HRA 09/11/1986 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986
7:00 P.M.
Rick Pribyl
Finance Director
k
09-11-86 CHECK REGISTER
PAGE 1
FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION VENDOR INV. #
***CHECK PREPAID***
1498 $19 ,000.00
KUTAK, ROCK & CAMPBELL
UNDERWRITER & BANK COUNSEL - ISSUE BOND
1499 ***CHECK PREPAID*** $18,500.00
O'CONNER & HANNAN
BOND COUNSEL FEE, COSTS - ISSUE BOND
***CHECK PREPAID***
1500 $16.685.00
FIRST TRUST, INC.
INITIAL TRUSTEE & ESCROW AGENT FEE - ISSUE BOND
***CHECK PREPAID***
1501 $3,500.00
GRANT THORTON
VERIFICATION - ISSUE BOND
1502 ***CHECK PREPAID*** $90,460.54
LAKE POINTE INVESTMENT COMPANY
REIMBURSMENT OF EXPENSES
1503
***CHECK VOIDED****
1504 ***CHECK PREPAID*** $621,000.00
NORMA JOHNSON & JERALD JOHNSON
CONDEMNATION OF JERALD JOHNSONOI
PROPERTY
NTE PROJECT)
1505 ***CHECK PREPAID***
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES $3,879.00
CONSULTANT FOR UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY
TOTAL CHECKS $773,024.54
ti
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AGENDA
HOUSING & REDLVE[,OPMENT AZFIfiORITY MEETING THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 11► 1986 7:00 P.M.
Location: Council Chamber (upper level)
CUL TO ORDER:
2V,L CALL:
g�P1 WAL OF 1� i
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes: Aug. 14, 1986
ApwriON OF AGE A:
UPDATE ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING 1
CENTER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REPORT
REGARDING
CotMM AND OUALITY OF DE.VEL,0pMNT OF THE LAM T-OINTE 2 - 2BB
ODRPORATE CEN'T'ER . . . • • • ' ' ' ' ' , , , • • , • • • • • • ,
OONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION A�CC�ATID CONTRACT�LICITH SUNDE
ENGINEERING FOR ENGINEERING WO 3 - 3C
IMPROVEM NTS ZO BE nONE CN THE LAKE POINTE a)RFORATE CENTER pRCI7EXT '
CDNSIDERATIC N OF A RESCLUTION AMMING THE DESIGN AGREEMENT WITH GEIi 4 _ 4A
FOR THE 100 ^WIN DRIVE-IN Ild WSEKTION . • • • • • •
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND ERNST & ASSOCIATES FOR LANDSCAPE ANT) 5 - 5A
PLAN SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE POINTE QORFORATE CENTER . • • ' ' ' ' '
SUMS REPORT CN UNIVERSITY AVE CDRR=R TECHNICAL A17VISORY COMMIWEE. 6 - 6A
7 - 7B
UPDATE CN THE WINFIELD PROJECT
8 -
UPDATE CN THE SHOREWOCD INN REMODELING PRCI7ECT H
H
UPDATE CN THE UNIVERSITY AVE. APARTMENT VRa �'TPC . 9 - 99
'
APOINTME n OF A VICE-0IAIR OF TSE FRI]Y,EY HRA to
P - 11C
ESTIMATES:
12
CLAIMS:
s r . . s . e r . . . . • r . , . r . . . '
OTHER BUSINESS:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING,
AUGUST 14, 1986
CALL TO ORDER: meet Authority
Chairperson rson Commers called the August 14, 1986, Housing & Redevelop
meeting to order at 7 :25 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
er, and Virginia Schnabel
Members Present: Larry Commers, John Mey
Members Absent: Duane Prairie and Walter Rasmussen
A Director
Others Present: Dasimave Neewman,wmant HRA HRA
DCommunity Development Director
Jock Robertson,
John Flora, publiWorks etsstr
Samantha Orduno, � 8A
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Officer
Mayor William Nee
Councilman Brian Goodspeed
Councilman Edward Fitzpatrick
Councilman Robert Barnette
See attached list
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 10 1986:
SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THE JULY 10, 1986,
MOTION BY MR. MYER, AS WRITTEN.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES COMMS
THE MOTION
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
K 2 FRIDLEY PLAZA CENTER:
1.
RECEIVING EXECUTED COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES
FOR THE EASTERLY 89 FEET OF LOT 2 B
Qureshi stated the Lease has been fully executed and gives Columobia
W. Q ear option. He stated after this Period,
Park Properties another two Y P
their option to the land ceases.
Mr.
Qureshi stated Columbia Park Properties would blacktop the parking
area and provide restoration of the other area-
stated no official action needed to be taken by the HRA and
�. Qureshi
this information is provided as an update.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the blacktopp
in would be completed by September 1.
�. Qureshi stated this was what was agreed upon and he believed they
are working towards this goal.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986 f
PAGE 2
2. UPDATE ON LUNDGREN'S FRIDLEY PLAZA APARTMENT PROJECT:
I
Mr. Qureshi stated in the HRA's agreement with Mr
that MProperty ends on
r. Lundgren's right to develop this ends ona, it provides
if he didn't have the financing in order. August 1,
ss
agreement also provides that the HRA could draw. on
in addition, the
. Lundgren's
of credit and give him another 60 days to correct this"Asituation. letter
Mr. Qureshi stated Mr. Lund
but during this gren has been given the additional 60 days,
period, the HRA could also talk to other developers.
He stated Mr. Lundgren agrees to these terms and no official action is
needed by the HRA.
The HRA received the letter from Dave Newman to W.
Lundgren
August 4, 1986 and Mr. Lundgren's concurrence with these terms.
Mr. Commers asked Mr. Qureshi if he knew if Mr.
the financing. Mr. Lundgren had obtained
ke with Mr.
he seemed fairly certain sthat tthis would ated he °be accomplishendgren today and
d.
3. RECEIVING LETTER FROM ROBERT LEVY REGARDING THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING
CENTER:
Mr. Levy stated he is here this evening to reiterate his statements made
at the June and July meetings of the HRA. He stated the owner of Rice
Plaza Shopping Center would like to know what action the HRA is going to
take and whether or not they will be acquiring this property.
Mr. Levy stated they cannot keep space leased under a
l
nation. He stated they have recently leased additional He
a condem-
existing tenant, but it is only short term. Pace to an
situation where a tenant had an o He stated they have another
P°
was unable to do so because of the endinty to sell his business, but
P g possibility of condemnation.
Mr. Levy stated, basically, they are requesting the
Htoone of
two things, eliminate their property from the redevellopmentddistrict or
else acquire the property. He stated the HRA
in wanting to maximize the use of the ro has a legitimate purpose
the consequences while the HRA P �rtY, but for them to suffer
is
motive of the public and not a privateproperty
developers
w a financial risk and
party owner.
Mr. Levy stated the County is planning to acquire part of theirroperty
for additional right-of-way. He felt if only small portions of he
property are taken, they wouldn't be treated fairly. He stated the HRA
has the opportunity to work with the County to acquire the entire parcel.
He stated he understood at the July meeting, there was no philosophical
e
objection to proceeding to acquire the property, but no figures were
available. He statd these appraisals figures are now available from
the County. Mr. Levy stated he is requesting a
formalby the
HRA to authorize staff to negotiate an acquisition ofthetentire parcel
or remove it from the redevelopment district.
He ifnegotiate on a friendly basis, they would have to doaitdon anhunfrcannot
iendlY
basis and this they did not want.
HOUSING & REDEVEL W ENT AUTHORITY FETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 3
Mr. County had made their appraisal available to
Commers asked if the
Mr. Levy for his review.
Mr. Newman stated it is the County's practice not to make the appraisal
tion hearings. 114available because of the condemna
Meyerfelt the alternatives to either remove the property from the
Mr. property were avenues which
redevelopment district or to acquire know the implications if they
should be explored. He stated he di
were to remove the property from the redevelopment district.
Mr. Commers stated this was an important parcel within the redevelopment
district and the long range plans are such that he didn't think it would
be practical to remove the property from the district.
erHestthe ated
if
tion
this is the case, the HRA can take no action or
considof the property at this time.
Mr. Commers stated the question that arises if it is an appropriate
function of the HRA to acquire property when they don't have a parti-
cular contract for development of the property.
Ms. Schnabel stated she didn't feel the property should be removed from
the redevelopment district, but didn't know if they are in a position
to start negotiations for purchase of the property.
ro
pe Commers stated it too� Lundgren'sdevelopment
s fthe ioroto proceedof this p
peon
rty should be tied into
the basis of future development.
ues
Lev stated he understands the HRA's dilemna,ab t feltthe
rly lengthy list Y He stated there is
to be considered separately. to develop this
of developerswho have worked with the HRA in attempting to max
ing
area. He stated he rimize the
ealizes the HRA's motive yiHe stated to expect
use of the property, but those are public purposes.
take the economic risks and burdens until
private property owners to ment just doesn't belong in the private sector.
the HRA completes a develop tient and have finally reached
Mr. Levy stated they have tried to be pa
ed if the HRA doesn't altactioninto
negoti-
a point of no return. He statations, they are left with no choice but to take Leg
Mr. Commers stated throughout the metropolitan area, there are numerous
cases of redevelopment properties where the threat of condemnation hangs
over the property owner.
Mr. Levy stated what and unublicquelhear ingsn this iheld ifor idevelopment Of this
potential developers public
b history they have dealt with is not common
area. He stated the type wanted the property for redevelopment, it
place. He felt if the HItA
should be held by them and not a private property owner.
