential ~ Commercial ~ Industrial ~ Public & Semipublic : ~ Parks & Recreation ,~, ~ ~ ~__. ~ Lakes =--==: Vacant ~ Outside City limit -:- -~ .... ~.~.-.-.-:~ I~ Source: No~hwest~sociated Consultants ~ ...... ~: ~= ....... ~,~__ June 1998 (C/.? o." ~%'e:;, Ho~e Plan Comprehensive Upd~ Development Frame~v EXHIBIT A F'~IVATE DF, lYE I ~ / ~ LOMBARDY LANE 0.82 ac I i I 60TM AVE. N. 1" = 100' Area Option 1 Total Acres: 3.39 36 Apartment Units (three 12-unit buildings) Total Units: 38 8 Garage Spaces 60 Open Parking Spaces 2 Single Family Houses EXHIBIT B LOT P I LOT F i .... 60TM AVE. N. 1" = 100' Area Option 2 Total Acres: 4.98 36 Apartment Units (three 12-unit buildings) Total Units: 41 8 Garage Spaces 60 Open Parking Spaces 5 Single Family Houses EXHIBIT C CITY OF CRYSTAL COMMERCIAL i ~ ! = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTI4 LOW DENS1TM RESIDENTIAL PARK & RECREATIO; /i HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CITY OF . CRYSTAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 60TH AVENUE NORTH LOW DEI"ISITY RESIDENTIAL ? CITY OF CRYSTAL '~HIGHDEI'iSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING LAND USE EXHIBIT D · ..~ NORTH LION',~ PAE~: VILLAGE SINGLE A~A~TMENT5 FAMILY ~E~[DENTIAL ~,~ .... ~ ........ ~ ~ : ~ P~IVATE D~IVE LOMDA~DY LANE 5INOLE FAMILY ' ~ESIDENTIAL 20 ~PACE~ ~ ~t ~ 60TM AVE. N. 1" = 1OO' ~ N Existing Conditions 36 Apartment Units (three 12-unit buildings) Average Density: 7:2 units/acre 8 Garage stalls 60 Open parking stalls Total Acres*: 4.98 ,5 Single Family Houses Total Units: 41 * Total Acres within the study area. EXHIBIT E CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Several concepts or ct(~sign schemes were developed as a response to the issues identified and based on the followingdesign parameters outlined by staff. 1. Establish a compatible land use relationship with existing residential neighborhood. 2. Promote residential development at value greater than existing housing stock in the area. 3. Promote a variety of housing types and styles that are needed within New Hope. 4. The potential vacation of Louisiana Avenue North would require a 30 foot utility easement for existing utilities. The following descriptions identify each design scenario: Design Option 1 (Exhibit F). This is a high density option that provides an efficient use of land and maintains the current street pattern. The land zoned R-1 on the west side of Louisiana Avenue North would be rezoned to R-4 and the land zoned P,-1 on the east side of Louisiana Avenue North would rezoned to R-2.~ Design Option 1 complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking, setbacks, and minimum lot area per unit for the R-4 District on the west side of Louisiana Avenue and for the R-2 District on the east side of Louisiana Avenue. Two 24-unit apartment buildings provide an efficient housing option that is compatible in density and character with the 24-unit Broadway Village apartments to the north and west. If access was arranged through Broadway Village to the west, the need for an additional access for 60th Avenue North Would be eliminated. Design Option 1 has new garages backing up to garages on the Broadway Village property. If building separation is not provided between the garages, fall wall separation is necessary to insure compliance with fire code. The proposed parking plan complies with minimum standards of at least one enclosed and 1-1/4 open spaces per multiple family unit. Apartments are set back from streets and the parking is tucked away in the northwest corner of the site. Open space in the middle of the study area provides an opportunity for a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool, children's play area, or tennis court. The need for on-site recreation is off-set by North Lion's Park, located adjacent to the northeast corner of the study area. The land occupied by three single family homes on the east side of Louisiana Avenue North is redeveloped With four twinhome units. If Louisiana Avenue North is not removed, twinhomes provide the most efficient option for using this piece of land that is approximately 95 feet wide and 320 feet long. Twinhomes provide a transition between the high density housing to the north and west and Iow density housing to the east. 11 ;,:' _. NORTH LION'S PARK ~ESiDENTI^L POTENTIAL ~cc~ss-- - PRIVATE DRIVE ~ LOMBARDY LANE ~ ~EC~E~TIONAL~ ! ~ ' 24 UNIT5 I 60TM AVE. N. 1" = 100' ~ N DESIGN OPTION 1 Apartment/Twin Home 48 Apartment Units (two 24-unit buildings) Average