Loading...
HRA 10/08/1987 - 29645CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER, 8, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the October 8, 1987, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7 :20 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Pleyer Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jock Robertson, HRA Director Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl, Finance Director John Flora, Public Works Director Mark Burch, Asst. Public Works Director Gerald Sunde, Sunde Engineering Louis & June Lundgren, 343 East Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul Bill & Jim Nicklow, Shorewood, Inc. Barry Warner, Barton - Aschman i� David Pillatzke, S.E.H. David Warzala, Barton - Aschman Ron Bowen, Prairie Restorations APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPP "ENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE SEPT. 10, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF LOU LUNDGR.EN'S LETTER OF CREDIT: Mr. Lundgren stated he was in the process of trying to get a finalized commitment for the first phase of the project (the apartments) from a life insurance company, Union Life, located in Washington-D.C. There are some snags in this particular case. In answer to the.question raised several times by the HRA as to how they :could help, him, he was going to ask for some help from the HRA at this time. fir. Lundgren stated he has sent a fairly complete package to Union Life and they have indicated they want to do the job. He had hoped to get the loan officer to come here for a site inspection this week, but was unsuccess- ful in getting her here. fir. Lundgren stated the loan officer is insisting that they need to have land control of some kind prior to the time of the legal process, and she really wants the City to own the land. Of course, the HRA does own half �.. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 ; PAGE 2 of the land that is needed for the project, and the other portion is owned by Mr. Levy. He stated he had suggested to the l-uan officer that perhaps the company would accept an option from the City if the City had an option on the portion of the land they do not own. The portion of land they are talking about is vacant and does not have any tenants or leases. Mr. Lundgren stated that when he had talked to Mr. Robertson last week, it was suggested that maybe someone from City Staff or the City Attorney could make a phone call to Union Life to try to assure them that if the.City chose to give them an option, that the City has the right of condemnation and can follow-through, that that might be enough. He felt it was certainly worth a try. fir. Lundgren stated he had asked the loan officer to -tell him if the company did not want to do the project, and she had said they were definitely interested in doing the project but this was just a rule the company had. fir. Prairie asked if Mr. Lundgren had any written correspondence from Union Life or was this all verbal conversations? fir. Lundgren stated he had only notes from his telephone conversations. He had hoped to have a letter of intent from the company, but the loan officer will not even write that until they have land control. fir. Commers stated this was a very unusual requirement, and he did not know why the company was so concerned about that. He asked Mr. Newman what the HRA's commitment was under the original development agreement they had with Mr. Lundgren as to when they would commit to land control. Mr. Newman stated the agreement was signed in approximately June 1986, and the HRA had to tender title to Mr. Lundgren by September. The agreement was set up in such a way that once certain financing was in place, it gave the HRA about 120 days to acquire title. There was 15 days to negotiate, and if they couldn't negotiate, they could proceed with the quick take. Mr. Lundgren stated another thing he recalled in the agreement was that it stated that the HRA, if necessary, would use the right of condemnation. Maybe the City could call Union Life and find out if they are or are not serious and find out what the minimum is the company will take and then evaluate whether or not the HRA would go along with it. Mr. Newman stated he had a certain amount of concern about putting anything in writing about the City using the right of condemnation on property, simply beause it kind of falls in line with threatening to take land away from the owner of that property. He stated he did not, however, have any objec- tion to makeing a phone call to Union Life if it would help fir. Lundgren. Mr. Commers stated it-has always been the HRA's policy that they are not in the position to turn over the control of the land until they know a project is in place and is prepared to go ahead. Under any circumstances, they generally have the power to take that property, either by purchase or by condemnation, but they generally have always been able to purchase the property. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 3 fir. Newman suggested the possibility of giving Mr. Lundgren 30 days exclu- sive period of time in order to develop the property. fir. Qureshi and Mr. Robertson have indicated they do not want to lock up the property until a developer comes forward with firm financing, but maybe they could do it for just a limited amount of time. Mr. Lundgren stated he did not think 30 days would suffice. Mr. Commers stated he did not think they were in any position of negotiating or trying to put a financing package together, but he did not think it was out of line for Staff to make a call to Union Life to see if there was any comfort they could give the company regarding this project. Mr. Commers asked what had happened with the Towle Company. Mr. Lundgren stated there were three possibilities, but now two of them are out. The one that is left is a life company which still has his package but has not responded back. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Lundgren if he was still dealing with Rothschild. Mr. Lundgren stated he was still dealing with Rothschild. He stated the main problem was forward commitments. Staff agreed to make a telephone call to Union Life to see if the City could give the company some reassurance regarding the apartment project. Mr. Commers thanked fir. Lundgren for coming. No action was taken on fir. Lundgren's letter of credit, and the item remained on the table. 2. CONSIDERATION OF MOWING AND TREE REPLACEMENT COSTS ON PASCHKE PROPERTIES: Mr. Robertson stated that the remaining $10,000 payment on this project was withheld pending the completion of the pond. At a previous meeting, the HRA authorized Staff to proceed to get the pond and the weir finished. The total cost for improvements to the storm water detentiun pond, the engineering costs, and the maintenance costs for mowing were.$4,980, leaving $5,020 left. fir. Paschke has indicated-he is unwilling to perform the maintenance as required under the development agreement. Subsequently, the City has noticed there are several dead shrubs. The agreement required Mr. Paschke to submit a landscape plan which fir. Paschke never did. Mr. Robertson stated it was the Staff's recommendation that rather than forwarding the remaining money to Mr. Paschke, the money be set up in a contract with someone for the maintenance of the pond and, if necessary, to replace the dead landscaping. He stated he could not give the HRA a —, dollar amount on that at this time, but they were under the impression that fir. Paschke might be selling off some of his property and maybe the new owner would be willing to abide by city code. HOUSING & REDEVELOMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 4 Mr. Commers asked if there was an agreement of record so that anyone buying the property will know there are certain terms and conditions of that agreement. fir. Newman stated he did not recall specifically, but in the series of agree- ments that were prepared with fir. Paschke, drafted by O'Connor & Hannan, there was a provision that the agreement not be recorded. Mr. Commers asked how they could transmit to a new buyer the knowledge that he /she would have an obligation to maintain the pond. Mr. Burch stated that by city code, the weeds have to be maintained, but at a much longer length than what they are requiring for the ponding. They are asking Mr. Paschke to keep the weeds at under 3 inches. There is nothing in the code that addresses the maintenance of detention ponds. Mr. Burch stated ponds are installed as part of the drainage plans and agreements when buildings are built. Ms. Schnabel stated there should be something written in the city code that addresses the maintenance of detention ponds and so that it will ensure that whenever there is a change in ownership, the new owner knows that maintenance needs to be done. Mr. Burch stated it might be a good idea to have something in the code that would deal specifically with storm water detention pond maintenance, because it has become a problem for the City. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO PAY THE $4,980 FOR STORM WATER DETENTION POND IMPROVEMENTS, ENGINEERING COSTS, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR MOWING, BUT TO HOLD THE REMAINING $5,020 FOR FURTHER MAINTENANCE OF THE DETENTION POND. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS.-SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE A LOOK AT INCLUDING IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE SOME REQUIRE- MENT REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER DETENTION PONDS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A SECOND MORTGAGE TO SHOREWOOD, INC.: fir. Robertson stated the remodeling and the addition to Shorewood was essentially completed. He had spoken to Darrel Clark, Chief Building Inspector, who said there were only some items that needed to be completed, and that was the handicapped access ramp and the smoke and fire detectors. Mr. Clark's recommendation was that the development contract and the loan not be carried forward until those items are completed; however, he noted 11.x.4 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 5 that if there was some delay because of items having to be backordered, he would then recommend that the HRA direct the Staff to prepare the loan documents for closing and require a bond or a check to be held in escrow for the uncompleted items that are on backorder in the amount of twice the estimated cost. Mr. Bill Nicklow stated that these items would cost about $4,500 -4,900 at the most. The ramp has been ordered and has not yet been installed. He stated the reason for the delay was that the location of the ramp was changed. He stated there was no question that these items would be done, and they have no problem with Mr. Clark's recommendation. Mr. Jim Nicklow stated the fire and smoke detectors were installed last week and the ramp would be completed the following week. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF FUNDS TO SHOREWOOD, INC., BUT TO AUTHORIZE THE HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO HOLD BACK AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO COVER ANY WORK THAT IS NOT COMPLETED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDERS TO S.E.H. FOR PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED WORK: Mr. Robertson stated that at the April 1987 meeting, he had forwarded to the MRA a memo from John Flora indicating that in the previous contract the HRA had approved for S.E.N. to begin design work for the intersection of TH 65 and Moore Lake Drive and Lake Pointe Drive, the HRA had ordered an additional $20,000 worth of work. At that time. S.E.H. was also coming in with landscape modifications for $8,000. Due to an error, he had not made it clear that he was formally requested that the HRA approve the $20,000 of work which was previously authorized, plus the $8,000. Mr. Robertson stated that what was before the HRA at this meeting was the final amount of that work. Rather than the $20,000 that was estimated in April, the final amount was $25,131.61. On page 4 -A of the HRA agenda, that total amount appeared as part of two separate work contracts. The additional work included the modification of plans, overhead signing, attending public hearings, also some specifications for garage modifications and land surveys for easements. These added up to the difference between $20,000 and $25,131.61.. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE ORDER TO S.E.H. FOR PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED WORK AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER TO JOCK ROBERTSON DATED OCT. 1, 1987, FROM DAVID PILLATZKE OF S.E.H. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMF.RS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Robertson stated the second item under this agenda item was that in August S.F.H. presented an estimate of work for the Rice Creek Road improve- ments. The City Council had directed that the work on HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 6 connection between TH 65 and Old Central be expedited as quickly as possible so that the link could be completed before or at the same time as the inter- section of Lake Pointe Drive and TH 65, so the extra traffic would not be diverted onto Old Central by Moore Lake. In August, the City received an estimate from S.E.H. for that work, the final plan and specifications not to exceed $52,500, and construction - related services estimated to be $50,500. fir. Robertson stated this was brought to the Commission as an information item as these numbers were approved by the HRA at their August meeting. The actual contract documents.have now been prepared, the numbers are the same, and the documents are ready for the HRA Chairperson's signature. 5. CONSIDERATION OF CRAMPTON REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECOND MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS: Mr. Commers asked what Staff's recommendation was regarding fir. Crampton's request. Mr. Newman stated he did not know the source of funding for this program. He had alerted Staff to check to see whether or not there were any provisions with that program that would cause any problems. Staff has reviewed the files, and the files are not very complete, but they cannot find any restric- tions. In essence, the letter he had written to the City a year ago recom- mending that the HRA deny this same request was still valid. Mr. Newman stated he was not If he made zero down payment and the note to be forgiven, problems with that concept. what his down payment was, wl pro rata basis. sure what kind of down and is requesting that then Mr'. Newman stated Perhaps the way to loot !at the City spent, and payment Mr. Crampton made. he now receive the equity he would have some legal < at it was to determine allocate the equity on a Mr. Newman stated he was not involved in this when it was originally drafted, and he could only speculate on the HRH's intention but he thought it was to encourage first -time home buyers to come into the community, and if the $10,000 was then to be forgiven, they wanted these people to be -in the community for a certain period of time, wanted their children enrolled in the Fridley schools, etc. fir. Commers stated there were two programs at that time - -one was the rehabili- tation program and one was the large family program that was intended to provide down payments for people who could not otherwise afford to buy a home, and it was to encourage them and bring them into the community. It was his recollection that both these programs were federally funded, and he felt they were fairly successful programs. It was certainly never the HRA's intention that they were totally going to walk away from this and give up the equity. The idea was to recapture those funds and re -use them for someone else. Mr. Newman stated that in referring to the terms of the Mortgage Note (agenda page 5 -B), it indicated that if the..:b ome owner- isgoing to sell the property, the HRA would have the first option to buy the property back. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 7 Mr. Robertson stated it had been his first reaction to recommend that the HRA not do anything regarding Mr. Crampton's request. Mr. Newman stated Staff felt they should come to the HRA first for some sense of direction as to whether or not the HRA was interested in doing anything on this request. It certainly does constitute a deviation from what he understood the HRA's original intent to be. If the HRA decided to act on fir. Crampton's request, then they would be setting a precedent that might then be available to other buyers of similar homes. Mr. Prairie stated it was his opinion to not do anything at this time. Ms.Schnabel stated maybe they should be considering the possibility of having the homeowner pay back the money on a pro -rated basis. Maybe they should be re- reviewing their thinking in case there are real hardships involved. In Mr. Crampton's letter, he does not indicate a concrete reason for the HRA to let him go, but there could be other cases where there will be real valid hardships. Mr. Newman agreed, but that in this case, if they do a pro rata on the length of the note and forgive the balance of the note; -fir. Cwmptan is still aoino to owe $5,000. Mr. Commers stated they should find out what the assessed value was on this property. fir. Prairie stated if there was a real hardship case, maybe the Commission should take that into consideration. Ms. Schnabel stated she would like Staff to do some research and find out what federal program this was, what the federal guidelines were for the program, and explore the concept of possibly forgiving a partial amount of the payment in the case of a hardship, but still have the owner pay back whatever is left. Commers stated the Commission should also be aware of how many other homes were done on this program. Ms. Schnabel stated if the intent of the program was to get a piece of property developed, bring new people into the community, and the program has done that and the homeowners have been there for 5 -6 years and are now ready to move on, maybe the HRA should look at the program again and possibly turn it over to another family under the same circumstances. Maybe the HRA cannot do that, but they should know whether or not they can. fir. Newman stated that the estimated market value per the City Assessor was $67,700. Assuming that the-estfmated' market value was at 95 %, the fair market value would.be $71,263. The HRA members agreed that at this time, they would not take any action on fir. Crampton's request, and that Staff be directed to research those items outlined in the above discussion. rlo�t HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 8 6. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER: a. Subterranean Engineering Mr. Robertson stated that although they had asked that Subterranean have the change orders to the City no later than Tuesday morning of this week, the City did not receive that information until the day of this meeting. Since Staff had not had an opportunity to review the information, Staff would recommend that consideration of this change order be held over until the November meeting. b. Enebak Construction (Change Order No. 5) Per. Sunde stated Change Order No. 3 was prepared to provide for the payment to Enebak for the mining of sands on site that would be used in the building pad areas. At that time, they estimated 35,000 cu. yds of sand would be required for borrow. Change Order No. 5 for 53,110 cu. yds. was the result of the final measurement of the borrow area of that mining area. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,637.50. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c. H & S Asphalt MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE H & S ASPHALT CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,460. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. d. Park Construction Mr. Newman stated that at the last meeting, fir. Robertson informed the HRA that a change order would be forthcoming from Park Construction. The HRA did not have the information at that meeting, and the change order for $5,820 was brought to the City Council who approved it. As the HRA remembered, because the City Council meets more frequently than the HRA, last spring the HRA authorized Staff to take change orders to the City Council, provided the dollar amount did not exceed a certain amount, and that the HRA then be informed of all change orders. This was an information item only as the City Council did approve this change order. e. Bikeway /Walkway Path �. Mr. Robertson stated that at this meeting, the HRA had received some correspondence between Mark Burch and Jon McClure of Woodhridne Properties concerning an error or miscommunication made on the location 111� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 9 of part of the bikeway /walkway last summer before they were under contract with the City. This error was only recently uncovered, and it was relatively cheaper to deal with the location now before the detention pond and the retaining wall are completed on the site. Once those were done according to the present grading plans, WoodbrPidge's preferred location of*the bikeway'/yalkway'path would be virtually impossible to achieve. Mr. Newman stated it was Staff's recommendation that the HRA not accept Woodbridge's change since they were unwilling to p_ay for it and that the bikeway /walkway path be installed as indicated on Sunde Engineering's plans. The City-was-comfortable with the-location as it stands right now. -- Mr. Robertson stated that although it was Woodbridge's desire to have the bikeway /walkway on the west 'side rather than on the -east side, they did not wish to pay for all or half of the cost. At this time, that could be achieved fairly easily at about a $4,000 total cost. If the HRA agrees not to make any changes_, the construction of the retaining wall and detention pond prevents the bikeway /walkway from being easily moved. Mr. Comme.rs stated that the record should reflect that the HRA members were in agreement to direct Staff to proceed with the plans for the bike- way /walkway as originally designed by the project engineer, Sunde Engineering, on the east side of the development. 11—' g INFORMATION ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLAN: Mr. Robertson stated representatives from Barton - Aschman were at the meeting to give a brief update on the University Avenue Corridor Plan and to discuss the concept of prairie -flowers and-p-rairie grasses. Staff will bring back a recommendation to the HRA at the next meeting. Mr. Barry Warner, Barton - Aschman introduced Mr. Dave Warzala, Head of the Civil Engineering Section, and Ron Bowen from Prairie Restorations. Mr. Warner stated he would like to talk to the Commission about three things: (1) an update on where Barton - Aschman is with the design concepts for the intersections and corridor landscaping (2) share with the HRA the concept of prairie plantings (3) talk about the financial implications of the other improvements Mr. Warner stated that in the past two months, they have had an oppor- tunity to look at the concepts that were previously generated and to apply those,given some - additional engineering information (topography, utilities, terrain radiuses, etc.), and have reviewed the intersection concepts commensorate with that material, yet keeping the same concept. As a result of this, they have had a greater opportunity to understand the implications of implementing this concept to the rural section. One thing that came to mind was that in the rural section where they have the drainage swails, the culverts have to be extended to compensate for putting in the bus shelters and patron areas and fill introduced into it. That is something that can be accommodated but it does cost more money. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMEMT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 10 Mr. Warner stated all four of the intersections will include the follow- ing elements: (1) brick paving at the radius points including the median (2) abutting landscaping, both shrubs and upper story trees (3) bus patron loading areas (sidewalk that surrounds a land- scaped raised planter to serve as an 18 inch seating wall for patrons on a nice day. There are shelters in a majority of the intersections for inclement weather.) (4) any type of ground cover -- prairie grass or some other mediurp Mr. Warner stated they have discussed at length as a part of their previous work the median treatment; and, as he understood it, in the HRA's subsequent discussions, they chose to pursue the prairie treatment. That was the reason he had asked fir. Bowen to come to the meeting. fir. Bowen was from Prairie Restorations, which was a regional organiza- tion that deals in the implementation of prairies. Mr. Bowen has about 10 years experience in prairies. fir. Bowen had brought along some slides to help the HRA decide whether prairie provides the identity that Fridley is looking for, the maintenance implications, and how long it takes to get the prairie established. r^ Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding the 18 inch raised planter, she wondered if this had been discussed and approved. She stated her concern again was maintenance, what type of plantings would be put into the planter, and the continued maintenance of it. So many planters are not maintained and they