Mr. Qureshi stated whether
tatednot
anothHer�importantwishes oconsiderationacquire the pwouldtY
is a policy decision. He s
be the cost for acquisition.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 4
Mr. Meyer stated he didn't believe Mr. Levy was making an idle t
threat of a lawsuit. He asked if Mr. Newman has examined their
legal exposure.
Mr. Newman stated he can understand W. Levy's argument , but hasn't
reviewed this question recently. He stated severalye4rs ago, it
was his opinion the HRA was on fairly strong ground and felt a valid
defense could be made, however, changes in the law may have occurred.
Mr. Levy felt the law is fairly clear and cases are decided on a factual
basis. He stated by the HRA's actions, they have created a cloud of
condemnation over their property and that would be a factual question.
Mr. Levy stated the County has advised them they are prepared to
participate in a joint taking of the parcel, if the HRA so desires.
He stated he didn't know, at this time, what would be a fair acquisition
price. He felt perhaps the County's appraisal could be made available,
if the HRA enters into negotiations for acquisition.
Mr. Newman stated he didn't believe the appraisal would be released
until the condemnation hearing.
Mr. Commers stated he believed the HRA would have to put their own
figures together and couldn't rely solely on the County's appraisal
figures.
Ms. Schnabel stated if the HRA does enter into negotiations and purchases
the property, the HRA will be facing some of the same issues W. Levy
now faces such as possible vacancies and relocation costs.
She felt it should be considered if this is something the HRA wishes
to go through or take the chance on what would develop, if no action is
taken.
MOON BY M. MYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO REQUEST STAFF TO ENTER
INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH M. LEVY FOR POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF THE RICE
PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY.
Mr. Commers stated this is not an absolute commitment that the HRA
would be acquiring the property, but an opportunity to evaluate the
costs.
Ms. Schnabel stated she didn't see any harm in negotiating for the
Possible acquisition, but didn't like to see the HRA put in a position
of being a landlord.
Mr. Meyer stated he also shares Ms. Schnabel's concern, but felt there
are two elements and one is fairness which has to be considered. He
stated, however, if this went to litigation, it would be up to Mr. Levy
to prove his client has been harmed. He felt an effort should be made
to reach an agreement, before resorting to litigation.
ti
PAGE 5
� HOUSING & RIDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
Mr. Robert Smith, Attorney representing the owner of Ronnie's Pub,
Mr. Hennessey, stated his client is a tenant in the Rice Plaza*
of ill
� Shopping Center. He stated
Hennessey
yearshas
ago andtried,
iteisuimpossible
health, to sell his business over
because of pending actions of the HRA. `
he is held
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Hennessey's situation is one
potent is buyers that
captive by the HRA plans as they have to
advise they are in this redevelopment district.
Mr. Smith stated he supports Mr. Levy's position and is prepared to
enter into any suit that may be commenced.
Mr. Hennessey stated he had several prospective buyers for his business,
but as soon as they were told of the possibility of redevelopment, they
never returned. He stated
hetomust
Sell his business due to health
reasons, but has been unable
Mr. Newman stated as he understands the motion, it was to commence
negotiations for possible acquisition of the property and not to
acquire the businesses.
Ms. Schnabel stated all that would change hands, basically, is the
landlord until such time as the HRA had an actual development. otiations
She stated her understanding of the motion is to enter into neg
for possible acquisition of the Rice Plaza property.
Mr. Meyer stated the intent of his motion wasn't to include the purchase
of any businesses.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Hennessey really has no options and doesn't know
where he stands in terms of being a victim of the redevelopment district.
is
Mr. Commer s suggested Mr. Hennessey meet with staff to address this
concerns, but he is not sure there is a way to resolve them
time.
ABOVE MOTION, ALL VOTED AYE, AND CHAIR-
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE
PERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilman Barnette asked if the motion
incded only the shoownng
center per se or also the land surrounding it
which Mr. Commers stated it would include the Rice Plaza Shopping Center
and all vacant land around it owned by Fk- Levy.
4. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING
REDEVELOPMENT MIG TLE TAX INCREMENT
AND AMEND It8 G THE MOD IF IED RLtmvuGH No
FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO ESTABL HI T SINCREX INCREMENT DITRICTS NO- Z
MENT DISTRICTSS NO.•7 _
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND
AND NO 8 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANC
ING PIANS RELATING THERETO:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 6
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA, at the last meeting, had given conceptual
approval to assist Winfield Development in the amount of $30,000 for
soil corrections. He stated there is a sizeable cost of approxi-
mately $120,000 for soil corrections in order for Winfield to develop
this property.
Mr. Qureshi stated another parcel to be included in the tax increment
district is the Shorewood Inn property in order for them to expand and
upgrade the property. He stated the assistance provided to Shorewood
would amount to $70,000.
Mr. Qureshi stated the purpose of the resolution is to add these two
parcels of property in the tax increment districts by establishing Tax
Increment District No. 7 and Tax Increment District No. 8.
MOTION BY MSS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. HRA 12-1986 RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND AMENDING
THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 6 WITHIN
THE PROJECT AREA AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS NO. 7 AND
NO. 8 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLANS RELATING THERETO.
Mr. Meyer stated apparently there is a different rationale •for •Dist
rict No. 8 as compared with District No. 7.
W. Qureshi stated the Shorewood property would be in an economic
development district, rather than a redevelopment district. He
stated this district has a shorter time period to recapture the tax
increment.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, ALL VOTED AYE, AND CHAIR-
PERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Qureshi stated this resolution would authorize the execution of a
contract for private development with Winfield Development, Inc. He
stated the contract provides the HRA would assist Winfield Development
with soil correction costs not to exceed $30,000 once improvements are
completed and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
Mr. Winkels, representing Winfield Development, stated this contract
shows soil correction costs to be $120,000 and their documentation was
for $116,000.
Mr. Qureshi stated it would be appropriate to adjust this figure to
$116,000.
MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY M5. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 13-1986 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE RE-
DEVELOPMENT WITH WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC., WITH THE $120,000 FIGURE
AMENDED TO $116,000.
•
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986 PAGE 7
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIrpUSLY.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING NWITH'SHOREWOODINING THE CUTION
OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELI
Mr. Qureshi stated the property owner, Mr. Nicklow, is proposing
renovate his existing structure in order to expand and provide addi-
tional parking and landscaping.
Mr. Qureshi stated some property to the east of the Shorewood property
pe y
is already in the tax increment district.
. is about Mr. Qureshi stated the total cost ofthe
of$ im$70p payablnt
e after a110'000
and the HRA would provide assn proved, improvements completed, and a
construction plans have been app
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
Mr. Qureshi stated these funds are paid back with no interest for
for two years and the last, ten years, the
three years, interest only to the
whole principal and interest is paid back as a second mortgage
property.
proceed with the parking lot improve-
�. Nicklow stated they wished to
ment as soon as possible and asked when payment would be received.
ent would be received until all improvements
Qureshi stated no payor nc has been issued.
RA
have been completed and the Certificate of occupancy is ycontingent upon
He stated the $70,000 in assistance from the H
completion of all the improvements.
Councilman Goodspeed stated $70,000 upfront would be worth more than
after the improvements are completed.
Mr. Newman stated he understands they cannot receive the funds until
letion of the improvements, but felt it is an incentive for them
comp p
to make all the improvements.
SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, ELUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
NO. 14-1986 AUTHORIZING THE
DEVELOPMENT WITH SHOREWOOD, INC.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7 RE VEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM KENNETH BELC�RDE 111111,
AND HARRY YAFFEE TO BUILD
A 358 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX NORTH OF 83RD AVENUE:
Mr. Qureshi stated a request has been received from Kenneth Belgarde
to Ovide assistance in the development
and Harry Yaffee for the telex north of 83rd Avenue.
of a 358 unit apartment comp
HOUSING & RIDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 8
Mr. Qureshi stated these developers were also involved in the East
River Road project south of I-694.
W. Qureshi stated staff has met with the developers and have indicated
to them the willingness to make recommendations to the-HRA :for assistance
with this project, if it is a high quality development% He stated
there is documentation that soil corrections in this area would be
about $1,200,000.
Mr. Qureshi felt if the HRA approved of the concept for this develop-
ment, staff would work with the developer on the basis that it would
be (1) a high quality development; (2) land write down provided as a
second mortgage or other such instrument; (3) taxable increment bonding
be used or existing unrestrictedcash; (4) housing revenue bonds would
be requested; (5) the project is under one ownershi • and 6
north/south connector street be required between the�nature centeroand
University Avenue.
Mr. Qureshi stated in the Comprehensive Plan, this is one location
the City Council indicated may be a good potential use for residential
development,
W. Qureshi stated the developers have a similar project in Minnetonka
called Cliff and indicated they would like to use it as a model for
this development.
Mr. Qureshi stated the project would cost between $17 and $18 million
and generate about $268,000 in taxes per year.
Ms. Linda Fisher, legal counsel for the developers, introduced the
developers Mr. Belgarde and Mr. Yaffee and another member of their staff,
Sherrill Kuretich.
Ms. Fisher stated what is proposed is a 358 unit apartment complex
generally located south of 85th Avenue, east of University Avenue,
north of 83rd Avenue and west of Springbrook Nature Center. She
stated the site is in a redevelopment district and designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as an area that is appropriate for residential use
Ms. Fisher stated they wish to proceed to obtain their zoning approvals
and respond to questions and concerns regarding access. She stated
they have been in contact wfth the Director of the Nature Center and
obtained comments from him regarding buffers. She stated they have
retained the traffic engineering firm of Barton-Aschman to conduct a
traffic study.
Ms. Fisher stated the developers have a similar development in Minne-
tonka and some members of the staff have toured this complex. She
stated they wish to use this as a benchmark for the type of development
proposed in Fridley.
