HRA 03/12/1987 - 6529HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1987
7 :00 P.M.
Nasim Qureshi
Director of HRA
and Off icial Copy
CITY OF FRIDLEY
A G E N D A
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1987 7:00 P.M.
Location: Council Chamber (upper level)
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes: February 12, 1987
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 AND MODIFYING BY ENLARGEMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING THERETO PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 462.411 TO
462.716, INCLUSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1Q
CONSIDERATION OF DRAWING ON LOU LUNDGREN'S LETTER OF CREDIT. . , . . . . 2
CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER LEASE OF RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. . . . . . 3
UPDATE ON LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT . . . . . . . 4
CLAIMS. . . . . . , . . . . . . . 5
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
o 4
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOP4ENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Mice- Chairperson Schnabel called the February 12, 1987, Housing & Redevelopment
Authority meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Menbers Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen, John Meyer
Members Absent: Larry Commers
Others Present: Jock Robertson, HRA Executive Director
Nasim Qureshi, City Manager
Samantha Orduno, Management Assistant
Dave Newman, HRA Attorney
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Officer
John Flora, Public Works Director
Nancy Jorgenson, Councilperson -at -large
Dennis Schneider, Councilperson
Bob Levy, 100 S. 5th St.
Douglas Peterson, 6401 University Ave. N.E.
Tom Ryan
Louis & June Lundgren, 1140 Minnesota Bldg., St. Paul
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 8, 1987, HOUSING.& REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE JAN. 8, 1987,
MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: ON PAGE 4, ITEM #3, THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT, "$30,000" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO $100,000,BOTH IN THE HEADING AND IN THE
MOTION.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. C014SIDERATION OF ACQUISITION OF RICE PLAZA OR ENTERING INTO A MASTER LEASE:
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA has had previous discussions about the acquisition
of the Levy property, but at the December meeting, the HRA made a motion not
to acquire the property. As a counter proposal, at the Dec. meeting, Mr. Levy
.and Mr. Diamond suggested the concept of a master lease. Staff was directed
by the HRA to do an analysis of some of the numbers that would be involved in
that concept.
Mr. Robertson stated Staff had done an outline of the cash flow figures based
on information about the leases that Mr. Levy had given them. They had out-
lined the worst case alternative. Basically, there were two alternatives
under a master lease arrangement. One was the purchase option for five years
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987
PAGE 2
in which the HRA would make a decision whether or not to buy the property
within the five year time period, but under the option arrangement, the
landlord would retain his perogative -of renewing leases when existing
leases are up. The HRA would enter into a master lease whereby the HRA
might make up 50% of the difference for the period that the landlord was
unable to lease the property. Mr. Robertson illustrated the alternative in which
there would be an actual purchase agreement whereby once the present leases
were up, the property would not be re- leased and the HRA would then make up
the difference in lost revenue using 1986 as a base year.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he was not against being in the landlord business under
this particular condition, but it seemed to him they had the worst of both
worlds. They were neither landlord nor the HRA. It seemed like a mess.
Weren't they ultimately buying a two- thirds vacant property that was going to
go downhill at a $114 million shot because they were not deciding what to do
now?
Mr. Prairie stated they could have the same situation anyway, even if they
purchased the property.
Mr. Newman stated Mr. Levy has been coming before the HRA since last April on
the question of the HRA acquiring the property. At the December meeting, the
HRA took final action not to acquire the property; however, thgy did discuss
the possibility of some kind of master lease arrangement - -the thought being
that there were some unique characteristics of the situation and the HRA could
provide some compensation to Mr. Levy, if, in fact, he is losing tenants
because the property was in the redevelopment district and was a site that has
been a subjerct of discussion for redevelopment. The HRA could possibly receive
some benefits from a master lease arrangement. One benefit would be that
instead of the HRA acquiring and operating the property, fir. Levy would con-
tinue to manage and own and have some economic incentives to try to keep the
property involved and maintain it. What Mr. Robertson had presented was the
worst case scenario, assuming the bottom fell out of the market and the center
was half vacant.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he felt entering into a master lease arrangement would be
setting a precedent.
Mr. Newman stated that could be a risk; however, there were actually two things
they should consider: (1) To a lesser extent the HRA took a similar approach
on the corner where Target is located. They did enter into a master lease
arrangement with Art Christenson. ObVI-Ously, that situation was a little
different, but it has been done before. (2) There was certainly some dispute
Is to how many development contracts and developers the City has'met with for
this site, but he did not think there was any dispute that the HRA has had an
interest in developing this site for a period of time and it has been one of
the RAs priorities for several years. That might be a unique situation that
cannot be said about other properties in the City ,
Mr. Qureshi stated it has been Staff's recommendation all along not to acquire
the property, and the HRA made the decision not to acquire the property at the
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 3
December meeting. This master lease arrangement concept was a way to respond
to the concerns of the landlord. Within the master lease arrangement, the
HRA would have the flexibility of when to acquire the property. The price
would be $1 million, and that price would remain the same. The property owner
says his property has been devalued and affected by the HRA's actions, so he
was guaranteed a fixed value if the HRA acquired the property. If there are
vacancies and the HRA wants the property owner to re -lease the property, the
HRA would only bear 50% of the cost. If the HRA feels the developnent is
imminent and doesn't want the property owner to re- lease, the HRA pays 100%
of the cost. After five years, if the HRA has not purchased the property,
the HRA will pay the property owner 75% of the cost for one year of whatever
is not leased.
Mr. Qureshi stated that by doing this, the HRA was achieving the following
things: (1) a fixed cost; (2) As the property. became vacant and the HRA
made the choice to keep it vacant, they have no relocation costs and no lease
hold improvement costs.
Mr. Bob Levy stated much of what Mr. Robertson and Mr. Qureshi had described,
he agreed with; however, there were some elements they did not agree with.
He stated he felt that the overall principle they are dealing with makes sense.
He recognizes the HRA has a problem with acquiring the property when they do
not have a ready project. and they understand the difficulties with that. The
other side of that was the owners have a problem in trying to keep the property
leased up, maintained, and dealt with, not knowing what is going to happen.
They have been in that state of flux for some years now.
Mr. Bob Levy stated that after the HRA's decision not to acquire the property,
they were trying to focus on whether there was some way of dealing with both
the HRA's problems and needs as well as the property owner's problems and needs
to avoid an adversarial situation between the two. The thought was because
they understood that the HRA did not want to be in the landlord business, maybe
they could continue to be in the landlord business and avoid that burden for
the HRA. Maybe another benefit for the HRA would be to give the HRA some
element of control with respect to lease renewals for entering into new leases
to diminish the HRH's potential exposure to tenant relocation expenses.
Mr. Levy stated the thing they would be looking for in the process would be:
(1) some certainty as to what would happen at the end of whatever the term of
agreement would be, either there would be an acquisition or the property would
be removed from the redevelopment district. (2) Where should the economic
burden relative to vacancies caused by this cloud of condemnation lie; and,in
the option scenario, it would be a shared burden. In the acquisition scenario,
it would be the HRA's burden, the idea being that, since, in effect, the property
was being warehoused pending development, some of that economic burden of
the warehousing situation would fall back on the HRA.
Mr. Levy stated they were open to either option. What they were looking at
was some kind of compromise that worked well for the HRA as well as the
property owner. The one option basically was an option situation with the HRA.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPf1ENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY'12, 1987 PAGE 4
The way they approached this with staff was to say, whoever got to make
decisions about the property (landlord -type decisions), that was ultimately
where the property should end up. If the HRA wanted the authority to decide
whether or not there would be renewal or vacancy because the HRA wants to
avoid relocation costs to the tenants, the property owner did not have a
problem with that, but then at the end of the term of agreement, they want to
know that the HRA was going to buy the property. They do not want the
property coming back to thew -as "Ghost Town U.S.A. ".
Mr. Levy stated that on the other hand, if they retain the right to make the
decisions regarding entering into new leases or renewing old leases, then
they did not need a commitment from the HRA to buy the property. What they
needed was a commitment from the HRA that at the end of the term of agreement,
the HRA was going to buy the property or take the property out of the district.
Then, they can figure out what they want to do without the cloud of condemnation.
Mr. Levy stated what they told fir. Qureshi and Mr. Robertson was they are
flexible between these options -- whatever the Staff or-ttte_ HRA felt was'more
workable. They will go the option route or the purchase agreement route with
delayed acquisition, the point being that whoever gets to make the decisions
about signing leases was ultimately where the property should end up.
Mr. Levy stated at this time there were two specific items of difference
between the Staff and the landlord: (1) the acquisition price. Mr. Qureshi
had described a fixed price today that would continue through the term of the
agreement, and that was not acceptable to the property owner. (2) the term
of the agreement. It was much easier to deal with a longer term agreement if
they knew for certain the property was going to be acquired at the end of the
term. If they do not know what is going to happen, it made it more difficult
-ta_'deal with major decisions because there was always that uncertainty. When
they initially made the proposal to the HRA, they had talked about a three
year term rather than a five year term. If they were dealing with a purchase
structure rather than an option structure, they would probably .have a little
more flexibility in trying to manage the terms of the agreement. If it was
the option structure, obviously they would like to see a shorter term.
