HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-03 BEDC Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BUSINESS AND ECO~OMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
,Monday, May 3,2010
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. April 5, 2010
5. New Business:
a. Upcoming Public Works Projects
6. Unfinished Business:
a. Sign Code Amendments - Temporary Banners and Window Signage
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Commission Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Rescheduling of July 5,2010 meeting
b. Recognition of The Seasons at Maplewood
10. Adjourn - 9 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Monday, April 5, 2010
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. CALL TO ORDER
Staff Liaison Michael Martin called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Mr. Martin noted that staff
will act as the mediator of the agenda until 5c. is reached on the agenda and the officers have
been elected.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Commissioner David Hesley, present
Commissioner Mark Jenkins, present
Commissioner Marvin Koppen, present
Commissioner David Sherrill, present
Commissioner Shelly Strauss, present
Commissioner Beth Ulrich, present
Commissioner Laurie Van Dalen, present
Staff
Michael Martin, City Planner
Alan Kantrud, City Attorney
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Strauss motioned to approve the agenda. Commissioner Jenkins seconded the
motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Strauss motioned to approve the minutes for the March 1 Sl, 2010 minutes.
Commissioner Koppen seconded the motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
a. MEMBER ORIENTATION AND COMMISSION HANDBOOK - CITY ATTORNEY
ALAN KANTRUD
Mr. Martin went over the report.
City Attorney Alan Kantrud addressed the commission and made himself available to answer
questions on the handbook.
No action was required for this item.
b. RULES OF PROCEDURE - CITY ATTORNEY ALAN KANTRUD
Mr. Martin went over the report.
The commission noted to staff that the commission would prefer to receive the meeting packets
more than three days before the meeting, but the commission does not want to change the
verbiage in the Rules and Procedures Manual.
Commissioner Strauss motioned to approve the Rules and Procedures for the Business and
Economic Development Commission. Commissioner Koppen seconded the motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
This item will be brought to the City Council for final approval during the month of April.
c. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Koppen motioned to nominate Commissioner Mark Jenkins as the Chair and
David Hesley as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Sherrill seconded the motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
d. MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS
Mr. Martin went over the report and read some of the Mission Statements drafted by staff.
The commission discussed the mission statement.
Mark Bradley, of 2164 Woodlynn Ave, addressed the commission. Mr. Bradley suggested that
the commission consider adding the words "expansion of vision" to their statement to address a
goal of looking toward future opportunities.
Commissioner Van Dalen motioned to approve the mission statement for the Business and
Economic Development Commission to be as follows:
"The mission of the Business and Economic Development Commission is to advise the
Maplewood Economic Development Authority on issues relating to maintaining, expanding and
diversifying the economic and business opportunities in the City of Maplewood, while
addressing the needs of the city's residents' quality of life and its environment."
Commissioner Koppen seconded the motion.
Ayes: Jenkins, Koppen, Sherrill, Ulrich, Van Dalen
Nays: Strauss, Hesley
The motion passed.
The commission discussed the vision statement.
Commissioner Koppen motioned to approve the vision statement for the Business and
Economic Development Commission to be as follows:
"The vision of the Business and Economic Development Commission is to promote and to
develop Maplewood's high quality business environment and thriving community. The
commission will achieve its vision by promoting Maplewood's strategic location, educated
workforce and desirable working environment. The commission is committed to the success of
Maplewood's business community while improving employment opportunities for the residents
of Maplewood."
Commissioner Van Dalen seconded the motion.
Ayes: Jenkins, Koppen, Sherrill, Ulrich, Van
Dalen, Strauss
Nays: Hesley
The motion passed.
e. MAY MAPLEWOOD MONTHL Y ARTICLE
Mr. Martin went over the report.
The commission discussed the article and gave changes to staff.
Commissioner Sherrill motioned to have staff rewrite the Maplewood Monthly News Article in
line with the mission and vision statements as the commission has suggested. Commissioner
Koppen seconded the motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
f. SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS - TEMPORARY BANNERS AND WINDOW SIGNAGE
Mr. Martin went over the report.
The commission discussed the temporary banner section of the code.
Mark Bradley, of 2164 Woodlynn Ave, addressed the commission. Mr. Bradley stated the
commission needs to decide if the code amendments will help or hurt businesses.