TING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 9
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEE uld
Ms. Fisher stated the 358 unitsWO
earthetonein nbrick and there wouldine three-story be
She stated the exteriors
would areas, paths, and
large court yards, picnic and barbeque jogging Pa with
tennis courts. She stated there would be extensive landscaping148. Fisher
the use of rock retaining walls as an oondaservingntal faadual•purpose as
stated there would also be a skating p
a retention pond.
indoor (as well as an out-
Ms. Fisher stated some of the interior amenities include a recreation cial room,
building housing a party room, so
She stated the units will ro can style builtt
door) swimming pool- and Europcab
balconies, skylights, indented entryways,
inets. Ms. Fisher stated about 50% of the units will contain dishwashers
and microwaves.
Ms. Fisher stated they understand the City staff's position in regard
to the amount of assistance. She stated they would like to continue
to work with staff regarding the payback and to address the concerns
in regard to reasonable security to their lenders.
tain the
Ms. Fisher stated they hope to Ob rtCeby Decemberrezoning 1. and
financial approvals and close on the propeith the first occupancy in
stated construction would begin in 1987,
October of 1987 .
Ms. Fisher stated these apartments are designed for families, as well
as younger persons. She stated there would
15%,amix threeobedroo�om units.
bedroom units; 67%, two bedroom units; er month.
She stated the average rents would be $585 p
Mr. Meyer asked how they determined that this area would be a good
location for their development.
Ms. Fisher stated there are a number of factors including the visibility Northtown, a major
of the site and they would be cthe lose to University and
shopping center, as well as near lderedatheeneedtforaadditionalnd llop
housing -
ment. She stated they also cons
in this area.
stated he has been in the business of developing housing
Mr. Belgarde onents is traffic. He stated
for many years and one of the basic comp Avenue per day and
there are between 35,000-37 ,000 cars onasnWellsasyrestaurants and other
an abundance of services at No he he believed
commercial development. He stated from their rental survey,
the rental figures proposed would work for this a and to assure it,
hiare
they are offering a huge amenity package.
Mr. Commers asked how this project compares to Mr.
Lundgren's project.
en's project has 119 units renting between
Mr. Qureshi stated Ma La toon cost 400,000.
$700-$800 per month and a troachcwould belthe same withnointerest for
He stated the financing apP a and the last ten years, all
three years, interest only for two ye rs,
the principal paid back to the HRA with interest.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 10
W. Meyer stated it seemed to him the Lundgren project would have to
attract people with higher incomes since the rents would be higher.
Mr. Meyer stated it seems that the $1,200,000 for soil correction
would be taken into account when the land is purchased. He stated
he assumes the value of the land would be down because.,of the soil
problems.
W. Qureshi stated the problems with the soil are a valid point and
that is why staff is not recommending assistance in this area, as it
probably will be taken into account with the purchase price.
Ms. Schnabel felt this development would provide a mix in housing that
would be good for the City and she would support the concept.
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY M. MEYER, TO FURTHER EXPLORE THE
CONCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS 358 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX BASED
ON A HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, LAND WRITE DOWN PROVIDED AS A SECOND
MORTGAGE OR OTHER SUCH INSTRUMENT, TAXABLE INCREMENT BONDING BE
USED OR EXISTING UNRESTRICTED CASH, HOUSING REVENUE BONDS WOULD BE
REQUESTED, THE PROJECT IS UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP, AND A GOOD NORTH/
SOUTH CONNECTOR STREET BE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE NATURE CENTER AND
UNIVERSITY AVENUE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STATUS REPORT ON PARKING FOR THE FRIDLEY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING:
Mr. Qureshi stated there is a plan to restripe the parking lot in order
to provide for 166 nine foot stalls and the work should begin sometime
this month.
W. Robertson stated Mr. Doty was satisfied with the 166 s
still wants to discuss the location for short term parkingpaces, however,
Mr. Qureshi stated this is an informational item only and requires no
action by the HRA.
RECESS:
A recess was called at 9:35 p.m. by Chairperson Commers.
RECONVENED
Chairperson Commers reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Those present
were Mr. Commers, Mr. Meyer and Ms. Schnabel.
9. STATUS REPORT ON THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WETWG
AUGUST 14 1986 PACE 11
Ms. Schnabel, Chairperson of the University Avenue Corridor Technical
Advisory Committee, presented an update to the HRA members.
Ms. Schnabel stated they have had four meetings with another meeting
She stated they have reviewed and
scheduled for this Wednesday. She ed by Bart , She stated in
assessed the traffic ideas p the are thinking in
regard to improvements a Xg aslsolutio sversity vutosome of the problems.
terms of mini, midi,
or you travel north on University Avenue, it appears
Ms. Schnabel stated as Y barrier for
you are in a tunnel and part of this affect is because of the fence.
She stated the fence was installed by the State as a safety
children. Ms. Schnabel stated business people would liwanthe tftocremain.
removed and residents are split on whether or not they
de to remove
Ms. Schnabel stated if a recommendation was may fence
which would
at certain pointsthere may be the question of liability
,
have to be addressed. She also stated it was felt a Lot could be
done in terms of landscaping.
hope to have cost figures on what mini., midi,
Ms. Schnabel stated they P
or maxi intersections would cost and what intersections should receive
which treatment.
cities of Columbia Heights and Spring Lake Park
Ms. Schnabel stated the
them involved. She stated some interest-
will also be contacted to get
ing ideas have emerged from their meetings.
resented of the mini, midi, and maxi intersections and
Drawings were p rated into these intersections.
what design features could be incorporated
helpful if they had some indication
Ms. Schnabel stated it enuld be
on the improvement.
of how much could be sp
yx. Qureshi stated he felt the recommendations of is the Comavailaittee shle for should
be prioritized and their options bas and Council
improvement. He stated he would like to talk to the HRA
regarding funding.
itive
Mayor Nee stated he felt the Che fence wasttee ld be installed because o becausefha issue
of the fence and pointed out t
petition.
Ms. Schnabel stated Larry Kuechle, a member of the Committee, had
did
polled residents living along University and they indicated they
if the fence
of care one way or the other d where that isn't a con-
thought perhaps the neigh
n boyhood had change
cern now.
Mr. Cotmners thanked Ms. Schnabel for her report and update to the HRA
members.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 12
10. UPDATE ON THE LAKE POIN E DEVELOPMENT;
Mr. Qureshi stated since the HRA approved the addendum to the Develop-
ment Agreement, there have been some minor adjustments which he asked
Mr. Newman to explain.
W. Newman stated the Indirect Source Permit has been issued which
involved some minor changes. He stated because of technical diffi-
culties, an escrow will be established for the conveyance of the
land. Mr. Newman also stated certain engineering costs relating to
soil conditions, landscaping, streets and the design of the inter-
section will be paid in accordance with the public improvements the
HRA will be performing.
Mr. Newman stated as far as dates for completing the actual construction
it is on a 12 month schedule, except the planting season for large
trees has been extended. He stated the final benchmark of 749,000 square
feet has been modified to 746,000 square feet.
Mr. Newman stated one of the significant changes is in Paragraph 9.
He stated when the addendum was first presented, it was the desire of
the developer that the limited revenue note be tax exempt. He stated
staff has discussed this issue and it appears a note cannot be obtained
that is tax exempt. He stated the provision agreed to for arrearages
under the limited revenue note to survive without interest if the
benchmarks were met would now be included in the limited revenue note
rather than in the addendum.
1-fr. Commers stated the changes then are that W. Weir has dropped his
request for an opinion of bond counsel that the amendments to the
agreement did not affect the tax exempt status of the limited revenue
note and the amended terms are to be included in the note rather than
in the Development Agreement.
Mr. Newman stated under the terms of the Redevelopment Contract, the
HRA is obligated to provide title for Phase 1 for the first building
upon closing and receipt of the $1,000,000. He stated after January 1,
1987 if the developer shows a need to receive the balance of the land
for financing reasons, the HRA is obligated to deliver this land.
Mr. Newman stated Mr. Weir has made a request for the balance of this
land as his lenders want some assurances that the rest of the land
will be developed. Mr. Newman stated he felt if the developer could
obtain his financing at a lower interest rate, he could accomplish
his goal.
Mr. Newman stated if it is agreeable with the HRA, deeds could be
executed for the balance of the property and placed, in trust, with
an escrow agent with the understanding they would not be released
until January 1, 1987. He stated in the interim, the HRA would con-
sent to the filing of a mortgage against the balance of the redevelop-
ment property, with no personal liability of the HRA.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY METING, AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 13
Mr. Newman stated he didn't feel Mr. Weir's request to execute. the
deeds for the balance of the land and place them in escrow was
major change in the agreement. He stated if this request is granted,
there are some documents for reciprocal easements to be considered
so it would be possible for both the HRA and developer�to have access
ocal
to make certain improvements. Mr. Neimanstated
another
gs rciprparking lots
easement would eliminate any possibility o
being sold off separately.
Mr. Weir stated because there are implications they may loose the tax
exempt status on the limited revenue note, they want to be able to
take advantage of the lower interest rates.
Mr. Commers asked if the tax exempt status of the note was lost. Mr.
Weir stated that is what they have been advised. He stated payments
under the amended note will be fully subjected to income tax and, under the
limited revenue note, they would not have been.
Mr. O'Meara stated he is not willing to give a tax exempt opinion on
the amended note.
Mr. Deike, attorney representing Woodbridge, stated it is very essential
to the financing to have the land available.
Mr. Newman stated both he and Mr. Pribyl, the Finance Director, met
with Mr. Weir's staff to review the financial arrangements for this
development. He stated they feel reasonably
tatedtisifed Weirthe
financial
strength exists for the development.
