SEMI Historic Study

Charlene Roise - MCDA has retained Hess Roise to complete Section 106 historic analysis. Section 106 historic analysis is required due to use of federal Empowerment Zone (EZ) funding within the SEMI area. Study is currently in the early evaluation stage to determine what historic elements may exist within the area. Study will know by the end of August if there are any historic properties. However, it is already known that at least one grain elevator meets historic preservation criteria.

The study impacts the Wall Companies proposal due to EZ funding. The study would have to be complete before city could issue permits for Wall project.

Wall Companies Proposal

Jim Hall provided an update on the Wall Companies proposal for a research and development park. Wall is working on securing development agreement with the city, which would allow formal lease negotiations to begin with potential tenants. The city and Wall are currently working out development agreement deliverables.

Phase 1: Calls for several research buildings off of 25th Avenue SE. Construction would begin spring 2003. Wall has several prospective tenants.

Total acreage of all phases: Possibly as much as 65 acres, but at least 40 acres. Up to 15 buildings with 1.5 million square feet. Would be a 10 year project overall. Up to as many as 2,500 new jobs.

Several buildings would have to be demolished to make way for the project.

City involvement: Ponding infrastructure, elevator demolition, roadway construction and financial assistance for structured parking.

Q: Has project been planned with a possible stadium in mind? A: A potential stadium has been considered in the planning process. Stadium would be a net plus, primarily due to related infrastructure improvements.

Q: How is this different than Energy Park? A: There will be more links to U of M research projects.

Q: Is housing part of the project? A: Wall is contemplating residential use as part of project. Project may also have a retail component. A hotel facility may also be part of project.

Q: Has U of M endorsed project? A: Wall has met with U of M officials and they have been supportive.

MCDA retained a consultant to complete a market study for this research park. Consultant concluded project is viable if U of M wholeheartedly embraces research park. High density uses will mean higher construction costs which will mean higher lease rates.

Comment: Concern that a potential stadium could alter development possibilities and change development priorities, including escalating land costs.

III. U of M Study of Gophers/Vikings Football Stadium

Brian Swanson and Jan Morlock discussed the University's plans for a study of a joint Gophers/Vikings football stadium. The 2002 Legislature directed the University and the Minnesota Vikings to prepare a study that would look at predesign issues for a stadium and a memorandum of understanding between the University and the Vikings. The study must be completed by December 1, 2002.

A handout further describing the study was distributed and reviewed.

The University was not asked to look at renovation of the Metrodome.

There 4 consultants:

Architecture/Urban Design
Transportation
Environmental
Construction

Questions:

Q: Will height of structure be part of the study? A: Water table is very shallow in this area (12-15 feet). Could mean project is constructed mostly above grade.

Q: When will University decide what priority this project is given? A: Likely would occur when regents approve study in November.

Comment: The study should be completed study with an EIS in mind. Alternatives within an EIS should include looking at Metrodome site.

Comment: There is local opposition within the residential and business communities. Economic black hole due to limit activity at facility. Current parking lots are a way of land banking. If stadium is built, where does University expand? Stadium could be a barrier to future private SEMI development. Gridlock would occur without transportation mitigation. Recommendations: Presume no new parking (minimize use/access of private vehicles). Connections to future LRT stations and existing downtown parking spaces.

IV. Hydrology Study

There was no update provided.

V. SE Traffic Issues

Bill Smith of BIKO was present to respond to traffic issues raised at a recent environmental meeting in the southeast area.

Q: Was traffic within Como between Stinson Technology Park and SEMI looked at within the AUAR? A: Yes. The traffic study done as part of the Stinson Tech Park planning was reviewed as part of the SEMI AUAR.

Q: How is traffic mitigation for 280 proposed? A: The AUAR calls for an eastern bridge over the rail yards allowing a second connection at Kasota Avenue where there is currently excess capacity. The western bridge over the rail yards has priority over the east bridge. A stadium could expedite infrastructure improvements.

VI. Stormwater Management Design

Patrick Wrase, of the Public Works Dept. described the proposed stormwater management system. Jim from TKDA presented stormwater study. TKDA developed three models for studying the south pond.

Conclusion: Redevelopment described in Master Plan requires a wet pond of 3 acres and an additional 3 acres of capacity for 10-year and 100-year flood events.

Next step:

Determine effect of pond on existing drainage system
Design pipe structure underneath rail yards from Kasota Avenue extension.
Shape/landscaping design of actual pond.

Q. Depth of pond? A: Stormwater ponds are generally 4 to 6 feet deep.

Q. Is pond expandable? Study looked at entire watershed and design includes future impervious surface additions in the surrounding area. Including rail yards? Yes. Rail yards are essentially impervious now.

VII. Approval of Minutes

April minutes approved without changes.