Loading...
HRA 10/09/1986 HOUSING 4 g®EVELaRC Pr AMU= MEMMC THURSDAY.. OcToEEft 9, 1986 7;00 P.M. Rick Pribyl Finance Director CITY OF ERIDLEY AGENDA HGUSJW & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEET7IU THURSrAY, OCIOBER 9, 1986 7:00 P.M. Location: Council Chamber (upper level) — CALL TO ORDER: SCALL: APPI�TAL OF Mlwrrr� . Housing & Redevelopment Authori ty'Minutes: September 11, 1986 ADOPTION OF AGEDIDA: PRESENTATION BY BARMN-ASCHMAN RG AVENUE ODRRIING SIE UNIVERSITY DOR STUDY REPORT ON LAKE FOINTE 4ORFoRA TE CENTER IE UPrATE ON LUNDGREN'S UNIVERSITY AVE. APARTMEWT PRQ7 . UTE ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF THE ECT RICE PI,�p, 3 - 3B SHOPPING STATUS REPORT ON BEt,GARM'S (NIVgSITY AVE. AFARMW PRQ7ECT • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 5 - 5A QONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY G �Mp�FrjO'� HRA M ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CfiKE EOR THE nTaVi�<� aC RELEASE $13,500 IN SOII, `� Fess �s`ow°+gyp QORREX,TION ASSISTANCE EOR LOT �►�"6''r �t�sc 4► BLOC[C 4, UNIVERSITY INLXJSTRIAL PARK wTb UN o��*K'�`�'�� 4ONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZ IM THE EXECUTION OF AN ACRE WNT BETW MENT AUTHORITY AND SUBS THE FRITLEY HOUSING & REDF,VE{.OP. pox S FOR SOIL AND � N ENGINEERIW CORPORATION TNiE LA ENG� INEM= SUPMRT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF IC FOIN CORPORATE CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7D CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 OTHER BUSINESS: A WCUM4ENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 1986, Housing & Redevelopment Chairperson Prairie called the September 11 , Acting to order at 7:15 p.m. Authority meeting ROLLCALL: VirginiaRasmussen, Menbers Present: Duane Prairie, Virginia Schnabel , John Meyer (arr. 7:55 p.m.) Menbers Absent: Larry Commers Others Present: Nasim Qureshi , City Mana4er Jock Robertson, HRA Executive Director Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl , Finance Director Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Director Bob Barnette, Councilman-at-Large Ed Fitzpatrick, Councilman Bob Levy, 100 S. 5th St. Daly & Lindgren Linda Fisher, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Sherrill Kuretich, Larkin, Hoffman, Harry Yaffee Ken Belgaarde APPROVAL OF AUGUST 14 X986, HOUSING & REDEVELOPt1FNT AUTHORITY MINUTES: s6 L SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 14, 1986, MOTION BY 1!S. SCHNABE , HOI-� 1�S C & REDEVELOPMFNT AUTHORITY MINUTES. the first a e 8, third paragraph from the botta!�+ro osed is a Ms. Schnabel stated that on p 9 ntis. Fisher stated what a WeSt of University lex generally located south of 85th Avenue, sentence should be changed as fol ows: of S ringbrook Nature Center.�- 353 unit apartment comp Avenue, north of 83rd Avenue, and east p D THE UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON PRAIRIE DECLARE MINUTES APPROFED AS AMENDED. 1 , APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR OF THE FRIDLEY HRA: for vice-chairperson. Acting Chairperson Prairie declared the nominations open-chairperson. Mr. Rasmussen nominated Virginia Schnabel for vice no other nominations, Acting Chairperson Prairie declared the Hearing ' nominations closed. HOUSING & REDEVELOPFIENT AUTHORITY M FETING SEPTEMBER 11 1986 PAG E 2 NON BY MR. RASMUSSEN BALLOT FOR VIRGINIA SCHNABELSECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE AS VICE-CHAT ' TO CAST A UNANIMOUS RPERSON OF THE FRIDLEY HRA, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE ACTING CHAIRPER THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, . SON p RAIRIE DECLARED 2. UPDATE ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR AC UISITION OF THE RIC Mr. Newman stated that Bob Levy has been a u E PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER: representing the propertyguest at the last 3-4 HRA meetings stated that at the last eetingsin August, the Plaza Shopping enter into negotiations with Mr, g the HRA pP g Center. He a purchase price for the subject Levy for the had instructed Staff to Purpose of trying to determine F1r, property. Newman stated that since the August meetin met with the County Attorney to review thea g' Wr. Robertson and he had perty, The County Attorne PPraisal the County had prepared on the pro details of the appraisal not A disclosed; specifically requested that the County's appraisal of the property plus thed hleasehol approx. $975,000, they can say that the improvements was Mr. Newman stated that when Staff met witl shared with them an analysis he had r ) Mr, Lev on worth between $1 prepared that stateduthe29roMertLevy propert 050,000 and $),150,000, p p Y could be closed this Mr. Levy indicated that ifythe s clients and, as a result, thS years there aere ould be greater tax benefit to his flexibility in negotiations, Mr. Newman stated he and Mr, that week; and Staff Robertson had discussions with Mr, to purchase the property,prepared to recommend to the HRA Levy again of approx. $32 000 overythe Countyss Price of . if the HRA wished the low end of Mr. $1,008,000. That was an increase compromise between both ,part est alflysPsa�sStaffdf approx. $42,000 less than Mr. Levy had assured him that he would strongly felt that it was a fair price to his clients, the HRA decided to act on as advice, consent, he felt it was verAlthough Mr. Levy did ntrhave chid this purchase to his clients. Y likely this purchase price wouldebes ' specific P1r, acceptable Qureshi stated he wanted to HRA has taken the emphasize to the HRA specific project Position not to acquire a that in the past, the had specific penjed tafor that property. Property unless there was a Even though Mr, Robertson and Mr. City's books for tax Pfair urposes price, this propert Newman P poses as having a market value a of currently on the Mr. Qureshi stated there were some $ 62,000. before making a decision on whetherpo�snotdto°nUrthe HRA should consider Purchase the property, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 11 19 86 PAGE 3 PROS: 1• There was an agreeable price range between botharti 2, There was a P es. Potential dollar savings if in the future the HRA wanted to acquire the property and had to pay acquisition or condemnation costs, relocation costs, etc, 3. They would have control of the property for future development. ►nent, 1, The LIRA would become the property manager, takin and disadvantages of owning property, 9 on all the advantages 2, The HRA would become the tenant manager and•w ould have the concerns of Paying taxes, maintaining the property, etc, 3. There would continue to be the uncertainty of the ten 4• If the HRA did acquire this property, ant situation, for other properties that, in similar siltuations,bmiga setting precedent Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA g ay. "why not us?" site. Because of some financial ndifficulties,othere was pursuing a project on this to whether or not that project would go forward. The should end of September. some uncertainty as he HRA should considerCinatheirif there deliberationno project, that was somethgnthi property, s on whether or not to acquire the Mr. Qureshi stated that also at this time, P1r. Co at the meeting, and the HRA should consider this tobeand Mr' Meyer were not fir. Robertson stated he had spoken to Mr, very important issue. that time Mr. Commers had Commers earlier in the week, At attend this meeting. Pointed out the possibility of not being able to 9. Mr. Commers had stated it was his own personal preference that the Center City was the HRA-s top priority, andersonally, he was very much in favor of this acquisition. p Mr, Rasmussen stated he did not think it was in the be to own property without a prospective development. It was interest of the HRA to set. was not a good precedent Mr. Newman stated there was great concern on the part of that the transaction be done this tax year. the leases has four y In reviewingtthepleasesy oneofremaining, and two ofethe leases has two Years, three of trem minghe leases has three years remaining. EDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 11 1986 PAGE 4 HOUSING & R th not Mr. Levy stated the circu mstances his clients are dealinga theseecircum- circumstances created by his client s. The HRA had crea e eared before the HRA for the last four months stances. Hhist ted hs'hconcerns. But, he can say that if this acquisition expressing his clients have asked him to file a law suit against does not go forwards the HRA. the reason they are in this situation was because the l Mr. Levy stated consider an unusual fashion. Typically, otential development, there is always a certain has conducted itself inwhat pthey are settled between when a City is looking in the air before things pro erty The history of this p P amount of time when thioWneraanduthe developer. h 4-5 developers at the existing property the HRA has gone through etc. has been that for six years, of public hearings, ment with letterrecipitated�the acquisition of the various stages of develop time things It was a circumstance such as this thatprecipitated was that every What was uniq hardware store site. ment and the HRA has terminoVnedsafeel trac settle down with a particular, develop ro erty with a developer and the then there is a new or terminated a relationship They they can resume business as pmentual and,the processstartsallnnotrnagain. for proposal and a new develop tenants, and they ca lose prospective tenants or existing market rental with new tenants. they had entered into a stated that regarding the hardware store, erator for that Mr. Levy lease for a new hardware store oP fraud with verbal agreement to sign a to but they have never wanted to run the lease withrthat tenant1without alerting aiprospective tenant by signing a they always sen prospective possible development by the HRA. $0� With the hardware store, them of the P Hall to talk to City and HRA Staff. lace within 30-6� tenants to City the prospective tenant was told t e acq ctiveltenant. In that case the t1RA days; therefore, they lost acquisition. recognized the problem and went ahead with the acq had a similar situation recently. They had a vacancy. Mr. Levy stated they possibility of the HRA They lost three prospective tenants because n arrangement with an the property. They ultimately but who refused to sign more taking ace, existing tenant to take the additional space, nine month lease because of the threat of condemnation and who would than a not sign a market rate lease. direction given by his clients last winter was that enoof ugh Mr. Levy stated theThey have been a memberlast was enough. They have tried to be understanding. ' ss community since 1958. They worked with the HRA and the of the busine ren project which necessitated rezoning and platting winter with the Theydg have tried to be a cooperative and understan ing p the property. timate public purpose in maximizing the stated the HRA had a leg' ment of the Center City site, but Mr. Levy ro ey and the develop utilization of this property It was not a private purpose of the existing that was a public Purpose. r HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 PAGE 5 property owner and there were burdens and risks taht went with that. Those burdens and risks needed to rest where the. public purpose was, where the gain and benefit was, not on the private property owner. In effect, for the last 5-6 years, the HRA has asked the private property owner to warehouse that property and suffer the economic consequences. His clients will no longer do that. They will either resolve this on a friendly basis with a negotiated price or they will resolve it in the court room. Mr. Levy stated that at the August HRA meeting, it was his understanding that the HRA had unanimously authorized the Staff to enter into negotiations to determine what would be a fair acquisition price, with the understanding that a final decision on acquisition could not be made until there was a price on the table. He stated they entered into these negotiations with Staff in good faith predicated upon the understanding and assumption from the August meeting that a policy decision had been made. Ms. Schnabel stated she did not think that was the intent of the HRA at that meeting. Both