Commissioner Strauss motioned to table this item to the next meeting. Commissioner Koppen
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Jenkins, Koppen, Sherrill, Van Dalen,
Strauss
Nays: Ulrich
The motion passed.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS:
a. REALTOR/DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. Martin presented information on the upcoming conference.
b. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE
Mr. Martin went over the website with the commission.
c. MAY 3,2010 MEETING
Mr. Martin stated that staff will bring back the sign code amendments back for the commission
to discuss at the next meeting. Other items that will be on the agenda is the tour for the
commission and a business base line survey. Over the next several meetings, it is anticipated
the staff members will come before the commission do give information on projects within the
city.
10. ADJOURN - 9 P.M.
Commissioner Hesley motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Strauss seconded the
motion.
Ayes: All
The meeting adjourned at 9:24pm.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Upcoming Public Works Projects
April 27, 2010
Michael Thompson, city engineer, will be attending the business and economic
development commission's next meeting to update commissioners on two roadway
improvement projects that will impact two major commercial areas of the city of
Maplewood. Mr. Thompson will present background information on the projects at the
meeting and be able to take any questions the commission may have. Two general
project maps have been attached to this report to provide geographical context.
DISCUSSION
White Bear Avenue
Ramsey County, in cooperation with the city of Maplewood and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), will be reconstructing White Bear Avenue and
County Road D, near the area of the Maplewood Mall.
White Bear Avenue will be reconstructed between Radatz Avenue and 1-694, and
County Road D will be reconstructed between Southlawn Drive and White Bear Avenue.
White Bear Avenue will be reconstructed from a four-lane divided section to a six-lane
divided section with additional turn lanes and intersection upgrades. County Road D will
be reconstructed to a four-lane divided section with additional turn lanes and intersection
upgrades. New traffic signals will be installed along County Road D at South lawn Drive
and at the north entrance to the Maplewood Mall property.
Ramsey County has received federal funding to help finance the reconstruction of both
White Bear Avenue and County Road D. The County Road D portion of the project has
received economic stimulus funds allowing it to proceed in advance of the improvements
to White Bear Avenue. The improvements to County Road D began in fall of 2009.
Construction has resumed and will be completed in 2010. The improvements to White
Bear Avenue will begin in spring 2010 and continue until fall 2011.
Rice Street and MN Highway 36
Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 36 is an important statewide corridor designated as a
principal arterial, high-priority interregional corridor. Rice Street (CSAH 49) is a minor
arterial that serves as an important reliever to 1-35E. The growth of the general area has
resulted in additional traffic and development pressures in the communities along TH 36
and the various north/south roadways serving the trunk highway.
This project addresses issues at the intersection of TH 36 and Rice Street. It includes
the reconstruction of the Highway 36 and Rice Street interchange, and also
improvements to Rice Street between County Road B-2 on the north end, and County
Road B on the south. The project resides mostly in the city of Roseville, however
portions of the project also enter the cities of Maplewood and Little Canada.
RECOMMENDATION
Visit the city's website (www.ci.mapiewood.mn.us) to learn more on each of these
projects and be prepared to discuss these projects at the upcoming meeting. The city's
website has a project tab at the top of the page that will link you to projects pages.
p:com_dvpt\BECDlAgenda Reports\05031 O\PublicWorkslmprovements_04271 0
Attachments:
1. White Bear Avenue Map
2. Rice Street Map
'lll:
I :
I..I\'I!
I ____1 JI
'---_____---.l..-..-_~
1..=.~J_~...-'..~./--//-.~--
.' '"
. chment 1..f (ll
--~-=~~
~
W
III
:E
w
~
Z
'--:'~-~;..:'-:'_-~~.'-'-~---";"---'
it"....."
---:: Vi
I'.........
.:--:.-:-:.:::.::,;::.,.
" '...:( (---~;:,"'-
I i,11 ~ i.i'., 'I'
'!1;1 ~ ):, ' I
i: I L_r -~,.-:::..-" 11
~.I' ~
- i'l'! I' "~
i! :1:2
;~~~iijl
,I'
A!C~;~:::;f;;:l 'Ii "
,:/j:/---. ..", II
/.'::/' //;'.\ fY'i'!i! II
~~:~~-;:.:/ . .J ';/::- ,i 1 !:/ L
, ( I: ,[ ,Il.
