02-21-12 HRA Special Workshop Agenda Packet AGENDA
Special Workshop Meeting
of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
February 21, 2012
5 pm
Pages
1. Roll Call
2. Three•Nine•Four Development - Project History 2-8
3. Adjournment
�.�:.
fitiis d�c�m�r����a�!�f��t��e'irr�lterr�at�formats u��r��7�-hour r��ues�.��e�s�catl .
` ���--5����t}�f��1�CY 7�3�-59�-�����tcr make� r.equ�st. E��m�[��c�f��t�r.���e��rma�s �
��y�n�Iud�l�r���r�ir��,;;�l�ctrcini�,�r�i(le,�u��t�c�s���t�, etc.
,� �,
- � �
� .- �_ �-
P Housing & Redevelopment
� V
_. Authority
763-593-8014/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Special Workshop Meeting
February 21, 2012
Agenda Item
2. Three•Nine•Four Development - Project History
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant Director
Summary
Identifying and Selecting Developer
In 2008, the Planning Department began receiving inquiries from the development community
regarding the City's plans for the undeveloped land at the northwest quadrant of Trunk
Highway 100 and Interstate 394. It was acquired by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) in the 1980s. Some of the property was taken for the expansion of
the highway, with the residual property used as a staging area during the conversion of U.S.
Highway 12 into Interstate 394. The residual property has remained vacant since the
completion of the freeway (See attached Reconveyance Area).
Since the property is owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, several of the
developers contacted MnDOT directly about the site. These contacts prompted MnDOT to
begin the process of selling the property. When excess MnDOT property is sold, the City's
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is given the right of first refusal concerning the
sale of the land for redevelopment purposes.
In late 2008, the HRA authorized staff to send a letter to interested parties seeking proposals
to redevelop the site. Eight developers expressed an interest in the site: The Shelter
Corporation, IBEX Commercial, Global One Commercial, Minnesota Landscape
Professionals, Weiss Builders, Equity Transwestern, LSA Design and Webb Golden Valley.
The first two chose to make a presentation at an HRA Workshop on January 13, 2009. At that
time the HRA requested that staff work with IBEX Commercial on hotel development for the
site. IBEX subsequently chose not to proceed, but Global One Commercial (Global One)
came forward later that year with a proposal to construct a 6-story, 138-unit apartment
building and a 6-story, 165-room Hilton Garden Inn that incorporated a small bank facility
within the building. Its proposal was presented to the HRA on March 9, 2010. After the
presentation the HRA conditionally designated Global One Commercial as developer for the
site.
Designation is approved by a resolution of the HRA, which documents the intent of the
developer and the HRA to work together to fine tune the development proposal. While it is not
a firm commitment to sell the property or approve the project, it demonstrates the intent of the
HRA to work in good faith with the developer to identify issues that need to be resolved
before the HRA would consider selling the property or the City would proceed with formal
planning review. Their designation ended on November 1, 2010. At that time Tom Burt
provided a letter indicating that the staff would continue to work on the project with the
developer, listing outstanding issues and the constraints provided by the impending sanitary
sewer interceptor project proposed by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.
On May 7, 2009, the developer provided a $10,000 deposit to offset HRA expenses to work
on the development. As the deposit has been expended, the developer has provided further
funds, which at this time total $50,000.
Negotiations with Developer
Staff and the developer have worked through a number of major issues related to this project,
which have caused the project to evolve from the one presented at the March 2010 HRA
Meeting.
Traffic - The first issue addressed during discussions was handling traffic related to the new
development. A consultant hired to study traffic related to proposed development at the
intersection of Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive developed a model to identify
traffic related to proposed office development at both the northwest (Olympic Printing) and
southeast (Colonnade) quadrants of the intersection to comply with the Golden Valley/St.