look awful. Mr. Warner agreed. As discussed before, the City will have to take on the maintenance of the improvements if, in fact, they want to do some of these urban design improvements. Another viable option would be for that to just be a cut -out area for grass. It would lessen the expense and lessen the maintenance. Ms. Schnabel stated she was getting more and more concerned as they get into this about the City's commitment to maintenance. In the winter- time, what is the City's commitment going to be as far as shoveling snow, for example, at the intersections? Mr. Robertson stated this has been discussed with John Flora and the Engineering Dept. and since they have the snow blowers out at the inter- sections anyway, this does not seem to be a problem. Mr. Ron Bowen stated the maintenance aspect of the landscaping is a very relevant topic. If they are going to go ahead and do any land- scaping, whether it is traditional landscaping or natural landscaping, there will still be maintenance. He would hope there is some follow -up with maintenance, not just for the first year, but on a perpetual basis in maintaining these plant communities. Even if they plant prairie, ems,, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 11 it should be thought of as a plant community and something that has a lot of inter- related parts and needs a fair amount of attention to make sure all the parts are working right. Mr. Bowen stated Fridley has sand so they are talking mostly about short prairie grasses. That fits in very well with the visibility factors, business frontages, etc., but they do want some color and would try to establish wild flowers as a visible -and good identity factor for the Corridor. The idea of wildflowers aii d prairie are very much on the increase. There was a lot of interest and support for it. Mr. Bowen stated he would like to show the Commissioners some slides of the kind of prairie he was talking about for the Corridor area. Mr. Bowen stated, again, basically, they would want to concentrate mostly on short prairie grasses and a lot of wild flowers. In a few areas where they get farther up Highway 47'and the community becomes a little more rural and the median becomes bigger, they could get down in the middle of the median and do a little bit of tall prairie. Tall prairie was a very attractive plant community. Mr. Bowen stated -a prairie plant community, grasses and flowers mixed, 10� was very much like a forest. Just like there are a lot of different kinds of forests, there are a lot of different kinds of prairies. Establishing a prairie was a fairly slow process and within the first year or so, the plants are mostly working on root development. As time goes on, the plants start to do their above ground growing. During the first year, they mow the plantings usually about 6 inches high. Mr. Bowen stated education to the community was another important aspect in this process. It was very important to let the:p bTic know what is going on, that it is a slow process, but that it gets better with time. Mr. Warner stated that in looking at the pros and cons of prairie grasses, they could group the questions into five different areas: 1. Does this meet the community's objective of having a unique identity within the Corridor? 2. Does it meet the image they want to portray within the community? 3. How do they treat the abutting properties? 4. How do they implement this or construct this? What is the period of time before it is mature and looking good? 5. What will the ongoing maintenance be? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 12 fir. Warner stated that regarding question #5, one of the ways to accomplish that was to put intense flowers within the median, both in urban and rural sections, and allow the areas between the side of the road and the right of way to be short prairie grass. For those abutting properties that wish to have a manicured Kentucky Blue Grass, there would be a lesser contrast than if they had high prairie and intense flower prairie and then the Blue Grass. Ms. Schnabel stated that at .one time, it seemed the HRA had talked about having some trees or shrubs in the medians in addition to the wild flowers. fir. Warner stated the recommendation that was carried to them for further examination was prairie flowers in the median or possibly within the entire right of way and then using a Jersey barrier to protect trees near the intersection. He would recommend against the trees with a Jersey barrier if they are going to use the prairie. Aesthetically and even functionally, there was such a dramatic contrast between a very urban rigid barrier and the prairie that the two just do not work well together. Mr. Warner stated that by the very nature of the prairie, they could cater the species selection to the area and to the situation, so here !