, 1: II" "'I '
,; .; 'lh"
\.: . (/ 'Il~jhl"
".~ ': 11;:1
.,' I " '.,
: ,!gr'
I. ,.1
- , !l i~ ::
Q
Q ~
<( !
o IJ)
Ill::: oct
>- [
... a
Z z
;:) -
o ~
u ::
Q IJ)
Z Z
<( 0
-
~ t
.... :::>>
W Ill:
>(1)1-
oct"'~
IlI:::ZO
<(W<J
w:i"
alWW
>IJ)
woo
!:t:lI:A.
~~g
;::0... A.
nn
g~
ug t:
.g ~.f;!
t~::~\\\~~ ~
, '" . ~ "
-:~:i'~)( ~ 1; ,g
'),\-a~ tl
~. g.~
\lit;
8'~
~
~
"
~
;<::
o
~
o ,
i:; d~
~ n
~ H
s ~i
"
~
~
~~
'~L
,
-- ~__.~I
o
o
0-,
5-'
w":
0:'2
..:
2
rl~m*ii
~ I ~i !!
"Y~~-=r=i =
II f ~g L--~~
ll:~=~~~;~:,
:'~l'1!jJllJliIJHW:llrl ;J:!!! r' ~: I[ "
;,,~~:;f~~;~ ~~' If- ~ --~r~~: 1<,~
"" ,BI"" l ~ I ~.' I ~r-
~~ f,Hl!B j ~ 3 i'~
(s '411j'l d___n~ i ~
I' =~ ~-'~~~'~--~--"JI"':~,jJ~~ :
~,n""ifitr 1',.__________1__ ~ - - - ~
-;'~~~I~'~;~~~'~: - - i__
"' '1;\, :
3i g IJ;:: I (:j
'I'~I~cl,', ',:
II~~ l: \ 1-
UI, '- '/
~f~~.~;T/"':--' \", J(
iL.,~!;,U L~~__
I
t
~',
i\
.
~
I
.-'
"
B
,r;-~----
l r_!L\i!~L.'J_'~~~ ~!
:n~T' 'is'
~ L4,\\ ~~. ,~, i
-l;~';:::::.'=r.J_,
(l/I
JUi::NtI. i I
I
I
,
c-
,
I
J!l
~~
~l
~
II
U
Tr
~
~
~
~
'"
N
.
L
o
o
~
h
Attac en!
-
en
(])
u
a:
Co R .C
@
1i5 City of
fJ Roseville
Cl
C'ty of
Utt e 16 n d
....
...
-0
"
"
\
\
\
~ \
I
I
City of
Roseville
==r-
c
o
u
.
.
L
o
o
~
.
w
n
:g
o
"
.
E
:i
/
.
o
o
E
/
~
~
g
~
o
:;
o
.
E
o
~
/
~
;::
~
/
~
()
-
...
RAUS!:YCOUNH
Project Loaction
Map
Rice Street / Highway 36
Interchange Study
North
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
. DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Sign Code Amendments -
Temporary Banners and Window Signage
April 26, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
At the May 5, 2010 business and economic development commission (BEDC) meeting
the commission started its discussion on temporary banners and window signage. The
BEDC elected to table this item until its May 3, 2010 meeting in order to continue its
discussion.
On January 25,2010, the city council approved the second reading of amendments to
the sign code. The city council did not approve amendments to two areas of the sign
code - temporary banners and window signage. Council directed staff to bring these
two areas of the code to the BEDC for review and advisory comments. The other
amendments to the sign code are complete and have been adopted by the city council.
The city council gave direction that the only two items still up for deliberation are
temporary banners and window signage. Based on this direction, the BEDC will need to
make recommendations to council on whether the current code suffices, the regulations
need to be strengthened or the regulations need to be relaxed.
BACKGROUND
In 2004 and 2005 the community design review board (CDRB) researched various
aspects of signs and ordinances, drafted amendments to the city's sign code, and took
public comment regarding the amendments. Based on this review, the CDRB
recommended approval of a revised sign code on March 1, 2006. The CDRB consists of
five Maplewood residents and city ordinance assigns the review of signs to this board.