Mr. Levy stated that in general principle or concept, they threw this sort of
proposal out as a way to possibly compromise their differences. And, in
principle or concpet, it made sense to them. Where they have specific disagree-
ments with staff at this point was to expect the property owner to agree to a
fixed price today and run the risk of five years of inflation or changing
market conditions. The second element was they do not want to go out to five
years. They have been dealing with this issue since 1979, and with another
five years down the road, they would have 13 years into the program.
Mr. Levy stated that in discussions at previous meetings, they-had asked for
a floor price based on the valuation today. -He was sure ttid question the
HRA would then ask was if they were going to have a fixed floor price then,
why shouldn't there be a fixed price going the other direction? The answer
was that it was their feeling that because of the cloud of condemnation and
the inability to keep the property let at market rates and under market term
leases, that has the effect of devaluing the property.
3
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 5
Mr. Newman stated one of the things he had proposed was that in lieu of a
floor, since there has to be a mechanism to determine the value anyway, they
could stipulate that in determining the mechanism, any information regarding
the condemnation would be excluded. He had a problem with a floor plus the
possibility there would be an escalation in price.
Mr. Qureshi stated he would recommend that the HRA not consider a master lease
arrangement unless there was a fixed price of $1 million at today's price.
The only reason they were taking the extra burden was because they feel they
are sharing in the property owner's burden, and the property owner was not
taking the total risk. If the property depreciates, the HRA was sharing
in that burden. They also guarantee that after five years, the property owner
can make the decision of having the property purchased or out of the district.
If the property was out of the district, the HRA was guaranteeing they would
give him one full year of rent at 75 %. So, he would have a whole year to
re -rent his shopping center if the HRA did not acquire the property.
Ms. Schnabel asked Ad the ultimate authority on the rental decisions.
Mr. Qureshi stated it was separate whether they were talking option or purchase.
What he was suggesting was they put in the option agreement that the HRA
decides whether they want the property leased or not. If the HRA decides not
to lease the property, they would bear 100% of the cost. If they have Mr. Levy
do the leasing and he cannot lease it for 2 -3 months, the HRA would bear 50%
of the cost.
Ms. Schnabel asked what'happened if Mr. Levy found a tenant that wanted to
lease for a length of term beyond what the HRA was interested in. Did the
HRA have any authority over that?
Mr. Qureshi stated, no, they can only make a commitment forfive years. Then,
either the HRA will buy the property or let the property out of the redevelop-
ment district.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he felt they were premature in discussing this at this
meeting, because (1) they do not have an agreement from the owner on the base
price and (2) they do not have a mutual agreement on who controls the lease
provisions.
Mr. Qureshi stated they were just bringing this item to the HRA because the
HRA has asked Staff to pursue other avenues of agreement with Mr. Levy. He
realized details would have to be put together and formalized. But, it was
his recommendation that there be an absolute fixed purchase price, so Mr. Levy
would know the HRA would never depreciate his property.
Mr. Qureshi stated another item he would like to suggest.was that if there was
any acquisition of right -of -way, for example, for example, $100,000 paid for the
right -of -way and that money was paid to the landlord, that amount would be
deducted from the price agreed upon for the property.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 6
Mr. Meyer and Mr. Rasmussen agreed they had no problem with Staff exploring
this further.
Mr. Prairie stated he thought some form of this was a compromise and it
assisted the owner in some of his rental problems.
Mr. Levy stated that if he understood what Mr. Qureshi was saying, from the
property owner's standpoint, `i f -the: HRA- wanted the right to make the decisions
on whether or not-to lease and decided to exercise that right in a manner not
to lease, the property owner would want that coupled with the decision to go
ahead and acquire the property on or before the expiration of the agreement.
Their position was that whoever gets to decide what to do with the property
was where the ownership should be. That was not an ultimate decision that
had to be made now, but they had told staff they could build into the agree-
ment that when the HRA does decide they do not want the property owner to
lease the property that was when they had to make the decision to purchase.
If the HRA never said that, then they did not need the commitment to purchase.
He did not want the property owner to be in the situation where somebody has
said they cannot use their property for a period of five years, and then at
the end of the five years, the property comes back totally vacant, and they
have to start from scratch.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt the property owner and the HRA were close enough
in agreement that it would be beneficial for staff to continue negotiations
with Mr. Levy.
Ms. Schnabel stated she felt there should be further negotiations with Mr. Levy
to see if some agreements can be reached.
MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER LEASE ARRANGEMENT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND TO
INSTRUCT STAFF TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. LEVY ON ENTERING INTO A
MASTER LEASE ARRANGEMENT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSIDERATION OF DRAWING ON LOU LUNDGREN'S LETTER OF CREDIT:
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Lundgren did come this evening with a written report
and Mr. Lundgren was prepared to give a verbal report covering the material
he had delivered at the meeting.
Mr. Lundgren stated he apologized for not getting this report ready for the
HRH's agenda, but he did not have all the information at that time. In general,
he was trying to report on the progress since the last HRA meeting on the
financing for the Fridley Plaza project apartment building. He read the
letter to the HRA.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 7
Mr. Lundgren stated he had received from Meritor Mortgage a list of people
who might be interested in joint venture financing or participation financing.
He had contacted all the people on that list. The two he had received strong
expressions from and who have requested preliminary financing packages were
Murray's Savings and Loan in Dallas, Texas, and Home Federal Savings and
Loan in San Diego, California. In addition, they have received a strong
expression of interest from Golden Real Estate. These people, if they said
yes, would not be providing the financing, they were mortgage brokers.
Mr. Lundgren stated Mr. Golden's letter was attached to his letter. Mr. Golden
had stated in his letter that he had two firms interested in the construction
and permanent financing and had told Mr. Lundgren he was very interested
and would get back to Mr. Lundgren within a week to ten days. Mr. Doug Mayo
of the Rothchild Financial Co. was preparing a package to be sent to a company
in Maryland. Mr. Mayo has helped him with financing in the past, and they
had good experiences between them.
Mr. Lundgren stated they expect the preliminary responses to their packages
before the end of February.
Mr. Lundgren stated he had received from.Mr. Lee Maxfield, the person he felt
was the most competent in the field, a price and timeline for a feasibility
study. lie had had several feasibility studies done before, but he did not
actually have them in hand. He stated he had decided not to commit $5,000
for the study if, in just two days, the HRA decided to draw on his letter of
credit. He had told Mr. Maxfield he would call him the morning after the HRA
meeting and would authorize the study if the HRA did not call on the letter
of credit at this meeting.
Mr. Lundgren stated he wanted to explain that joint venture fittancinq meant
he would have a partner and the partner would be a financial institutfon
that was involved. They lend great financial credibility to the project, put
up all the money, and then get perhaps 50% ownership i6 the project:
Mr. Lundgren stated participation financing meant the company would give all
the money that was required for the project so they did not have to seek
additional equity by syndication, saving lots of legal and other fees. With
all five-of the interested parties, they were talking about either partici-
pation financing or joint venture financing.
Mr. Lundgren stated he felt he was now at the point where he was going to be
getting some preliminary and some pretty strong indications yet this month.
In his letter, he had suggested that when he received any responses from
these people, he would report to staff on the indication whether it was yes
or no. He wanted to assure the HRA that they were still talking about the
same building, the same quality, etc., that has been discussed from the
beginning.
Mr. Rasmussen asked if the HRA had any obligation to fir. Lundgren.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 11EETMG, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 8
Mr. Newman stated that at previous meetings--, fir. Lundgren has made it very
clear that even though the HRA has so far declined to call on his letter
of credit that it should not be construed or implied that there was any commitment
on the part of the HRA. It was not to be construed or implied at this meeting
that if the HRA elects not to call on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit that
the letter of credit would be reduced by the amount of $5,000 for the feasi-
bility study or that the action of the HRA would create any obligation to
Mr. Lundgren.
Mr. Lundgren stated he fully understood that. He stated this feasibility study
was necessary for him, the HRA, the community, and the project.
Mr. Meyer stated it seemed to him they had the best of all worlds here. They
have Mr. Lundgren working to develop the property in the way the HRA would
like to see it developed, and it was not really costing them any money to
wait. It seemed to him it was to the HRA's advantage to not exercise their
right to call on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit and leave the status as it was.
Mr. Newman stated it has been Staff's recommendation since December to draw
on the letter of credit. He wanted to emphasize that at the last 2 -3 meetings,
Mr. Lundgren has repeatedly indicated he would have information for the next
meeting. At each meeting, there has been a reason for not having that
information, and it was a little frustrating at the staff level to not see
any progress.
Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA had another meeting in four weeks, and she did
not see where fir. Lundgren was going to have an answer within four weeks unless
the answer was "no ". If the answer was "yes" or "maybe" or "we would like to
take another look ", it was notgoing to happen in four weeks because of the
feasibility study that has to be done.