Density: 10.4 units/acre 48 Garage Stalls 60 Open parking stalls Total Units: 52 Lot Area per Unit-Min. Allowed: 3,000 (square feet) Proposed: 3,076 4.Twin Home Units Min. Allowed: 7,000 Average Proposed: 7,200 EXHIBIT F Design Option 2 (Exhibit G). This option'p~;°vides the highest density possible with multiple family housin, g within the R-4 District. This option incorporates the three single family lots on the east s~'d'e of Louisiana Avenue North and requires all the R-1 land within the study area to be rezoned to R-4. Design Option 2 is compliant with parking, setbaCk, and minimum lot area per unit requirements for the R-4 District. Louisiana Avenue North between Lombardy Land and 60th Avenue North would be removed to provide an efficient use of land and reduce unnecessary pavement. This option contains 41 percent green space. This design option is similar to Design Option 1 in amenity ways. Instead of providing two 24-units apartment buildings and 4 twinhome units, three 24-unit apartment buildings are provided. Access and garage issues are the same as for Design Option 1. An area for a recreational amenity is provided in the southeast corner of the site. Alternatively, the building the faces the east property line could be located further to the South and a recreational amenity could be provided north of this building. 13 NORTH LION'.~ PAleR A~'AY`TMEN'rS J I J ll_l l FAMILY F'OTENTIAL - ACCESS LOM ~',ARDY LANE PRIVATE DRIVE ~5 GAY.. 0 o OAK. .--, ~ ""'3 51NOLE __ FAMILY I FOP. KEOP-,EATION AL POTENTIAL · ~" W^TER - - J-', 9" ~ANITARY ~EWER, I ~oTM AYE. N. ~" = ~00' ~ N DESIGN OPTION 2 Apartment 72 Apartment Units (three 24-unit buildings) Average Density: 14.4 units/acre 72 Garage Stalls 90 Open parking stalls Total Units: 72 Lot Area per Unit- Min. Allowed: 3,000 Green Space: 41% (square feet) Proposed: 3,013 EXHIBIT G Design Option 3 (Exhibit H). In response to the study, Life Cycle Housing for the Year 2010 by Nancy Reeves, this option contains attached owner-occupied housing. Sixteen townhomes and eight t~inhomes are included in this option. The existing street pattern is maintained, including the private dri. v~ extending from Lombardy Lane. For this option, the entire study area would be rezoned to R-3, which allows townhomes and twinhomes. This medium density option would contain 24 housing units, compared to 41 housing units existing on the site. The arrangement is not over-crowded, and lot sizes (including private roads) are larger than minimum requirements. No community recreational area is included in this option; however, the North Lion's Park is in close proximity to the site. 15 .... NORTH LION'S PARK ! D~OAOWAY I VILLAGI= | ~ SINGLE AF'A~TMENTS ~ ~ FAMILY I ~ RESIOENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE LOMBARDY LANE < ' Z~ 5INGLE < FAMILY ~ ~ESIOENTIAL I ~0TM AVE. N. 1" = lO0' ~. DESIGN OPTION 3 Twin Home / Town Home Lot Size (square feet) - Average Density: 4.8 units/acre 8 Twin Home Units Total Units: 24 Min. Allowed: 7,000 Average Proposed: 8,138 16 Town Homes Min. Allowed: 5,000 Average Proposed: 6,238 EXHIBIT H Design Option 4 (Exhibit I). This option also includes attached owner-occupied housing, which was identified as a need in the L/fe Cycle Housing for the Year 2010 study. Twenty- six townhomes and fobi' twinhomes'are included'in this option, six more units than in Design Option 3. The entire study are~ would be rezoned to R-3. The private drive that currently extends from Lombardy Lane would be shifted to the north and an additional private drive would be built to the south. This arrangement provides the most efficient arrangement for townhomes. As in Design Option 3, no community recreational area is included in this option. Design Option 4A (Exhibit J). This option is very similar to Design Option 4, except Louisiana Ave. N. is vacated to enable enough lot depth for tovv~homes. This option provides four more units than Design Option 4. 