No action was taken on those revisions until June 1, 2009, when the city council directed
staff to bring the sign code back to the CDRB in order to obtain updated comments from
the public prior to a first reading. During the months of August through October 2009,
staff obtained updated review and feedback from various business associations, CDRB,
planning commission, and parks and recreation commission on the proposed sign code
revisions.
DISCUSSION
Current Code
Below is the existing code language that regulates the use of temporary banners and
window signage.
Section 11. Special Purpose and Temporary Signs Permitted in All Zoning
Districts
All signs listed below do not require a sign permit and shall not count towards the
building or property maximum signage allowed unless otherwise noted:
(n) Banners
Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not required to have a permit
unless used for more than thirty (30) days. Banners shall not exceed one hundred fifty
(150) square feet in area or twenty (20) percent of the wall area, whichever is greater.
There shall be no more than one (1) banner at any business location. Each tenant space
at a shopping center shall count as a separate business location. The city council may
approve exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual
circumstances with the request. The council may attach conditions to their approval to
assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties.
(0) Window Signs
Window signs may be used as temporary sign age, not exceeding 75 percent of the
window area.
Potential Amendments
Temporary Banners: Due to concerns expressed at the January 25, 2010 city council
meeting, the council did not adopt any revisions for the temporary banners code. The
current sign code allows temporary banners up to 150 square feet, or 20 percent of the
gross wall area of the building. One banner per property (or tenant) is .allowed for up to
30 days. If a banner is to be installed for more than 30 days, a permit is required.
Leading up to the January 25,2010 city council meeting, the proposed temporary
banner code would have allowed one banner up to 32 or 64 square feet (depending on
the zoning district) for up to 60 days per year, per property. For residential and lighter
commercial zoning districts temporary banners up to 32 square feet would have been
allowed. Heavier commercial and industrial districts would have been allowed up to 64
square feet. No more than one banner was to be displayed per property at anyone
time, except for multiple-tenant buildings which would have allowed up to three.
The proposed code amendment for temporary banners intended to address concerns
that the allowed banner size was too large and businesses could essentially have
permanent banners displayed due to the fact that code currently does not cap the
number of times a banner can be displayed within a calendar year. After further concern
was expressed on January 25, 2010, the city council directed staff to bring this issue
before the BEDC for further review.
2
Below are some key areas to consider when thinking about the regulation of temporary
banners:
. Is the current code sufficient?
. Should the CDRB recommended amendment be adopted?
. Should the city regulate banners as permanent wall signs?
. What is the appropriate maximum banner size?
. How many banners should a business display at a given time?
. Should the city limit the number of times a banner can be displayed within a
year?
. Should the street classification a business is located on determine banner size,
number of banners concurrently used or times displayed per year?
Staff researched four adjacent cities' sign codes to compare this regulation:
. Oakdale: Banners are included with the wall sign allowance and regulated as a
wall sign
. White Bear Lake: Allows up to four banners a years. Banners cannot be
displayed for more than 60 days at a time and no more than 120 days in a
calendar year. Banners are to be no larger than 35 square feet.
. Woodbury: Allows one banner at a time, no larger than 32 square feet or 5
percent of wall surface with a maximum of 80 square feet.
. St. Paul: Has two different regulations for banners. Temporary banners may not
be larger than 120 square feet. However, another part of Saint Paul's code
states temporary banners that can be considered a freestanding or wall sign shall
not be larger than 32 square feet.
Temporarv Window Siqns: Due to concerns expressed by various business
associations regarding the reduction in allowable window sign coverage from 75 percent
to 30 percent, the CDRB and city council had decided on a compromise of 50 percent
window sign coverage. The concerns expressed about window signage were mainly
businesses using the entire window space for additional permanent signage. After
further concern was expressed on January 25, 2010, the city council directed staff to
bring this issue before the BEDC for further review.
Below are some key areas to consider when thinking about the regulation window
signage:
. Is the current code sufficient?
. Should the CDRB recommended amendment be adopted?
. What percentage of a window should be permitted for signage?
. Should a business be allotted a certain percent without a permit and then be
required to receive a permit from the city to allow a higher percentage?
. Should window signage be required to rotate or change after a period of time?