she and Mr. Meyer had expressed their concern at the August meeting about the HRA getting into the ownership of property. When they suggested Staff talk about price, it was merely to see if there was any close- ness in dollar figures and that they wanted those figures brought back to the HRA; but they had not made a firm commitment to purchase. Mr. Levy stated that if this transaction did not close this year, they will be talking about a different price. The tax laws change effective Jan. 1 , 1987. They will file an inverse condemnation suit against the HRA and it will not be based on just the current value of the property; it will also be based on the damages suffered because of lost principle because of the threat of con- dernnation, and damage action for business libel involving statements made to prospective tenants by staff members at City Hall . Mr. Levy stated another alternative to consider by the HRA was that if the HRA decided not to acquire the property, then the NRA should remove this property from the redevelopment district and leave them alone. Mr. Levy stated the Lundgren development had to be viewed separately and distinctly from the possible acquisition. This made the decision more diffi- cult for the HRA, but this was an independent issue because if the Lundgren project does not go, the process will just start over again with another developer. His clients will not go through that process again. (Mr. Meyer arrived at 7:55 p.m. ) Mr. Qureshi stated that regarding the Lundgren development, Mr. Lundgren has approximately three weeks before coming to the HRA with a financial commit- ment. If he does have the financing commitment, it would put a whole different emphasis on whether the HRA would want to acquire the property. But, unless J HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 PAGE 6 there is a specific project for the property, it was his recommendation that it would not be prudent for the HRA to acquire the property. He stated the City Council was very sensitive to the City acquiring property unless there was a project. He also thought the concerns and the problems of the tenants should also be a major consideration in the decision. Ms. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Lundgren is unable to get the financial commitment, what did fir. Qureshi see as the climate for future developments? Mr. Qureshi stated that with the new tax laws, in the near future it was going to be much more difficult for bodies such as the HRA to have development happen. What was happening was that a lot of the tools the [IRA has been using and the developers have been using will be completely eliminated and adversely modified to discourage development. Ms. Schnabel stated her position had not changed since their last meeting. She agreed with fir. Rasmussen. She did not like the thought of the HRA becoming owners of property unless they have a very specific development project for that property. Mr. Prairie stated the HRA did acquire the hardware building site, and they were criticized for that action. They had a development commitment which fell through; and then they had problems with the tenants, so he could understand not wanting the HRA to become a landlord again. Mr. Meyer stated he did not want the HRA to be a landlord either, except that there has been a problem her for the last 5-6 years. That problem can be brought to court, and the HRA could lose. He was not as upset about not becoming a landlord as he was about some of the other factors that were involved in the acquisition. Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated Mr. Levy's position and his clients' position. She felt that if the HRA was to make a commitment at this meeting to purchase the property and then found out in three weeks that Mr. Lundgren was unable to proceed with his development, they would have made a long term commitment to purchase a piece of property which appears to have had a history of difficulty in being developed and which appears at this point to have a very cloudy atmosphere for development in the future if Congress goes forward with the tax legislation being talked about. Ms. Schnabel stated she was not totally sure the HRA had even talked about the conditions of the property and what would be needed as far as maintenance, etc. She just felt strongly from a philosophical standpoint that it was not in the best interest of the HRA as a public body to purchase private property and hold it. Mr. Meyer stated he understood how Ms. Schnabel felt, but he also could under- stand Mr. Levy's arguments in that the HRA did not have the right to ware- house private property even though they have not done it intentionally. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 PAGE 7 MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO TABLE THE DECISION ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY UNTIL THE OCTOBER HRA MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Levy stated it would be his recommendation to his clients that they not take any action pending the HRA's action next month. This would give the HRA the opportunity to digest the information received at this meeting and, hopefully, they can avoid a conflict that would not be in anyone's best interest. 3. REPORT REGARDING CONTROL AND QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER: Mr. Qureshi stated that in the agenda was a memo he had written to the HRA, Mayor Nee, and City Council members dated Sept. 5, 1986. He stated the basic purpose of writing this memo was to, hopefully, lay out some of the actions the HRA, Planning Commission, and City Council have taken, specifically trying to assure the quality of the development for Lake Pointe Corporate Center and the land of control the HRA by agreement can exercise and the kind of control the City Council has by zoning and special use permits and other land develop- ment requirements the City has. Mr. Qureshi stated some concern was expressed by the HRA that they were seeing pretty pictures of the development but what guarantee did they have that the development would actually take place in that fashion and quality? He stated he had tried to provide the HRA with a summary of all the different actions of approval the HRA had. It was his understanding that the HRA had full authority on the basis of the agreements entered into with the developer; and the City Council by its sheer police powers and zoning and platting powers can demand this quality and type of development. Mr. Qureshi stated he wanted to emphasize that the HRA and the City Council can mutually agree to modify the type and the quality and the level of the development in the future. They cannot foresee what the future economic conditions or situations are going to be. He stated they do have a timetable which tells them when this development has to take place. That was done merely to hopefully give further assurance to the HRA and City Council that they have gone through all these steps to guarantee this development and that they do have a sizeable control over the development. Mr. Qureshi stated the tentative date for groundbreaking was Oct. 14th at around 4:00 p.m. He stated he would be giving the commissioners more information about the program at a later date. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 PAGE 8 4. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A CONTRACT WITH SUNDE ENGINEERING FOR ENGI14EERING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DONE N THE LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER PROJECT: Mr. Robertson stated the specifics of the work are covered by Sunde Engineer- ing. They have reviewed this with John Flora and his staff, and it was Staff's recommendation that the HRA adopt this resolution. He wanted to point out that in the resolution the amount had changed slightly from the proposal received by Sunde in April . It was about $1 ,900 higher. That was as a result of the multiple bidding of the first phase of the contract. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 15 1986. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DESIGN AGREEMENT WITH S.E.H. FOR THE 00 TWIN DRIVE-IN Mr. Robertson stated that on the proposed resolution under "NOW, THEREFORE", second line from the bottom, that even though the overall contract was for West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65, they will see that it only includes the preliminary plans for the Rice Creek Road improvements from Old Central to Highway 65. He stated that in the right hand column under Rice Creek Road, the "Detailed Plans" in the amount of $36,500, and the "Construction" in the amount of $47,500 should be omitted from this resolution at this time and it will be brought back at a future time for the HRA's consideration. MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. NRA 16 1986,"A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE 100 TWIN DRIVE-IN INTERSECTION" WITH THE FOLLOWING OMISSION: RICE CREEK ROAD DETAILED PLANS $36,500.00 CONSTRUCTION 47,500.00 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND ERNST & ASSOCIATES FOR LANDSCAPE AND PLAN SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE POINTE CORPORATE MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 17 1986. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 7. STATUS REPORT ON UNIVERSITY AVE14UE CORRIDOR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PAGE 9 Ms. Schnabel stated the cost ranges that were included in the agenda were included last month also. She stated they are going to have a preliminary meeting with Barton-Aschman on Wed. , Sept. 17. Several members of the Technical Advisory Committee are going to review the preliminary proposals with Barton-Aschman and then the proposals will be brought back to the full committee the following week. She stated there would probably be nothing to report until 'after the middle of October. 8. UPDATE ON THE WINFIELD PROJECT: Mr. Robertson stated Winfield Development was forming a new partnership and would be obtaining the financing for their project in the Paco Industrial Park under their new partnership name. Because of the legalities involved with IDB funding, it was necessary to publish notice in the newspapers for the name change. The City Council will approve the name change at their Sept. 22 meeting. The name change was just a formality and would in no way affect the funding of the IDB or the particulars of the Development Agreement. 9. UPDATE ON THE SHOREWOOD INN REMODELING PROJECT: Mr. Robertson stated the development agreement has been executed and signed by Mr. Nicklow, Vice-President and co-owner of the Shorewood Inn. Mr. Nicklow has assured Staff that the parking lot phase will start in September. A lot of the interior work will be done during the winter. Mr. Nicklow understands that the HRA's participation does not occur until the certificate of occupancy is issued at the completion of the project. 10. UPDATE 014 THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE APARTMENT PROJECT: Mr. Qureshi stated that at the last meeting, the HRA approved in concept an outline for a 358-unit apartment complex on the property east of the Nature Center and west of University Ave. The project would be: (1 ) a high quality development acceptable to the NRA; (2) the HRA would provide $850,000 write- down on the land in the initial stages. The land actually would be paid back to the HRA over a 15 yr. period with no interest for 3 years, interest for 2 years, and the rest amortized over 10 years; (3) taxable increment bonds would be used for the project; (4) housing revenue bonds would be requested; (5) the project would be under one ownership; and (6) there would be a good north/south connector street between the Nature Center and University Ave. Mr. Qureshi stated the developers have a similar project in Minnetonka called Cliff. This development will be modeled after that project except they will have surface garages instead of underground parking. Mr. Qureshi stated the legal counsel for the develppers, Hs. Fisher and Ms. Kuretich, had written a letter to the City indicating that because of potential changes in the laws, the project requires a higher level of equity thant what was anticipated before, and they are asking for further assistance from the HRA. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 PAGE 10 Mr. Qureshi stated the level of assistance authorized by the HRA was $850,000, and the developers are now requesting additional help. He stated that if the HRA changed what they approved in concept, this would be a departure from the assistance they are providing for the Lundgren project. Ms. Sherrill Kuretich stated she was an attorney with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, Ltd. , and was representing the developers, Mr. Yaffee and Mr. Belgaarde. She stated the letter submitted by Ms. Fisher and herself on Sept. 5, 1986, was quite explicit and quite complicated, and she would try to briefly summarize it. Ms. Kuretich stated the last time they were before the HRA in August, they were proposing that in addition to tax increment financing, they would be asking for tax exempt housing revenue bonds to finance the project. Since the August meeting, the Conference Committee of the U. S. House & Senate met and issued the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Out of that report came a change in rent restrictions that will be imposed on tax exempt housing revenue bonds for multi-family housing projects. Under the old law 20% of the units had to be set aside for persons whose income did not exceed 80% of the median. Under the new law, the developer will have a choice. They can set aside 20% of the units for persons with incomes that do not exceed 50% of the median or they can set aside 40% of the units for persons whose incomes do not exceed 600 of the median. She stated they are proposing average rents of $585/month. If they have to meet the 50% median requirement, that means 20% of their units cannot rent for more than $438/month (2 bedroom). If they go to the 60% median requirement, then 40% of the units cannot rent for more than $526/month (2 bedroom). With average rents of $585 for one-two-three bedroom units, they obviously are projecting rents far in excess of the restricted rents that would be applicable for tax exempt financing. The rent question becomes very important because the City of Fridley waslooking for a high quality, high amenitive housing project. Ms. Kuretich stated that in order for the developers to provide that level of quality and level of amenities, those rents are necessary. The City does not want a project of lesser quality with fewer amenities and the developer does not want to build that type of project. Ms. Kuretich stated the result of not being able to use housing revenue bonds was that they will be looking at using taxable bonds instead of tax exempt money. The interest rate on taxable bonds right now would be 1-12% higher than on tax exempt money. That means the project will be able to service less debt because the interest rate will be higher. They estimate that will be approximately $1 million less the developers can borrow and service on a taxable housing revenue bond. The net result was they are short about $1 million on project costs. Ms. Kuretich stated that in August they told the HRA they had approximately $1.2 million in financial project costs due mainly to soil correction costs. Now they are at $2.2 million because of the need for additional equity. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 11 1986 PAGE 11 The developers are proposing to provide additional equity cash for one-half of that $1 million gap or $500,000 and they are proposing to the HRA concept approval that the HRA would lend the other $500,000 to help make up that gap. This would bring the total loan amount to $1 ,334,000 on the basis of the t. She stated they did not increment projected to be produced by this projec like having to come back to the HRA, but this was a situation they could not have anticipated. Mr. Qureshi stated he wanted to remind the HRA that -they have taken the position in the past that their highest priority was the atCenter he Ci t area. He was advising the HRA that the concept they approved meeting was exactly the same as what they entered into with Mr. Lundgren. Now these developers are coming back asking for another $1/2 million of additional help up front. He was sure there would be a certain level of impact if they provide a higher level of assistance to this project than ect atoathe Lu nddghtisadvantage. project, and it potentially Put the Center City p j Mr. Lundgren was also faced with the same situation as this project was facing. Mr. Meyer stated he would be concerned that the HRA would offer a higher level of assistance to an apartmentconceivably gohide underhbecauserofiaylackaofnthehsame the Lundgren project could level of assistance. Mr. Yaffee stated that, as Ms. Kuretich had said, they did not want to have to come back before the NRA asking for additional assistance. They would like the HRA to look at their request and their change in circumstances. They are willing to share the cost equally and still pay it back. Ms. Kuretich stated that in terms of an actual risk of investment, the City was not taking a risk like the developer was. The developer loses their equity if the project is not successful. The City will be paid back in the form of real estate taxes. It was the second repayment they were talking about and she felt that put the terms of risk to the City in a little different light. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Newman if he had any comments. Mr. Newman stated this was a procedure that has been followed quite often (Lundgren project, Shorewood Inn project). As Ms. Kuretich had stated, it was probably a lesser degree of assistance than what the HRA has provided in other cases where they have given outright land write-down. They are nance bonds. The HRA would be paid as soon as menthe using tax revenues to fi taxes were paid; and in addition, the developers would be making pay on the note. They could compare this with the Woodbridge project which was the other extreme where the HRA is providing several million dollars in assistance. f HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 11 1986 PAGE 12 Mr. Qureshi stated that if the HRA wished to give more assistance than they authorized conceptually, Staff would like to go back and rework the numbers and come back with a recommendation, taking into account the feasibility of the Lundgren project and whatever else they could potentially be doing to treat the two projects more equally. If there was going to be a change in assistance, then both projects should be looked at. Ms. Kuretich stated they need to know by the first of December whether they will be able to get the level of tax assistance they need for the project. They need to have an amendment to the tax increment plan which provides for the bonding for this project by the City Council by that date. That was one of the conditions on the purchase of the land. Mr. Rasmussen stated that philosophically he had a problem with this request for additional funding and felt a decision should be made at this meeting. Ms. Linda Fisher stated they did get conceptual approval by the HRA at the August meeting for a level of assistance in the amount of $850,000, and they had proceeded on that basis. Now they have to request a different level of assistance due solely to a change in the tax law. Obviously, it would have been their preference to get a similar concept decision this evening from the HRA on the new request, but it appeared the HRA had some desire to look at this further before making a positive recommendation. Ms. Fisher stated that if the HRA had any interest in pursuing this request for additional assistance, either their request or some variation of that request, although time was of the essence, she believed they could work with Staff to come back at the October meeting and maybe the HRA could make a final concept decision at that meeting. If Staff felt it was important to see how this request for additional assistance related to another project, hopefully that analysis could be done in the same timeframe, and they could then proceed to negotiate a new development contract, coming back to the Nov. 13th meeting. In the meantime, they could be making progress on the rezoning process. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO TABLE THE DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE ON THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE APARTMENT PROJECT UNTIL THE OCTOBER MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. AMENDMENT TO THE LIMITED REVENUE NOTE FOR THE 100 TWIN DRIVE-IN PROJECT: Mr. Newman stated that at the last meeting when the HRA approved the changes in the development agreement, the NRA had agreed that instead of incorporating the level of assistance in the development agreement, they would rather make changes to the note instead. He stated the numbers were the same, it was just a matter of form. He stated he would recommend approval of a resolution amending the limited revenue note. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 11 1986 PAGE 13 MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. NRA 18 1986. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. ESTIMATES: Mr. Robertson stated they had an estimate in the amount of $812.50 which was additional work to be done by Suburban Engineering providing additional specifics for those contracts which they are rebidding. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO APPROVE THE ESTIMATE OF $812.50 TO SUBURBAN ENGINEERING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. CHECK REGISTER: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER AS SUBMITTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Qureshi stated he wanted to remind the Commission members that a special joint conference meeting between the HRA and the City Council was scheduled for Tues. , Sept. 23, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to have interaction between the City Council and HRA to . develop an analysis and approach on how they want to expend funds they will have available in the near future for doing some project. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE SEPT. 11, 1986, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, pn�� 'L J'_' LyniW Sa a Recording Secretary i 1 PLANNING DIVISION 1 MEMORANDUM F FWDLEY R0: Jock Robertson, amunity Development M6MD MM: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator,-F-- MEMD DATE: October 3, 1986 R83MDING: Master Plan Presentation - University Avenue ODrridor Project On September 22, 1986, the Technical Advisory Camittee (T.A.C. ) reviewed a of the master plan prepared by Barton Aschman for the redevelopment University Avenue Corridor. Rhe presentation culminated a four monthresidents,effor by the group` Rhe T.A.C. , which consists of business people, county and state highway department representatives and staff, met a total of seven times in an effort to provide guidance and direction to the consultants. Rhe masterC.an was well received and generally considered to be responsive to the T.A.C. 's input. 