Louis Park Traffic Management Ordinance. The original study estimated possible
development and traffic that might occur related to the MnDOT parcel. The consultant was
hired to use the existing model to evaluate the traffic impact of the Global One proposal for
apartment and hotel uses and an alternate use: medical office. The study demonstrated that
traffic related to medical office uses would cause the intersection to fail, and housing uses
generated fewer peak hour trips. Based on this finding, Global One opted to retain the
proposed apartment use, but change the hotel use to senior housing, which reduces
projected peak hour trips. The plans now show a five-story, 149-unit senior housing building
and a six-story, 212-unit market-rate apartment building (see attached site plan).
Access - The only access to the MnDOT site is a platted 15-foot alley with an adjacent ten-
foot strip of land that MnDOT acquired through condemnation when it constructed I-394. The
MnDOT parcel was used for construction staging during the highway construction and access
occurred via the expanded alleyway. Staff reviewed this access and determined that it was
not adequate to create a public road to the development, and that private usage by multiple
parties could not be recommended. Staff asked the developer to explore access issues with
adjacent property owners to identify a better approach. Webb Golden Valley, Brown and
Carlson and Maurice Goldman (Mayfair Apartments) were all contacted regarding various
options for improved access and circulation. After some time Global One reached an
understanding with Maurice Goldman that he would consider selling his property, which has
access on Circle Down. A new site plan with access from Circle Down, on-site ponding and
better separation from the adjacent homes on Circle Down.was put forward. This led to the
concept of making the purchase of the MnDOT property contingent on the developer
acquiring the adjacent parcel, which when joined with the MnDOT parcel would improve the
development project and provide better access.
Sanitary Sewer Interceptor-While discussions on this development were underway,
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) brought forward a proposal to
construct a sanitary sewer interceptor needed to serve the Duke and Golden Hills
developments. For a long time various routes were under consideration for the interceptor,
including across the MnDOT parcel and other options south along the Cedar Lake Trail.
During this consideration the designation for Global One expired, and the HRA staff did not
know if the MnDOT parcel would continue to be available for private development. Staff
recommended against extending the designation, but agreed by letter to continue working
with Global One on development options for the site, if the developer was willing to wait for
determination of the interceptor route. During this time the staff also asked the developer to
pay for a sewer availability study to determine if the proposed development would have
adequate sewer capacity prior to the completion of the new interceptor. The analysis
indicated that there is currently adequate capacity to bring the proposed development onto
the sewer system. A route for the sewer interceptor has now been identified that brings the
pipe under I-394 at east end of the MnDOT parcel and then along the Circle Down right-of-
way. The developer has agreed to provide any sewer easements needed for the interceptor
as part of the platting process for the property.
The MCES sewer interceptor location was the last major negotiating issue with the developer.
A development agreement has been drafted and is ready to be presented to the HRA.
Process to Formally Consider Redevelopment Proposal
As noted earlier, the MnDOT parcel is in a redevelopment area and can be sold to the HRA
for redevelopment purposes. The HRA can then, through a Private Development Agreement,
sell the property to a developer for an identified project. In order for the development to be
completed as provided in the development agreement, the HRA, City Council, and other
parties all have important roles. The following is a summary of the process.
• The HRA holds a public hearing on the sale of the land and votes whether to approve the
Private Development Agreement providing for the sale.
• The developer secures a survey of, and appraisal for, the MnDOT property and
purchases the adjacent parcel from a private owner.
• MnDOT agrees to an appraised value and determines that it will sell the land to the HRA
for this redevelopment. (MnDOT does not enter into purchase agreements but will
provide a letter outlining its terms for selling the property.)
• The developer holds a neighborhood meeting prior to the City's planning consideration.
• The City considers the Planned Unit Development (preliminary and final) applications for
the development of the property. This involves two informal public hearings held by the
Planning Commission and finro public hearings held by the City Council.
• The HRA approves a final site plan for the project after the project has secured planning
approval from the City.
The attached schedule lists a possible sequence for these activities, suggesting that if the
HRA initiates the project at its regular meeting in April, the project could not move forward
until October, at the earliest.
