A MIXED USE PLAN FOR OUR PUBLIC LAND

Transcription

1 A central commons on the Public Works site with indoor and outdoor public space that connects the civic cornerstones of the District and serves the neighborhood and community needs. Framework, page 3 A MIXED USE PLAN FOR OUR PUBLIC LAND HOW DOES IT SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD A N D COMMUNITY NEEDS? JUNE 2018

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHY DO WE NEED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LAND? With the consideration of a development partnership with Frauenshuh for the former public works site in Edina, the ongoing question surfaces: Why is the Council selling this last piece of public land? This document poses the questions regarding: Why sell the public land? What benefits occur from mixed use development? ~ Do the benefits favor the developer or the community? ~ What benefits occur from retaining the land for 100% public use? 2015 PLAN AND 2018 PLAN VERY SIMILAR The 2015 plan (below) presented to the public did not get a favorable response from residents.the 2018 plan is very similar to that plan. At a public meeting on March 11, 2015, attendees were given three development scenarios and asked to put circle stickers on the scenario board(s) they preferred. The results? 14 of the 183 attendees (8%) voted for this type of scenario The other 2 scenarios garnered a total of 39 votes (21%) The total votes for NONE OF THE SCENARIOS: 130 (71%) THE MAJORITY of RESIDENTS HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THEY WANT THE SITE USED for PUBLIC PURPOSES. PUBLIC OPINION HAS BEEN EXPRESSED in CITY- PAID SURVEYS, STUDIES, and MEETINGS.

3 A SWEET DEAL FOR THE DEVELOPER. WHAT ABOUT FOR RESIDENTS? WHAT DEVELOPERS GET: 2.13 acres of the site - 65% of the site Acquisition of city-owned land at only $1.4M per acre $1.2M loan at 1% interest toward affordable housing and for lost revenue due to affordable housing. The loan is compensation for affordable housing required by Edina. Current commercial SBA interest rates are 5.5% to 7.5%*. Tax-increment financing (TIF) funds of $10.47M - using up all TIF money for the district Ownership of the green Ownership of the District parking structure Lease rights for stalls in District parking Ability to buy northern parcel if City does not construct civic building within 3-5 years WHAT RESIDENTS GET: 1.16 acres of the site - 35% of the site Loss of 65% of the site for current public use Loss of 65% of the site for future public use Loss of 1.16 acres if civic building not constructed within time limit Easement on.92-acre green roof Easement on District parking structure Loss of tax revenue for 26 years due to use of TIF funds Other public improvements are deferred (unless other monies identified) Vernon Avenue Intersection Improvements Arcadia Avenue improvements New street from Eden Avenue to Jerry s Foods (needed for safety of Grandview Square residents) Loss of interest and use of $1.2M over 15 years ANOTHER uninspired market rate (luxury) apartment building in Edina Heavy mass near the street (like Trammell/Crow development at 5220 Eden Avenue - site of the former school bus garage)

4 WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF MIXED USE? The City touts the following benefits with Frauenshuh s plan: A community center, parking, and green space. Revenue from the sale of the privately developed portion of the site. Tax revenue from the private development. The ability to use the sale revenue and the the future tax revenue to help pay for the community center, green space, and public parking. The private development helps keep the area active 24/7. LET S TAKE A LOOK AT EACH OF THESE POINTS A COMMUNITY CENTER, PARKING AND GREEN SPACE A community center has not been officially defined. One of the City staff concerns stated is City readiness to design, build, and operate 30,000 Sq Ft future civic building. Risk that 100% of the land will become privatized due to lack of a plan, action, or political will by the City. The parking does not belong to the City (but will be maintained by the City. The green space is not owned by the City. The green space planned is not significant and will not be perceived as being for public use, similar to the Grandview Square Green. REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY The purchase price being considered would yield $2.989M to the City, not a significant amount. This amount is under the current market (i.e. the city is giving the developer a too favorable price on the sale of public land) and will not make a significant contribution to the construction of the art center. TAX REVENUE FROM THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Having mixed use development does not put the land back on the tax rolls. Tax benefits are not seen for 26 years. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT KEEPS THE AREA ACTIVE 24/7 How would the site be more active with private residences than with a publicly used facility that would be open most of the 24 hour day? A true community center would have use from early morning through approximately 11:00 PM seven days a week.

5 WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MIXED USE PROPOSAL? NO TRUE BENEFITS TO RESIDENTS The land does not go back on the tax rolls for 26 years. There is no demonstrated need for district parking; the City-owned Jerry s ramp is under utilized. We don t own the green, which is smaller than a football field. We don t own the parking, but will maintain it. NO SOLID PLANS FOR A CIVIC BUILDING Hesitancy of City to commit to civic building. Risk losing the 35% of the site the City would own. Leaves no room for future civic growth. NO WALKABILITY IMPROVEMENTS This plan does nothing to improve walkability. Grandview Framework calls for a more vibrant, walkable, functional and life-filled place. This project meets none of the Franework s place-making objectives. The density and proximity to street are not pedestrian friendly. DEPLETES GRANDVIEW TIF FUNDS 100%= LOSS OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS Vernon Avenue intersection This intersection is already congested and dangerous. The addition of the Caribou/Einstein drive-through will exacebate the safety and congestion. New street from Eden Avenue to Jerry s Foods This is needed for the safety of pedestrians. Affects seniors that live in Grandview Square. Affects library visitors. Acadia Avenue improvements

6 WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MIXED USE PROPOSAL? IT DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT RESIDENTS WANT OR CITY POLICY RISK Apartments were the LEAST favored use of the site in City-paid surveys. Majority of residents (61%) believe public land should not be sold. Majority of residents believe public land should be used for public purposes only (66%). Comprehensive plan states that we should not sell any park or open space currently owned by the City of Edina. There is currently no market failure for market rate apartments in Edina. Future market is more uncertain: June Finance and Commerce article forsees the apartment market slowing down, forcing landlords to reduce rents and make concessions to get new residents. Edina and surrounding area apartments have considerable vacancy rate - see Possible construction crash due to increased cost of building materials from government tariff policies. Potential impact to City credit rating.

7 WHAT IF? WHAT IF THE FORMER PUBLIC WORKS SITE STAYED 100% PUBLIC? HOW RESIDENTS BENEFIT: 100% ownership of the site. Preservation of a rare resource - Edina has no other centrally-located public land available. Land space to use for less-expensive surface parking. The ability to build a civic building with the space and opportunity for future expansion. Resident voices are heard and heeded. HOW THE CITY COUNCIL BENEFITS: Provides a forward-looking plan for the future of public land. Conformance with data gathered by City-paid consultants. Residents feel heard. No battle from residents regarding development. THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT RESIDENTS SAID THEY WANTED