7he primary components of the scheme include; highway landscaping, intersection resurfacing, median treatments, pfence removal e ov l an modif ication, key intersection treatments, and lighting. of the proposal is included in the attached minutes. A formal presentation by Barton Aschman has been tenatively scheduled for Rhursday, October 9, 1986 at the HRA's regular meeting. The intent is to have the City OouncilthPanning� � attend ting. If the HRA concurs with notices toll concerned. JLWlmn Nr86-248 1A CITY OF FRIDLEY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: ' Chairperson Schnabel called the September 23, 1986, Technical Advisory Committee rr meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Y {I ATTENDANCE: Virginia Schnabel, Chairperson Dick Harris, University Avenue Business Group Joy Otten, Holly Center Larry Kuechle, Sylvan Hills Duane Brown, MnDOT Bill Sironen, Anoka County Highway Department John Gargaro, University Avenue Business Jock Robertson, Community Development Department Jim Robinson, Planning Division Mvra Gibson, Planning Division Barry Warner, Barton-Aschman Associates Betsy Rauenhorst, Barton Aschman Associates Mr. Warner reviewed the work that had been done by the committee at their previous meetings and reviewed the goals as established by the group e committee to review at this Warner prepared a draft of a master plan for th meeting. The master plan is comprised of a number of different components including landscaping, surface treatments, median treatments, fencing, inter- section treatments on specific intersections, and lighting. Mr. Warner first discussed lighting. He stated that he had contacted NSF'. NSP will not install lights but will maintain lights after installed if of a standard design. The City would bear the cost of installation. NSP will maintain standard light products after installation, but light of a custom design would receive minimal maintenance such as changing bulbs and checkinC wiring. Damage would be a City cost. South of 69th where the median is narrow, a single pole with double lights could be used. North of 69th, twci nded that curb and separate light poles could be used. Mr. Warner recomme gutter be installed if median lights were installed. An alternative would be lights on the frontage roads. Mr. Warner reviewed the fencing which has been an issue particularly in the right of tea :. Generally the plan is to remove the fence in commercial areas. However, where the right of way is next to residential areas, the fence could be left for now but would be replaced over the years with a black vinyl fence. Mr. Warner noted that the treatments were concentrated at the intersections of 57th and 85th, which are considered the city's gateways, and at Mississippi ar,� Osborne which are major intersections. Other intersections would get smaller treatments. 1B _ PAGE 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 For surface treatments, Mr. Varner indicated that the grass needs improvement through reseeding or sodding, and providing better maintenance. He felt this could make a significant impression for the amount of the investment. Many of the improvements call for landscaping* Ms. Rauenhorst reviewed the landscaping• At 85th and 57th, s I brick gateway row of canopy trees is recommended with a double lining the street. t is l ss recommended that the City purchaseuse eacan canopy tree along5th and sroads. Osborne the road anderous trees for a grand .entrance. T hen ornamental trees t the entrances to the frontage work at the corners and a canopy o{ trees. At Mississippi would have brick Mississippi there is also a bicycle path rerouted and signavedksogtheyecan rs tbe walk across the street. Areas at intersections would bed paved uble row hof e canopy cleared of snow in the winter for pedeInrordersafety. screen residential areas. trees is recommended at Mississippi- require an easement a planting of coniferous trees is recommended. This ma}' and an agreement with residents to do so. In commercial areas, the trees are on spaced at 40 feet to allow visual access tobbusinesses.ickwork treesnteSouth lto at57th would have the same treatment as well would be trees and shrubs with a well maintained grass area. Ms. Rauenhorst distributed copies of the plant matrix for a phased tolerate reforestation plan. Tile canopy' trees are limited because trees must be able to tolerate the climate, salt and pollution. The shrubs were considered for flower and leaf color. Mr. Earner noted that University is a long corridor and that the committee lead been given a great deal of information. Hfencingslcurved zed elinear swalls naccented they recommended using brick column variation and includes by lighting. The plan tries to provide seasonal landscape plants that are hardy and require little maintenance. Mr. Earner added that MnDOT is concerned about Perhapssafety lawn treatmentT1in the medial, recommended going with a clean pp as much would be better than landscaping. He also recommended retaining visibility to businesses as possible. This also helps access to frontage roads. Mr. Earner also recommended ing stones areg the tage used at intersectat 57th ionsforward Eaone ch itnter- block. The interlocking paving st He felt that the section has their distinct intent tasrgoodoasethe visibility at night. visibility during the day would Mr. Warner distributed the preliminary construction cost estimates and reviewed the costs of the various options. He notutte=a ortdrainageates work. Theeestimates from 69th to 85th did not include curb, g n the upper side of the ranges. He felt the total cost of imp are o 5 .8 1Ohtins as illustrated would be about ts 1million. This did not include lig Ms. Schnabel requested questions and comments from the members. en Mr. Sironen indicated that there seems to have beenda0 of of concern givessfor clear zone. He felt however that at Mississippi consideration. and he expressed concern about the placement of trees close to those highways. to setbac m the Mr. Warner stated that in most counties ontiesrassixnow storagenand°adequate�visobility• curb is adequate. It providesspace 1C TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING, SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 PAGE 3 Ms. Schnabel indicated that the trees appeared to be on the curb line in the sketches. Mr. Warner stated that the trees are essentially in the middle of the boulevard or about six feet in from the curb. Mr. Robertson noted that these streets and highways are no longer in a rural setting but rather in an urban setting. Mr. Warner stated that for many abutting cross streets there are no sidewalks. He hoped the City would develop a sidewalk system as the areas are developed. Ms. Schnabel felt the plan addressed the concerns of the committee. She thought that the HRA has a future plan for addressing the drainage problem in the north portion of University so the water runoff can be piped elsewhere. The committee had discussed business people participating in the planning and fhoped that busithe bbusiness people would put their attention to landscaping. i y . will do some planning on their own. The concern at Holly Hregarding residents getting on and off the buses will be corrected througY� the brickwork and paving. Ms. Schnabel hoped that the City would work on clearing snot: to the bus sto,s. Sipe noted that essentially the fence would be removed from the east side of tlhc street where there are mainly businesses. Mr. Harris estimated the total cost to be approximately $3.0 to $3. 5 million if it were to include median lighting and water drainage for the ditch. Mr. Warner was notprepared to present an estimate for curb, gutter and drainage since this is not part of the proposal. Mr. Robinson felt the draft seemed like a simple and effective way to create a better image for the City and commended Barton-Aschman for a fine jot,. Ms. Schnabel felt the image for Fridley as perceived by the metro ocarea is less mat,e• than first class. She felt a good design would greatly help the She was pleased with the recommendation and felt the sconcerns ce ns were ile plan.addressed. She added that she had reservations about Mr. Warner stated that the master plan will continue as time goes ou. People take time to make constructive criticisms. A planis difficult ctor affecting visualize until actually seen. MnDOT is probably the biggest tile plan. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Brown what the plan does in terms of safety. Mr. Broin felt the plan was well done. He felt it could be very pleasing to those coming through the area. The safety setbacks are right. He expressed concern about the site setback at the intersections. Median and median barriers are another obstacle to be hit. They are costly haandd difficult part for Mtoj ustify' t Putting in curb and gutter is also costly. The they cannot commit funds for the work. He felt this was a good master plan for the City. The State has funds for Mississippi Street for next year or the year after for safety. When a master plan like this is done, the State some can work with the City to incorporate ideas and the State can then provide of the funding. ID TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING, SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 PAGE 4 Ms. Schnabel stated that residents need to know that some of the maintenance is done by individuals. Mr. Harris felt that the maintenance costs for the project could be.near $100,000 annually when including additional staff and equipment. Mr. Warner thought -this might be on the high side; but if plant replacement were included in maintenance, then he thought this figure might be on the low side. Visual quality costs money, but Mr. Warner felt it is gotten back. Mr. Harris asked, if should the City take over total maintenance of the area, could the City recover a portion of the maintenance costs from the State. Mr. Brown felt it was possible but could not give any amounts. Mr. Robertson indicated that I-694 is scheduled for construction late next year to widen the highway from a four-lane to a six-lane. He asked if University would also be changed. Mr. Brown stated that there may be some treatment on the ramps for metering but nothing major would be done. He also stated that the department has been able to replace trees that have been removed for construction. Ms. Schnabel requested that the Russian olives be replaced with something else. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Warner if he felt the median lighting and frontage road lighting were two separate items and which he preferred. Mr. Warner felt it was contingent on what the City wanted for the dollar and what meets MnDOT specifications. He thought the abutting properties would benefit more from frontage road lighting than from median lighting. However, from an image standpoint, the median lighting would be more effective. Mr. Robinson felt median lighting would emphasize the corridor. While frontage road lighting would emphasize co=un itv. Mr. Robertson stated that the City Council was enthusiastic about the light dramatizing the corridor. In terms of visual effect, would it still be a dramatic effect even on the frontage roads. Mr. Warner felt the biggest thing would be appeal to roadside businesses in addition to helping with security and dramatizing businesses. Lighting in residential areas would require "a special treatment. Ms. Schnabel felt that lighting in the median would add to the tunnel effect. She felt lights along the frontage roads would help "widen" the appearance of University Avenue. Mr. Robertson liked the frontage road lighting. He asked how to handle the intersections where the frontage road switches back to the holding lane capacity. It TECNvICAL ADVISORY CO!yL*fITTEE MEETItiG, SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 PAGE S Mr. Earner stated that theye to re but nalso efrontage that the road exists emphasize theaccessFor and minimize the number of accesses safety of lights in the median, Mr. Warner rrassumed an urban design with curb and gutter. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Broin stated that MnDOT is using break away poles through the area. More problems have arisen where the poles have fallen into the roadway on: impact which is a hazard for on-coming traffic. Mr. Robinson asked if they were allowed without a jersy barrier, which is a built up or reinforced barrier. ic levels nd Mr. Brown stated that all areas he knew of wHehfelt lthat lar tfor faesthetics athe speed limits have used the jersey barrier. City would probably want to accent the frontage roads. He noted that the show it is not justified to put in median lighting night time accident records for safety. Mr. Robinson mentioned a the traffic level reaches a certain nunber.lightingy showing that median helps reduce accidents when Mr. Brown was not aware of the study. osed Ms. Otten liked the looks of the pr op bike traffic improvements a p However,plMs. Ottenan. She fdid not understandelt the bus how d t�ow the project would be financed and how the work would be done. Mr. Kuechle also liked the plan. It provides access to bus shelter. hSofelt the areas are very narrow so there isn't much work that can be done, buttrees looked good. He felt maintenance was important tinand the that the cosperation of the residents was needed. He also suggested smaller trees. Mr. Warner invited members to take a closer look at the drawing of the plan. Ms. Schnabel hoped that Mr. Warner would make the same presentation for the HRA at their meeting on Thursday, October 9, at 7:30 p.m. She stated that the City Council will also attend and invited committee members to attend also. Ms. Schnabel stated that primary funds at this point appear to be coming from HRA. They will take this on as a redevelopment project. The amount they are ey going to spend is not know attenlyearmperiod. SThere eare lfunds availabled not know if for would make a commitment forwould improvements including water runoff. In terms of maintenance, the City need to address these costs and work that into their budget. Ms. Schnabel thanked the members of the Technical Advisory Committee for their time and efforts in helping to develop this master plan. Meeting adjourned at 9t4U a.m. Respectfully submitted, C Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary 2 September 19 , 1986 Mr. Jock Robertson City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Lake Pointe Corporate Center Dear Jock: I am writing to you to express a couple of concerns which have arisen in connection with the planning of the Lake Pointe Corporate Center. First, as we have discussed, I am concerned about the potential impact of the City's proposed design for the Moore Lake intersection on the Lake Pointe Corporate Center development as shown on the existing site plan. I have spoken with the architects for Lake Pointe Corporate Center about the progress they are making in determining exactly what impact this intersection design will have on our site plan. They inform me that the impact is substantial and that they are proposing to perform a yield analysis for all of the buildings in the development in order to determine the ultimate method which should be used to modify the site plan and/or to ameliorate the potential adverse impacts of the intersection design on the overall development. Preliminary indications from our architect's analysis indicate that a number of buildings may have to be reconfigured and relocated as well as the possible relocation of some retention areas. The architects were unable to give an exact time frame within which we could receive their recommendations but indicated that the yield analysis will take approximately a week to ten days to complete. After they have completed this preliminary analysis they will be able to ascertain the extent of the impact on the entire development and to develop a time table for making any modifications necessary to resolve these planning problems. �1cxxlhndt, Pro�v-rti(-. In( • 3_'() %%cx)dhridve Plaza • 10251 %%J•-jaT.+ E3 ,u� ..+ r+ '�linrr r„n�. Mnvw•v,;, SS i�; iF 1. 541-1f� n 2A A second concern which I wish to communicate to you involves the Highway 65 right-of-way turn back parcel located in the northeast corner of the development project. As you may be aware, the development site plan presently prepared for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center includes this parcel, which I understand is presently owned by the City. In a recent discussion with John Flora of the City I received indications that the City might not be willing to convey that piece of property to us for development purposes. A failure on the part of the City to convey this piece would also have a serious adverse impact on our ability to develop in accordance with the site plan as it now exists. I hope that this merely constitutes a misunderstanding and that we will be able to work out a solution to this problem. Sincerely, Eric W. Nesset Director of Construction EWN/slw cc: Dave Weir ��irrit.+iri. Pr ;r rti� .. In, 3_0 %%oodhridge Plaza • 1o2o1 Na%zata Boule.ard • Mrnnetonka. Minnrx)ta 55343 1612, 541-1(K)(1 2B K7 CITYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY.MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE(612)571-3450 October 2, 1986 David R Weir Wooubriage Properties Inc. 320 Woodbridge Plaza 10201 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, M 55343 RE: Lake Pointe Oorporate Center Lear Mr. Weir: I am writing to respond to Eric Nesset's letter of September 19, 1986 as well as to the telephone conversation that you had with David Ne*Tan on September 25, 1986. You raise basically three issues. First of all, there is the question about the funding for state aid roads. Under this program, the City does not directly receive compensation from the State for the construction of a road. Rather, the City receives funding under a formula which is based upon the percentage of roads within the City which meet the standards for state aica. It 20% or more of the roads located within the municipality are state aid, then the City will receive the maximum amount of f unding available. These monies when they are received are then placed in a general fund with the City and are used for maintaining City streets. Due to the fact that certain criteria must be met in order for a road to be eligible for state aid funding and also the fact that most of the City is now aeveloped, it is important to the City that when possible, new streets s n be City be eonstructea to state aid standards. It has been the City p lan since 1983 to construct a road on the subject development in accordance with state aid standards. In addition, last year we obtained a state aid number for the road planned for construction on this site. 11he construction of Lake Pointe Drive to state aid standards is necessary for the City to continue to receivoe tmhaxi Cum state ao funding.o n of ter,costs o f no direct reimbursement construction of this road. 2C David R. Weir October 2, 1986 Page 2 In conjunction with the state aid standards,ability was to construe the buildings proposed road would seriously impact Yourou will find a site which you have proposed for building site A. Ena of the closed Y understanding that plan which I recently received f ran Jerry Sonde• It is my of the yellow lire is Jerry's "conservativeshows the actual meted whereoSII�rnow te the proposed road. the line in gr _ proposes�the road to be plaoEh have your constitutes this and to adv iselme as of the road's location. Please Y to the impact of this new location. the orange line is a rough estimation ouw�enote�even if thearoad had located as it was drawn on the plat• en your drive-in parking been constructed exactly as contemplated on the plat, yo I certainly do not facility would still be encroaching on the roadway• believe that this slight shifting to the east of the road should cause serious impact to your Development. MD date. the only development for this site which has been approved by the 9does HRA is a two story office building. The attached plan drawingattached t the constitute a slight variation from the concept P you wish to construct Developnent Agreement. Once you have determined what y on this site# you will reed to have it reviewed by the HRA if it constitutes a deviation from the exhibits contained in the original Development Agreement. located along Highway 65. At You also inquired about the turnback property located whether or not there are this time we have not had an opportunity from deeding any deed restrictions on the property which prohibits the City this property over to You. Assuring that there are no suchi berneeded by there is still the question about how much of this property ts to Highway 65. the City when it makes the required intersection e staff en at thisme. As Both of these items are under consideration by approved for the intersection soon as the engineering has been oampleted and ap'Pr ssibil ity of improvement to Highway 65, then we can review with you the po conveying a portion of this turnback property to you. Dave, I hope that this answers same of your questions. I certainly do not believe that any of these problems are insurmountable and �� that of our we can achieve a mutual resolution with a dlworking relationsort hip and a successful We look forward to a continuing goo Development. Sincerely, J .R Jock Robertson, Director Community Development JLR/lmn C-86-456 LL 0 . exi P �i►�iC.s -- smvx&-"conjors "est rn �►zc,c.i�� keir2S� Xlffrl ! / \ �.G LAN DrIlVE-TIMU�JkNK lu 2 STORY ' IN -.4 V41 Mi •�.�•• - -' - .. .__ -77 . ��� •_moi ItETEI{TION _• zt 14. LAJa,= %QTtVl—r— �)14( xtli "ACV •.,� aora�c o:�Rc_�r:� i G �N 27 HCP 892 (BUILDI \\ \ J i NG ..A.. AREA ) a •�l ki r � i iI • ..fes i� Q 894 f r �r SAIM1PSON, N1EAVIILANT &- HERRICK9 LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW David P. Newman September 23 , 1986 Mark A. Sampson Lon Ai. Erickson James D. Phillips Of Counsel Virgil C. Herrick Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority Fridley City Hall Civic Center 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Lake Pointe Partnership Dear Commission Members: On September 17 , 1986 , I received a phone call from an attorney who represents one of the potential lenders to the Lake Pointe Partnership. His purpose in calling me was to inquire about the HRA' s interpretation of the subordination conditions contained in the Contract for Private Redevelopment etweenyLake Pointe and the HRA. In particular, he inquiring about our interpretation of Section 8. 2 of the Agreement. Attached you will find a copy of this Section. Simply, his question was whether or not it was the intent of the HRA to truly subordinate the terms of the RedevvelopmentAgreement to any financing mortgage which is necessary for the constion of the improvements . In other words , if there is foreclosure is the under the mortgage and the lender takes back the property, edevelopment Agreement. property still bound by the terms of the R you will note that Section 8 . 2 states that "the Authority agrees to subordinate its rights under this Agreement to the holder of a mortgage for the purposes described in Section 8 .1 of thin fact, Agreement. " An interpretation of this Section is that, by agreeing to subordination you are agreeing that a lender would have priority over your interest in the property. I have discussed this matter with Jim O' Meara, one of the original negotiators of this Agreement. He agreed that theiorit intent would be for the holder of the mortgage to have a priority interest over the HRA. Part of the reason why this language was put in is because if this was not provided for, it would be extremely difficult for the developer to find a lender who would be willing to provide the necessary financing for the development. Suite 205, 6401 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432, 612-571-3850 2G The attorney for the lender asked me to discuss this with the Staff and to provide him with an informal opinion as to our position. It would be my recommendation that we inform the lender that it is our intent that this be a true subordination. The lender' s attorney indicated to me that if we are unwilling to indicate our willingness to subordinate at this time, that the lender may still decide to finance the project and take the risk of fighting with us on the subordination issue later on. However, since it was the original intent to subordinate the Agreement to the mortgage, I would recommend that we indicate this to the lender since it is in our mutual interests to aid the developer in obtaining his financing. I would also like to review with you briefly the options that would be available to you in the event the mortgage went into foreclosure. When foreclosure occurs, the property owner has a period of time in which he can redeem. This time period is usually six or eight months . If the property owner elects to redeem, then he usually is required to payoff the mortgage, together with all related foreclosure costs . In this instance, redemption by the property owner would not effect the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. In other words, the developer would likely obtain new financing to payoff the old mortgage, and the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement would continue in effect. The other option is if the property owner were not to redeem. The procedure that would need to be followed by the HRA in this instance would have to be carefully examined. For the purpose of this letter , I have only conducted a cursory review. Upon commencement of foreclosure, the HRA could make a bid for the property at the sheriff ' s sale . The amount that would be necessary to be bid would probably be the amount owed under the mortgage, plus accrued interest, plus foreclosure costs incurred to date . Upon the HRA doing this , one of two things would happen. First of all , the property owner could subsequently redeem. In so doing , the HRA would be refunded for the amount paid to the mortgage holder . In such an event, the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement would continue. The other option is that the property owner would not redeem. In this event, the HRA would become the fee owner of the property and , of course, the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement would continue. In summary, I believe that the subordination language of the Redevelopment Agreement is quite straight-forward and that there is little benefit to the HRA in not cooperating with the lender . In the event that the mortgage did go into foreclosure, if the HRA wished at that time to continue to enforce the terms of this Agreement, it could bid for the property at the sheriff ' s sale. By doing so, it would be able to keep in effect the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. incere�y yours, DPN:JJH Davi ewman Attachment cc: Jim O'Meara (Attachment) cc: Jock Robertson (Attachment) cc: Nasim Qureshi (Attachment) ARTICLE VIII Financin 8.1. Financin of Minimum Im rovem p�cel orior to and Redevelopers the s a Section arrangement for condition to the Authority's conveyance o the Phase of an Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority improvements (taking into financing sufficient for construction of the Phase I imp If the Authority tl committed and adequate in amount mnshall account equity monies that will be prTovided by the Redeveloper). finds that the financing is sufficiently improvements, then the Authority provide for the construction r the of itshase approval. Such approval shall not be notify the Redeveloper in writing approval or rejection shall be given unreasonably withheld or delayed and either app is rovided the evidence as inadequate, within thirty (30) days froAmuthe ho tytr rejects the evidence of financing event the of such financing. If the the basis for the rejection. In any it shall do so in writing specifying with thirty (30) days after Redeveloper shall submit adequate evidence of financing such rejection. Section 8.2. Subordination and Modifica for the conson for the truction enef In of het Of rPhg Phase In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing the Redeveloper, the Authority agrees to subordinate its rig improvements by a for the purposes described in under this Agreement to the holder of a mortl further agrees to execute such Agreement. The Authorrity q instruments as the holder of such mortgage Section 8.1 of this Agr may re uice to effectuate the purposes of this section. ' n with the acquisition of the Section 8.3. Financing of Authority Acquisitions. In order to finance al or S cost connection a portion of the Authority s o ment Property, the Authority intends tet shalltbe conditioned he Revenue oupon the ftedevel p obligations of the Redeveloper under this Agreem Authority's sale of the Revenue Bond on or before December 31, 1985• able to the roceeds of the Revenue Bond remain vt 1lParcel, the In the event that p urchase of the Opt Authority subsequent to the Authority's p to utilize any such proceeds to improve the intersection of Trunk Authority agrees Highway 47 and West Moore Lake Drive within the City- SUNINUT Nz:�4 TAX E.TIM17 L.P.11 /t '�, October 1, 1986 Mr. Louis Lundgren 1140 Minnesota Bldg. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: $8,100,000 Construction and Permanent Financing of a Multifamily Residen- tial Rental Development known as Fridley Plaza Apartments, located in Fridley, Minn. , containing 124 apartment units, and related facilities ("the Improvements") Dear Mr. Lundgren: We are pleased to advise you that, subject to the terms hereinafter set forth, we have approved your application for a loan (the "Loan") in the maximum sum of $8,100,000. The Loan is to be made to you (the "Borrower") and shall be advanced for the construction of the Improvements. The Improvements shall be completed on or before March 31, 1988. The Loan is to be evidenced by a note or bond to be issued by the appropriate government authority and to be purchased by us (the "Note") in the above-stated amount and shall be secured by a mortgage on (a) the Improvements and (b) the land (the "Premises") on which the Improvements are to be located and by an Assignment of Bents and Leases. The Note shall acture on Decenber 1, 2006 (the "Maturity Date"), but may, at our option, be called by us at any time after 12 years on six months' prior notice. She Loan shall be further secured by an acceptable construc- tion completion guarantee and an acceptable operating deficits guarantee. Prior to completion of construction, the Loan shall bear interest at the per annum rate (computed on the basis of a 365-day year for the actual number of days outstanding) of 108. Completion of construction shall be deemed to occur when all requirements of the project loan documents have been satisfied. Interest shall be due and payable in arrears on the first day of the first nonth following the ini- tial disbursement of proceeds of the Loan, on the first day of each and every month thereafter and on the Maturity Date. The principal of the Loan, together with any accrued interest thereon, shall be payable on the Maturity Date. Subsequent to the eempletion of construction, the Loan shall bear fixed inter- est at the per annum rate (ccvWted on the basis of a 365-day year for the actual number of days outstanding) of 94 for the first eighteen months, payable monthly in arrears, together with contingent interest as described in the immediately succeed- ing sentences. Borrower shall pay as contingent interest 25% of the remaining cash flow or net sale or refinancing proceeds except in no event shall we receive a return in excess of 168 (including fixed interest). Beginning in the nineteenth month after construction eoWletion, the loan shall bear fixed interest at the per 625 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y 1002 212-421.5333 SPONSORED BY AFFIUATkS OF THE RELATED COMPANIES,INC.AND PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES,INC. 3A annum rate (curputed on the basis of a 365-day year for the actual number days out- standing) of 88, payable monthly in arrears, together with contingent interest as described in the immediately succeeding sentences. Borrower shall pay as contin- gent interest 1008 of cash flow, as defined below, or net sale or refinancing pro- ceeds, until we have received a cumulative return of 98 per annum. Unpaid contin- gent interest up to 98 shall accrue and be paid from first available cash flow. After we have received such cumulative 98 return, Borrower shall pay 258 of the remaining cash flow or net sale or refinancing proceeds except in no event"shall we receive a cumulative return in excess of 168 (including fixed interest). ash flow" means all cash receipts from the operation of the project, including invest- ment income on any reserves held by the project, less the operating expenses of the project. "Operating Expenses" means all actual costs, fees and expenses of opera- tion, maintenance and management of the project (including, without limitation, amounts paid for taxes, insurance, salaries, repairs, utilities, and all other costs, fees and expenses incident to the operation, maintenance, and management of the project except for contingent interest, reserves for replacements and fees which may be deferred if not available from cash flow for the project. "Net sale and refinancing proceeds" means, in the event of a sale (meaning a sale or other disposition of the project or the sale or the disposition of more than 508 equity interest in the entity which owns the project), the sales price of the project net of all costs of the sale or, in the case of a refinancing, the net proceeds of such refinancing. On payment of the loan, such net proceeds shall be deemed to be the amount that would be realized if the project were sold on such date for its appraised fair market value. In consideration of our issuing this commitment, Borrower agrees to pay us a 18 commitment fee, which commitment fee shall be earned by us on the Borr'ower's acceptance of this commitment and approval of final documents and shall be payable to us one-half upon acceptance of this commitment and approval of final documents and one-half on the closing of the Loan. An additional fee equal to 38 of the Loan shall be due at the closing of the Loan. Zhe Ivan will be due and payable upon sale or refinancing of the project. Prepayment, in whole or in part, will be prohibited during the first five years of the Loan. Prepayment in whole will be permitted thereafter subject to the payment of a premium equal to 58 of the principal amount of the Loan outstanding at the time of prepayment, if prepaid during the sixth year. lbereafter, the premium shall be reduced by 18 per year. We may require prepayment of the Ivan upon the occurrence of an event of taxability. Subordinate financing will be permitted only with our prior written approval. Borrower will be required under the loan documents to own, manage and operate the project continuously as "residential rental property" meeting the requirements of Section 103(b) (4) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code. All of our obligations hereunder are subject to the terms hereof and subject to the Borrower's continued compliance with the terms and conditions herein set forth and (i) the receipt by us at or prior to the closing of (a) 1008 payment and performance bonds arra an acceptable construction om pletion guarantee executed by 3B an acceptable guarantor= and (b) an acceptable operating deficits guarantee in the amount of $810,000 executed by an acceptable guarantor= the operating deficits guarantee shall expire on the sooner of thirty-six months from completion or upon three consecutive months of achievement of a minimum of $93,400 in monthly rental collections and (ii) satisfaction of the General Conditions annexed hereto and made a part of this commitment. This commitment is subject to our review and approval of final plans and specifications for the improvements. This commitment and our rights and obligations and those of the Borrower here- under shall be construed under the laws of the State of New York. If this oommmitment and the General Conditions annexed hereto are satisfactory, please indicate your acceptance thereof by executing and returning to us a copy of this commitment within seven (7) days from the date hereof. If you fail to do so, this commitment will, at our option, be of no effect. Yours very truly, SUMMIT TAX F-XEMPr L.P. 11 By: Related Tax Exempt Bond Associates II, Inc. By: 2,4 D. Qrry lunson Agreed to and accepted by the undersigned this day of . 1 • HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWERENCE COMM ERS,CHAIRMAN JOHN MEYER DUANE PRAIRE WALTER RASMUSSEN VIRGINIA SCHNABEL ECITY OF FRIDLEY 70: CHAIRMAN CDMMER.S AND ARA CDMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: 44SAMNTRA ORLUM, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ACQUISITION OF RICE PLAZA DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1986 Since the negotiations began with Lou Lundgren regarding the possible redevelopnent of the southwest quadrant of University Avenue and Mississippi Street, there has been considerable concern expressed by Mr. Fred Levy about acquisition of his Rice Plaza Shopping Oenter. Ms. Robert Levy has been present at HRA meetings to present his contention that the proposed development has adversly affected the businesses within the Plaza and his father's ability to rent vacant space. On more than one occassion, Mr. Levy has explained to the HRA that if action is not taken very soon by the HRA to acquire Rice Plaza, it is the intent of Mr. Fred Levy to f ile suit against the HRA. At the September 23, 1986 joint meeting of the ARA and the City Council, this issue was discussed and members of the HRA expressed concern that without assurances that Lundgren's project or an alternate project will, in fact, became a reality, the HRA did not want to acquire Rice Plaza and become a landlord with all the problems that result from ownership of rental property. Noting the BRA's hesitancy to acquire the site, members of the City Council were supportive of the Rice Plaza acquisition based on the likelihood of future development in the southwest quadrant and the current possibl ity of acquiring the property at a reasonalbe price. Due to the uncertainty of the Lundgren project, no further action has been taken by staff in negotiating with the owner of Rice Plaza. As it stands now, staff will not proceed any further with W. Fred Levy until such time that the HRA decides what course of action is to be taken. Since the acquisition of Rice Plaza was tabled at the last meeting, it has been placed on the October 9, 1986 agenda. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571-3450 FRIDLEY, MN EXT. 117 5 PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM CITY OF FRIDLEY Jock Robertsons OmInuni.ty Development Director MEND FROM: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator AZI . MED TATE: October 3, 1986 RDSIWIM: Summary of Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Meeting of September 30, 1986 Regarding University Avenue Apartments Zhose Present: Foundation: City Staff: Developer: Phyllis Forsberg Jock Robertson Ken Belgarde Judi Janiak Jim Robinson Linda Fischer Kathy Kemper Siah St. Clair Bob Mueller Dave Langworthy Karen Shanberg Soott Englund Dick Schabert Ed Meyer Vern Moen Lenny Nbore Doyle Mullin Jan Seeger Lia Fischer presented a concept proposal for a 358 unit apartment complex Linda east of the Nature Center. 7he quality of the development in terms of architectural elements, amenities and landscaping was stressed. On site, FA nding was described as having dual purpose, both aesthetic and functional. Drainage through the Nature Center would be maintained, both in quality and quantity. Mr. Dick Schabert of Harry Johnson Surveyors presented a terming scheme designed to minimize the impact of the development on the Nature Center. Mr. . Schabert had personally walked the eastern border of the Park with Mr. St- Clair and had located existing trees and the Nature Center trail. Schabert's terming plan called for the use of both devel opmWnt and Nature re rally Center property. these areas of encroachment on the pa for points of approved by,Mr. St. Clair. Berming would be continuous except pedestrian ingress and drainage. Slopes were to be 2:1 on the development side and 3:1 on the Park side. Berm heights ranged ten to twenty feet at respective high points. Grading would be accomplished with sensitivity to siltation and unnecessary construction damage. Mr. Bob Mueller, Landscape Architect► presented a plan for landscaping the proposed berm. die design included rough ground cover on the park side, sod or seed on the development side, usiderstory shrubs, medium.and largezed overstory trees and massings of evergreens at key pointspathway barrier fence with two control gates into the Center were included on the development property. 5A i Jock Robertson October 3, 1986 Page 2 The foundation responded favorably to the developnent and the proposed buffer zone. Some difference of opionion was expressed as to the desirability of access into the Park f ran the apartments. Road access into the development from 85th Avenue on the north was discussed by staff. The possibility of utilizing thirty feet of Nature Center property (adjacent to YMCA land) was reviewed. The foundation was reluctant to consider the idea without some commitment from the YMCA as to their participation in the road and future plans. A motion was made by the Foundation, requesting staff further explore options with the YMCA. Staff informed the foundation that a public hearing on the rezoning and plat for this project would be held by the Planning commission on October 22, 1986. m1w om M--86-249 r i 6 PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM CITY OF FRIDLEY Wt) ZD: Jock Robertson, amunity Development Director MM EMM: Daryl Morey, planning Assistantivm MEND DATE: October 3, 1986 FIGARDING: Gerald Paschke's Ranchers Road Developnent I recently conducted an inspection of Gerald Paschke's development located on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, of rs Ro d).UI"fo d the following areas of concern ustrial Park (the same being 7940, 7980 and 8010 Rancher 1. On Lot 7, the screening of the parking lot and other plant materials have not been installed as per plan dated June 24, 1985. 2. On Lot 7, there are no handicapped parking signs to identify the two handicapped parking stalls. 3. On Lot 4, the landscaping to screen the parking lot and the loading cock has not been installed as per plan dated July 12, 1985. 4. On Lot 4, the handicapped ramp which connects the parking lot with the sidewalk appears to be inadequate in terms of width to accommodate a person in a wheelchair. Also, there are no handicapped parking signs to identify the two handicapped parking stalls. oot driveway 5. The two joint driveway agreemand a drivewayfeasement that easement between Lots 4 and 7, covers the westerly fifty feet of Lots 1, 2, 3► 4, 7 and 8, have not yet been recorded at Anoka County. Virgil Herrick' s secretary assured me that they would be recorded today. 6. Improvements to the holding pond on Lot 6, which was covered on a previous developnent agreement for Lots 3, 5 and 6, are still not competed. On January 9, 1986 the HRA released $33,000 of $43,000 for soil correction costs, with the stipulation thatCthr�enai�o $01c.OcuOp��iseleased issued. when the holding pond is completed and In February of 1986, the HRA released $13,500 (for Lot 7) of the $27,000 of assistance funds set aside in the contract between the HRA and Gerald Paschke for Lots 4 and 7. Rhe remaining $13,500 will be released when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for Lot 4. An inspection by the building inspector on septenber 2. 1986, revealed that the structure on Lot 4 is not ready for occupancy in that plumbing and other safety items are not yet installed. Final interior improvements are undoubtedly gaiting specific tenant dwwids. WVlmn M-86-247 AR:'ICLE III Land Transactions ; Undertakings of theAuthorit Section 3 . 1 . Transfer of the Development Property by the Authorit . (a) Purchase of Development Property. Subject to the provisions of paragraph ( b) of this Section 3 . 1 , within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement , the . Company, at its be eeshall Authority the Develop- ment Property to conveyed to (b) Conditions Precedent . The Authority ' s obliga- roerty tion to accept conveyance of the Development PCompany shall be contingent on the satisfaction a tisfcion by the of the following conditions precedent : ( i ) The Company shall be in material com- pliance with all the terms and provisions of this Agreement ; ( ii ) The Company shall have submitted Con- struction Plans , which shall have been app d by the Authority , pursuant to Section 4 . 2 of this Agreement . Section 3 . 2 . Conveyance of the Development Property ; Costs . (a ) Conveyance . The Au11° nterestty shall received by the Company by quit claim deed a pursuant to the Authority in the Development Property` P In connec- transfer thereof described in Section 3 . 1 • this Agree - tion with the transactions contemplated by ment , the Authority assumes no responsibilities respect- ing the title to the Development Property and the Authority shall not be liable to the Company for any defects therein , provided, however , that the Authority agrees not to cause whatevermeres it to may receive in the Development Property pursuant trans thereof referenced in Section 3 . 1 hereof to become en- cumbered prior to the any underethiseof tsubsection�evelcpment the Com Property to P (b) Conveyance the Set Aside . At the time eoff, the conveyance referenced in Section 3 . 2 (a) Authority shall set aside $27, 000 (the "Reserved Funds" ) , which funds shall remain funds of the Author- ity, subject to this Agreement. If the Authority issues the Certificate ofCompletion on on 4 ,the$13 , 500Mm f I he oRe- ments to be constructed 3 - 1 6B served Funds shall thereupon be paid to the Company, and if the Authority issues the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements to be constructed on Lot 7 , $13, 500 of the Reserved Funds shall thereupon be paid to the Company, and such payments shall then constitute a write down of the cost of Lot 4 and Lot 7 , respec- tively. If the Certificate of Completion for Lot 4 or for Lot 7 is not issued within 18 months of the date hereof , the Reserved Funds (or the portion thereof not theretofore paid to the Company pursuant to this Agree- ment ) shall no longer be subject to any provision of this Agreement, and the Authority may thereupon use the Reserved Funds for any other of its lawful uses . Until the issuance of the Certificate of Completion or until the expiration of 18 months following the date of this Agreement , whichever shall occur first, the Authority shall make no application, pledge or other use of the Reserved Funds, except as provided in this Agreement . (c) Costs . Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the Authority and the Company, the execution and deliv- ery of all deeds shall be made at the principal office of the Authority. All deeds shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded by the Company. The Company shall pay all costs for recording such deeds , if any. The Company shall also pay at closing all cost's incurred by the Authority for preparation of such deeds . t 3 - 2 6C sion of Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the Author- `" ity. Approval of the Construction Plans by the Author- ity shall not relieve the Company of any obligation to comply with the provisions of this Agreement or the provisions of applicable federal, state and local laws , ordinances and regulations , nor shall approval of the Construction Plans by the Authority be deemed to consti- tute a waiver of any Event of Default . (b) If the Company desires to make any change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the Authority, the Company shall submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval or rejection pursuant I to this Section . A proposed change in the Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected by Authority in writing statement within the 1Author Sty' submission thereof with a s reasons for such rejection. Section 4 . 3 . Commencement and Completion of Construc- tion. Subject to Unavoidable Delays , the Company shall commence construction of the withinm12 mdrove encs co be constructed on Lot 4 and Lot 7 on of this Agreement or on such other date as the Parties shall :mutually agree in writing . Subject to Unavoidable Delays , the Company shall have substantially completed the con- struction of the Minimum Improvements within 18 months of the date of this Agreement . Time lost as a result of Un- avoidable Delays shall not count against this 18 month period. Section 4 . 4 . Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum im- provements to be constructed on Lot 4 or Lot 7 , as the case may be , in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement , and upon written request :Wade by the Company, the Authc_ity will furnish the Compar.y with a Certi- ficate of Completion thereof , in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. That no Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing under the terms of this Agreement shall be a condition prece- dent to the issuance of the Certificate (or Certifi- cates , if issued separately for Lots 4 and 7 ) of Comple- tion. A Certificate of Completion shall be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the in this Agreement with respect agreements and covenants to the obligations of the Company to construct the Mini- mum Improvements covered by said Certificates . 4 - 2 bll (b) If Authorit de 4- ea * - 0 In issue t` Cert ; finarP of Comoletio the L. ues _arta n„a t e COm___D3nY", *,, � -'T..: *`on er t rr,P•, i ndi ��- nnenrriang-P with the de _ prdv, �, nna of this AQ eemert e Y 1C nTY1P "Ll GP � a.. Lll t n under thehprpundpr ) what mitation n n t meas r take or to obtain such Certificate of ompletion . i 4 - 3 6E i I I�OUS MAI • I°ARK ur� vE�s Y T . &T`f of FFro�tY TY f A The nt►Jh �e y^/ht Alwk 4' N SwY�yrste? •-Ot•btr� .R.