Redevelopment Plan
In 2010 staff and the HRA worked on revising the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan to reflect
the changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan that came out of the I-394 Corridor Study. The
goal was to amend the existing redevelopment plan to incorporate zoning changes
implemented in 2008 and to expand the geographic area in the Redevelopment Plan to better
correspond to the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Proposed changes were reviewed by the
City Council at a Council/Manager Meeting, by the Planning Commission and by the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority at a public hearing that extended over two meetings. Staff
made plan revisions in keeping with the discussion that occurred during this process, but at
its April 11, 2011, the HRA decided to defer final consideration of the amended plan because
of continued uncertainties related to redevelopment of the MnDOT parcel. If the HRA is ready
to move forward with consideration of the Global One Commercial Private Development
Agreement, it would also be appropriate to restart the process of amending the
redevelopment plan.
Current Discussion
Staff has worked with Global One Commercial to develop a site plan that is sensitive to the
traffic needs of the area, compatible with zoning regulations and complimentary to the
surrounding development. The purpose of the February 21 HRA Workshop is to update the
Commissioners on the status of this project and address any outstanding questions.
Attachments
Global One Commercial, The Three•Nine•Four, Site Option #37, dated May 18, 2011
(1 page)
C.S. 2789 (394+10)905 Parcels 40,44 & 76 Reconveyance Area 179620 SF (no date)
(1 page)
Three•Nine•Four Development Project - Prospective Schedule, draft dated 1-24-12 (1 page)
Recommended Action
The Commissioners need to determine if the staff should set the public hearing for the sale of
land under a private development agreement and restart the amendment process for the
Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan.
/ / 4 � � � O
� ��� // T � �x °
� . c r� , i , � ,y
� z ,�- �\ �° ,���. ,
� ,
� � �° \ `i,-- ❑
`� � O \ �i � �
o O I o
' � I • j�
o I o
� � � � 1
S �
� � /�
i
\�^ � S� ! `\\,\ � • � �II o
\ I y
o �>�` � � \�� � a o r �
� � /
� � � , �
�
� ° �
� j� o ��, �
� I Q �� �I
o� U � Q , �
N g � Q � I �
� � "'p ' i I a �
Q- � � � Q o i � � �
Q � J p � � �c
a � � r ;I I
O k � _
�� � � Q � �'I ��� I
� � ' I
>-- J
� O Q o � � , Q ii a �-'
W � ;a �I I I
� �- � � � Q ; ; I I I
�
Q� Z Q � �`'� � a ° �� ����1
U � N � ; I
� � � I
� ° o U �� � � ; ; Q �� '� = � � � �
O U w �
� "� ' a
Q— � I � Q � z � �� �� � �,,�-
H �' � '" � I � �I
� I � � J � I I � Ia I
� O V I ( I V� I
U
O I , I O O � � . y
T I I I ^� � N p i � Q �I
U� � N � ' I �a �I
� z c� ; ; � , � p �
o � z � - o d i
W ° -- , o��
, o
�' = Q w � g ��,-- -J �-, �,,� Q. � s°
�, I �
rn � � �- '' � -
� ' �
o x
Ij I � �
� w II � � II � � I �
0
�
o iC I I I
�
� � I � � ` � � � � � p I
� � I �
N � I o �
o � � � � � I —
