I attended the 11/18 meeting of the Walker Library Joint Task Force. I haven't played an active role in this Task Force project, but I'm very interested. I've been an advocate of a mixed-use library facility on this site for several years now. I missed the last meeting of 10/13/04 and wanted to provide some input on the 18th. However, there was no time on the agenda for public comments, which seemed odd and I left the meeting feeling very frustrated. But there's always the issues list! Thus, I'm posting my public comments to list members, and forwarding them to Ms. Kit Hadley, Director of MPL. At the meeting, Ms. Hadley kindly agreed to forward my comments to all Task Force members. Thanks, Kit. ~~~~~~
Much of the 11/18 meeting dealt with wordsmithing language in the draft RFP which will soon be sent to developers-- an onerous process at best, especially in a public meeting. The Task Force adopted the RFP as amended. My comments deal with the RFP and my concept of the development process, as it pertains to this project. Hopefully there is still time for consideration of my comments and concepts by Task Force members, and possibly room for inclusion in the RFP-- implicitly or explicitly, before it is issued. Likewise, many of the concepts should prove useful in any project negotiations. A couple of major issues were evident at the meeting. First off, there is great concern by Library Board members over the seemingly large shortfall in funds available to construct a new Walker Library as part of a mixed-use development on the current site. The fair reuse value of the 'air rights' on the site has been estimated at approximately $500-600K (I'm not sure of the source). Combined with tentative other sources of funding, there seems to be a $1-2.5 million capital shortfall, assuming the new library will cost $5.5 million. Secondly, there was some expressed concern over language in the draft RFP being overly restrictive-- hence the wordsmithing. Regarding the value of the site to a potential developer: It is totally dependent upon what kind of development is designed and built. An overly restrictive RFP process will either doom the project to failure, or result in a less than optimum project. Any potential developer must have the freedom to design a project that meets or exceeds the needs of both the community and the MPL, while providing an acceptable return on the private investment. Simply stated, the more value the developer can add to the site, the higher the potential value of the site. I think a fundamental concept should be to allow the developer to assume as much risk with the project as possible. Reduce as much risk as possible for the MPL. Let the developer hold the upside potential as well as the downside risk. Let the developer be responsible for commercial space; the library shouldn't be responsible for filling commercial space or making a coffee shop successful. Perhaps the value of the property exceeds the estimated value by a significant amount! The only way to find out is to specify 'minimal needs that must be addressed' in the RFP , and allow the developers the freedom to make it all happen. There should always be room for negotiation in order to keep the process viable-- allowing the developer a fair return while helping the MPL close the funding gap. After all, we know pretty much what we want, but we can't get there without the developers and the private financing they bring to the table. The developer wants a good investment project, the city wants to increase the tax base by getting a higher-value, taxable property on prime real estate, the community and MPL want a state of the art library. We want a win-win solution all around. It will take the community, the MPL Board, the City and a good developer to make that happen, through negotiation. The MPL wants all library operations on a single floor to assure operational efficiency-- the public library portion, and backroom storage/operations. It shouldn't be terribly important what floor the library is located on except for shipping/receiving concerns. Maybe the library should be on the street level, maybe there are better options. Commercial space is usually located on the street level, but it probably depends on what is going in the commercial space. In this Uptown location, I'd think commercial would work just as well on the second floor as on the first, but I'm no expert in such matters. However, these issues should be open to discussion/negotiation. As I understand it, the current library consumes about 17,000 sq. ft. of space, including the meeting room. For purposes of the RFP, I'd suggest breaking out the space requirements for the public library/backroom storage/operations functions, and assigning a range of required space (i.e. between x and y sq. ft.), and likewise for public meeting space. This provides flexibility to designers. After all, the public meeting room need not be adjacent to the library operation (as is the case in current library). Providing a range of space requirements would allow for more efficient operational layout options (lower space needs) and even exploration of a more efficient service delivery model in the Walker Branch-- a model, for example, where fewer books are actually stored on-site, yet are available within a day, after the customer places an order on the system computer, with books