He substantial investment already in the land.
Mayor Nee stated he felt this was a reasonable request in order that
the developer may take advantage of lower interest rates.
Councilman Barnette stated he would rely on staff's recommendation and,
apparently, they are satisfied that this is reasonable.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he was comfortable with the recommendation
of Mr. Newman.
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABELSECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE ADDENDUM
TO THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, THE ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND THE
RECIPROCAL GRANT OF EASEMENT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
NOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Comers asked when the closing would take place and Mr. Newman
stated it is tentatively scheduled for 9 a.m. .tomorrow morning.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING.- AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 14
11. RECEIVING STATUS REPORTS ON BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THE LAKE t
POINTE CORPORATE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT:
Mr. Qureshi stated although there have been delays in awarding the
contracts, the cost differences have been very minimal. He stated
bids were received this week for the demolition and site grading,
the landscaping, irrigation and lighting, and the water and sanitary
sewer. He stated the bid for the street improvement had been
extended, with permission of the low bidder, pending finalization of
the agreements with Woodbridge.
Mr. Qureshi stated it was anticipated the improvements would cost $2.2
million and- the bids are under this figure. He stated, however, with
the engineering costs added, it may be a little over the estimated amount.
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA should receive the bids and recommend to
the City Council the contracts be awarded to the low bidders.
Mr. Newman stated there is a clause in the Construction Agreement
which states construction wouldn't begin until August 19. He stated
he would suggest the contracts be awarded subject to the closing
tomorrow and with the understanding the contractor wouldn't physically
be on the site until August 19.
MOTION BY N15. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO RECOMMEND TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY AWARD THE FOUR BIDS TO THE LOW BIDDERS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER,
SUBJECT TO THE CLOSING TOMORROW WITH WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES.
THESE BIDS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
WATER & SANITARY SEWER PROJECT #162 PARK CONSTRUCTION $188,100.00
DEMOLITION & SITE GRADING PROD.#163 ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION $978,000.00
LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION & LIGHTING,#168 MINN. VALLEY LANDSCAP. $481,413.00
ST. IMPROV. PROJ.NO.ST- 1986-1&2,PHASE IIH & S ASPHALT $368,054.10
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN AMENDED TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT:
Mr. Pribyl stated it is requested the HRA consider this resolution
requesting the City to issue its $10,045,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, for the purpose of Crossover
Refunding the City's $11,550,000 Variable Rate Demand General Obligation
Tax Increment Bonds.
Mr. Pribyl stated a crossover bond is nothing more than a fixed rate
general obligation bond. He stated he would recommend the sale of
the crossover bonds because it places a cads on the debt service in the
future. He stated it also provides the flexibility and advantages of
having both the variable rate issue and lower interest rate and security
of a fixed rate issue at a lower interest rate.
M
A ORITY METING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 15
HOUSING 6, REDEVE-LOPMENT
stated the City has variable rate
. Casserly, bond counsel, a way to cap the
bonds out now. He stated what is suggested is Y
interest rate on the variable rate
lacebonds.
the proceedsstated
in an investment
bond is a refunding bond and you p He stated
account and invest them in government securities. rIncipal of the
Of the refunding bonds are matched to the p
principal Casserly stated the interest in the d
variable rate bonds. Mr• ens in
accounts just about pays itself. He stated what Kapp
c the City is only paying one principal of the refunding bonds and
one interest on the variable rate bond. amounts to about 1/47. and
yx. Pribyl stated the transfer bf thitbosdstillunder the 6.5% set up
even with this figured in the cost, and safety it
as a debt service within the
bonds. He felt the savings
provides necessitates issue He stated
stated the refunding bond rate is 7.3 or rest
. Casserly in for is protection that if the interest rasel ng as
what you are
paying
toward 7%, there is the option of crossing over. He state
the interest rate stays low, you would come out ahead. He stated if
you are already locked in at a low interest ars,
the interest rate rises, time in the future, a maximum of seven y
rate. He stated at some bonds wipe out
it is necessary to crossover. He stated the and refunding
fundinterengis paid•
principal the variable rate bond and the p
ence
n the
Mr. Pribyl stated what concerned
ed him was the the differencefisrsmallienough in
interest rates and feels assured provides a very
relation to the amount of the issue that it still
t of incurring a higher debt service.
low interest rate. He stated if in rates remain low for seven
years,
there is the possibili Y the vehicle is in place t
He stated if interest rates increase,
lock in the costs. He stated in reviewing agtesntheyshavetoh
hadfora
debt service , this is one of the 1
fixed rate. ears,
a trended basis, taking the worse five y
Mr. Casserly stated on ed out 6.5'/0, but has gone as high
the variable rate would have averaged
as 9'/0. wish to
yX. Commers stated the ierubondingbefore
bythe
adop ion ofwhether
resolution.
proceed with the crossov
is buying some insurance and clearly
W. Qureshi stated the concepta sur question, depending
paying some cost for it. He felt it was aoj a ver attractive
on the interest rates. yearsated 7 or 7 .4/. seems Y
number for the las datin in
Pribyl stated Miller and Schroeder have been very accommodating
of issues. He felt, at this point of time,
educating them in these type
roceed.
it seems very beneficial to p
r
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986
PAGE 16
Mr. Casserly stated there is protection against some interest rate
fluctuations and it works so well it is being specifically prohibited
in the tax bill. He stated, therefore, most of the bond issues
around the State have been moved up to this week.
TION BY M. MEYERSECONDED By MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. 11-1986 REQUESTING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TO ISSUE ITS $10,045,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1986, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CROSSOVER REFUNDING THE CITY'S
DEMAND GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS2AND,
APPROVINVARIABLE
ANDRAUT
IZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGtEEMENT. OR-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. , CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
13. APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHAIR OF THE FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT RUTH_
ORI ;
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO TABLE THIS APPOINT
NT
TO THE NEXT MEETING. INTHE
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF JOHN "
DIRECTOR OF THE FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOP,NT AUTHORITy;ROBERTSON AS ECUTIVE
Mr. Commers stated the HRA members have been provided
relating to this appointment along with a co p with materials
staff services. copy of the contract for
MOS TIbN BY M5. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY Mit
OF JOHN "JOCK" ROBERTSON AS EXE MEYER, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT
MENT AUTHORITY. �TI� DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOP-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. ESTATES:
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER TO APPROVE
FROM BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION W�THE
THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY IN THE AMOUNT OF $32879.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. CLAIMS
-.MOTION By ME• SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE CHECK
REGISTER AS SUBMITTED (CLAIM NOS. 1488 - 1497) AND THE FOLLOWING COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIXED RATE CROSSOVER BONDS;
f
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY METING AUGUST 14 1986 PAGE 17
KUTAK, ROCK & CAMPBELL - UNDWTR. COUNSEL $17,500
KUTAK, ROCK & CAMPBELL - BANK COUNSEL 1,500
O'CONNOR & HANNAN - BOND COUNSEL FEE 17,000
O'CONNOR & HANNAN - COSTS 1,500
FIRST TRUST, INC. - TRUSTEE FEE 500
FIRST TRUST, INC. - ESCROW AGENT FEE 16,185
GRANT THORNTON - VERIFICATION 3,500
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Schnabel requested that water be provided for their future meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MYER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONKERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE AUGUST 14, 1986, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Carole Haddad
Recording Secretary
Y
F
4
PAGE 18
J
d Yv
/o90_s .47
R"
1
t '
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIN',& M i ► MISSION M34M
FRCM: JOCK RME77TSgV. BECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MECT: AMBITION NEGOTIATIONS FCR RICE R.AZA SI-CPPINS CEIM
DATE: S87EN O 5, 19%
DAVID NEWAN AND MYSELF NET WITH BOB LEVY ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 TO
REV I EW I FORMAT I ON REGARD I NG THE FOSS I BLE AM I S I T I ON EP EM EBR LAZA 1986 PI NG
IRA
CENTER. DAVID NEW+IAN WILL BE PRESENT AT THE THURSDAY,
MEETING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE ON THE INFORMATION DISCUSSED AT THIS
MEETING.
- E
2
CITY OF FRIMEY
MEMORANDUM
qp; QiAImM ODMMERS AND MEMBERS OF MiE HCUSING AND RECE7MCPMENT
AUMtITY AND HCNaWLE M yOR NEE AND MEMBERS OF THE FRIDLEY
QTY COUNCIL
RM: NASIM M. QURESHI, HRA DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER
SUBJDGT: DOCUMENTATION OF CDAI M MECRMSIM CHER DESIGN AND QUALITY OF
DEVELOPMENT FOR IRE LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 51 1986
Recently, members of the HRA and the City Council have voiced concerns regarding
the quality of development planned for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center, and the
degree of control over the development process that would be incorporated within
the approval powers of both the HRA and City Council. In response to these
concerns, I have had prepared a summary of the actions taken by all municipal
bodies involved in the project. 21is was cone to provide all concerned w
ith a
written cbcamentmentation of the process by which the two primary goals of
control and quality of development were attained, and the degree of committment
giVen by the developer that these goals will be realized.
Fbr a number of years the ARA and City officials have been eager to secure a
prestigious development project on the 100 Iain Drive-in site. Given the very
visual location of the site, it was hoped that any development planned for this
area would be one of the highest environment with that of the surrounding residentiaalacmi unityth
st of
a business
Last year when Woodbridge Properties approached City staff with a proposal for a
multi-phase development consisting of a major hotel with convention facilities,
a restaurant, bank and several high level office buildings with parking ramp
facilities, concerns were raised about two very basic elements of the
development scheme; the degree of control the City and HRA would have over such
a development; and, the guarantees given by th de eloper thagoaaa ls of the
development which would be consistent with the overallPm
ent City.
