HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.1. Livable Communities Development Grant Application for Northridge Court and Huber Park Projects-Res. No. 5913
JS: O. j,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT
Memorandum
CASE NO.: NA
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution of support for application for Livable Communities Development
Funds for transit enhancements, parking lot, trail, and utility line relocations in
connection with proposed Northridge Court and Huber Park projects
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION:
On June 30th, staff submitted an application to the Metropolitan Council for development
funds. (See attached copy of grant application) This is the first phase of a 2-phase
application process. To be actively considered the Council must approve a resolution of
support, and that must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by July 31 st. Staff has
provided a draft resolution for the Council's consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Offer and pass the attached resolution of support for the Livable Communities grant
application submitted for improvements in connection with the proposed Northridge Court
and Huber Park projects.
2. Direct staffto withdraw the grant application submitted on June 30th.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative no. 1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass Res. No. 5913 in support for the Livable Communities grant application
submitted for improvements in connection with the proposed Northridge Court and Huber
Park projects.
~~~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
/
RESOLUTION NO. 5913
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
FOR A DEVELOPMENT GRANT THROUGH
THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing
Incentives Program for 2003 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make
application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the
Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure
adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as
stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor
for the project contained in the development grant application submitted on June 30, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the City Administrator or his assignee is hereby authorized to apply to
the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Shakopee, and to execute such
agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf ofthe applicant.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held the _ day
of ,2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Office Use
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2003
Instructions: Submit form and attachments by 4:30 p.m. on June 30, 2003. Use font size 11. Use ofbulleted lists
is encouraged. Do not attach a coversheet, page(s), or use any graphic images on top of the application form.
Limit application to 12 pages plus attachments, for a total of no more than 19 pages.
Pro.ieet Information:
Project Name: Northridge Court/Huber Park
Applicant (Governmental Unit): City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Project Location (city): Shakopee, Minnesota
Address (street boundaries or Intersection of CSAH 101 and CSAH 212
Major intersection):
Primary Project Contact: Name: R. Michael Leek
Title: Community Development Director
Address: 129 South Holmes Street
Phone: 952.496-9677
Fax: 952.233-3801
E-mail: mleekrmci.shakooee.mn.us
Authorized official(s) - (names and William P. Mars, Mayor
titles for contract execution) Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Project Summary
In the space below, summarize the project goals and components.
(Limit 20 lines)
GOALS:
1 Provide additional housing opportunities that a) provide new housing alternatives to residents of the
L
City, b) provide additional population base to support the service and retail component of the City's
historic downtown, and c) serve to strengthen the character of the residential areas along the First
A venue/Riverfront Corridor.
2. Create and/or enhance pedestrian connections between the City's historic Downtown, the Minnesota
River Trail, Huber Park, and residential areas in the Riverfront/First Avenue Corridor
3. Provide better access to transit services to residents of the Riverfront/First Avenue Corridor through the
use of transit enhancements.
COMPONENTS:
1. Construction by the Scott County HRA of a 57-unit, senior rental project (Northbridge Court) on
property currently owned by the City of Shakopee.
2. Construction of a 39-space parking lot to the east of North bridge Court, and adjacent to the Minnesota
River Trail. The parking lot would also be available to users of the City's Huber Park, which is located
on the east side ofCSAH 212 (River Crossing).
3. Under grounding of electric utility lines in the project area.
4. Opening and signalization of Fuller Street; creation of 50 space parking lot with transit enhancements
(transit stop, heated and lighted shelter).
1. Project Funding Request and Timeline (limit one page, landscape layout)
Complete the following section, listing project tasks and specifIc task details in priority order, requested amount of funds, and timeline. See grant information page for
eligible/ineligible uses. For the Task/Eligible Cost, provide as much specificity and detail about the task as you can. Examples: If the Task/Eligible Cost is Underground
Parking, the details might include information about location of parking structure if there is more than one, how many stalls and cost per stall. If the Task/Eligible Cost
is Acquisition, the details might include number, type and location of buildinl!s, or size of parcel: and if cost includes demolition and relocation.