17 _ - . NORTH LION'S PARK I ' I~RO AI:?WAy VILLAGE } APARTMENTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE LOMBARDY LANE ! ~ --L t SINGLE -- FAMILY ~ !RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE ~ ' , 60TM AVE. N. 1" = IOO' · N DESIGN OPTION 4 Town Home / Twin Home LOt Size (square feet) - Average Density: 6.0 units/acre 4 Twin Home Units Total Units: 30 Min. Allowed: 7,000 Average Proposed: 7,200 26 Town Homes Min. Allowed: 5,000 Average Proposed: 5,680 (including private drives) EXHIBIT I NORTH LION'5 PARK VILLAGE ) 5INGLE APARTMENT5 FAMILY E,E$1DENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE ..... I LOMBAROY LANE °1 5INGLE FAMILY ~ESIDENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE -I 60TM AVE. N. 1" = 100' DESIGN OPTION 4A Town Home 'Lot Size (square feet) Average Density: 6.8 units/acre 34 Town Home Units Total Units: 34 Min. Allowed: 5,000 Average Proposed Including Streets: 6,380 Without Streets: 4,440 EXHIBIT Design Option 5 (Exhibit J), This option retains all the existing buildings provides additional garages~ Currently, eight garages are provided for 36 apartment units. This option contains 36 gar~a'ges for 36 unit~s. This option would include the least amount of redevelopment and would not provide in'creased density or increased diversity of housing. The two single family lots located on the west side of Louisiana Avenue North are too small to subdivide for twinhomes within Zoning Ordinance minimum lot area requirements. 20 NORTH LION'~ PARK D~OADWAY ..~ VILLAGE APARTMENTS ~ SINGLE FAMILY ~ RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE ORIVE LOMBARDY LANE SINGLE FAMILY P-.ESIDENTIAL . 60TM AVE. N. 1" '- 1OO' · N DESIGN OPTION 5 Existing Buildings with Garages 36 Apartment Units (three 12-unit buildings) Average Density: 7.2 units/acre 36 Garage stalls 51 Open parking stalls Total Units: 41 5 Single Family Homes EXHIBIT K Design Option 6 (Exhibit K). This high densitY housing option provides 146 apartment units for elderly housing ~,nd four twin home units. The properties Zoned R-1 on the west side of Louisiana Ave. ~. would be rezoned to R-4 or R-5, and the properties zoned R-1 on the east side of Louisiana Ave. N. ~ould be rezoned to R-2. Elderly housing is a conditional use within the R-4 District and is a permitted use in the R-5 District subject to the following requirements: a. Age Limit. Not more than ten percent of the occupants may be persons sixty years of age or under (spouse of a person over sixty years of age or caretakers, etc.) b. Public Transit. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is served or is located within four hundred feet of regular transit service. The distance from west Broadway to the southeast entrance of the elderly housing building is approximately 600 feet; however, the distance from West Broadway to an entrance on the southwest corner of the building is only 370 feet. c. Age Certification Reouired. To continue to qualify' for the eldedy housing classification, the owner or agency shall annually file with the City Clerk and the Building Official a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number of tenants by age and clearly identifying and setting forth the relationship of ali occupants sixty years of age or under to qualified tenants, or to the building. d. Street Access. The site of the principal use and its related parking is served by an arterial or collector street. The elderly apartment building is not served by an arterial or collector street. Access would be gained from Louisiana Ave. N. West Broadway, a minor arterial, is located 500 feet wast of the intersection of Louisiana Ave. N. and 60th Ave. N. e. State Building Code. The principal use structure is in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code. f. Elevators. Elevator service is provided to each floor level. g. Open S_oace. Useable open space as defined in Section 4.022 at a minimum is equal to twenty percent of the gross lot area. DeSign Option 6 contains approximately 20% useable open space. 22 Design Option 6 contains an elderly apartment building containing 146 units. The building would be four stories tall and the first level of the building would contain 116 parking garage stalls. Undergro'u'nd parking is not an option due to a high water table. Buildings in excess of three' stories are a conditi(Snal use in the R-4 District subject to the following requirements: a. Suitability. The site is capable of accommodating the increased intensity of use. Adequate parking, lot area per unit, and open space can be provided on the site. b. Traffic. The increased intensity of use does not cause an increase in traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. The accesses from the elderly apartment parking lot and garage parking would be the only accesses onto Louisiana Ave. N. within this block and a half area. Additional West Broadway, a minor arterial, is 500 feet from the intersection of Louisiana Ave. N. and 60"' Ave. N. c. Utilities. Public utilities and services are adequate. Most of th® land to be occupied by the elderly housing