� o I I�' II I' � � � —
° � 4 � -- --� � � o �� �� � � � • 4 0l
' �
�--� � � � o � � � I ,,Q ,� 6 �a o �—
� i � I d � � � � I
I
I � � � Q �
- - - - - I I � � ° . °� I I�
- � - - � I � c�
� � o 0 0 � o � � � � 4 �
_ � i :�. Q
� � inoinooQ /� � I �x �--�-- � � �
�x
,_._, �n o .-. o o .-, / _ _ _ _ _ I �
___----
N � ° � o °. o' / �, --- -- - �{ --- S I
Q � o� r- rn �n o ¢ \ � 1� � �- 25.5 1 ' � ' --'
� � �
Q N � � � �2�J i �
~ � I� N c0 N O� J s \ / I ' I i I I
Q
� Ln I'� OJ J M M r 1 a � � ' I 8
° . . � � �I ��I � � � I
`--' I�") M 6� W 6� I�-
w ,�, � � � oOM i �� II I�I � � I I
� z � I � � (
QQ c� o � � �� � �� �\ a � � . m
>-- cn m � a� I� II I l � s
W Q � � � �� �I� \� ¢ i � � I -�
� � � � � � � 4�
o �
� o ¢ �I �I �I � � I � N �
� � � O � � N � I
� � � � o � � � II �'�,��— �' � o
O � I I d � o N �I
I " '�
� � ��j �I �il � � � �� M °� �I
o -�� I I I;I �'�� � _ � o I
� i �- I
� r- c0 O� Q O N .k q '1 `1 J� I I1 ~ � ui
�I �'I � I
� � � � � II i Qi �� ��� \aj �� � z�a i � �
. i
j U � �I � �, ��l_ � f �
� 1 C;Q� �� Ij� \� � _J I � �
` � � pi �� �I� �1 a------- � , a
� �
I I � � � � . �
� � I � QI e �I �� \'��--.—. ���1 ��� ��----_-�_ a a
_ �� � � � II I�I �.. �P� I� o
^F r--- � � I
� _I I �—� � �j I � �� � i
� � -�` � � � Q �------��� _' � I �; ', /
�' � Q � �---- J¢ o o Q Q o Q � �I �i�,7 ��'Q �i i, � (
L -k p o� tj �� 08 � � - - - - �___� �
� � � i m \ � �
� $ ( 4�
0
o d o � � I �I
O O 4 � G� 0 O � � �(�°000� O � G•d 4 �, p ��
a :
��
� � �` I 4�
� I �
' ��
s��v��..w..�ase
..�/u'
eGs"
^�l�
} ` ' 001 � xw
� . . zcF
,-�.��. � � ' �,Y:.
,;:;,, � o�
. A ��.� 1 "_' � ' ' r.�i�
` . ;�� I �
r r . ' ` i �
� . . ��� (P�� .�� � � � �
�• .� c��� ' �� S�� �„�
• �'-�' .� � `�� \ � �if �..�
' ' .�,'� � � �� � �� ��� o
� '�,.` � I �, C,,
;' i , % : -�;+ �± � ' � I � �� ��S /�/�
f / A � . . ti� f � t I � � � ` i M W
r i �'���`�.'.. �-� � ` � � t� � M
I1�° � �� l.� I I � ` � `�'� �
/ , /\��•, \ �,;�\, �` � ��� I I ( � � f� T ��+
�, , � ` 5� ��, � � '�.. 1,{ l,l I �2 �� � j Fi
� ��''•�,` ;,`� _ . - t 1 } � ����5� ��� �
i � � � •: `� � _ � ��l , I N �
i � � .� '; � j �a — Ou
� '� � !f `r '�; �� � r: ; '` � 1 O � �7
I I_� ty.� ; � �i�J; � ` n n e�:`� �
I < < � � ;• ��� .� I � �
I � :�� I �� w ,r , f i
I � � � `"�� � * � I ' ,i S �
� � � 9 �. 3 � ��
1 `J _ � ^-� - " _, - � � ('Y,
f—_. "' � .t,;� � 4 � ��1 W
�--� �- '°y �� , , � . � �
r � , �.� ' ' ' I � � � , �,,,.�
' 1 J � ;.; . , i �c ,' , � � g � I ,� !-�1
, `� _ ,'N�=. �..�.- . _ :C' , � � � � g;
�---�_ _,.� �� = � - : $ � �I� �'� �
� � :G_ �� �-- ,,, � � � �I�.,�,
, '� � � I ,- � � �_�.�
�JI - �.�._ I 1. . ` f o��:� - '" �
� � _. -_ "`._ ..,--"T�''µ-. iw`y �i�'`I _L + ._�� �
� � I �—^ x��� � "r..���� - - ; - -�- �_ _ � -� �
'� , � ,��_9 .�. .M � . . _' �.�. t O
,� � ' �
I � ;r-- , , �; "� �a� -�''r�'� I
�, �
` ��,,'�'--"'+�' *�;�;"' " '' ��� _ � 1
� _ _ .�.: �� �, , . = � ,. �
� f` ' �� �* "'A,, '' ' Z� ,
� i4f. . ,�.� ,i�.,, � �n
� � � i" � 1,^ . • `' �� � ��t ' �
I _ .. _ I� �
i I � i � � '�� � «� �
�— - I �� i ` �
I � __ -7 $ c t'� +� _ 11� l i � .