Priority Taskl ElieibIeCost;; ....... .. ',;.. ,......,. ,;;.,';;" "':>$R~<Juest .;'; ... .' .Start Date "';""'.' '..Erid])~te;
1 Transit Enhancements for Fuller Parking Lot/$lOO,OOO.OO $50,000.00 Spring 2004 Fall 2004
2 Undergrounding of Utilities in/near Huber Park/$150,000.00 $75,000.00 Fall 2003 Fall 2004
3 Trail Head Parking Lot Adjacent to Northridge Courtl$72,OOO.OO $36,000.00 Spring 2004 Fa112004
4 Trail/Sidewalk connections between project, Downtown, and Huber Park/$70,000.00 $35,000.00 Spring 2004 Fall 2004
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total dollars requested and the start and completion date for the entire project or phase:
$231,000.00
n the following section, list any components of the proposed project previously funded with an LCDA grant, indicating the amount of grant award received, start date
and comr letion date (or anticipated completion date) of that component.
.' Previously FundedLCDAC()n1polJ.~l!t~.+; . .',,'i., .J.c,' ....;.<\,;$iR~c~iv~.I ....'.....;,. . ....StartDate ';". .... ...EndD3t~<;
Not applicable
In the followin2 section, if applicable, list future phases of the project and estimated start and completion dates.
. . FutlirePhases .,>:. " >. ...,;',...;,. ".'" ....'..;,. ..... ,StattDate .... :E:l1dDate '
2. Additional Project Information (limit one page)
. In the space below, provide additional project information or history of the site (not
included in the project summary on page 1), including any plans to phase the project.
(Limit 20 lines)
The City of Shakopee is one of few rapidly growing Metropolitan communities with an established, vital, and
historic downtown. The City has taken a number of steps to support and enhance the Downtown, and to provide
stronger connections between it and the First AvenuelMinnesota Riverfront corridor, including;
. 1993 - 1995 Creation of Mini-Bypass, that re-routed CSAH 101 traffic one block to the north of the
Downtown. This resulted in the creation of the parking lot that is the proposed site of the Northridge
Court project.
. 1995 Development of a Downtown Area Riverfront Proj ect Plan for the City of Shakopee
. 1998 - present Establishment of Citizen-based organization called VisionShakopee to implement
strategic plans for Downtown and other areas of the City.
. 1998 Development and construction of River City Centre, an award-winning mixed use project on two
blocks in Downtown Shakopee. The project was a joint effort of the City of Shakopee and the Scott
County HRA. It consists of two buildings, connected by a skyway and clock tower, that contain 20,000
square feet of commercial space, and 52 units of senior rental housing with underground parking for the
housing component.
. 2003 The Shakopee City Council directs that development of the Downtown-located Huber Park
proceed.
. The City of Shakopee and the Scott County HRA enter into a development agreement for the
construction of 57-units of senior rental housing (Northridge Court).
. In the space below, state how LCDA funding will overcome obstacles or provide a catalyst.
Describe any time constraints, financial hardship or complexity that requires LCDA
funding. Address what could not be accomplished but for receipt of an LeDA grant.
(Limit 20 lines)
With the explosive growth that it has experienced since the opening ofTH 169 in 1996, the City has had to
invest vast sums in additional infrastructure and facilities (e.g. a new police facility and library are now under
construction, and are scheduled to open in 2003; several parks are being developed in new neighborhoods). The
demands for these new facilities and infrastructure, when coupled with limitations imposed by the Legislature
that do not allow the City to benefit from the value of new development. These factors severely limit the
resources available to the City to move forward with highly desired and desirable components related to the
Northridge Court project, such as pedestrian connections to the Downtown and Huber Park, and additional
parking to serve visitors to and residents of the Downtown and First Avenue/Riverfront Corridor.
4
3. Regulatory Status
A. Please check (X) the following if it will be needed, is underway or is completed, and briefly provide
additional information as noted. Ifnot applicable, place a 'NA' in the box.
Will be
Needed Underway COIDDleted
X Comprehensive plan amendment. If needed, please describe:
A draft Comprehensive Plan Update including corridor plans for the
Downtown and First Avenue/Riverfront areas have been prepared, and are
undergoing public review (See attached land use graphics)
Environmental Reviews - EA W, EIS, AUAR. Ifneeded, please describe:
Not needed
.
x Zoning changes and variances. If needed, please list and include change
to/from:
4. Project Site and Components
A. Proposed land use changes: (check appropriate box)
Yes No
X Will buildings be rehabilitated? Briefly describe:
X Will buildings be demolished? If yes, indicate the number of and type of buildings:
A building previously used by the City's park and public works services, as well as the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission will be removed later this year to make space for the parking to be
located adiacent to the Northridge Court building to the west and the river trail to the north.