Staff researched four adjacent cities' sign codes to compare this regulation:
. Oakdale: Window signs allowed up to 50 percent coverage
. White Bear Lake: Window signs allowed up to 33 percent coverage
. Woodbury: Window signs allowed up to 30 percent coverage
3
. St. Paul: "Temporary" window signs allowed with no limit on size or time.
"Permanent" window signs are allowed for businesses in the White Bear Avenue
Corridor, but can only take up to 10 percent coverage.
The CDRB discussed temporary window signs on December 8, 2009, and agreed that
the 50 percent window coverage with no time restriction was a good compromise. They
determined that it is more consistent with surrounding cities' temporary window sign
regulations and would allow most businesses to continue using window signs as they
always have.
SUMMARY
The sign code has undergone thorough research, planning, and reviews by the CDRB,
planning commission, city council, several business groups, staff, and residents. The
end result is an ordinance that attempts to establish a comprehensive and impartial
system of sign regulations that balances the needs for effective visual communication
including business identification and the needs for a safe, well-maintained, and attractive
community. This included ensuring the city's sign code is consistent with neighboring
municipalities. Maplewood is unique in that it neighbors several other cities, but efforts
were made to ensure Maplewood's sign code is not more restrictive then its neighbors.
There are just two pieces of the sign code left to be finalized. The city council will utilize
the feedback gathered from the BEDC to make a final determination on temporary
banners and window signage to complete the amendment process of Maplewood's sign
code.
RECOMMENDATION
Review this memo and come to the May 3, 2010 meeting prepared to discuss the
regulation of temporary banners and window signage and make a recommendation to
the city council.
P:IBEOClAgenda Reports\201 0105031 0lSignAmendments_04261 0
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rescheduling of July 5,2010 meeting
April 27, 2010
The business and economic development commission (BEDC) meets on the first
Monday of every month. The first Monday of July will be the fifth. The day before,
Sunday, is the Fourth of July meaning that July fifth is recognized as a Federal holiday
and city hall will be closed. With city hall being closed, the BEDC will need to consider
alternative dates for its July meeting.
DISCUSSION
With eight citizen commissions and the city council meeting regularly, council chambers
are in use most nights. However, staff has identified a few open nights to potentially
hold the July meeting. The intent is to hold the meeting on a different evening but still at
7 p.m. Staff is open to alternative start times for this meeting, if the commission desires.
This could mean meeting in the morning or early evening and would expand the number
of alternative days the BE DC could meet. The following are the proposed dates the July
BE DC meeting could be held, with a 7 p.m. start time:
. July 7, 2010
. July 8, 2010
. July 22, .2010
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends rescheduling the meeting to either July 7 or 8 to stay close to the
BEDC's schedule of meeting the first week of every month.
p:com_dvpt\BECDlAgenda Reports\050310\JulyMeetingReschedule_ 042710
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Recognition of The Seasons of Maplewood
April 27, 2010
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
The Minneapolis/Saint Paul Business Journal recently named the Seasons of
Maplewood the Best in Real Estate winner in the Senior Housing Development or
Redevelopment category for its annual real estate awards.
DISCUSSION
Mark Jenkins, chairperson of the business and economic development commission,
suggested the commission take note of local businesses or developments being
recognized for achievements in Maplewood. Chairperson Jenkins identified the
Seasons of Maplewood's recognition and staff has attached the Minneapolis/Saint Paul
Business Journal's article for your review. It is staff's intent to pass along similar articles
or recognition of successes occurring in Maplewood to the commission. Staff also
encourages other members to pass on any success stories they are aware of in
Maplewood.
RECOMMENDATION
Read the attached article.
p:com _ dvpt\BECDlAgenda Reports\05031 O\Seasons _ 042710
Attachments:
1, Minneapolis/Saint Paul Business Journal's article
Senior Housing Development or Redevelopment - Minneapolis / St. Paul ...
http://twincities.bi,gournals.com/twincities/stories/20 1 0/04/ 19/focus 1 O.h...
Attachment 1
Members: Lon in I Not Registered? Reqlster for free extra services.