Since the very earliest negotiations with Woodbridge, emphasis has been placed
on maintaining the best possible controls over the development. ibis is evident
in the actions taken by the HRA. Planning Commission and the City Council as
each public entity exerted considerable time and consideration in each segment
of the negotiation and contract development process thereby securing a
aommittment from the developer that what was envisioned by the City as a quality
development would be attained.
Zhe process has been a lengthy one, but the end result will be a For all that will create a positive and lasting image for our City•time and
who participated in this project, thank you for your involvement, your
your ideas. L
r
2A
SiJ*MY OF ACTION RELMING M THE
LAKE POINTE (MORATE (ENTER REDWELCPIMENT PRQTECr
As with any major redevelopment project in the City, the Lake Pointe corporate
Center project has captured and held the attention of local residents affected
by the proposed redevelopment of the old 100 Twin site, developers, neighboring
mmcipalities and, of course, elected and appointed officials, who together with
City staff have strived to make this project one which reflects the highest
quality of design and provides an athestically pleasing addition to the
single-family environment surrounding the proposed project site.
this collective concern for a quality development is reflected in each of the
municipal and related actions described below which, over the course of several
months, were taken by the HRA, planning Commission and City council to ensure
the project's feasibility and eventual completion.
DEC_MM 20, 1985
The HRA and Lake Pointe Investment Oompany entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment which allowed for the redevelopment of the old 100 Twin site into
a multi-phase campus development consisting of 9 buildings; a hotel with
convention facilities, restaurant, bank and multi-level office buildings, and
low profile parking ramps with a total development square footage of 746,000,
excluding ramps. The development scheme modeled by the HRA addressed issues of
rezoning, replatting and a special use permit--all designed to provide the
maximum of quality and appropriate municipal control over the overal development
as well as each construction phase.
The HRA endorsed the rezoning of the project site from C-1, C-3, R-3 and
portions of the R-1 property to S-2 in order to stream-line and maintain
positive control over the development process. The S-2 zoning included
provisions that locked in a "master plan" to the site, so in the event that
Woodbridge Properties could not develop according to "the plan", there would
have to be additional hearings before the HRA, Planning Commission and the City
Oouhcil to diminish, alter or enlarge the plan.
The HRA, cognizant of the community's desire for a quality development, defined
"quality" by incorporating a Development Quality Plan into the Contract for
Private Redevelopment, thereby giving the HRA approval control over use of
design materials used in the construction of the buildings, design treatments of
parking facilities, and, the landscaping scheme. The ARA would also have
approval authority over any material modification to the scope, size or use of
each phase of the Minimus Improvements. The Development Plan and Development
Quality Plan are represented herein as Exhibits #1 & #2.
In an effort to address the concerns of area residents, a traffic study was
conducted and a coordinated effort began with the MJ Pollution Control Agency to
undertake the best solution to any problems created try the increased traffic on
existing roads in and around the project site.
TANUABk 9. 1986
HRA reviewed the S-2 zoning concept for Labe Pointe and set the parameters for
any changes to the development's master plan. This memo from the HRA to the
City Council and Planning Commission, dated January 9, 1986 , def ined
"substantial change" and "reasonable change" within the master plan. The memo
pointed out that any changes in the master plan which encroached on the single
2B
Lake Pointe Stmnary
Page 2
family neighborhood would be deemed a substantial change and would require
additional review by the Planning COMission & City (buncil. The intent was to
allow for flexibility to the developer, at the same time protecting the
surrounding neighborhood milieu. This memo is attached as Exhibit V.
AMM 22, 1986
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the request for rezoning,
replatting and the special use permit:
E-onEaoniM Rawest
Reiterating the "multi-phase master plan development" and noting the HRA's Jan.
9, 1986 memo in support of the S-2 zoning, the Planning CmMission recommended
City Council approval of the rezoning to S-2 with three stipulations (Exhibit
#4) . These stipulations addressed the concerns for a "quality" development which
would be consistent with the surrounding area and provided for controls in the
development. Maps indicating the existing and proposed rezoning are
characterized in Exhibits #5, #6, and V. The acquisition of the Gerald Johnson
property was explained as necessary for the total development of the project and
the rezoning was continguent on the acquisition of this property.
Cst for New Plat
Replatting of the project site was described as a design to facilitate the
"master plan structure". The plat presented indicated the following:
6 lots on Block 2
3 lots on Block 1
3 outlots
Sites for 4 parking ramps on: Lot 2, Block 2, (Bldgs. F & G)
Lots 3 & 4, Block 2, (Bldgs. D & E)
Lots 5 & 6, Block 21 (Bldgs. B & C)
Lot 2, Block 1, (Bldg. A—hotel)
At this point in the process, there were no separate lots created for the ramp
sites. The plat map presented to the Planning Commission is represented in
Exhibits #8 & #9.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat with 3 the
3 stipulations noted in Exhibit #10.
Sogial Use Permit
The Special Use Permit request to allow parking on property to be retained as
R-1 was reoonmended for City O:)uncil approval with 2 stipulations (Exhibit #11)
after Woodbridge presented information and drawings which indicated that there
would be sufficient buffer areas between the parking facilities and the
residential areas thereby adhereing to the initial concept of a campus setting
within-a single-family environment. These drawings are included herein as
Exhibit #12.
F'I MAM 24, 1986
The City douncil conducted public hearings on the rezoning, replotting and
special use permit requests.
q-2 2onina
Reiterating the desire for the S-2 zoning to allow development of the property
by plan, the City (buncil and area residents in attendance heard from City staff
and the developer that buildings in the project would be built further to the
-family have
south and closer to the freeway so as not to detract from the single
2r
Lake Pointe Summary
Page 3
environment. Also, Fart of the master plan envisioned in the S-2 zoning included
a phasing plan for development of the landscaping—the general perimeter of the
site would be developed initially and the final landscaping design for each
building site would be finalized with the completion of each building. Staff
assured the Oouncil and residents that the City would work with the Developer to
ensure that proper "landscaping, bermi.ng, and screening" would be coordinated in
the development to maintain an aesthetically pleasing site. 7he maps presented
at this hearing were the same as the maps represented in Exhibits #5, #6 &47.
Ply
It was noted by a representive frau Woodbridge that the right-of way of Lake
Pointe Drive would be changed to make it consistent with other roads--60 feet
wide. He also coni, ted that since some of the parking ramps cut through lot
lines, it was the Developer' s intent to make separate lots for the parking
structures and separate lots for the buildings served by the ramps. The same
maps which had been presented to the Planning Cdnnmission were again presented to
the City Cbuncil (Exhibits #8 & #9) .
�,%Sgial Use Perot
Permit was approved with the two stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission (Exhibit 11) which served to provide a year-round buffer between the
development and the residential area.
MARCH 3. 1986
Noting the discussions of the February 24, 1986 public hearing, the City Oouncil
approved the final plat for Lake Pointe with the same 3 stipulations recommended
by the Planning Commission (Exhibits #5,#6, & V) . The maps presented at this
meeting were the same ones represented in Exhibits #8 & #9.
The Rezoning ordinance was approved upon the first reading.
MAY t , 1986
7he Material Frustration clause of the Development Agreement was evoked due to
the delay in securing the Indirect Source Permit from the MN Pollution Control
AgencY7a permit which was necessary bemuse the project consisted of parking
spaces in excess of 2,000. 11he 90 day negotiating period began.
MAY 8. 1986
HRA approved construction and landscaping plans for Phase I of the Lake Pointe
project (Exhibit #13A-13D) . Plans presented revealed a boulevard concept with a
40 foot buffer between the residential areas with heavy plantings of trees and
shrubs in keeping with the "Quality Development Plan" (Exhibit #2) .
im 12, 1986
Draft of the first Addendum to the Development Agreement presented to the ARA.
Addendum clarified timetables for the construction process which had been
delayed by a directive of the Indirect Source Permit requiring that improvements
be made to Highway 65, more Lake Drive, and the intersection of Hiway 65 and
Moore Lake Drive prior to the construction of any buildings beyond"e Phase I
building.
y
1�
Lake Pointe SwmarY
Page 4
nirx i0. 1986
M approved the Addendun to the Dev. Agrmt. , dated July 9, 1986, which tied
repayment of the Revenue Note to construction benftwks.
86 and
Comneneement of the first building e road improvemset for ents to,Hi9ghway 65and West
mpletion
on June 30, 1988. Completion
Moore Lake Road was set for July 1, 1989.
ittry s f ran
Woodbridge submitted a nevi plat which differed in the following way
the plat approved by the City Council on Parch 3, 1986:
1, �e number of Lots o� B2�indi�ting a propoincreased sedd parkingLot x lde��ci� proposed
parking ramps and Lo
2. Parking ramp near hotel site was eliminated
3. Increase Of 1 outlot (from 3 to 4)
4. Slight variation to the entry road
Arrt��*r 14, 1986
HpA approved a revised Addendumto the Development Agreement.
Woodbridge submitted new architectural drawings of the overall development site
and also the Phase I development site- ahese are represented in Exhibits #14 &
#15.
HILA approved an amended Pledge Agreement for the G. 0. Tax Increment Bonds.
City council awarded the bids for several construction Fhases of the Lake Pointe
proj ect•
i rr_nSi+ 15, 1986
ainder of Redevelopment property placed in
Qosing on the Phase I paroel, rem
escrow.