X Will new buildings be constructed? If yes, list the percent mix of commercial, residential, public
or other uses:
- Commercial - Public
l Residential - Other Uses
Will new streets or other infrastructure be added?
Will any park land be converted? Briefly describe:
X Will new pedestrian infrastructure be added? If yes, check type:
---X- Sidewalks
_ Bike paths
---X- Trails
5
B. Mix and Type of Uses: List the number and types of commercial, retail, office, government/civic,
arts/cultural, entertainment or other uses existing or planned in the project site.
Number of Square Number of Square Indicate if planned uses
Type of Use Existing Footage or Planned Footage or are new construction or
Uses Acreage Uses Acreage rehab
New Rehab
Commercial 0 0
Retail 0 0
Restaurant 0 0
Office 0 0
Government/Civic 0 0
Arts/Cultural 0 1 (Huber New
Park)
Entertainment 0 1 (Huber New
Park)
Open SpacelPublic 1 I (Huber New
Space Undeveloped Park)
Other (list) Parking I New
Lot (about (residential)
89 spaces
C. Type and Tenure of Housing: List the number of housing units by type and tenure (ownerlrenter)
currently in the project site area and planned.
Distinguishing Features:
Total # of # Units # Units (# of stories,
Units Owner Rental architectural desi2n)
Existin2 Housing:
Single-family
Townhouse
Apartments or Condominiums
Duplexes
Other (list): 3 1 2 2-story, brick
Planned Housin2:
Single-family
Townhouse
Apartments or Condominiums 57 57 4-story, brick fa<;ade on 4
sides, lower-level parking
Duplexes
Other (list):
er acre - net) Planned overall density (units er acre - net)
19 DU/A
6
E. Housing Affordability: List affordability levels for existing and planned housing in the following
format: (Area median income - $75,300)
# of Units up to # of Units at 50-
50% of Area 80% of Area # of Units at # of Affordable units to
Median Income Median Income Market Rate be demolished (if any)
Existing housing 3 0
Planned housing 57 N/A
Yes I No I (Check appropriate box)
X I Are there mechanisms to ensure long-term affordability? If yes, what tvne?
(Check any that aplly)
Land trust
Resale price indexing
X Other (list): Controls on cost by Scott County HRA
F. Employment connections: Estimate the number of jobs within 2 miles of the project site and list major
employers.
Check appropriate
Number of Jobs number Maior employers within 2 mile
More than 5,000
3,000-5,000 X Anchor Glass, K -Mart, ADC
1,000-3,000
500-1,000
Less than 500
G. Creation of new jobs:
Yes I No I (Check appropriate box)
Ix Will this project create any new jobs? If yes, how manv and what type?
Number Type
7
H. Adjacent land uses and relationships: Describe any plans or opportunities to link adjacent land uses to
the project site.
Limit 8 lines
The proposed project will provide the opportunity to re-open Fuller St. on the north, which in turn will
provide access from Downtown to the Minnesota River Trail; from Northridge Court to Downtown, the river
trail, and Huber Park; and pedestrian access from the proposed parking to Huber (riverfront) park.
I. Describe how the project links to transit, if transit is available.
Limit 8 lines
The proposed parking lot to the west ofNorthridge Court will be the location of a Downtown transit stop, and
is proposed to have heated and lighted shelter. It will become one of the stops in the circulator provided by
Scott County transit, as well as being accessible to users ofthe City's dial-a-ride service.
J. Environmental protection and enhancement:
Yes No (Check appropriate box)
X Does this project include environmental protection practices and environmental enhancement
measures? If yes, what kind?
(Check all that a mly)
Ecologically sensitive stormwater management practices - including draining, filtering and
retaining storm water in innovative ways that maximize use of natural svstems
Preservation or restoration of existing trees and other natural vegetation
Use of natural resources to create communities amenities, e.g. restoration of buried creeks and
wetlands
X Provision of green spaces for recreation and scenic value
Other (describe):
K. Replicability: State how you will use components of or processes developed for the project in other
locations in your community, or in the comprehensive plan and zoning codes.