use is currentlY zoned R-4; therefore an intensive use of the site has been anticipated. The impact on public utilities should be considered by the CitY Engineer. d. Added Set-Backs. For each additional story over three stodes or for each additional ten feet above forty feet, front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by five feet. The building is setback from front and rear properties lines by 40 feet and from side property lines by at least 25 feet. The proposed elderly housing design is based upon the Anthony James Apartments located nearby on Broadway Avenue West. The proposed-building is expected to contain approximately 75 percent one-bedroom apartments and 25 percent two-bedroom apartments for independent living. The proposed option maximizes density on the site and contains approximately 20 percent usable open space. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per every three units plus reservation of area equal to one parking space per every three units for elderly housing. This design option contains 1 1/4 spaces per unit. This larger amount of parking is necessary for the independently living elderly residents. This amount of parking is comparable to what was provided at Anthony James. 23 Redeveloping the three single family lots on the east side of Louisiana Ave. N. with four twin home units eliminates an access onto Louisiana Ave. N. and provides a transition in ' density and character b'~tween high density residential uses to the west and Iow density residential uses to the east. 24 ~.~- _. ~ NORTH LION'S PARK VILLAGE ~ I SINGLE A?AI~'TM ENTS ~:) FAMILY ~ ~EStOENTIAL LOMBARDY LANE -- ~ - ~ 5INGLE IJ I FAmilY I J ~E~IOENTIAL O0TM ~VE. N. 1" = 100' · N DESIGN OPTION 6 Elderly Apartment / Twin Home 146 Apartment Units (one 146-unit building) Average Density: 30.1 units/acre 116 First Level Garage Stalls 71 Open stalls Total Units: 150 Lot Area per Unit - Min. Allowed: 1,000 Useable Open Space: 20% (square feet) Proposed: 1,011 4 Twin Home Units Min. Allowed: 7,000 Proposed: 7,200 EXHIBIT L Design Option 7 (Exhibit L). All of the previous design options are based on existing zoning districts. Design Option 7 proposed the creation of a new zoning district. This new zoning district would be~,,6me R-6, High Density Redevelopment Residential District. The following performance standards could be a part of the District. The details of the district could be expanded after discussion with staff. 1. The district would have open occupancy for families, not be specifically for the elderly like the R-5 District. 2. The minimum lot area per unit would be 2,000 square feet per unit compared to 3,000 square feet per unit in the R-4 District. 3. The increased lot density would be offset with a minimum green space requirement of 40 percent. 4. To accommodate the minimum green space requirement and density, buildings would be allowed to be a maximum of four stories in height. 5. In-building parking would be required to accommodate the green space requirement. 6. Because the District is family oriented, 2 1/4 parking spaces per unit would be required. This district would be applied as an incentive for redevelopment of larger blighted parcels in the City. The increased density allowed would reduce redevelopment cost per unit. In Design Option 7 the R-4 and R-1 land west of Louisiana Ave. N. would be rezoned to R-6, and the land zoned R-1 east of Louisiana Ave would be rezoned R-2. The apartment building design is based upon the design of the Anthony James Apartments located nearby on Broadway Avenue West; however, since the proposed building is family oriented, it contains a higher percentage of two and three,bedroom apartments. The building might contain 42 two-bedroom apartments, 21 one-bedroom apartments, and 10 three-bedroom apartments. The first level of the building would contain 92 parking stalls, and 72 open parking stalls are provided outside, resulting in 2 1/4 spaces per unit. Redeveloping the three single family lots on the east side of Louisiana Ave. N. with four twin home units eliminates an access onto Louisiana Ave. N. and provides a transition in density and character between high density residential uses to the west and Iow density residential uses to the east. 26 < DI~OADW^Y ~ILLAGE ~ I 5INGLE ~ESIDENTIAL LOMBARDY LANE I !