AIX; 18. 1986
y
Revised Final-2=
Approved986
by City Council with the 3 stipulations agreed to
t o y Sit lwas
C Council meeting approving the original plat (Exhibit
acknowledged by Woodbridge that ramps were proposed for Lots 8 & 10, Block 2;
and, a parking deck was Proposed for Lot 12, Block l 2. ed in commistatemtment
nts to e
construction of parking ramps on these lots was r2. And submission of
the February 24, 1986 City Council pulbic hearing on the plat
the July 25, 1986 revised plat. Maps of the revised plat are represented in
Exhibit #16.
cec,.,,a-Teadina for S-2 Zoning Ordina=
provided for the development to be
Final reading for the ordinance which
completed in accordance with the Dec.ov0ed on5the second rmt re ding ith ,the83
Addendum. S-2 zoning Ordinance pp
original stipulations and a 4th stipulation which was made pa=t of the rezoning
changes in the
approval and cave the City Council approval authority over AM
S-2 zoning. 9bese stipulations are included herein as Exhibit #17.
A Woodbridge representative noted that there might be a minor adjustment in the
Lt
Lake Pointe SOMIY
Page 5
dedication of the road into the project, but that all areas woest
of
the road
way n with the previous arrangements. Map
f the
the road isuincluded herein ad remain R-1 in s Exhibit #18.
rezoning
She quality design would continue, as had been agreed to in both theDevv;
Agrmt. and the Addendum, which called for the Drainage Plan, Landscaping P
an
Lighting Plan, Signing Plan and Facade material Plan to be approved by the HRA
and any substantial changes to the Master Plan would have to be approved by the
Planning Ca mission and City ODuncil.
{
i
10
LU
W
CL CD
O 0
ii
J t �-
Ir W
/ w
r �
W N
.� W
c W
Z _ m
Q �. . W
` �� r ti� • ~ W
uj
•'" cc c
• ,fit cc W
O 1-
W o � . LL. a
O cc
' . L' • •, I W H
W = UJ
D _
i,
W
F- 1-
Qam
"pin CL
N W
-- W� t Y
tits W
aac a
O
CL
occ
c
0 =
z =
■V■ ■
26
ul
us
W
m
'y ' :� ► z
z '. •� co
o)
Q a
0. o cw
N
t > oc
I— o m
J CWCp. W
W
v
> O
rc W
4S 0. Q
Z C o
W
a z
O cc w
J A Z a
W s 0 W
W z
O = -
` m W
� z
W W
. Q •Q
cc J
• O p
C' Z
cc AcO
V �
Z S
EXHIBIT # 3
2H
CIU OF 1r1kn-EZ
NENORA • DON
MEMO TO: planning Commission and City Council
NSMO FROM: sousing i Redevelopment Authority
WJ O DATE: January 9. 1986
REGARDING: Support of 3-2 Zoning for Lake Pointe Corporate Center
purmse ace is intended to express the Housing A Redevelopment
This ren onde
Authority's support for the applications for 3-2 •Redevelopment District"
Zoning, special use permit and plat for Lake Poine Corporate center.wbilO tyinghe
S-2 zoning will help to sMs sr��zoning approval
the rezoning to the proposed
intentsi i Redevelopment Authority endorses the rezoning to S-2 of the
The Housingached
majority of the site as outlined is the attarcel ofbthe drivepinnaitee
(Attachment A). The existing most northerly D
approximately 128 feet, described as Lot 22, Block 10, Donnay•a Lake This
Manor Addition, will foriusetas apresent
bufferRto the residential area1 *Single Family* nasgwell as
area will be reserved
Approval of the apecia use
pathway, driveway and surface parking uses. R-1 zoning requirement
permit for parking on R-1 will �iopfofttheeJohnsong property will also retain
for this area. The westerly Po
it's existing R-1 zoning and wlls platted
eed as
classifications for athe
green buffer area. The presentP
entire project are illustrated in Attachment B.
Aanicar0 ed
The Lake Pointe Corporate Center, when complete, will consist of seven office
Parking
buildings, a hotel with convention facilities and a rent rkingtaad surface
facilities include lar profile parking ramps, underground pa
lose to O00 square
parking lots. The total construction camps d° The entire nine phases of
feet of new development, excluding parking
of a comprehensive master plan which
the project have been designed as pa agreement.
is-directly tied to the ON executed developmentag
hich inter-
The development is hayed out xi it�orientative ationaandke fashion structuralwco components,
relates buildings through pix y+ sotit complete with plazas,
as shorn on Attachment C. A consistent landscapepatb"47will also add to the creation
fountain, abundant plant materials
andbetween buildings sad open spaces- �
of a barmonioos "latlonabiD
Planning Commission and City Council 11
January 9, 1986
page 2
ZRALM which
The majority of the site is naw zoned C-3. eGsneral Shopping
� est zoning. The development as proposed mould proceed on
is the city's high a is Boning classification.
the drive-la portion of the site without a41► ted be reqnts for special use Permits, .
gawever staff informs us therefor°�co�ercial use on the Johnson portion of the
setback waivers and rezoning '
mite.
w will provide for a streamlined review
The S-2 •Redevelopment District zoning most r the
process, allowing for the campus like layout while incorporating
undern3-2, the
zoning needs under one action. looked In addition once app
This feature
Woodbridge master pl desouldibionalk security as�to the oned afuture land use of
of the 3-2 code provides
this site in the unlikely event that tte Woodbridge development is no
real ized.
Future ConttclII
Each set of building Plana will require review and approval by
the Housing i
Mit. In the event
Redevelopment Authority prior to issuance of a buildin Po ring calls for
of any substantial changes to the
master plant ission and City Council. The Housing A
additional review by the Planning
reed upon from
Redevelopment Authority suggests that some flexibility De agreed
e onset to allow for reasonable ModificationsTeaaonableo the aversusn. e
following
thsubstan substantial
framework will nerve as a guide for determining
change.
Reasonable Change; Housing i Redevelopment Authority/Staff Approved.
location modifications which do not place buildings any more
1. Building parking ramps.
than thirty feet closer to R-1 zoned land, not including
ons which do not locate ramps in R-1
2. parking ramp location mod ificati
zoned lead.
olve expansion
o or
3. Parking lot or ramp Modifications out
i tss a is roposed inot n the preliminary tPlat
decrease of say of the outlot p
(Attachment D). which do not
4. Simple material changes to architectural and such assite Changesto exterior
alter the overall quality of the development nage and
building and ramp facade materials, landscape elements, sig 6
lighting components.
er
Changes which will be considered Cit substantial Council ahalland will nincludetabut te f notbe
review by the Planning Commission as y
limited to, the following:
Substantial Changes; Planning CemmissiDA/City Council Review.
1. Any changes which do not met the intent of the aforementio�d Housing A
Redevelopment/Staff approved conditi
2. Any increase in the member of stories for any of the proposed principle
buildings or Parking ramps:
LV
Planning Q,mmission and City Council
January 9, 1966
Page 3
with
3. Any changes in the proposed building usage which is d noses consistent
is a
tel, convention faciitY a+�rns) is allowed under
quality office park. ho
understood that licensure for on-sale liquor (
"S-2 soning. involved
footage
�, Additions to the square oge of any of the print
inciple buildings
which exceed 115• of the original proposal or that which creates a footprint
C�3 Code, whichever is less-
in
coverage is
in excess of that allowed m tation sheet (Attachment D).
defined in the enclosed capu
ware footage of parking ramps or parking lots which exceed
5. Additions to the sq
115% of the original proposal•
Stipulations
Prior to issuance of the first building permit it would be reasonable to require pment.
that the following submittals be approved by staff and the Housing i Redevelopment.
Authority:
1. Storm drainage plan.
2. Landscape plan.
3. Lighting plan.
4. Signage plan.
5. Architectural facade material plan including r&MPs• into
All of the above referenced plans should be comprehensive
mpre a aiveofn na tureen akinshould
he
account the entire development• A Phasing p
lan forextent which is reasonably Possible at the time of submittal.
be addressed to the
Conclusion
is confident that the Lake Pointe Corporate
The Housing t Redevelopment Authority we appreciate the assistance
Center will be a tremendous asset toC ncil�in their support of the zoning and
of the Planning Commission and City
future review programs as outlined.
JLR/dm
N-66-1
EXHIBIT # 4
2 r.
WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES,, INC.
ZOA #45-05
STIPULATIONS
1. CHANGES TO THE MASTER PLAN SHALL BE HANDLED AS OUTLINED IN
THE HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMO TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 9, 1986.
2 . PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT THE DEVELOPER
SUBMIT FOR HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT/STAFF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS WITH PHASING DETAILSj
A. STORM DRAINAGE
B. LANDSCAPING
C. LIGHTING
D. SIGNAGE
E. ARCHITECTURAL FACADE MATERIAL PLAN INCLUDING RAMP
TREATMENTS
3. REZONING OF THE JOHNSON PROPERTY, LOT 5, BLOCK 5, DONNAY'S
LAKEVIEW MANOR ADDITION, IS CONTINGENT UPON SITE CONTROL
OF THE JOHNSON PROPERTY BY THE HOUSING $ REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE COORDINATED WITH
ACQUISITION DATE.
STIPULATIONS FOR REZONING PRESENTED AT :
JAN . 229 1986 PLANNING C
FEB .- 24 , 1986 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINC
MARCH 3 , 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EXHIBI1T# 5
lo
cwt ► a ow .rs '+w ,wbu ivZ 2L
O
411
� � T � i, � �• JO \ �1.3,j O U
fi • c i •.. ..J�,B v.• d
i•:••iii•i
• •moi
dop
OD
CD
Ike IL
•iii.�.:�•i• ���\ � �•• �L 't' l
— '• ' ILW Q
dc
66
co
Ln M
IL 0
00
` �;='=:�:: � :.- :=f:�is � !� � - •� CC J
CL
CL CO co
Go
co
• N N
AU Z m
t W
U.