Limit 8 lines
The trail, sidewalk, streetscape components will be replicated throughout the Riverfront/First Avenue corridor,
which stretches from Rahr Malting on the west end to Marschall Road/CSAH 17 on the east.. Adjustments
may be made to the Comprehensive Plan Update to reflect lessons learned from this first phase of corridor
development/redevelopment. Further adjustments to the City's zoning code (which already allows mixed uses)
may also result that may effect future development in developing areas of the City.
8
5. Partnerships and Community Participation (Begin new page)
A. Planning and Implementation Partnerships: List and briefly describe the type and nature of
partnerships in the project among government, private, for-profit and non-profit sectors.
Name of Partners Type of Partnership
Scott County HRA Development partnership for Northridge Court and
development of parking
VisionShakopee Private, non-profit partner in the development of
plans for Downtown and other areas of the City.
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Partner in the preparation of Huber Park site for
development
B. Community's role: Describe any public participation processes (including residents,
businesspersons and others) in developing the proposal, including the process to date, and plans for
future community involvement in project implementation.
Limit 8 lines
In the late 1990's VisionShakopee, with the assistance of the City, went through an extensive public
participation process beginning with a community-wide retreat.
More recently, as a part of a Comprehensive Plan Update process, in 2002 the City and its planning
consultant conducted a number of community interviews and open houses to collect public input on
issues, concerns, and ideas for the target area as well as the entire City. A series of open houses is
scheduled for this July to gather input on the planning concepts contained in the update.
Public hearings have specifically been held on the Northridge Court project.
C. City's role: How has the city supported the project?
Limit 8 lines
The City is providing the following support;
. Participation in the financing for the Northridge Court project;
. Cost sharing for the signalization ofre-opened Fuller St.;
. Cost sharing the development of the 'trail head' parking area;
. Funding of the cost of the development of Huber Park.
9
6. Regulatory And Implementation Tools and Strategies (Begin new page)
A. City review/regulatory process: (check appropriate box)
Yes No
X Were any new city review or regulatory processes or procedures used or developed for
this prol ect
If yes, describe them: (limit 6 lines)
B. Zoning:fregulatory changes: (check appropriate box)
Yes No
X Were any zoning or other regulatory tools necessary for the project to be implemented as
planned?
State status of development or city adoption of them: (limit 6 lines)
C. Desi n standards: (check appropriate box)
Yes No
X Were any design standards develo ed?
If yes, state status of adoption or inclusion in fonnal regulatory processes, and how the standards were
or will be used: (limit 6 lines)
10
7. Developability (Begin new page)
A. Market and feasibility studies: (check appropriate box)
Yes I No I
X I I Have market and feasibility studies been conducted for the project?
If so, state briefly the conclusions of the studies: (limit 4 lines)
The Scott County HRA has conducted extensive studies that conclusively demonstrate the pent-up
demand in the County for the type of Housing proposed for Northridge Court.
B. Developer's role: (check appropriate box)
I Yes I No I
X I I Is a developer(s) committed to the project? lfves-
Name of Developer(s) Type of contract or commitment
Scott County HRA Final Development Contract with the City.
8. Readiness and Financial Aspects of the Project
A.
Yes No
X Is the development site as represented currently within a designated development district,
or an a roved develo ment (i.e. PUD)?
B. Describe the applicant's controls of the site, or SItes represented in the proposal? (check appropriate box)
Under option
X Own
Condemnation
Within a TIF District
Other (list):
C. If the site is not under the applicant's control, what steps will need to be taken in order to do so?
Limit 5 lines
The site is under the applicant's control.
D.
Yes No
X Are market studies or appraisals available for all components of the project (i.e. retail, I
office, ownership housing, rental housing)?
11
E.
Yes No
X If the developer is acquiring the development site from the city, is the site being sold at I
fair-market value? A land trade has been negotiated.
F.
Yes I No I
X I I Has an architect/engineer been selected for the project?
If yes, what level of completion are the drawings at? (limit 4 lines)
Construction-ready drawings are under development for the Northridge Court project. Specific
grading plans have been developed by the City for Huber Park, as well as concept plans for the
associated parking.
G. How have costs been determined? (check appropriate box)
Bidding
Contracting estimates
X Developer estimates
X City estimates
Other (list):
H. If commercial is proposed, provide as much specificity as possible regarding the type of tenants and
projected rents.
Type of Tenant Pro.iected Rents
NA
1.
Yes No
X Does the applicant intend to apply for LCDA funds for this project in future years for I
additional phases or components?