Mr. Robertson stated it should be noted again for the record that there was
not an indefinite time the HRA has the option to draw on the letter of credit.
The HRA must make a final decision at the May meeting, if it is not done before.
Mr. Lundgren stated he understood that also, He understood that if the HRA
granted his request not to draw on the letter of credit that they were only
doing it for this particular meeting. At the March meeting, if it cones up
again, they might vote negatively at that time.
Mr. Newman stated that procedurally the matter was tabled at a previous
meeting so if there was no intention by the HRA to call on the letter of
credit, no action was needed at this time.
Ms. Schnabel stated it seemed to again be the concensus of the HRA members to
not call on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit and that the item remain on the
table.
Mr. Lundgren stated that when the feasibility study was available, the HRA
would receive it no matter what happens.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 9
3. LETTER CONCERNING TOM RYAN PROPERTY AND RECO14MENDATION FROM VIRGIL HERRICK:
Mr. Newman stated the HRA members had received at the meeting a copy of a
memo from Jim Robinson regarding relocation expenses, and a letter from
Virgil Herrick dated Jan. 12, 1987. He stated both Tom Ryan and his legal
counsel, Douglas Peterson, were at the meeting. He would ask Mr. Peterson
to give some background on why this request was being made and then proceed
from there.
Mr. Douglas Peterson stated he was an attorney representing Tom Ryan, who
owned Dr. Ryan's Automotive Clinic across the street. Back in 1983, as part
of the redevelopment of the Center City area, Mr. Ryan's property on which
he was doing business was'condemned and, as part of the condemnation, he
entered into an agreement with the HRA and the City to move his business from
that property to the vacant Standard Station across the street. As part of
that agreement, Mr. Ryan was allowed to remain at that location. He believed
the original lease was for two years and then on a month -to -month basis after
that. The rent was currently $650 /month.
Mr. Peterson stated at this time Mr. Ryan was intending to sell his business.
They have a purchase agreement with Mr. George Frey, a mechanic, who intends
to take over Mr. Ryan's business at this location. But the purchase agreement
was contingent upon a two year lease he would be entering into with the HRA.
That was the reason they were before the HRA at this meeting to talk to the
HRA about attempting to get an accommodation with Mr. Frey to get the lease.
Mr. Frey understood that the HRA was interested in developing the property and
the property around the parcel. Mr. Frey was concerned about going into the
business unless he had some sort of guarantee that he was not going to be
removed from the property immediately. That was the reason for the two year
lease. They-would like a lease with a term of two years with a 90 -day
termination provision starting at the end of the two years at the same rental
of $650 /month, with a provision in the lease that the new lessee would not be
entitled to any relocation expenses in the event the HRA wanted to develop
the property at the end of the two years. Mr. Frey understood there was no
way he would get a lease unless he waived the right to relocation.
Mr. Newman stated Staff'.s. recommendation was against a two year lease as
described by Mr. Peterson. That was the basis of the discussion Mr. Herrick
had with Mr. Ryan. One thing pointed out in Mr. Herrick's letter was that
at any point during the two year period, the lease could be terminated on a
90 -day notice if the HRA required the property for the purpose of development.
That was substantially different from what Mr. Peterson was proposing. He
thought that from a legal standpoint with the type of provisions outlined in
Mr. Herrick's letter and based on the memo received from Mr. Robinson indi-
cating there would not, in fact, be any claim for relocation, they feel more
comfortable with what Mr. Herrick has proposed. They certainly need to have
the flexibility. Mr.Lundgren has indicated some possibility of obtainina
funding for his project so within a two year period, a number of things could
happen.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 10
Mr. Qureshi stated he was sure the HRA realized they had already paid Mr. Ryan
acquisition and relocation costs and the renting of the Standard Station
building was a mutually agreeable arrangement which now stands on a month -
to -month basis. If either party wants Mr. Ryan to move out, all they have to
do is give a 30 -day notice and they have no further obligation to each other.
He would have no problem with the HRA providing a two year lease with a 90-
day notice as long as there was a provision that when the HRA entered into an
agreement with a development that required the removal of this building, the
HRA could give the 90 -day notice at that time. On the north side of
Mississippi, they removed a gas station, not because they wanted to develop
anything on the site, but because it provided a better exposure to Holly
Shopping Center. That could also happen on this side of Mississippi St.
where they might want to remove the structure just for exposure to a develop -
ment behind it. In that situation, also, the HRA should have the right to do
that.
Mr. Newman stated he had indicated to Mr. Peterson that the only way he could
recommend approval of the terms of the lease was if the removal of the building
for development purposes was defined in a broad enough sense so it would cover
the situation Mr. Qureshi had described.
Mr. Peterson stated it was true that when Mr. Ryan's property was condemned
Chat Mr. Ryan was paid everything required by the City and the HRA. Mr. Ryan
did have a business and still has a business that to him was worth money.
He has been in business in the City of Fridley for over 26 years. At the time
he moved across the street, possibly at that time he should have made the
decision to go out of the redevelopment district, but he was concerned that
it would mean losing business. At this time, they - really might not have any-
thing to sell unless they can get assurances that the person who would like
to purchase the business has some time to set up his business and keep the
business going so the customers get to know him and then,hopefully, will follow
him when he does have to move.
Mr. Peterson stated as far as the time period, it was great to have the flexi-
bility, but he did not think that anything was going to be happen-
ing on that property within the'two year period or at least within a one year
period. With the tax law change at the end of December,-very few
developers really know what they are doing with regard to construction,
financing, etc. This property has been in the process*of being attempted to
be developed for a number of years. It did not sound like Mr. Lundgren had
anything extremely nailed down, so it did not look like anything would really
get going yet this year. If, by the end of the year, a developer comes in,
they were still looking at another 7 -9 months before they can really get into
the ground and be in a position to have anything anyone could look at
which would mean tearing down this building.
Ms. Schnabel stated that at this time, the HRA has the ability to give Mr. Ryan
a 30 -day notice to vacate. It was her feeling to go along with the suggestion
made by Mr. Herrick with a two year maximum lease with a 90 -day notice to
vacate and the waiver of relocation costs.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPNEN AifTffORT W MEENING, - FEBRUARY 12, 19'87 PAGE 11
Mr. Prairie stated he would agree with that. He thought that was about as
generous as they could be.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he was reluctant to go into a two year lease. The HRA
already owns the property, and why should they even get involved in another
lease, regardless of the term?
Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA has already paid Mr. Ryan for relocation costs
once, and they tried to help him along in getting his business established
across the street. She thought the HRA had treated him quite fairly in that
situation,but she did not know how strong their obligation was. She did not
want to hurt him from the standpoint of his business, but what were the [IRA's
obligations?
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA had no legal ohlligations. Their only concern was they
want to give some consideration to Mr. Ryan's request. lie felt the HRA should
have the absolute right to acquire the vacation of the property for the tearing
down of the building for any development needs.
Mr. Qureshi asked fir. Peterson what kind of flexibility -he could give to the
HRA and still preserve the purchase agreement.
Mr. Peterson stated the purchaser was looking for some assurances that he can
go into the business and stay longer than 90 days. He thought the furthest
they could go in the lease was to have a 2 year lease with a one year guarantee
and possibly after that a vacation for any purpose. He did not think the HRA
was going to require a vacation unless they had a specific use for the property.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt the HRA could agree to a two year lease with a 90-
day vacation notice as proposed by fir. Herrick.
Mr. Ryan stated when you sell a business, you sell the land, the building, the
equipment, and the name. That was not what happened in his case. He got paid
for the land and the building and relocation, but he was now sitting with
$40,000 worth of equipment and a name. He has been looking for a buyer for two
years and has finally found one. He will not have that buyer unless he has
some kind of lease. Otherwise, he will be sitting in limbo with $40,000 worth
of equipment and a name that was no good after 26 years of business unless he
has a buyer.
Ms. Schnabel stated she sensed from the discussion that the HRA was reluctant
to tie that property up any more than was reasonable, at least beyond what they
have been doing for Mr. Ryan, and especially in view of the fact they do have
a developer who appears to be hopeful in getting the development going. As
proposed by Mr. Herrick, the two years was fine, but they had to remain flexible
on the property so that they have an option-to give notice to'
vacate if there is need for the property.
Mr. Meyer stated he thought the two year lease was alright with a 90 -day
notice situation. But, he also agreed with what Mr. Rasmussen was saying about
why should they even put themselves in a hole they don't have to be in?
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 12
Mr. Rasmussen stated that even though it sounded rather cruel, he did not
think the HRA should be involved in the sale of Mr. Ryan's business at all.
Mr. Newman stated he believed Mr. Ryan wanted to close on the sale of his
business at the end of February, and they certainly want to accommodate
Mr. Ryan. They would have the new owner enter directly into a new lease with
the HRA and in that lease, they would clearly spell out the limitations- -
that he was waiving the right to relocation, and that it would be a two year
lease with a 90 -day notice at the discretion of the HRA for any development
reason.