~"- - 5INGLE ....I RE,~tDENTIAL ~[C~[^TION^L AMENITY ~0TM AVE. N. 1" = 100' ~ N DESIGN OPTION 7 Apartment / Twin Home 73 Apartment Units (one 73-unit building) Average Density: 15.5 units/acre 92 First Level Garage Stalls 72 Open stalls Total Units: 77 Lot Area per Unit- Min. Allowed: 2,000 Green Space: 45.6% (square feet) Proposed: 2,022 4 Twin Home Units Min. Allowed: 7,000 Proposed: 7,200 EXHIBIT /,,4 PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS Acquisition Costs. 'L'and acquisition would be the most costly element of the redevelopment project. Initial property?appraisals have been gathered for the properties located in Area Option 1, by BCL Appraisals. The cost of acquiring the land for Area Option 1 and relocating residents residing in the apartments would be as follows: Acquisition Cost of Regent Apartments (3 buildings) $1,000,000 Relocation of Tenants 258,500 Acquisition of Single Family Homes (2) 191,400' Single Family Homes Residents Relocation Costs (2) 30,000** Total Acquisition/Relocation Cost for Area Option 1 $1,479,900 Area Option 2 would include the total cost of Area Option 1, plus the sum of the fair market value of the three single family homes located east of Louisiana Avenue North. The total cost for land acquisition and relocation for Area Option 2 is as follows: Total Acquisition/Relocation Cost for Option 2 $1,432,500 Acquisition of Single Family Homes (3) 292,600* Single Family Homes Residents Relocation Costs (3) 45,000** Total Acquisition/Relocation Cost for Area Option 2 $1,770,100 *Single family home values are taken from the City of New Hope tax assessment roll with 10 percent added. ** Relocation costs for single family residents were determined based upon owner- occupancy. Rate set at $15,000 per home (City of New Hope). The value of the three single family homes was based upon the taxation value recognized by the City. This figure may be slightly higher, depending on its fair market value. Demolition Costs. Some of the design concepts would require the demolition of three, 12-unit buildings and two single family homes for Area Option 1, and an additional three single family homes for Area Option 2. The City Engineer estimated demolition costs for Area Option 1 to be $75,000. Area OptiOn 2 would require an additional $25,000 for demolition, bringing the total to $100,000. The total cost for each option is as follows: Area Option 1: Total Acquisition/Relocation Cost $1,479,900 Estimated Demolition Cost 75,000 Total COst for Site Preparation $1,554,900 28 Area Option 2: Total Acquisition/Relocation Cost $1,770,100 Estimated Demolition Cost ~ 100,000 Total Cost for Site Preparation $1,870,100 PROJECT COSTS City Staff indicated that once the Design Options were 'complete, they will be forwarded to a financial analyst to calculate the final project costs. The various design options present a wide range of housing options and along With that a Wide range of construction costs. The financial analyst will determine the cost of redevelop per design option based on the housing types presented. The following table illustrates the "cost per unit" based on the number of units in each Design Option for just the known site preparation costs: Per Unit Site Preparation Costs Area Option 1:$1,554,900 Area Option 2:$1,870,100 Number of Units Area Option 1 Area Option 2 Design Option 1 52 $29,902 / unit $35,963 / unit Design Option 2 72 $21,596 / unit $25,974 / unit Design Option 3 24 $64,788 ! unit $77,921 / unit Design Option 4 30 $51,830 / unit $62,337 / unit Design Option 4A 34 $45,732 / unit $55,003 / unit Design Option 5 41 $37,924 / unit $45,612 / unit Design Option 6 150 $10,366 / unit $12,467 / unit Design Option 7 77 $20,194 / unit $24,287 / unit 29 KRASS MONROE, P.A. ATT O R N EY S A'"I; -hAW ·Greg D. Johnson Email gregj@krassmonroe, com www. krassrnonroe, corn Direct Dial (612) 885-5994 MEMORANDUM To: City of New Hope Att'n: Sue Henry Kirk McDonald From: Greg D. Johnson James R. Casserly Date: 2/17/99 Re: Regent Apartment Area Redevelopment Our File No. 10048-1 Enclosed each of you will find the following: I. Comparison of Scenarios 2. Scenario I - 26 Tmvnhomes 3. Scenario II - 34 Townhomes 4. Scenario III -48 Apartments 5. Scenario IV - 146 Senior Apartments; 4 Twinhomes Each of the scenarios has tlxree pages: A. Assumptions B. Cash Flow and Present Value Analysis C. Sources and Uses The purpose of the analysis is to attempt to show the amount of tax increment that would be available for expenses relating to acquisition, demolition, relocation, public improvements, etc. The first report m each scenario is the Assumptions. The Assumptions used are critical to the proper analysis of each scenario. We have tried to use amounts comparable