HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/05/16 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session OFFICIAL MINUTES
FIIScT/ OF
OUIS CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
PARK May 16, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:31 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmemng), Community Development Director (Mr Locke) and
Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Hunt) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson)
1. Update on proposed "Hoigaard Village" Project
Mr. Hunt updated the Council on the Hoigaard Village project.
Frank Dunbar, Developer, introduced the property owners of the site. He stated at the
neighborhood, traffic was a big concern. They were contributing $16,000 for a traffic study
and would discuss results with the City Engineer. The neighborhood noted they did not want
a high-rise They were seeking units below the $400,000 range and encouraged by the
neighborhood to do that There would be four stages to development that would include a
new home for Hoigaard's and 70 condos, and possibly some row homes. They compared this
with a project in Denver that also had single-family row homes. The neighborhood
expressed concerns about single-family homes. Apartments were also a possibility. They
were concerned about the critical mass of the whole project and if it didn't all go from
commercial to residential, he didn't believe there would be interested buyers. Mr Reevers
did not want to sell. They discussed access with MnDot, who didn't see any problems. They
also tried to modify their relationship with Hoigaard's who were now more of a partner and
also had a purchase agreement.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed the amount of TIF requested should be reduced. Mr. Dunbar
noted that they needed $3.4 million to clear the site, do modifications to utilities and prepare the
site to build. They would work with staff on the other$2.5 million required for enhancements
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the City would essentially be paying half of the
purchase of Hoigaard's.
Mr Dunbar did not believe they should make a correlation between the purchase price and
the TIF funding. He was doing site clearance and would be subject to audit of the pro forma.
He did not have a problem with the look back provision.
Councilmember Sanger believed a critical factor was whether Hoigaard's was rebuilt on this site.
Mr. Dunbar stated that the agreement they had allowed Hoigaard's time to decide He would
work to get them into a new facility. He envisions designs with and without Hoigaard's
Councilmember Sanger thought that sounded like a "chicken and egg" issue and the answer
goes to the TIF financing.
Councilmember Basill met with Elmwood neighborhood group who had four main concerns.
1)Traffic (getting onto Highway 7); 2) Hoigaard's remaining in the neighborhood; 3)There
be no high-rise; and, 4) A concern about the buildings on the corner. Some people didn't
want the project to occur until the traffic issue was resolved.
Study Session Minutes -2- May 16, 2005
Councilmember Velick agreed that the main concern was traffic. She was not sure if more
people could go onto that site. If they needed$2.1 million in enhancements, would that be an
appropriate use of money to correct what MnDot hadn't done? Mr. Locked replied no. They
had not done an in depth analysis of TIF.
Councilmember Velick added that she would like to see Hoigaard's stay on the site as well
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed that Hoigaard's was beloved in the community, but they
had an obligation to the community. This was a lot of money and he believed there should
be two separate TIF issues if the property on the North cost too much money
Mr. Dunbar didn't believe that would work. They needed the entire site to interest buyers. If
they didn't present critical mass to buyers, they would not get them.
Councilmember Finkelstein referred to the building on 36`h. Did they anticipate the City will
need to become involved with those? Mr. Dunbar responded that the neighborhood had
questions about those properties. They had no interest in doing anything with those sites
because the properties were too narrow.
Councilmember Basill asked if those businesses met the parking requirements? Mr. Locke
responded that they were grandfathered.
Mr. Dunbar noted they had a site plan including those sites as green space.
Councilmember Santa asked where the storm water would go? Mr. Dunbar responded they
had not done drawings to that detail yet. They were only in conceptual stages.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they believed that too many condos were being built? Mr
Dunbar believed that the pnce point was key. If they stayed lower, they would last longer.
There is an expanded base of single individuals buyer.
Councilmember Sanger asked the pnce range? Mr. Dunbar responded 1 BR would be
$240,000 (7 units); 1 BR with den would be $265,000 (12); 2 BR would be $320,000 (12);
and, 2 BR with den would be $380,000 (12). They could take three one-bedroom units and
make them two bedroom.
Councilmember Sanger was troubled that there were too many one-bedroom units, which
would not attract families. She suggested having fewer units, but making them bigger.
Mr. Dunbar indicated they had the adaptability to change the unit size and could appeal to a
broad mix of people.
Mr. Harmening asked the total value of the project when built? Mr. Dunbar responded $82 million
Councilmember Basill stated there was a differentiation between the project further down
Excelsior where there are no blighted buildings. This project included older buildings that
needed to be redeveloped. They were not ndding the other location of blighted buildings.
He was willing to look at making improvements on older buildings. The major concern was
traffic. There should be infrastructure there and MnDot, the county and St. Louis Park
should be supporting this.
Study Session Minutes -3- May 16, 2005
Mr. Locke stated the intent of the discussion was for the EDA to give the go-ahead to work
on this project.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested more information on the TIF and to receive wntten
communication if the extra land became green space.
2. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
g_0---.--._.)--,---,----
C t- (--til
Ci y Clerk M or