Mr. Meyer stated he would suggest 180 days notice instead of 90 days, because
he could not foresee that even though they got a buyer or some developer
immediately, it would still be six months before they would need that property.
Mr. Nev -man stated he would speak against that because of their experience with
Mr. Lundgren. When they draft development contracts, it was the City's desire
for the development to move as quickly as possible. In the case of Mr. Lundgren,
the way the contract was drafted, the HRA had approximately 120 days from the
time Mr. Lundgren provided evidence of financing to fully acquire the property.
The HRA was really not in a position where they were going to want to go ahead
and have someone vacate that property until they know the development was ready
to go in. They could be in the situation where they have been presented with
the evidence of financing, the commitment for financing was there, and the
developer was ready to go, but they then had to wait six months to
building. He stated that could really impede development.
Mr. Meyer stated he could understand what fir. Newman was saying.
Mr. Peterson stated he would like to bring back to the buyer something that
said there was a guarantee. Would the HRA consider a six month hiatus from
notice at the front end of the lease? It was something he could bring back to
the buyer as kind of a guarantee.
Mr.Qureshi stated he would have no problem with that. He had no problem even
giving six months up front and then 90 days notice after that.
Mr. Qureshi stated he wanted to make sure the buyer was aware that the City
was taking part of the right -of -way, about 20 ft., for the potential expansion
Of Mississippi St. He did not think it would affect the business at all.
Mr. Newman stated he felt very confident that even if a developer would core
in the next day with a specific proposal, the fact that the HRA would not be
able to deliver the property until September 1 would not be an impediment to
the new development.
Ms. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Ryan did not sell the business *-for some reason
to this particular buyer at the end of this month, was this kind of agreement
going to be effective for a period of time so that it could be for another
buyer?
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 13
Mr. Newman stated this agreement would be specifically limited to this offer
of purchase. If this purchase fell through, it would revert back to the
original 30 day notice on a month -to -month basis with Mr. Ryan.
Ms. Schnabel stated she wanted Mr. Ryan to understand that this agreement was
only for this buyer; and if this purchase did not go through and he had another
buyer at another time, the developmental stages for this property at that
time might be totally different.
Mr. Qureshi stated he hoped this offer was only limited to the end of the month.
Mr. Rasmussen stated because the HRA had an unfortunate experience in a previous
lease, he would hope the HRA could examine the financial ability of the new
buyer to make the rental payments on the property.
Mr.Newnan stated they could request that Mr. Peterson get a financial statement
of the buyer.
MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE LEASE WITH THE NEW BUYER OF THE DR. RYAN AUTOMOTIVE
CLINIC SUBJECT TO LEGAL STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS:
1. THE LEASE TO BE A TWO -YEAR LEASE WITH A 90 -DAY NOTICE AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE HRA FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE.
2. THERE WOULD BE NO RELOCATION EXPENSES TO THE BUYER.
3. THE 90 -DAY NOTICE WOULD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE
EXPIRATION OF THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE LEASE.
4. THIS NEW LEASE TO BE EXECUTED ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1, 1987.
5. THE PROSPECTIVE TENANT TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL STATEJIENT OF
HIS CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION AND GRANT AUTHORIZATION FOR
A CREDIT CHECK.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. UPDATE 014 LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT:
Mr. Qureshi stated that last August, the HRA approved amendments to the Agree-
ment for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center development. T1ie.HRA awarded the
contracts which committed the HRA and the City Council to roughly a cost of
$2.2 million for work on the site. Also, it was required that the plat be
approved and filed. The plat was approved by the City Council in August, but
it has never been filed. Mr. Newman had come before the HRA indicating to the
HRA the problems and difficulties in getting that plat filed. Mr. Weir had
hired Sunde Engineering to do the plat. The plat was prepared. He had also
tried to file the Metes and Bounds description for Parcel C, and if he had
been successful, the HRA would have gotten $1 million. Mr.Weir did try to
file the plat, but could not because of some legal description problems.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPME14T AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 14
Mr. Qureshi stated in about October, there were some further meetings with
Mr. Weir and his staff, and Mr. Weir indicated he wanted the right -of -way
along Highway 65 vacated. The City did go ahead and start the process and now
have legally vacated the property which was essentially where the road exits,
except the portion needed for the Highway 65 intersection improvements.
Mr. Qureshi stated when the plat was approved in August, there was a statement
made by Eric Nesset that the alignment of this road might have to be adjusted.
After that when the intersection plans for Highway 65 and West Moore Lake
Drive were finalized, it was indicated the new alignment would be better for
traffic purposes. The alignment that would meet Mr. Weir's desires required
the acquisition of a second house. It was Mr. Weir's desire also that the HRA
pay for the.:acquisition of that house. Even though the HRA had agreed they
had gone farther than they should have with Mr. Weir and should not give any
more assistance, they reluctantly agreed with the City Council that if paying
for the acquisition of this house would solve the problems with Mr. Weir, they
should do it. Mr. Newman put that information in a letter and sent it to
Mr.Weir.
Mr. Qureshi stated he had told Mr. Weir they should sit down and try to work
the problem areas. Mr. Weir had said that because of the market changes,
he could not live with some of the restrictions imposed by the HRA.
Mr. Qureshi stated-he had told Mr. Weir he should approach the HRA and the
City Council and request an adjustment 'to the Agreement. On January 22, Mr.
sent him a letter giving a notice of default on the part of tha HRA.
Mr. Newman has responded saying the City and the HRA deny the alleged items
default.
Mr. Qureshi stated there were basically three scenarios the HRA could pursue.
Of course, each of these three choices had disadvantages and advantages.
1. There was an Agreement, and the developer should live by that
Agreement. If the problems cannot be resolved, they will have
to go the legal route, i.e., litigation.
2. The HRA could attempt to renegotiate and adjust the Agreement.
3. If no agreement could be made between the two parties, the HRA
could pay back the developer's costs of the land and seek
another developer.
Mr. Rasmussen expressed concern about how these things had been documented.
Mr. Newman stated most of the negotiations since last August have been
documented in writing. Mr. Robertson and he have taken notes of the various
discussions. The objections by the developer prior to August 1986 were
negated by the new Agreement. Since that Agreement was entered into,
Mr. Qureshi has only had one meeting with Mr. Weir that he was aware of,
and he, Mr. Newman, was present.at that meeting. He did not believe
Mr. Robertson had had any meetings with Mr. Weir since that time.
out
Wei r
of
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 15
Mr. Newman stated he has had very few discussions with Mr. Weir's attorneys.
Most of the conversations back and forth have been in writing, so they do
have extensive communication. He has made a further request to Staff to go
back in time and see-what other documents there are. Staff will be meeting
the next day to review these documents. If there was no problem with the
HRA reviewing these documents, he would forward them on to the HRA.
Mr. Qureshi stated the City Council has been briefed also on the background
of this situation, and it was the Council's feeling that the HRA has been
performing in good faith with the Lake Pointe development. The HRA has basi-
cally purchased the property, they promised and purchased the George Johnson
property, they had proceeded with the contracts and the ;:ork was being dome,
the City Council had approved the plat, there was a question on alignment
and the adjustment was made. Financially, the HRA was still in a good position,
because they control the property, and they still have $5.6 million, of Mr.
Wear's money for which they gave a Revenue Note,
Mr. Newman stated that in talking to the developer's attorneys, it was obvious
they were looking for more than just minor modifications in the development
contract. They were looking for renegotiating the basic principles of the
Agreement. He was,fairly confident a lawsuit would be filed before the end.of Feb.
Unless the HRA and City Staff directed him to commence major renegotiations
of the Agreement, their only alternative at this time was to defend the lawsuit.
He has talked to Staff, Larry Commers, Jim Casserly and the City Council about
the fact that they are going to need legal assistance in representing the HRA.
At this time, his recommendation would be to retain the Popham--Haik law firm.
There were a number of reasons why they were recommending this law firm. It
was a large firm of about 70 -80 attorneys so .it toad the size and the resources
to handle this size of litigation. Herrick & Newman has associated with
Popham -Haik in the past.
Mr. Newman stated he and Mr. Herrick will be meeting with Ray Haik and Tom Berg
of the Popham Haik law firm; and if they feel comfortable with proceeding
with this firm, they will immediately give Mr. Haik and Mr. Berg the information
so they can make an assessment of what action should be taken. If needed, they
will request a special HRA meeting.
Mr. Qureshi stated again that the HRA has committed to the project $2.2 million
for improvements. Contracts have been signed by the City and --contractors
and it was Staff's recommendation to continue to proceed to improve the
property so it will look attractive, whether for this development or another
future development. There was another $1.6 million of commitment for the Highway 65
and West Moore Lake Dr. intersection improvement which the HRA and City Council
have not actually entered into an construction contract yet.
Ms. Sch -nabel stated if the HRA members are served with a suit from anyone
representing the developer, Derhaps the HRA should have some type of meeting
before the March meeting so they can be apprised of the situation and be
brought up to date by staff-and legal counsel.