Minneapolis f St. Paul Business Journal - April 19, 2010
/lwincities/stories/2010/04/19ffocus10.html?b:::12716496OO%5E3207861
BusiNEssSJoURNAL
Friday, April 16, 2010
Senior Housing Development or Redevelopment
The Seasons at Maplewood: Winner
Minneapolis I St. Paul Business Journal - by Kel}[l-Y__9Jni.lli Staff writer
Once looking like a retired property, 3030 Kennard St. N. in Maplewood went from down-and-out to a leader in its
class of senior living communities.
MEDIA
The site is now home to The Seasons at Maplewood, a 150-unit senior housing community, which began
construction in September 2009 and is expected to be completed this fall.
The man behind the project is Michael Pint, an entrepreneur and The Seasons owner. Pint assembled a team of
financiers, developers, architects and more to get the project rolling.
...
:,:" " ,-':,;:_<~,,"- ,,"- "',
"Three factors made this project go: a good product, a great team and the right financing," Pint said.
Pint came up with the idea years ago but wasn't able to officially get the project underway until receiving a non-subsidized mortgage. The
mortgage came from a senior housing financing program with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
''The location was prime and the market was there, we were just waiting for the economy to move forward," said Dena Meyer,
representative of Pint.
The next step was making sure city officials supported the project.
"The city liked the concept from the get-go," said Timothy Nichols, a financial partner on the project, adding that The Seasons doesn't just
work with the city, but for the city. The development allows Maplewood residents the ability to move from single-family homes to a
needs-driven community and remain in town. In turn, affordable homes become available for new home buyers, giving the city renewed
housing stock.
Other players in the project include architect Link Wilson, builder Pete Donnino and management company Ecumen.
There were some challenges involved with the project, however, including the economy's downturn and designing the building in a way so
that tenants would feel comfortable throughout the complex.
''We wanted to make sure that home begins when residents walk in the building, not into their individual units," Nichols said.
A plethora of tenant amenities helped achieve this goal including a fitness center, salon, movie theater, community room and art studio,
among others.
"I think we have accomplished a goal that so many other people wish they could. It took an amazing team to put this together," Nichols
said.
More...
STATS
Value: $28 million
Location: 3030 Kennard SI. N., Maplewood
Size: 206,047 square feet
Residential units: 150
Rental rates: $1,700 (independent living) $3,500 (assisted living)
Groundbreaking: September 2009
Expected completion: September 2010
PLAYERS
Owner of building: Michael Pint
Leasing agent: Ecumen
Developer: Lifestyle Communities
Owner's representative: Dena Meyer
General contractor: Frana Cas.
Architect: Kaas Wilson Architects
Design architect: Kaas Wilson Architects
Landscape architect: Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc.
Engineers:
10f2
4/28/20109:34 AM
Senior Housing Development or Redevelopment - Minneapolis / St. Paul...
http://twincities,bi~ournals.com/twincities/ stories/20 1 0/04/19/focus 1 0 .h...
Structural: Hanuschak Consultants Inc.
Electrical and mechanical: Cain Ouse Associates Inc.
Legal representation: Fredrikson & Bvron
Finance providers: U,S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through Nichols Financial Services
Title company: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
Other key parties: BDH & Young Space Design Inc., Timothy Nichols and Crown Bank
Nine Mile Creek Senior Living: Finalist
STATS
Value: $16.5 million
Location: 2301 Village Lane, Bloomington
Size: 134,245 square feet
Residential units: 93
Rental rates. $1,400-$1,700 (independent living), $2,900-$3,500 (assisted living), $3,100-$3,300 (memory care)
Groundbreaking: March 2009
Expected completion: April 2010
PLAYERS
Owner of building: Greco
Leasing agent: Ebenezer Manaqement Services
Developer: Greco
General contractor: Frana Coso
Architect: Kaas Wilson Architects
Design architect: Kaas Wilson Architects
Landscape architect: Bryan Carlson
Engineers:
Structural: Hanuschak Consultants Inc.
Electrical and mechanical: Cain Ouse Associates Inc.
Site lighting consultant: Lighting Matters
Legal representation: Mulligan Bjornnes
Finance provider: Dougherty & Co.
Title company: Commercial Partners Title
Other key parties: U,S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
kjsmith@bizjournals.com I (612) 288-2109
All contents of this site @American City Business Journals Inc, All rights reserved.
20f2
4/28/20109:34 AM