to those used in other cities for similar types of development. Market val,ue determination is open to much debate, but often you can make a reasonable assumption based on the amount of taxes payable per unit. This SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER · 1650 WEST 82ND STREET · BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1447 TELEPHONE 6122885-5999 · FACSIMILE 6122885-5969 can be compared to similar types of development in the City. Most of the expenditures were taken from the City report.q)n the Regent Apartment area and the planning report from Alan Brixius. A brief explanation of the Cash Flow and Present Value Analysis is as follows: 1. Date. Construction is assumed to be completed in the year 2000, assessed in 2001 for taxes payable in the year 2002. Tax increment would be collected through the year 2026. 2. Original Tax Capaci _ty. This is the current tax capacity on the parcels that Would be involved in the development. The tax capacity shown includes the Regent Apartments and 2 houses for the Original Project Area scenarios i& III. The Expanded Area scenarios II & IV add current tax capacity for 3 additional houses. 3. Estimated Tax Capaci_ty. This is the result of taking the market value after completion times the class rate applicable for either rental property or owner occupied townhomes. 4. Captured Tax Capaci_ty. This results from subtracting "Original Tax Capacity" from "Estimated Tax Capacity". 5. Estimated Tax Increment. This is calculated by multiplying the "Captured Tax Capacity" by the City's estimated 1999 tax rate of 1.26609 and dividing the result by two. This column is expressed on a semi-annual basis (the previous three columns are all expressed on an annual basis. 6. Admin. Fees. These are administration fees which the City and Authority may use to operate its development program. These are the maximum amounts that may be retained and represent 10% of the tax increment. 7. Available Tax Increment. This is the amount remaining after subtracting the administrative fees from the estimated tax increment. 8. Cumulative Available Tax Increment . This column is simply the semi-annual cumulative balance of the preceding column. 9. 7.50% Semi Annual Balance. This column is the present value of the preceding column and represents the time value of money. If the City receives available tax increment of $14,357 in June of 2002, it has a value of $11,512 in June of 1999. The total of this column is the net present value. 10. Cumulative Balance. This column is simply the semi-annual cumulative balance of the preceding column. The Comparison of Scenarios report summarizes the revenues generated and the needed expenditures for four different types of development projects. As you will note on the bottom line of each column, none of these projects pay for ;.hemselves. There is simply not enough tax Page 2 increment generated and land sale payments to covei' all the costs of acquisition, demolition, relocation, public improv_ements and professional fees. Lower interest rate. reduced expenses and higher market values will ~al) reduce these deficits, but it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate them. ' G:\WPDATA\N'xNew Hope\01 \Con'\TIFSumma~y.doc · Page 3 02/16/99 TUE 16:19 FAX 812 855 5969 //RA$S ~ONROE ~002 - , CITY OF NEW HOPE COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS Orig. Proj. Area Expanded Area Orig. Proj. Area Expanded Area Market Value 4 Twlnhome~ Per Unit 26 Townhomes ~ Townhomes 48 Apartments 146 Sr. Aptrnts, Construction Apartments, market rate 48 units Senior Rental - Iow income 58 units Senior Rental - market rate 88 units Townhomes- for sale 26. units 34 units 4 units 26 units 34 units 48 units 150 units Estimated Market Value Apartments - market rate 40,000 0 0 1,920,000 0 Senior Rental - Iow income 40,000 0 0 0 2,320,000 Senior Rental - market rate 40,000 0 0 0 3,520,000 Townhomes - for sale 110,000 2,860,000 3,740,000 0 440,000 Total Market Value $2,860,000 $3,740,000 $1,920,000 $6,280,000 Estimated Annual Taxes 44,275 57,898 60,772 147,601 Available Tax Increment 973,769 1,285,81 5 1,022,826 3,424,546 Available Tax Increment P.V. 330,856 437,295 337,016 1,169,521 Land Sales 195,000 255,000 360,000 468,000 Total Revenues 525,856 692,295 697,016 1,637,521 Total Uses Project Expenses 1,843,217 2,354,460 1,843,217 2,354,460 TIF assistance required 0 0 0 0 Revenues Less Expenses (1,317,361) (1,662,165)- (1,1.46,201) (716,939) Re~entSum.WK4 Prepared by Krass Monroe, PA. 02/10/99