211
_ - ..� 1Nrll ►tit �.�-.
cc
0
CM
aWALS A*WD
� w
4 ! 40
t
co
N
IN
W V
NLLI
co
= V
s. W Q
•• �: a
LLI
W
- n W
Id �AIlls t�t� �
OWAW ,WAS,► .ow �rvr� xm4E X H 1 B 1 T # 7
21.1
W
cc
� O
IL
1
" N
I - •�' �. N
in
W
W z
H W
N
• W
a
- - - ; • ' tip
ot inti \. JEXHIBIT
center
+' y 20
SS
m"SAO still
i"s
fr' _
OD
N r O
•' - g
Wj 1• � `' ` • � U
At Y s
OD
dip
CY
i ` LL z
• ~ •~
3 � • - ; W U ii U: i �. • # . -
z O O
: U
i - �• z
z r
!. W z H
��� � •s �� s �i'.�lr � d � V
ILCo- a. OD "
OD
N
Owl
2i M
Ex " Jull Iry
2P
E �
1!0
of
'awls wevow
t
Z r,
w ' •9
g
m ZI s ) +
W ^Z ( i i= it { PR"CT DATA
� f f • � fano ra..d
Z a fufoM•fus v
NALOMS 40646
�..• I ,• .:� (f� �r + f►aaw c ase we
Go
.J r J � � � +vrr or.rt au fN ifs•r
WN �> i eoMYelp..R sw
N 1 ' 'n"mow^Mme.
1f,1' J ..
t '1 ,w tOtK S4aO MfA lN.yf f�
"Moe Vol-nm olp 36s
POW feucnwf 03 See
�,,, M_ �` • 0`41,0111010nRutgwt w 409
/ QA►•R.•Iltp for
_ ftiOw Ow�O[.YwM=
Q '�' •?! / WAW PSAst•o Afowo ms
. mfYtsYlYftY•tMsfgrOto Nf
QW _- -.. L�iYLt M+►a� FROM,MINNESOTA
Z 1
s .
a w -
a w f
,
• . -- ' 20
WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES, . INC.
P.S. #55-07
STIPULATIONS =
1. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT CONTINGENT UPON SITE CONTROL OF THE
JOHNSON PROPERTY - LOT 5, BLOCK 5, DONNAY'S LAKEVIEW MANOR
ADDITION.
2. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS SHALL BE
SUBMITTED, APPROVED BY THE CITY AND RECORDED WITH THE PLAT.
ITEMS OF CONCERN SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:
A. DISPOSITION AND MAINTENANCE OF OUTLOTS
B. RESTRICTION OF OUTLOTS USAGE TO GREENSPACE, BUFFER AREAS
C. MAINTERANCE OF COMMON AREAS
D. LAND USE
E. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
F. JOINT PARKING/ACCESS AGREEMENTS
G. OTHER ITEMS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
3. PARK FEE, BASED ON TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE REPLATTED
PROPERTIES AS DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, TO BE PAID
ON A PRO RATA BASIS WITH EACH BUILDING PERMIT.
PLAT STIPULATIONS PRESENTED AT :
JAN . 229 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
FEB . 249 1986 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 3 , 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEErT�ING
EXHIBIT 411 1
2P.
WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC,
SUP #85-17
STIPULATIONS
1. Landscaping, including berming shall be constructed in a manner so as to provide
a dense year-round screening between the development and the single family
homes to the north.
2. Lighting used for the development shall be shaded or diffused to reflect light
away from the adjoining property.
I EXHIBIT 12
I • ��, 1S
('lc -
16
r
W
i7' -
• �'',�� 'moi:' �
Al
cc
�d W
r I a a
`•' is
z
40
l \
co
Vjv
s w
cc
<
IL cc
D w
w UL
U.
co
I O C4f)
co
< O
� Z
EXHIBI -i Jr -14t+
2T
NARRATIVE RELATING TO I ANDICAPE ERNSTASSOCIAT
LANDSCAPE AACHITEC
LAND PLANNE
30 APRIL 1986 122 BEST 67H SIRE
CHASKA MINNESOTA 55
16121448-4�
KE POINTE CORPORAZE CENTER LANDSCAPE
THE CONCEPT FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO CREATE A SENSE OF MATURITY AND RE-
ORGANIZATION OF THE SITE- WE ARE PROPOSING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS BY PLANTING
LARGE TREES ALONG THE STREETS TO CREATE A BOULEVARD EFFECT. THESE WOULD OCCUR
APPROXIMATELY 50-60' ON CENTER. THESE TREES WOULD RANGE IN THE 4"- 6" SIZE.
GIVING US A TREE HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 20 - 24' AT THE INITIAL PLANTING. THIS
APPROACH WOULD GIVE US AN OVERALL FABRIC TO TIE THE SITE TOGETHER AND ALSO PRO-
VIDE A VISUAL EXPERIENCE AND IMAGE FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND BUILDERS.
THE CONCEPT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE SODDING AND SEEDING THE SITE. THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE A CLEAN LOOKING SITE. MANICURED LOOK AND TO KEEP
DUST FROM BLOWING FROM UNDEVELOPED SITES. THE SODDING CONCEPT WOULD BE A FREE
FORM LINE THAT WOULD MOVE ALONG THE STREETS AND THE SIDEWALK. WHICH WOULD ALSO
CREATE SOME SENSE OF INTEREST. THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE SITE WOULD BE
SEEDED IN A FAST ESTABLISHING GRASS (RYE OR SIMILAR) WITH THE INTENT THAT IT
WOULD BE TEMPORARY AND ALL OF IT WOULD BE REMOVED.
IN ORDER TO SOD AND SEED THE SITE AND KEEP IT IN A GREEN AND MANICURED LOOK.
IRRIGATION OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE PART OF THAT PLAN. THE CONCEPT AT THE PRESENT
TIME IS TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY QUICK COUPLER OR ROTOR HEAD SYSTEPI USING HEADS
THAT WILL GIVE US LARGE RADIUS (00-1000 ). WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THE TEMPORARY
I^RIGATION SYSTEM CLOSER TO THE STREETS WOULD BE RUN MORE FREQUENTLY TO PROVIDE
MORE WATER AND TRY TO KEEP A LITTLE MORE MANICURED LAWN AREA ADJACENT TO THE
ROADWAY SYSTEM.
WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE ROAD
BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND IN THE 40' BUFFER STRIP ON THE NORTH SIDE TO BE PER-
MANENTLY INSTALLED AS AN AUTOMATIC SYSTEM THAT WOULD NOT BE CHANGED AS DEVELOPFENT
TOOK PLACE. SOME HEADS WOULD HAVE TO BE ALTERED AT DRIVEWAYS WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENT
TOOK PLACE.
IT IS-PROPOSED THAT THIS IRRIGATION SYSTEM BE TIED INTO THE CITY D014ESTIC WATER
SYSTEM AND METERED IN SOME FORM FOR BUDGET PURPOSES.
EXHOIT #I 3B
2U
FORTY FOOT BUFF�B - THE CONCEPT FOR THE BUFFER PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM .ADJACENT TO
PROVIDE AN INTERESTING PLANTING SCHEME AND AT TIE SAME
THE RE S I DENT I AL AREA IS TO
RESIDENTS.OR THE
TIRE PROVIDE BUFFER AND SCREENED AND
I RR I GATED THE USE OF CON I FFERS T
(PINE
THE COMPLETE BUFFER AREA BE
SPR( ), SMALL FLOWERING TREES, SHADE TREES, AND SI-RIES (LILAC. REDTWIG DOGWOOD.
HONEYSUCKLE. ETC. ) WILL MAKE UP THE PALETTE OF PLANTING ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL BUFFER.
_R�� N UNnF�tr�PED � _ WE ARE PROPOSING THAT LARGE SHADE TREES BE PLANTED
IN THE LARGE EXPANARE
SIVE lltdpEVANSIVE AREAAREA. THE
THE IMARY PURPOSE THE MAJF
OR ORITY OF �SETREESIS IS WOULDTY
HAVE
N
NS
To VISUALLY BREAK UP THE EXP
F TO BE RELOCATED AS DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE IN THOSE AREAS.
o PROVIDE
CONIFERS - THE USE OF CONIFERS AND REINFORCEMENT OF THE DRI NG THE MAIN DRIVE WOULD BE NTGEXPERIENCE.
CLUMPS OF YEAR AROUND GREEN COLOR
WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED SC�\IESLAPPROPRIATE NT �RgpJOINING PROPERSITE AND TY USES PROVIDE
A REAL VISUAL ASSET TO THE
OWNERS.
EXHIBIT # 13C
PHASE 1 2u
PREUMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
I �
1/M NMfT� -
' _.:ice=� --'.• • . II� a
;� '�• - .._'_� -�rX . �. ,meq,
i
1
�/� Nnrsr 1
wager
I e 5.2
OL
.�
oil
K ` '
LL
id)
.,tom �. ,� r-►
S f M1
s 7t'
• � J
lop
VAR
At
AN
�� ,dam .�;•. `+r. � ��/ '
I
i
owe
1,�
r
I 11
r 06
���`kGFS'i`',�d5t'%'"i•. ,., �, IY,xRi i$� � � r x '� ��i �1` ,�"•�
r
Nwtau
dF
c51tt11`stt4 � � .N
.�i{t;t<t1E 1t{t , s�'~'. t ��••'.. ;`} j�•p�y, fir,' •
y � 4
x=
.,:.rte.. ,. ..�•s<'.-' -
b 4 . moi.A r♦aw•r ANIW�' w
AM a it
w
1V` ,
-
i < .; .. L .
i
dab
r
e4 I
AW
aes" r
• Id )
11 7
3-V
jor
._ice• _ o .r ;�� \!�'%/d, �
�
jo
ly
As
J
I I v �a
' •i
_ —. •-T` j / ►�, •may. ,.� rs � �� •�1[
' Q
LL
I - 1• �. l _ _ = -- � lig _
1 1_ •\ SII
W
LU
"sI
Ell us
I nl INC
• I /� In
s 1 ;.,,I• W
=s ��•i M
EXHIBIT * 17
2AA
WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC.