J. Provide project sources/uses budgets on the following page.
12
SOURCES AND USES
Sources $ Amount Status Annroval Anticipated bv:
Bonding 7,000,000.00 Approved by HRA and City
City funds for undergrounding,
parking, Huber Park
Shakopee Utilities (SPUC) $75,000.00 Approved by SPUC
LCDA 196,000.00
City of Shakopee funds 496,000.00 In CIP for Huber Park, et.
AI.
Scott County funding for Fuller 75,000.00 Under Discussion Spring 2004
St. signalization
TOTAL: 7,842,000.00
$ Portion from $ Other Public $ Other Private
Uses $ Amount LCDA Source Sources Sources
Hard Costs:
Construction ofNorthridge Ct. 7,000,000.00 0 7,000,000.00 0
Construction of West lot 250,000.00 50,000.00 200,000.00 0
(transit
enhancements)
Construction of East lot 72,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 0
Opening of Fuller St. 300,000.00 300,000.00 0
Trails/Sidewalks 70,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 0
Undergrounding of Utilities 150,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 0
Total Hard Costs: 7,842,000.00 196,000.00 7,646,000.00 0
Soft Costs:
Total Soft Costs:
13
OVERALL TOTAL
7,842,000.00 196,000.00 7,646,000.00 0
14
. ... .. ~ .. ..
~ ~
.""-."- _. :-11
" II",.,"", -".,. ".'........ .. .<".."
. -- ,- .''.' ,,: II ,111- .. ' ad'. < ,"
...' '. ,,-,., :.< .. -."". _.
.11" :' '....., _.. __,.... _ _ 91 II
-- ..' ,', . .., I - ..
'-', -.. r,_, .., c,c.. ' "',.; .... .
11l1li" '.,< ' _ __ ' III - I)
," ,,' II". II . II!:I
... . .
-- -"....
-. I
: 'c, II .. I I!!II
, ".' II ..
'..'. -
,", I
- , ."
"'"'''''''''';''''' ,'I. ~
; -' III ~' I I I
", ',:, .-,Y,""> _.. ',. II' I IV .' I
' ". ,.'" IIIi!ID1JIIiII . EiIiIIll ,.
,11":'11. mI A I Ii .. .,. _. __ ,
, :,. III . II ~ B," nll,p.. -..
.'~ - . . ..1,.-.1 .. IlII II
.-' II' .. .. II .,1 1It:!. .....a III ." ill Ii
III . I liB" 11::3l1li11. III I!I
III 11 I llil'''' IfIIII II II II ,'.. I
.,11 · I I III
.'IE I iii .,. II,>' II ;: ..
" '" ,::~, -- I I [I ~.,.' .. · ..... 1'1 liI I
:""~,'.~ . . ~~ PI"''' -
" "J 1"11' - III II ~ 1111 lit. .. 1111111
--' l1li -:. I . ..' .. III IIiIII III. I. 11.1: _0 ":'11' !ldl
, B._ ._"".", 11. 'II. " ijlJl
Iii II" .. II II .. . rf .",111, II .. .-;
: .'~~" '_'~2B ~= "lilli, ':, ',"...",,>; - . III, .1.-., - -s
. . . .
.
.
~i.te~erial. View
Northridge ~,
Court
.(~~~,~~
MILlEI! HANSON
PARTNERS
.:. -' . .
., ,.. .-.
>Sl'te-PlanOverview
Northridge ~
Court
""""-"'---
MILlElI HArisoN
PAR1NERS
...>SitePlan
LEVEE DRIVE WEST
(~
r"'"
."
C
r
r
m ;
::0 t
CJ)
-;
::0
m
m
-;
Z
0
::0
-;
:r:
24 PARKING
STALLS
(j9
Northridge ~,
Court
.-~.-
MrLlE~HANSON
PAR NERS
. . . ...,
. ..,..... - .
-..' "'.'., ,-,.,. . .
- .. .... ','. ,. .,
. .... ,".. . .., .', ,.
.....- " ,...-,' ."'....
'.....'.,,'..':..,__..,_'....;'n.. " ,_' .'. . .".:',.:..
'\l"~;~wfrbm the Southeast
Northridge ~
Court
"""~~~""'"
t.!ILLERHANSON
PARltlERS
View from the Southwest
Northridge ~
Court
~~~...,-,
MllleitHANSON
PARTNERS