Mr. Newman stated they would be glad to do that.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY-12, 1987 PAGE 16
Mr. Rasmussen asked- if the HRA should be doing any kind of PR regarding this
impending lawsuit to protect their interests.
Mr. Newman stated the subject was raised at the last City Council meeting
about whether the City and the HRA should go on the offense and issue their
own press release.
(Mr. Prairie left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.)
Ms. Schnabel stated if people are - .=concerned about what is going on with that
property and rumours are flying around, maybe there was a need for some type
of press release and maybe Staff should start preparing for an article.
Mr. Newman stated he would caution the HRA members that if they do get served
with any leqal papers that they note the date and the time and forward the
papers to him immediately. If any of the HRA members feel the need for
any further discussion, he /she should let Mr. Robertson know and they will
schedule a meeting.
Ms. Schnabel stated she would like to know whenever any of the HRA members
was served with papers, because-she felt that was something the other members
should be aware of right away.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION (1) REQUESTING THAT THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
I
FRIDLEY, ON A
Mr. Robertson stated this project was originally started to improve the easterly
entrance to the Lake Pointe project. As the HRA remembered, it was the project
that was required to, not only improve the entrance visually and functionally,
but was also required by the Indirect Source Air Quality Permit to expedite
the traffic flow to reduce the air pollution.
Mr. Robertson stated the basic cost was not to exceed $1,661,784.40; however,
there were some additional costs the HRA might wish to consider in the future
on decorative lighting. He would also-call the HRA's attention to the memo given
to the HRA members regarding an informational meeting that was held the pre-
vious evening at City Hall with the people who own homes along Old Central Ave.
beyond the intersection.
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Flora was at the meeting to give some technical
background.
Mr. Flora stated that since the public hearing with the residents along Old
Central, there was some question about whether this was actually an acceptable
solution to the intersection at this time. So, they are working on some
alternative solutions to satisfy some of the concerns of the neighborhood, but
they were still looking at somewhere around $1.7 million for this intersection
improvement which was designed to handle the Lake Pointe Development, Highway
65, and the future traffic upstream and downstream from the intersection.
HOUSING, & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 17
Nr. Flora stated that if the project goes, Staff has some suggestions. As
the HRA knew, they were doing a University Ave. Corridor study & in that study, they
were looking at the "Fridley look ", certain light fixtures, plantings, motif,
etc. If this was to be the Fridley look, the question was should the Fridley
look be continued to this location also. If they do that, they should look
at incorporating those types of lights, plantings, etc., into the project.
So, depending on the options, they were looking at a range of $4,000 to
$155,000 for the Fridley street lighting look.
Mr. Flora stated another item, with the Indirect Source Permit, was the Rice
Creek Road diversion. Part of that plan was that too many cars were coning
down Old Central to the Highway 65/Old Central intersection, so the plan was
to divert the traffic from Old Central to Highway 65 through Rice Creek Road
by the Shorewood Shopping Center. That was another project that was
authorized by the HRA for preliminary plans to be prepared. At the informational
meeting with the neighborhood, the neighbors felt this was probably the first
priority because by moving the traffic off Old Central at the Old Central/ Rice
Creek Road intersection, some of the concerns could be resolved more satis-
factorily. So, Staff might be coming to the HRA to do this. Right now in
round numbers, that.improvement would be $400,000. Staff was also looking
at whether they should also continue the Fridley look in this location if they do
it at the Highway 65/Old Central location. These were things the HRA would have to
decide.
Mr. Flora stated the item before the HRA at this meeting was the intersection.
Per the agreement with Mr. Weir.'and the HRA and the City was supposed to work to
get this intersection done this construction season. The City was moving
forward, but they needed some approval from the HRA.
Councilperson Schneider stated he did not know if the City Council would hold
a public hearing or not, but he would be more comfortable if this resolution
came to the City Council without the HRA specifically requesting the City
Council not to hold a public hearing.
Mr. Qureshi stated there was no legal requirement to hold a public hearing,
but certainly the HRA or the City Council could hold a public hearing if they
wished. The HRA could delete that wording from the resolution.
Mr. Flora stated he would also like some kind of concensus from the 4iRA so
they can tell the consultant he can put the lighting into the plan so they
can be identified and the costs provided rather than doing it later. This
was certainly going to be another one of the focal points of the City.
Ms. Schnabel stated her problem was that as far as she knew the HRA had not
made any decision yet on the lighting along University Ave.
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA did approve the lighting at the intersections,
but not along the Corridor. After Staff received the recommendations from
the Barton- Aschmann firm, staff did recommend a style of lighting standards.
It was
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 18
his understanding that when the HRA approved the Staff report in December,
they approved that style of lighting istandards for the intersection. The
RRA_then hired Mr. Ellers, a former NSP lighting engineer, to specify the
lighting details, not only for the intersections, but for the entire corridor
to make sure all the lighting fit so they wouldn't have to redo the intersections
to match the corridor at some later time. They now have a design and layout
for the entire University Ave. corridor for the approved lighting style plus
preliminary recommendations for the commercial frontage road lighting. They
have not yet brought this to the HRA.
Mr. Robertson stated.they were now beginning preliminary engineering designs
for Old Central `.and Highway 65 /Lake Pointe Drive entrance. Did
the HRA wish to make a commitment at this time to adopt those styles of lighting
standards for this intersection also?
MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.
HRA Z -1987, DELETING THE LANGUAGE, "AND WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATING
THERETO ".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The HRA members agreed Staff could proceed to incorporate the lighting design
into the plan all the way to Rice Creek Road, but that the HRA would like to
see all the plans before it is approved.
6. CLAIMS (1565- 1581):
MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE CHECK
REGISTER AS PRESENTED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Update on Mississippi St. Intersection
Mr. Qureshi stated the intersection plans have been prepared. The
County originally had plans to do the East River Road /Rice Creek Bridge,
but they ran into some technical difficulties. Since the Mississippi. Street
plans are ready, the County wishes to proceed on it this year if
possible. This plan was presented to the City Council and the members
of the City Council had some concerns. They recognized the improvements
would help move the traffic through the intersection, but their concern
was to make sure the neighborhood behind Holly Center still had access
to this road and be able to use it safely. The City Council requested
the County to look at the possibilities of providing some control of
the intersection in this location. The City received a letter from the
County atating that when this development comes and they can identify a
cross intersection either at 2nd Street or.at the westerly entrance to the
Holly Shopping Ce►iter, they will assist in providing a signal at that
4ndation.' With that commitment, he felt the City Council would be amiable
to the County proceeding with the project.
K�
HOUSING, & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 19
Mr. Qureshi stated this was for the HRA's information. It still needed
City Council approval, but the HRA was committed for a portion of the
cost the City will have to pay.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE FEB. 12, 1987,
HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M.
Respectfully Isu mi tted,
�/
Lyhhe Saba
Recording Secretary
� yl.
11 4-6
6t--+o .
f � S
Proposed Expansion Redevelopment Project Area No. 1
1Q
RESOLUTION NO. BRA -1987
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
MODIFYING BY ENLARGEMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING THERETO PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 462.411
TO 462.716, INCLUSIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners (the "Commissioners ") of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority ") in and for the City of
Fridley, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows:
1. It has been proposed that the Authority amend Redevelopment Project
No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project ") and modify by enlargement
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modified Redevelopment Plan (the
"Modified Redevelopment Plan ") relating thereto pursuant to and in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462.716,
inclusive.
2. This Authority has caused to be prepared and has investigated the
facts with respect thereto, a proposed modification by enlargement of
the Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project,
defining more precisely the property to be added to the Redevelopment
Project, legally described and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best
interest of the City at this time to amend by enlargement
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modified Redeveloment Plan
relating thereto and is hereby approved subject to Planning Commission
review and City Council approval herein after provided.
4. The Authority hereby requests the City Council to call a public
hearing to consider the establishment of the District and the approval
and adoption of the Plan, to cause notice of said public hearing to be
given as required by law, and to take such other actions as may be
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.521. The Authority further
requests that the City Council direct the Planning Commission of the
City to consider and comment on whether the Plan is in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan of the City, prior to the public hearing to be
called by the City Council. The Executive Director of the Authority is
hereby directed to submit a copy of the Plan to the City Council for
its approval.
5. If and when approved by the City Council, the Authority shall cause
the Plan to be filed with the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority and placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk for the City of Fridley.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF , 1987.