� where they want to get color throughout the growing season, that could be accomplished. Although it was not maintenance -free, it has the capability of having reduced maintenance. It also gives a very strong identity to the community. Mr. Warner stated the HRA, as the decision makers, need to assess again the aspect of whether the visual quality of this was something they want to reflect in Fridley. In the other landscape aspects of this (trees, shrubs, etc.), Barton - Aschman can certainly complement the prairie very nicely and make it work so it is very attractive and so it would provide a very strong corridor image. It can also be made to work with the brick in a very handsome manner. fir. Bowen stated that if the Commission wanted to explore this further, there were plantings similar -to what they would use in Fridley that could give the Commission some good ideas. Fort Snelling was a good example. They could also talk with some other people about the way prairie has worked for them. Mr. Robertson stated they have talked with the consultant about public information and an idea would be that as part of the hard surface treat- ment, either at the corners or at the nose where people will be walking across at the crosswalks, putting up an attractive sign giving a brief description of the prairie and wild flower treatment. Mr. Warner stated the other aspect of this presentation was the Summary of Improvement Costs for the University Avenue Corridor. These were broken down into three specific categories: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 13 1. (A -D) Intersection urban design improvements (bricks, curbs, concrete, and landscaping) 2. (E -F) Corridor landscape improvements (landscaping and prairie grass improvements between 57th and 61st and 73rd and Osborne 3. (G -J) Traffic signal improvements (including traffic signals, signing and lighting) Mr. Warner stated that in previous conversations with Staff, it was brought out that there was the potential for some traffic signal improvements. One of the reasons that came about was that when they studied in a more detailed nature the putting of the brick at the radius, it was noted that the foundations for the traffic signal poles were low and if they put bricks abutting them, they would have to be raised. That spurred on a number of other comments about the inadequacy of the traffic signals. For each one of the items (A - J), in subsequent pages they had provided a breakdown of all the costs -- description /size, unit, quantity, unit cost, and total cost. fir. Commers asked if the $82,000 for traffic signal improvements per intersection included the engineering costs. Mr. Warner stated the engineering costs were not included. Page 8 was a breakdown of potential signal improvements for each one of the inter- sections, totalling $82,000. There needed to be some additional study, perhaps on the part of the HP,A and on the part of Barton - Aschman,as to what is appropriate, given the intersection conditions. For example, it was their understanding that MnDOT may be changing the controller boxes on some, but perhaps not all, of these four intersections. In addition, they have observed that, for example, the signal heads are 8 -inch instead of the 12 -inch which are now standard for MnDOT. He had talked about pole foundations that would have to be raised if the brick treatment was used. In addition, they would also have to change the hand holes, another technical aspect of the traffic signals. Other line items included the surface detectors for vehicle sensors, lighted street signs, emergency vehicle protection device, and surface striping. fir. Warner stated each one of the intersections has somewhat different characteristics in terms of the traffic signal devices and would have to be evaluated. But, $82,000 represented a "worst case" situation. They did not expect the costs to go beyond that,other than there might have to be a temporary traffic signal put in during the construction season. fir. Warner stated MnDOT may or may not participate in some of these costs. It would be appropriate to pursue with MnDOT this possibility. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAU 14 Mr. Flora stated MnDOT should be replacing all the controllers next year; therefore, they will be meeting that cost. They could certainly ask MnDOT to participate in the cost of changing the signal heads from 8 -inch to 12 -inch diameter. He believed MnDOT might participate in a number of intersection items as part of their system to upgrade the signals to their standards. fir. Warner stated again he wanted to point out that the costs are all worst case situations for the urban design improvements, corridor land- scape improvements, and the traffic signal improvements. They believe that in many of the cases, the costs will be less, both from the land- scape perspective and the traffic signal perspective, contingent, of course, upon MnDOT's participation in traffic signal improvements and the re =use of as many things as possible. From a prairie perspective, they believe the upper end of the prairie cost will be $5,000 /acre, and the lower end will be somewhere around $3,000 /acre. Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Warner, fir. Bowen, and Mr. Warzala for coming to the meeting. 