�� ' ; � � ��� , �; �; , .�' � ,� �
1 ���• ' � -�, ��'� i! t ��1 1 I�
�� !���, � y�y.�' � ��.� '�. � 1 i •
` / �-��{�� .
� �.. �_. v , _ 11
.1�.... ��— � _.. .. ... . — "`�!^S�_ •-'� � wS4 . � � . � 1 I a� �
� �� . "`�. �� �. ��.. _ ��F'w T����a��. +-.i� � t.. _ � _ __ �
� .;� �-- � �i C � 4� �
1 � � � ,*���� � �— I I i � � �
��'. ��'//.. C � f �� � �'i L� I 1 � � •M
, � ,. , � � ��� , i H �
� � ;��1...: . ,
� � " : � # � +', . 1 �i
I�:' � J � �. � , � w
� �; � ' � , . t1,,,,,1�' � �
A � ,; �,�;-1�'f'-`; � I � >
I � i i �;' I a�
, I� 1-�H-�N-h , �-�-- �., ,,,, ; 1 � b
,� , ��'•, , �. � � � E"� tQ
! �' ��, � �
I - ` � 1, J
� , � � , � , , �
, � ► ► � � 1 ; �, � 4
� � a I � + � � w �
,i � � � ' ' ��--� ! i I � , ,� Z �
,� �
.�� � � ^�! � I � o w
�� � j � �, ;.---� ` ; � J �
; ,I -� �' ! , , I � Q �
; , � ;� � ` � � m0
1 �.�.- ' ,�.-�.� � �� .� � � .�
. `_ _ _ � _ _ _. .�-�-�-- ►
. � ; I � .
�.�� � � ; ; _
� , � �
� ,
Three�Nine•Four Development Project— Prospective Schedule
Date Activit
2012
February 21 Presentation of development to HRA at workshop
Contingencies to be addressed in agreement:
• Agreement with MnDOT on sale, including title and
appraisal
• Acquisition of Adjacent Property
• Staging to accommodate MCES �t`taject
Mar 16 Complete Development Agreement
Mar 21 Send Pubtic Hearing Notice to Sur�Post
Mar 28 Public Hearing Notice publi�hed
April 10 Public Hearing at HRA—�t�nsideration of Development
Agreement
�
April 11 Submit appraisal fo M�DOT and ���k support for planning�
submissions
April 12 — May 15 Neighborhood Meeting
May 10 Submit,F�1'�liminary PUDqpplic�#it�n
May 31 P�iblic Hearir�g,Notices sent c�ut
June 11 PUD _P�bl�c H���° ,at Plann'in� Commission
' „ �� ��
�. F _
,, ., - ,� �
�.
June 13 Y P��lic Hear��t�Notice s�:n#to SunPost
;�, .
June 20 ��,�� Publi�Hearing�� � t�'�e published �
,
July 3 PUD Pubiic Nearing at City Council
July 12 Submit Final PUD Application
Aug 13 PUD Public Hearing at Planning Commission
Aug 29 Public Hearing Notice sent to SunPost
Sept 5 Public Hearing Notice published
Sept 19 PUD Public Hearing at City Council
Oct 2 Plat and PUD Permit to City Council
2/21/12