LAWRENCE C. COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST;
JOHN ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
W
EXHIBIT A
The parcels proposed to be added to the Redevelopment Project No. 1 are legally
described as follows:
23- 30 -24 -21 -0107
Lots 16 -18. Block 4, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0108
Lot 19, Block 4, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0109
Lots 20, 21, 22 and S 1/2 of Lot 23, Block 4, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0110
Lot 23, except S 1/2, Block 4, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0111
Lots 24 -25, Block 4, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0123
Lots 16 -17, and also N 1/2 of vacated 59th Ave., Block 13, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0124
Lots 18 -19, Block 13, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0125
Lots 21 -26, Block 13, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0126
Lots 27 -28, Block 13, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0132
That part of Lots 28, 29 and 30, Block 4, Hyde Park Add. that lies Northwesterly
of the area wide following descending line: commencing at the NW corner of Lot
30, Block 4, Hyde Park Add., then S along the W line of said Lot 30, 6 ft., then
E. paralell with to the N line of said Lot 30 57.49 ft., then on a tangent curve
to the right with a radius of 45 ft. 60.53 ft., then Southerly tangent to the
last descending curve, 60.20 ft., then Southwesterly on a tangent curve to the
right with a radius of 55 ft., 77.93 ft., then continue Southwesterly tangent to
the last descending curve, 9.53 ft., then Southwesterly on a tangent curve to
the left half a radius of 120 ft. to its intersection with the W line of Block
4, Hyde Park Add. and there terminate, subject to easements of record.
23- 30 -24 -21 -0133
All that part of Lots 26 & 27, Block 4, .Hyde Park Add. that lies Northwesterly
of the following descending line, commencing at the NW corner of Lot 30, Block
4, Hyde Park Add., then S along the W line of said Lot 30, 6 ft., then E
parallel with the N line of said Lot 30, 57.49 ft., then on a tangent curve to
the right with a radius.of 45 ft, 60.53 ft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-30-24-22 -0129
Lots 16 & 17, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0130
Lot.18, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0131
Lot 19, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0132
Lot 20, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
Page 2
23- 30 -24 -22 -0133
Lot 21, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0134
Lots 22 & 23, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0135
Lot 24, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0136
Lot 25-, Block 12, Hyde Pard Add.
23- 30 -24 -22 -0137
Lot 27 thru 28, Block 12, Hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0013
Lots 7 -9 except 1/2 of Lot 7 and all of Lots 8 & 9, Block 2, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0014
Lots 10 -11, Block 2, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0015
Lot 12, Block 2, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0016
Lot 13, Block 2, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0021
Lots 1 -2, Block 7, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0022
Lots 3 -5, Block 7, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0023
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and that part of Lot 13 which lies W of a line
running parallel with and a distance of 25 ft. Easterly of the W line of said
Lot 13 all in Block 7, City View Add. (subj. to an easement for street and
utility pruposes over all of Lot 6 and the Westerly 20 ft. of Lot 7 thereof) ( a
partial release of easement 8/11/70 on Lots 12 & 13, Block 7), including the S
16 ft. of 57th Place vacated (subj. to easement to the City of Fridley)
23- 30 -24 -23 -0028
Lot 2, Block 8, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0029
Lost 3 -4, Block 8, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0030
Lots 5 -6, Block 8, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0031
Lots 7 -12, Block 8. City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0032
Lot 13, Block 8, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0033
Lots 14 -15, Block 8, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0128
All of Lot 6 and S 1/2 of Lot 7 and including 1/2 of vacated alley, Block 28,
hyde Park Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0129
N 1/2 of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, including 1/2 vacated alley, Bloek28, Hyde Park
Add.
23- 30 -24 -23 -0130
Lots 9 -10, Block 28, Hyde Park Add.
1C
Page 3
23- 30 -24 -24 -0013
Lots 5 -7, inclusive, together with that part of the vacated walkway between,
Block 3, Bennett - Palmer Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0014
Lots 6 -9, Block 4, Bennett - Palmer Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0015
Lot 8, Block 3, Bennett - Palmer Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0016
Lot 9, Block 3, Bennett - Palmer Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0022
Lots 10 -14 and the S 24 ft. of Lot 15, Block 4, Bennett - Palmer Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0023
Lot 15, except S 24 ft. Lot 16 and S 49 ft. of Lot 17, Block 4, Bennett- Palmer
Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0072
Lots 1 -2, Block 3, City View Add
23- 30 -24 -24 -0073
Lot 3, Block 3, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0074
Lot 3 -4, Block 3, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0075
Lot 6, Block 3, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0099
Lots 1 -3, Block 6, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0100
Lot 4, Block 6, City View Add.
23- 30 -24 -24 -0101
Lots 5 -7, Block 6, City View Add.
23 -30 -24-31 -0107
That part of Lots 20 thru 26 including Block 4 and W 1/2 of vacated adjacent
alley, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville, lying Easterly of the following
descending line: commencing at the SW corner of Lot 27, said Block 4, then S
(assd. brg.) along the W line of said block, 26.89 ft., then S 28 degrees, 38
minutes, 30 seconds, E along the Easterly right -of -way line of State Highway No.
47, 66.45 ft. to point A, then continue along said right -of -way line 220.69 ft.
to its intersection with the Easterly ext. of the S line of said Lot 20 and the
point of beginning, then Westerly along said ext. and S line 48.84 ft., then N
28 degrees, 32 minutes, 50 seconds, W. 14.43 ft., then Northerly on a tangent
curve to the right 132.58 ft. radius of said curve is 716.20 ft., then Northerly
on a compound curve 59.77 ft. to point A, said curve has a radius of 90 ft.,
then Northerly along a non - tangent curve cone. to the SE 20.61 ft., radius of
said curve 67.38 ft., the chord brg. is N 46 degrees, 47 minutes, 44 seconds, E
th. N. 55 degrees, 33 minutes, 33 seconds, E. tangent to said curve 63.26 ft.,
then Northerly along a tangent curve to the left 46 ft. to the N line of said
Lot 26 and there terminate, radius of said curve is 85 ft; ex. rd; subject to
easement of record.
1D
Page 4
23- 30 -24 -31 -0108
That part of Lots 24 thru 30 including Block 4, Hamiltons Add to Mechanicsville,
lying Northerly of the following descending line: commencing at a point on the
N. line of said Lot 26, 61.75 ft., Easterly of the NW corner of said Lot 26
(assd brg. of said N line is S 89 degrees, 44 minutes, 00 seconds E), then S 55
degrees, 33 minutes, 33 seconds, W 52.40 ft., then Southwesterly along a tangent
curve to the left 15.03 ft. to the Easterly right -of -way line of State Hyw. No.
47, said curve has a radius of 117.38 ft., then S 28 degrees, 38 minutes, 30
seconds, E along said right -of -way 52.43 ft. to the point of beginning, then
Northeasterly along a non - tangent curve cone. to the SE 20.61 ft., radius of
said curve is 67.38 ft. and the chord brg. is N 46 degrees, 47 minutes, 44
seconds E, then N 55 degrees, 33 minutes, 33 seconds E tangent to said curve
63.26 ft., then Northeasterly along a tangent curve to the left 46ft. to the N
line of said Lot 26, radius of said curve is 85 ft., then Easterly along said N
line to NE corner thereof and there terminate, together W 1/2 of adjacent vacant
alley; Ex. rd.; subject to easements of record.
23- 30 -24 -31 -0049
All of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -31 -0050
Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechansville
23- 30 -24 -31 -0051
Lot 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -31 -0052
Lot 8, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville including the E 1/2 of alley
vacated 7/7/64 lying adjacent thereto subj. to drain and utility easement to
City of Fridley.
23- 30 -24 -31 -0053
Lots 9 & 10, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville including the E 1/2 of
alley vacated 7/7/64 lying adjacent thereto subj. to drain and utility easement
to City of Fridley.
23 -30 -24 -0054
Lots 11 & 12, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville including the E 1/2 of
alley vacated 7/7/64 lying adjacent thereto subj. to drain and utility easement
to City of Fridley.
Lots 13 -15, Block 4, Hamilton's Add. to Mechanicsville including the E 1/2 of
alley vacated 7/7/64 lying adjacent thereto subj. to drain and utility easement
to City of Fridley.
23- 30 -24 -34 -0001
Lots 1 -3, Block 9, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -34 -0006
Lot 28 together with W 1/2 of Alley vacated
Block 9, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -34 -0007
Lots 29 -30, except right -of -way over Lot 30
and E 1/2 of 6th street vacated per Ord. No.
Add. to Mechanicsville
and E 1/2 of 6th Street vacated,
and including W 1/2 of alley vacated
161 11/1/60, Block 9, Hamiltons
23- 30 -24 -34 -0036
Lots 16 -19, Block 13, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -34 -0037
Lots 20 -22, Block 13, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville
23- 30 -24 -34 -0038
Lots 20 -30, except parts for highway, Block 13, Hamiltons Add. to Mechanicsville
1E
Page 5
Certain public properties lying within the Corporate Limits of the City of
Fridley, Minnesota including all the right -of -way and public properties within
the limits of Trunk Highway No. 47 and abutting public frontage roads on either
side of Trunk Highway No. 47 together with the right -of -ways of the major
intersecting streets, avenues and roads as illustrated on the attached maps
marked as Exhibit B-1 through B -10, together with those properties lying between
Trunk highway No. 47 and the abutting public frontage roads not previously
included in Redeveloment Project No. 1 and as legally described below:
2- 30 -24 -33 -0001
Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates, Second Add.