7. CONSIDERATION OF FINANCING CIVIC CENTER BI -LEVEL PARKING RAMP: Mr. Robertson stated the preliminary estimate in May 1986 was $720,000. The contractor, after closer examination of the .mechanical and electrical, has come in at $751,000 which was roughly $7,826 per stall. That was consistent with other estimates they have heard. Mr. Robertson stated Staff was recommending that the HRA finance the ramp project as part of their total tax increment bond project. He stated the Commission considered this at their flay 1986 meeting, did an overall budget, looked at it in December for the bond issue, and then saw the preliminary costs in May 1987. Now, this was a pretty reliable cost estivate, there was a 5% contingency, and Staff was recommending this be an HRA project. Mr. Commers asked what Staff was suggesting as far as assessments. fir. Robertson stated Staff was not suggesting any assessments. Mr. Commers stated he felt the office building and the clinic should be participating in the cost of this ramp, and this should be discussed with them. fir. Prairie asked if this ramp was designed for more than one level. They should find out what the options are. It would be too bad if they build the ramp with one level and then needed more space later on. Mr. Commers stated that in 1985, they started out with a parking ramp of $1.3 million, of which 80% was to be assessed to the clinic, 10% to the office building, and the HRA would put in 10 %. Maybe the function r'` HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 15 and the focus of the ramp was a little different in that the ramp was being shifted over by City Hall so that the city employees can use it, but in fact, both the office building and the clinic will be getting a sub- stantial benefit because they both have parking problems also. He felt there was something to be said for fair share. Maybe they should give more thought to the design of the ramp as suggested by fir. Prairie and maybe it should be back over by the clinic where everybody can use it and maybe it should have the ability to he expanded. Mr. Robertson stated one attractive thing about the location of the ramp by City Hall was that the present Civic Center has a poor entrance to the lower level, particularly to the Police Department. This seemed like a good opportunity to enhance the entrance to the lower level. Ms. Schnabel asked if the City had given any consideration to renting office space in the office building. Mr. Robertson stated they posed that idea to the City Council on "".onday night - -that there might be some vacant space in the office building and the question had come up: Why didn't the City consider renting rather than expanding? The City Council considered it, but the negatives were that all city employees are not all under the same roof. The City Council decided they did not want to do that and wanted to go ahead with the expansion plans as proposed. fir. Prairie stated he felt the renting of space in the office building would at least be an alternative worth exploring. Ms. Schnabel stated he could understand the contraints within City Hall, and part of it was because of the big spaces like the Council Chambers and Community Room I._wh-i ch. maybe could be used niore efficiently for other purposes. Maybe they could lease space in.bffice building a lot cheaper, than the cost of expanding. Mr. Commers stated the decision has apparently been made and the City Council has approved the expansion, and that it was not the HRA's consi- deration, but it was just that the City Council wanted the HRA to contri- bute $900,000 at this point. Now that the HRA was hearing some of the details, they obviously have a lot of questions. He thought there were some questions that should be answered about the way the ramp was being planned, and about how the ramp should be totally financed. There was also the question that if Target should expand and need additional park- ing, maybe they should share in the cost. He stated he did not feel the HRA should take any action at this point and maybe the City Council and HRA should have a joint meeting to discuss this. Ms. Schnabel agreed they need to meet with the City Council to get some of these questions answered and to explore some of the concerns the HRA �' has expressed at this meeting. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 8, 1987 PAGE 16 fir. Robertson stated he would arrange a joint meeting between the City Council and the HRA. 9.. CLAIMS (1659 -1670) MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. fir. Pribyl stated he would draw the Commission's attention to a one -page report.that dealt with the bond proceeds. There was a recap of what they spent to date out of the construction proceeds, and the bottom figure under the total updated the HRA as to how much money they have available under the bond proceeds for construction. He stated this was a report the HPA should start seeing once a month. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE OCTOBER 8, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :30 P.M. ReCectfully submi ed, *n he Saba Recording Secretary ai r"',- Fz� 1111111111M lill 1 i -- -- - - �" - - -- l y�_� G Ae� SP