being delivered daily from the main library downtown. Computers, the Internet and electronic databases, along with reference literature, newspapers/magazines, etc., would be readily available on-site. Such a model would require much less operational and storage space. These represent additional issues for negotiation that could affect capital costs. One important aspect for design purposes, is to allow any public meeting room to function even when the library is not open-- especially when library hours are curtailed. Similar issues have arisen concerning public access to public school gyms-- an issue much easier dealt with if facilities are properly designed for such events in the first place. This is a very important issue-- access to public meeting space and site security. There is also an opportunity to share space in the new structure with the Y, located just across the Greenway. Evidently the Y is in need of some expansion space for exercise classes. Is it possible to share meeting room space with the Y? The Y also has a huge parking ramp adjacent to the Greenway that is near empty much of the time. Is it possible to share parking with the Y? A shared parking agreement brings much value to the table, while allowing a higher utilization of an existing capital asset. Library patrons and employees could park in the ramp and walk a few hundred feet to the library. And, the Y could use library meeting room space for exercise classes. Maybe the library doesn't even need to own the meeting room space, further cutting capital cost requirements? More room for negotiations. So the new structure will be mixed-use, with residential, commercial and library space. The residential can be owner-occupied, rental or a combination. Some units may be affordable. There will be underground parking for residential units; possibly more. Remember, the site is adjacent to a major bus transit hub, and very close to the Greenway. Lots of bicycle parking should be available. The surface parking lot will disappear along with the runoff. Perhaps a green roof can be incorporated into all or a portion of the roof? A useable green roof? The site is zoned OR2- high density office/residential. Across the street on the Zeno block, kitty-corner the McDonalds block, and to the south the Uptown Theater block-- I believe all are zoned C3A- commercial activity center. Current zoning limits height to 4 stories or 56', whichever is less. Is four stories enough to get the added value required on the site? Perhaps the building will be taller on the south side, sloping downward to the north toward the Greenway in order to prevent shading while enhancing views of both the Mall and the Greenway. Would such a design justify a conditional use permit to exceed height restrictions on the south portion of the building? Will the structure require setback variances, parking variances, etc.? There are density bonuses available for including underground parking, affordable housing, etc. These will help add value to the site. A formal shared parking agreement would be an important variable. Will nearby neighborhoods be interested in subsidizing any affordable units with their NRP funds? Doesn't the MPL have NRP funds? How about using NRP to help close the gap in construction financing? These are but a few of the types of issues that will undoubtedly arise as this project moves forward. And these are also negotiating issues that will affect project feasibility. Again, flexibility is the watchword. The draft RFP states as objectives that 'the library should be a landmark with a strong street presence and be the most prominent element, and the design of the building shall be centered on the idea that the library's form and aesthetic will dominate the building.' Doesn't sound very flexible to me, given that the library will likely constitute less than a third of the floor area. It goes on, 'the new facility should be oriented to integrate the Mall green space in with the site plan.' And, yes 'the building will be consistent with current zoning.' If a project is at odds with current zoning, will it not be considered- period? Or, will zoning and land-use considerations be a variable for consideration, along with other variables, in making a project feasible- in meeting all parties needs? Again, I reiterate, the developer must have a degree of flexibility to meet all parties needs. I hope this concept can be carried forward in the RFP document and be considered in any negotiations. During the meeting, I heard it stated several times that the MPL Board will assume no responsibility for any fund raising associated with the project. They were literally dragged to the Task Force table in the first place, a fact all too evident even at this late date. It will take strong community support to make a beautiful mixed-use library facility rise on this block. The neighborhood NRP's represent a unique vehicle to demonstrate that community support. Without such community support, the result will likely be a patched roof, a surface parking lot and a dingy, damp library structure that will continue leaking and require million dollar patches on a regular basis. I hope the neighborhood NRP groups have this project on their agendas. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills www.mahohmannbizplans.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