11- 30 -24 -22 -0019
Lot 1, Block 2, East Ranch Estates, First Add.
11- 30 -24 -22 -0001
Lot 1, Block 1, Commerce Park
11- 30 -24 -23 -0018
Lot 1, Block 3, Commerce Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a
line described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot
1, thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 1, (assumed bearing South 0
degrees, 49 minutes, 51 seconds E) a distance of 280.13 ft. to the point of
beginning, thence N 89 degrees, 35 minutes, 33 seconds W to the esterly line of
said Lot 1 and said line there terminating.
11- 30 -24 -23 -0019
Lot 1, Block 3, Commerce Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a
line described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner. of said Lot
1, thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 1 (assumed bearing South 0
degrees, 49 minutes, 51 seconds E), a distance of 280.13 ft. to the point of
beginning, thence N 89 degrees, 35 minutes, 33 seconds W to the westerly line of
said Lot 1 and said line there terminating, according to the plat thereof on
file of record in the office of the Anoka County Recorder, State of Minnesota.
11- 30 -24 -31 -0002
Tract A., Registered Land Survey No. 78, subj. to easements of record.
14- 30 -24 -33 -0060
Outlot A, Sylvan Hills, except part taken
which lies easterly of northerly extension
Bloek5, Hyde Park per W D filed 11/20/64
23 -30 -24 -0132
Lot 20, Block 12, Hyde Park
23- 30 -24 -21 -0133
Lot 21, Block 12, Hyde Park
by State of Minnesota for Highway
of W line of Lots 1 -15 including
IF
kv
0� •`" ' 1G
C3
dIWCOrYNII� V b e t t.
sec. i • • Jl c
�'' Ll.
_ w
:� -� �l �r • r!la . �. N, ' mle n hi
Ak, b l ! ' I� ::�' 1 r (t' • - 1! b W, r !� '
zoo -•
wvvpv l Le y•ty *Ye.iwlall n 2 �l
Lao
• p •t a yr- 'J •a I 'm o) • r \ 7 ��
Ile
, wM " °r •�� �±. Wulf 1 '� lJ - -dt -i-
1 ar
AV IL
• i � �♦ � hcJ z � ��, , n d l d ) - w -
Nrn doi r to A LPI y
CAi` ld1• 6a �� Rte, •'. � _ a a �'
r AV (0)a Im
-Ohl-
jw
CON • ,
S. ,
2.
Ar
Ap
'• I. i. r l �d L .
%s
r Ar
Il
rp
4 Aso
• . 1 � 50TH. AVE.
AR /, ~ Ih <, P
i fir►- ,� ;,
V 0
s x
N � (W n it ''°'" t 4� b) .., is ( ►) cm O _ i - J �i
(m �u !n (•� C) (� � � ''iW it �; )J a � __ f��•
60
— —►}tai -aww`R:��AYE. f :•� {fir _ s�- a s
. 111 ♦ mss.. f►)! >� ..JJ. (/% /f (IA .� d
54 z3 ` ► ° °'s p �5J'*
EXHIBIT B -2
: 1H
FVD. NO. AVE
� I O
-
N ` •p
1 '
(o �' I I �- Ilk 11
N
♦mow- w = � _ ° � r- ' � V
t i 1 i c
AO
IST L_ �t
- Sa TM. A.
— j-rra► _ -`fir /� �—�.- i.�ii • L - -� --i i- � -- - - - - - -� -
�- ii.�i - —fir --'
stRVI E Ra +- - t ►-�ir�iiiii' _ --
M
.GAP �' •� - I• � �� -- ' - -� _ ,rt. " `
MCF11t0 i� A . I ►— -
Ao
O it •
o - a . . L.�.
All
Li C)
fi
OFNEN F7
Lrc -;A.
N 7,5
. (9
In b lit. .
t
%
PJ'
Z `OY•
/B
��//•• a -
YI /
39TH
n
• 6
li
C�
N
ir
SOTH
m
y
EXHIBIT B-3 1•I
21
J
V
.•o r
>
y /6
o8
j
2B
.�f
s ►
zf e
:!�
f
,Pf
P5 f1
l� •l?'P�
4
c
Z4.
:
zz
1/
G
FS
tv
's l�
z°
v
•
/9 hr
1
V
/04)
1-:
3/
/O
,
/-
AVENUE
N.E.
°-
Z9
a
�
r'z�
N
Je5
p
f
p�r•J
x' 6
28
7 l
iFi
B
�
r
1
9 �•
5
20 M�
in/i
•)ZO
/9 ��•
4'i7.
19
/6 krl
l .8
TH
/f
AVENUE
-:E•
off. C�
/ ! �
•{ /�`
3 �1'
(/i
1�'g
m
y
EXHIBIT B-3 1•I
21
J
r
M
W.
v
Z
J.
V
.•o r
>
y /6
,Pf
l� •l?'P�
t '
c
:
1/
G
FS
z°
•
IL
1
3/
/O
,
•'o+
p�r•J
Q)E
...E ;
r
M
W.
v
Z
J.
V
.•o r
>
y /6
z°
•'o+
p�r•J
Q)E
...E ;
iFi
r
d >�
5
59
TH
/f
;;IAIr
••
/
3 �1'
(/i
1�'g
ti •d
O)a
1#5
/c
7
PLACE
•r) F) . is 01- - f I
-�i TTT�- TT'�717Lnv� '�•� •f•
L ICE.
PLACE
•r) F) . is 01- - f I
-�i TTT�- TT'�717Lnv� '�•� •f•
sly EXHIBIT B -4 1J
Q - _ o�r
— .,. .. 'Lopj
tip
j VAN
-'� �j '
Z '
liar
ATa 6 i
N
P L
A
EI.LI E ."I;' ANE rry� o,: r 41
N. BEN t
I` gig• s- a
` RCL RY . DRIVE — ,
SYLVAN . LAIC a r ,
a� � �LqN ,' rl. � pf U _I._ ORS - r::,.•'
� 4
.1 V 11/1510
DRIVE
N0. 59 ,
ov
~DRIVE 1;
101.
f • ;r W h� � _: ' �) t (� mod) iQ•:0) I r. � v
I' `' -
j all,
1.�r>•.�,v,'7� ---1 r---1 •� x..t",' 7111
Sb' 4fN��A °�i�1 _ .max �-
n n
014 /V j�Z 1K
EXHIBITB -5
H A N.E•
!O GO !•
// /O 9 6 2 � � •► +J Z' � W• «; I'�. /� o,.l s.rc•l�� �I'r s•
I � �
rr n 1�� iY
70 ,o VGA a l+U 60U o
Ova- /4U e) d • 1d� t'` •• �`r ��•�f I ( 5� V Q� •
'off 9�� lam/ Gf� • OV
we
arise
ice
do
-y �► ,� D .a 3.
I l
Oil
_ �• IN � .r•-• I1 . � � I �� '�:.
d,)
n a w s /a t
r'
w t�
17 Ij
j 3 i Y )iB I)v F
12 s �� la'1• G') iii' ) + ,'� BA 9 Loo 1=
R , p) pt�i h) 8
24
• ! x%22 � �� � � 1
! a .� 1 8 • CrJ (� pr) Cr,) (» (/� coy r
o
.r ..•..., Z . t
f...A., � il6 TN
lwR s r) - a- - ' (M& arw.arJ
,Ay`� (r (2+00) Gp !r oo w� <yJ 9p 4D 3 6
25 12
,.
29W [, o N t (•v i v� � !o d g �
•,j.. _ ^__ 0 U WT--- g{ATf- At9-- F4i6FtWA1fM6: f
CONDOEAWN Na
.
EXHIBIT g -g J_ C.1L
ca"Ef 0 I - 31
EC-11 I O
I \ J
it I — 1
XVE-
-- ; -rsRO --E- -- - C - ° {I- -
ice! ! Z
37 /�� !K. 'iEc' Syr •, ___- -.
dq
� J J I / } M ![�:•, � � � �f,•t . +' � �8l Zia.
� t
v
(• /I ' V •IOM 1 __.• - �L/ tr
REGISTER91D
�I •� _ __ LAND
SURVEY
•Q - �° N0. 78
V 0 RCC CIRCLE 3S4 . �� , •f 0 � �..- -_ � I e F
t� " �• -tea'• --± --•-- — d ' —� --- �•- - -- o -
,Z
r�.r
TRACT A J COLUMBIA ARM
L� ti r
TRACT. fi
• .S - �O ,_,�; . '�. 1 }". � n•�' "a> _.rte•+.