•+ w..w+r•'T "t'' �Isl ha;an p wmtdblonns y^A�td•Se'2rW. I � 1 M \\ `--- - rr"'+RT" Lr.+• of TMfc rAO(M•+fy'f'14 .f •{++E h.vrww*v{ .14 't '�• —1b1.b1— f �' � TS C t •�. _--_-- »V tV , r DDi P I N •r "� '41 Zp 10 to t I I Ivi [b11.1 y � � 20000 tot w1 "�: ZS 1S r �' N r9•ts'ss•1J ; I �`; j r�6.1.2•>66 W 1 h Z RC1 � � - i •7 s � ; ui h� � '� H 4 � �I •1 r N�•K. -✓ f i ..NH —�r7C` •- 249 J4 4 6c• –1•-- _a M I o �� _ 200-00 - 20i.99- 0 I� 5'A ••+L` :r• .. I 24�Iw I r:' s0000 ?0199 .e K� •r _ i I o f 1 c' Vc 5 tt•9W. too 00 dw41 .c s.' N rrts ss'N •+s9'2s y6�J J J. 4 • N' eid IV* ., 4p Of ---!_+' Orr s$A 03 ly -_ �• z zzz de = r -,��..•., � —ftp;._ — s 7 RESCLUTION NO. HRA---1986 RESCL[TTION AUTHORIZI% 7HE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR SOIL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR 7HE DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENM Wim, the Contract for Private Redevelopment and Addendum relating thereto between the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") and the Lake Pointe Investment Company (the "Development Agreement") requires that the Authority provide public improvements, including soil correction and landscaping for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center; and WHEREAS, ' the services of Subterranean Engineering Corporation were initially retained by Woodbridge Properties to do preliminary soil borings and analysis for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center site; and WHEREAS, the Authority supports the continued use of Subterranean Engineering Corporation to provide soil and engineering support for the project; and WHEREAS, Subterranean Engineering Corporation has identified total contract costs not to exceed $49,000; and WHEREAS, the Authority, via the Development Agreement, accepts an additional amount of $812.50 incurred by Subterranean Engineering Corporation for plans, specifications and meetings associated with the readvertising for the demolition and grading project. 7HEREMRE, BE IT RESCLVED, that the Commissioners of the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority do hereby authorize the execution of an Agreement with Subterranean Engineering Corporation for soil and engineering support for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center project, the services of which are not to exceed $49,000 and do further agree to pay $812.50 for services rendered by Subterranean Engineering described herein. The Om nissioners hereby authorize the Chairman and the Executive Director to execute the same on behalf of the Authority, with such additions and modifications as those officers may deem necessary. PASSED AND ADDPTED BY THE FRIDLEY HCUSING AND REDE'VE LOpMENT AU7HORITy THIS _ DAY OF , 1986. LAKERE NCE CDMMERS, CHAIl M., ATMT: JOHN L. "JOCK" RCBERTS(N EXECUTIVE MRE TOR 0o A - DIRECTORATE o.• •.0 OF 0d o PUBLIC WORKS 1 , CITYOF MEMORANDUM FR! XEY : Nasim Qureshi, City Manager Pw 259 a ,,// P704: Jahn G. F1orajl Public Works Director SUBJECT: Subterranean Engineering Corporation Contract DATE: September 3, 1986 I have received a letter frau the Subterranean Engineering Corporation president to provide soil and engineering support for the development of the Lake Pointe Corporate Center. Subterranean Engineering was initially retained by Woodbridge Properties, Inc. to do the preliminary soil borings and analysis for the site development. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to utilize this consultant to continue the soil analysis and overview the soil work for the public imrovenents as identif ied in Schedule C of the HRA Agreement. 7he letter contract identifies the work to be accomplished with a not to exceed amount of $49,000.00. In addition to that amount,the HRA via the Woodbridge Agreement has an additional requirement of $812.50 for the plans and specifications and meetings associated with the readvertising for the Demolition and Grading Project. I would recommend that the HRA pay the existing bill of $812.50 to Subterranean Engineering Corporation and by letter accept the contract dated August 26, 1986 for an amount not to exceed of $49,000.00. JGF/ts -� 1- - 7B CompanleS SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. professional solutions to your soil engineering needs Job No. X-85077 August 21, 1986 PIr. John Flora, Director of Public Works City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Plinnesota 55432 re: lake Pointe Corporate Center 1-694 b Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, Plinnesota Dear PIr. Flora: The purpose of this letter is to further clarify Subterranean's role on this project , so that we may be issued a contract for the earthwork monitoring services that will be required cormiencing about Aug. 26Lh, 1986. " To date Subterranean Eigineering has done very comprehensive testing and analysis of the entire property to be developed, including both building and roadway areas. Our total fees billed to date were $ 34,646,65, of which $ 33,834,15 has already been paid by Woodbridge Properties. Work to be done by us in the future (conmencing next week) is monitoring and Lesting of earthwork and fill placement for buildings, internal roadways and utilitV lines; and providing engineering consultation regarding specific site or construction conditions as needed. On Play 28, 1986 we submitted to you our proposal letter for the earthwork and testing services, based on unit rates of our Schedule of Charges - 1986. We also provided a not to exceed figure of $ 48604. , on the assumption that the entire site would be soil corrected in 1986. s � 575 Highway 65 N.E P.O Box 32308 Minneapolis. MN 55432 (612) 574.1242 '03 Nicollet Ave So. Burnsville. MN 55337 (612) 8906510 2 7C We now understand that only Phase 1 earthwork will be done in 1986, and the balance of the job will be completed in the spring of 1987. For all work in calendar 1986 our submitted unit prices still apply. For 1987 we reserve the right to modify these figures as necessary, based on insurance rate changes, inflation factor, etc. However in any event our total charges for the project scope as we presently understand it will not exceed $ 49000. We trust that this provides the information you requested, and look forward to the opportunity of working with you and the developers on this important project. Respectfully submitted, SUBTERRt1NEAN ENGINEERING CORP. Mervyn r1iruless, 1'.E. President Distribution: 2 cc W. John Flora, City of Fridley 2 cc IIr. Eric Nesset, Woodbridge Properties . 1 t _ -SUBTERRANEAN - ENGINEERING UBTERRANEANENGINEERING CORP. x MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 7J MP rempanfes SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. professional solutions to your soil engineering needs SCHEDULE of CHARGES - 1986 Date &405.T. ?1, 1986 This SCHEDULE OF CHARGES shall apply to the following : LAYe NN*a Gcppfo .Cclti;-w . 1-. 69.4. 2 Aiy- . 65. N.E . RipLi-Y �'�►� N Esa FEES 4 Seil Inspector , travel , on-site observation and testing , soils laboratory testin, ei field density samples from this project . . . S 41 . 50/hour Travel to and from job site . . . S 0. 39/mile Soil Engineer reviewing and directing inspector ' s work . $ 48 . 00/hour ADDITIONAL SOIL LABORATORY TESTS TO SUPFLE`IENT THE INSPECTOR ' S WORK Standard Proctor Compaction Test , ST`I D-698 . . . . . . $ 52 . 40/test �Iodified Proctor Compaction Test ,AST`I D-1557 S 61 . 00/test Sieve analysis . . . . . . $ 26 . ''3/test Washed gradation . . . . . . S 31 . 50/test Unconfined compression test . . . . . . S �G. 00/test California Bearin- Ratio Test . . . . . . S1=.5 . 00/test Nuclear `loisture-tensity Test . . . . . . $ 15 . 50/test Im. 6 mut. Dimities for Relative Dxisity detenrdnaticn . . . . . . $ 90. 00/test INVOICES Invoic will be submitted monthly Payment is due upon receipt of invoice . Interest will be added beginning j0 days after the date of the invoice at the rate of 1 . 3% per month , but not to exceed the maximum rate by law. For extended projects , the billing rates as described in this contract may be increased on each anniversary of the date of this contract at an annual rate not to exceed 10% . 6875 Highway 65 N.E. P.O. Box 32308 Minneapolis. MN 55432 (612) 571.6066 12203 Nicollet Ave. So. Burnsville, MN 55337 (6I2) 890-6510 8 h CLAIMS 1506 - 1524 �r n a 19E6 HRA CONTRACTS DATE DATE CDNTRA"T CONTR;CTED ESTIMATE CHECK CITY HRA AWARDED CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ESTIMATES APPROVED DATE EST i -CHECK 1 CHECK 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ H00001 H i S ASPHALT 8-14-86 Phase 11 1986- 1 & 2 365,054.10 " ---------------------------- 365,054.10 0.00 P00065 Park. Cerstructior 6-14-E6 Sanitary Sewer.Prciect No. 162 188,100.00 ---------------------------- 166,100.00 0.00 E0:055 Enebal Construction Cospany 6-14-66 Der lition b Site 6-ading Nc. 163 978,00 .00 186,311.65 9-22-66 9-25-Bt EST. 1 10531 f 1521 ---------------------------- 976,000.0"! 188,71I.B5 Minneeota Valley Landscaping, Inc. 6-14-66 Irrigation 6 Lighting Project 1165 481,413.00 ---------------------------- 481,413.00 0.00 S0(,IOe ELLIDT & HEDRICKSCN, INC. 9-0c.-E6 Certra: Fie/ Highway Redesign 30,750.00 1,00E.98 2-07-86 14E4 1,731.OB 5-05-96 5-06-8c 795: • I52� 3,017.69 9-;,E-E6 9-12-E 10::7 + 15:: 843.44 10-6-66 10-v7-ct 1064; a 1522 246.06 10-9-Bt 10-10-6b 1515 ---------------------------- 30.750.00 6,847.47 S00024 SUNDE ENEINEER W Engineering/Inspectior; Services 7,745.11 9-22-86 9-11-86 EST.1 10532 + 1523 ------------------------ 7,745.1i + - Asounts to be reimburse: by the HRA this period r F 10-09"-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 1 FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA DESCRIPTION VENDOR INV. # AMOUNT 1506 ***CHECK PREPAID*** OLSON, SUNN AND SERAN $824. 21 JULY LEGAL SERVICES AND COSTS 1507 ***CHECK PREPAID*** HERRICK & NEWMAN $5,732.70 Ai:"GUST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1508 ***CHECK PREPAID*** SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. $812 .50 ENGINEERING SERVICES, SOIL REPORT #3 1509 ***CHECK PREPAID*** FRIDLEY STATE BANK $64,000.00 INVESTMENT 1510 ***CHECK PREPAID*** FRIDLEY STATE BANK $25,000.00 INVESTMENT 1511 ***CHECK PREPAID*** BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES $9,470.57 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR 1512 ***CHECK PREPAID*** ALLEN, MALCOM $11307.50 CONDEMNATION COMMISSIONER 1513 ***CHECK PREPAID*** ERICKSON, OLIVER $10283. 12 CONDEMNATION COMMISSIONER 1514 ***CHECK PREPAID*** HARRIS, DAVID $1,258.97 CONDMNATION COMMISSIONER 1515 ***CHECK PREPAID*** SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON $246.08 ENGINEERING SERVICES - CENTRAL .AVENUE REDESIGN 1516 ***CHECK PREPAID*** C.E. LASALLE & ASSOCIATES $3,437. 50 APPRAISAL SERVICES, 8/18/86 thru 8/29/86 1517 ***CHECK PREPAID*** SAMPSON, NEWMAN & HERRICK $1,981.00 SEPTEMBER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1518 ***CHECK PREPAID*** AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING $1,865 .98 PRINT OFFICIAL STATEMENTS 10-09-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 2 FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA DESCRIPTION VENDOR INV. # AMOUNT 1519 ***CHECK PREPAID*** ! OLSUN, GUNN AND SERAN $2,605. 76 LEGAL SERVICES AND COSTS THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1986 1520 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $17,812.71 RELOCATION OF 64TH AVENUE, PARKING LOT-SECOND HALF 1521 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $1881311.85 REIMBURSE CITY (CK 10531, FOR ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION) 1522 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRI.DLEY $5,592.41 REIMBURSE CITY (3 CHECKS FOR SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON)- 1523 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $7,745. 11 REIMBURSE CITY (CK 10532 , FOR SUNDE ENGINEERING) 1524 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $26,478.26 PERSONAL SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT (FOR AUGUST & SEPTEMBER) TOTAL CHECKS $365,766.23