^ -. �.�`� .. '3.` _ -i- _ _ - - „ � � °!u. -e is ,y.. '-•F. tsG - ` .. ..
to • fl, a` j III .. - ✓r,
TRACT D i •� i r' /�
i .d0
y' y
.� flH 4'aBlA (YAY+MAN YMr/UV NHI p! ►hC/
69TH AVE, NE
,ate a..!?J -. t ' -v�r+ fji N4t..'i'+rt "ti"�!.r3` -- •�', �i..��i�., •y7�f i. ,. a"ii T�� �,, - r' .� c -
g'tt BXHIBIT7B =71x1
c
. 21
:ORIi!ER �„ IMF
—did= r EAST "RAAICJy. SBpRN P -i , s.
of
AS RANCH ESWES
TES FIRS 17 ♦) Cs� a '1_ �• o a
ADQ rxwJ
r (•1 , ! a� 4 A6
W� 1♦1 +� / Q0i b,m
(14571 tp t1f
i ' / fifa0l a r (,1001 ( ♦1(tfD) 1 R l j:° 7t Wm
/ :• i (V (IDO) Iii• 1: �P� ��h
♦ i
f , f 13101 1 = 1 1 sod hen • f e,
fel
I� /naD1 1330/ w `I I it`+ ,, n f � Rd�° �` i �� � �' •.
640- _-
1
I•R � (q J pl. I
Av t
9
// '
�tr�ool rtzsoJ (� raooJ (, O <"
I10
I (4)!1101 c
' //Pool tt aTH a ILL
I ♦ +�ri G
- s, -• _ coq r �. : �,
W rnVl (�ftfaol Vii•) }' (r o ib�f c "(�I (•�, '
I >a l�rro+oJ
� h x''19 `��4
t4 "y + +
I fFa0o1 f /d�J rolt,501 ^ i � - wapL►i � � +!� 6 ` •
4 !/ 3/(1001
i,
N
if y haw
Ik
r J (al (a1 e 9
I a /9101 /100/ ' ' 1 011121)
to
at
EXHIBIT B -8 1P�
C /T>
32 31
81 ST
9d1D e♦ �� .r s /Ofd . (N) (/,1) W ��
1 , I yoso WYLDWOOD� LONE s
z f +) t i Aso id
IL
ego
S.
CLt
ii O r
ti I 7,10
e ('•) w ROSEDALE .. R
.w4 i
71 =0 ,,i 1 •f
�r ,� •••, .' W `
0.401 Oj
/O:
F 1 I rr� s f
71JS 1 CIS 'ZI ' (Von) 11A a i 9;
I /iav/ a la • W) ��� d i O
� 1 I .f.+ err wr 1 iE ti M i a• a� 741►
. � ..�.a fIFF =•
e � i
�,y ".� �� �4• , ,fir
7 logo
., 7AW
B
A
78sr -� .,eM,,,a„F,
.-' - 7173 -. �! - .Iy _s!FrL. ••btrr'a".,_ -. ....
fw) * 1{I 7710
/900;
77W _7>qA 7702 7713
sea I R ..'; a (s)
I4 `� , ei _,ter ^•r� -�
CtRNIR
49
VP, 47TH.
t:
m a
EXHIBIT W.9
C/! 10
1
- UU 31
11711 ji
9#1
#
Jim,"
'Jo
Al
7 ta
N .
--e— j
, i
lip I
IF If
•
N.E.
-771
EXHIBIT W.9
C/! 10
1
- UU 31
11711 ji
9#1
#
lip I
IF If
•
N.E.
-771
X51;'
ry
7M7
Ab
Ims
W
An 5
L Tp
W�zd—mwff P97 11 =NaLZAIAM
F7
• LOTS P�ATTLO 7A. '49MANGWNT OF
PLVOOOT14-
1rm, 111!F17- 12=1
off7m,"Am FM
WITS !!
11 ;rFjE- Z. Ulm
9#1
W�zd—mwff P97 11 =NaLZAIAM
F7
• LOTS P�ATTLO 7A. '49MANGWNT OF
PLVOOOT14-
1rm, 111!F17- 12=1
off7m,"Am FM
WITS !!
11 ;rFjE- Z. Ulm
XHIBIT B -101P
OW
AW)
W
�tiq T w
D
o
(a+) (aU (00
MAPLE
ST.
i
lof
r
.
•
�
Tr
R {/
•0v
1
1 OAK=
lVOYIE
- a
M
N
AV. I
1 �cyn.•.r.;se
,q7�
�p
•
i41
n
111f)
u u
(r) ly
o
WJ QU � ✓�
rJ
1
1�
I OUTLLOT
11
,
'
G
LUND Y
AVE. N-E
• . -.... �y .... 1
Yr
I/ �•
1
Q "
(0
rvav
&V pi
_
�
�� i 1.
Ir.
°
d(yy ►
S
o
.... .. ..
j
ow
�\
1
r.
'
10
e
l
Jr/.I•
OUTLOT
ISMi
a� --
R... _ .
-
i'
OUTLOT is 999
., 1 P
.•o
a
I
D ` .n �.sw•t f �I+
Ap
.7- 1• � - - -
� �,sj � �
[[ it rw 1 � •�
��,
Al(
l fl0
-
sae'
I
WO•• Comm �SIT1
— rY
1(J
EXHIBIT I -B -5 A
BOUNDARY MAP
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
a
a y 1% t.pI
�/ -- - _ _
_ - - e &_21 _
+ — _ =`' J� ` iw•
till
4
!' ° o c • o
L I �-' � • � ?�' °? �_ �� • ° ° °;,eau a °� a��° ° ° ° .
_o� � •��l•rV V J
-
a�� aD.
o
- �41:,r,.;.
loc
um
cu •O o 6^q _C.1. f
'����( k�•" I `o -,�,e�• -:�%� ° =�£�_ =ice .: 9j° � m
s • �'1 mod` � � _ :.�:: - r� /� _ .�::::. __
w
'\i 9vd c- .siDn s.
�Ja-a �.•�n a� �t �a S
WO•• Comm �SIT1
— rY
1(J
EXHIBIT I -B -5 A
BOUNDARY MAP
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
a
a y 1% t.pI
�/ -- - _ _
_ - - e &_21 _
+ — _ =`' J� ` iw•
till
4
!' ° o c • o
L I �-' � • � ?�' °? �_ �� • ° ° °;,eau a °� a��° ° ° ° .
_o� � •��l•rV V J
-
a�� aD.
o
- �41:,r,.;.
loc
um
cu •O o 6^q _C.1. f
'����( k�•" I `o -,�,e�• -:�%� ° =�£�_ =ice .: 9j° � m
s • �'1 mod` � � _ :.�:: - r� /� _ .�::::. __
w
HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF FRIDLEY
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
LAWERENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN JOHN MEYER
DUANE PRAIRE WALTER RASMUSSEN VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
MEND 70: Nasim Qureshi, Director of HRA
HRA Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of BRA 3?"..
MEND DATE: March 6, 1987
REGARDING: Lou Lundgren' s Letter of Credit
On Friday I spoke with Mr. Lundgren by Fhone. He apologized for not having
material ready for the HRA agenda. He said he expected a market feasibility
report from Maxf ield Research Group to be delivered to him the of ternoon of
Monday, Mardi 19, 1987.
He said that Mr. Lee Maxfield would accompany him at the HRA meeting on March
12, 1987 and be ready to make a presentation of his findings and discuss the
financial structure of Mr. Lundgren's project.
JL13/dm
M -87 -59
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN EXT. 117
HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF FRIDLEY
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
LAWERENCE COMM ERS,CHAIRMAN JOHN MEYER
DUANE PRAIRE WALTER RASMUSSEN VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
MEND 10: Nasim Qureshi, Director of HRA
MEMD FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of BRA
MEMD LATE: March 6, 1987
RaGmDING: Master Lease of Rice Plaza Shopping Center
As a follow -up to HRA discussion and direction at the February meeting, staft
has made the following compromise proposal to Mr. Levy:
As each lease property comes up for renewal, the HRA would make the decision
to either allow the landlord to reea��es�p�r� �e which case as leased
would pay 50% of the monthly payments
or hold the unit off the market in which case the HRA would pay 100% of that
lease cost. 7he agreement would be a $1 million purchase option and the
length of time for the option would be four years which would be a compromise
between five years that the BRA originally envisioned and the three years
which Mr. Levy offered.
this offer has been forwarded to Mr. Levy and we have not received response
as the BRA agenda goes to press.
JLiVdm
I -87-60
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN EXT. 117
HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORIIW
CITY OF FRIDLEY
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
LAWERENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN JOHN MEYER
DUANE PRAIRE WALTER RASMUSSEN VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
WMD T0: Nasim Qureshi, Director of HRA
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of BRA '
MEND DATE: March 6, 1987
RMARDING : Status Report on Lake Pointe Project
Staff and HRA attorney have reviewed the records of this project, to date,
with special legal counsel, Popham -Haik. 7he f inn will provide an in -depth
written briefing of their evaluation of the City's and HRA's position at the
BRA meeting on Mare 12, 1987.
Ray Haik has indicated to Lake Pointe's attorney that the BRA is not prepared
to propose any modifications to the Development Contract. Ray did indicate
though that of course the BRA will listen to any proposals which the
Developer may wish to make. Lake Pointe's counsel said he would pass this
information onto his client.
JLR/dn
M- 87 -5 8
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN EXT. 117
CLAIMS
1582 - 1588