ZOA #95-05
STIPULATIONS
CHANGES TO THE MASTER PLAN SHALL BE HANDLED AS OUTLINED IN
THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMO TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DATED .JANUARY 9, 1986. (SEE ZONING AND FUTURE CONTROLS . )
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT THE DEVELOPER
SUB`lIT FOR HOUSING S REDEVELOPMENT/STAFF APPROVAL THE FOLLCWING
CO'1PREHENSIVE PLANS WITH PHASING DETAILS*
A. STORM DRAINAGE
B. LANDSCAPING
C . LIGHTING
D. SIGNAGE
E . ARCHITECTURAL FACADE MATERIAL PLAN INCLUDING RAMP
TREATMENTS
� . REZONING OF THE .JOHNSON PROPERTY, LOT 5, BLOCK 5, DONNAY' S
LAKEVIEW MANOR ADDITION, IS CONTINGENT UPON SITE CONTROL
OF THE .JOHNSON PROPERTY BY THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE COORDINATED M:ITH
ACQUISITION DATE .
4. ANY CHANCES IN THE S-2- ZONING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
THESE STIPULATIONS WERE APPROVED WITH THE REZONING REQUEST ON
AUG. 18. 1986 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. STIPULATION t4 WAS ADDED AT THAT TIME.
CJF. XHIEyT '?.1 S
y� , -• u = 2BB
!'t � � C�3•� ` ��:ice •i � O
Z ,• �
N
Jb
Ic
1 �• '1
N •i; r is• �
:•iii•:• 1 .
••-
:: troXI: 3c
��
Ic
Ic
:: it
.;...
IL
or-
IL
••fu.% ie Mt I 1 ..—— y R
"^ DIRECTORATE M
o.. o
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
CIIYOF MEMORANDUM
FRIDLEY
_4 TD: Nasim Qureshi, City Manager BM-260
FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Sunde Engineering Contract
DATE: September 3, 1986
In accordance with Schedule C of the HRA and Woodbridge Agreement, the City
is to provide public improvements and engineering support for the
identified work. Sunde Engineering had been originally retained by
Woodbridge Properties, Inc. to prepare the development plans for the 100
Win property. On January 6, 1986, the City Council, on the HRA
reommendation, agreed to retain the services of Sunde Engineering to
design the public improvements for the 100 Twin Drive-In.
I have received a letter frau Sunde Engineering dated May 23, 1986 which
identifies the engineering work associated with the public improvements at
an amount not to exceed $148,797.00 of which $571,940.23 has been paid by
the HRA with their execution of the Woodbridge Amendment.
In order to maintain continuity and expertise on the 100 %Win Drive-In
site, I would reommend that the HRA by letter accept the Sunde Engineering
Contract dated March 23, 1986 for an amount not to exceed $148,797.00.
JGF/ts
cc: Jock Robertson
3A
SUNDE ENGINEERING, INC.
GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer
9001 East Bloomington Frwy. • Bloomington,MN 55420 • (612)881-3344
May 23, 1986 -
Mr. John G. Flora
Director of Public Works
City of Fridley
Civic Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Re: (258-85) Lakepointe Development
Fridley, Minnesota
This letter is a proposal to perform engineering and surveying services
at the above project. The specific work for which this proposal applies
is the following:
a. Design of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water system, and roadway
for the public streets within the development. This does not in-
clude the proposed intersection of West Moore Lake Drive with
T.H. 65. Such work is being performed by another consultant. Spec-
ifications will be prepared by the City of Fridley as the plans
will be incorporated into the City's spring letting.
b. Preparation of plans and specifications for the street and site
grading project. The project will be the overall site grading
necessary to prepare the site for development. The recommendations
of the soils consultant, Subterranean Engineering Corporation,
are to be incorporated into the plans as are subcut plans prepared
by that firm.
c. Preparation of as-built drawings. After completion of the site
grading and utility construction work and finishing of the streets,
the survey crews will measure elevations and locations for utility
and street features. The site construction plans will be modified
to reflect the as-built information.
d. Construction inspection. This work anticipates the use of a full
time inspector at the site during the 1986 work season to observe
the installation of utilities and also work with the geotechnical
- consultant to observe the grading operations. The proposal from
the geotechnical consultant for his testing and inspection services
is separate from this proposal .
3B
Mr. John Flora
Page 2
May 22, 1986
e. Staking for utilities, grading, and roadway construction. This
is the normal staking work associated with the utility, roadway,
and grading operations. The estimates assume that t-he various
items will be staked once and that the Contractor is responsible
for protection of the stakes.
Following is 'an estimate of the cost for the above categories. The
design and preparation of plans and specifications are based on percentages
of the construction cost. The staking and inspection work is based on our
estimate of the time required and also on the work effort needed on similar
jobs.
a. Design of Roadways and Utilities (Use 6.0 percent
of the construction cost).
Cost = 0.06(527,643) _ $ 31,659
b. Plans and Specifications for the Site Grading (Use
3.5 percent of the construction cost).
Cost = 0.035(972,514) _ $ 34,038
c. Preparation of as-builts
Cost = $ 3,600
d. Construction Inspection
*
Cost = $ 42,700
e. Staking for Streets, Grading and Utilities
*
Cost = $ 36,800
TOTAL $148,797
* These items would be billed on a time and expenses basis at our
normal rates. These are available on request.
The above estimates do not include the costs for the site geotechnical
investigations that are necessary to the site design or the various analyses
and reports prepared concerning soils and groundwater conditions. Also,
the geotechnical inspection work for grading and utility work (soils testing)
should be considered as separate work from the above inspection items.
This is normally contracted directly by the City or developer and not in-
cluded with the civil engineering and surveying operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal .
Yours very truly,
Gerald M. Sunde
GMS:jf
cc: Eric Nesset
7L
RESCLUrmN NO. HRA- 1986
R' smarm AOCEPr= A CACTI'� MM �IMPROVEMENTS
FNGINEERIlWWORK ASSOCIATEDTHE
TO BE DONE ON THE LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER
RE VFLOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Fridley
Housing and Redevelopment Authority requires that the City provide for the
construction of the public improvements to the Lake Pointe Corporate
Center Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS,, the City Council on January 6, 1986, upon the reoommendation of
the HRA, voted to retain Sunde Engineering to design the public
improvements to the Lake Pointe Corporate Center; and
WHEREAS, Sundae Engineering has identified the engineering work associated
with the public improvements to the Lake Pointe Corporate Center in a
Oontract dated Mardi 23, 1986.
NOW, 7 HERMRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the
Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority do hereby accept the Contract
between Sunde Engineering and the City of Fridley dated March 23, 1986;
and,some on behalfreby ze the Chairman ofthe Authority,nithe
Executive Director to execute
thsuch additions and modifications
as those officers may deem necessary.
BE IT FUFMER RFSCLVED, that the engineering work associated with the
public improvements to be designed by Sunde Engineering, shall not exceed
$148,797, of which $57,940.23 was paid by the HRA at the time of the
execution of the Addendum to the Contract for Private Redevelopment
between the Fridley HRA and Lake Pointe Investment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FRIrLEY HOUSING AND REEbVELOPMENT AMCR'TY THIS
MY OF , 1986.
UVERENCE OJHMERS, CHAIRMN
ATTEST
JOHN L. "JOCK" ROBERTSON
EXECUTIVE MRECTOR
4
RESCEVMN NO. __ 1986
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE 100 TWIN
MIVD-IN INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, the HRA has identified the Moore Lake redevelopment District; and.
WHEREAS, Woodbridge Properties, Inc. proposed to develop the 100 Twin
Drive-In site to include approximately 750,000 square feet of space; and
WHEREAS, the EAW and Source Permit for this development requires
improvements at the intersection of Highway 65 and the Drive-In plus Rice
Creek Road; and
WHEREAS, the Engi neer i ng f i rm of Short-Elliot-Hendrickson (S.E.H.) was
retained by the HRA to initiate design of the intersecting legs of the
intersection of the Drive-In property and Highway 65.
WHEREAS, the following costs have been sukmitted for the S.E.H. support:
PHASE WEST MOORE LAID; DR. HIGHihIAY 65 RICE CREEK RD.
Prelim. Plans * * $ 7,100.00
Detailed Plans * $ 55,500.00 -3"0.0
Construction $39.800.00 59.000.00 47,500,0
$39,800.00 $114,500.00 $ 91,100.00
I-Mr ZflEREEORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY THE CITY OF FRIMEY HRA THAT the existing
design agreement with S.E.H. be amended to include the detail plans and
construction of the Highway 655for the Rice Creek Roadand West ore Lake Drive
impravement from
intersection and preliminary plans
Old Central to Highway 65; and,
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HRA OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS ____— DAY OF
1986.
LARRY OOMMEERS - C4IAIItMAN
ATTEST:
Pr
/6/2/7(
- 1
DIRECTORATE oc
• •00.o
O F o°
PUBLIC WORKS -�-7-7.
CITYOF MEMORANDUM
ffFPJDLEY-
TO:
Jock Robertson, Exec. Director of HRA IW86-263
FRO14: John G. Flora, Public Works Director
DATE: September 31 1986
SUBJECT: S.E.H. Contracts
We have received a new contract proposal from S.E.H. which includes all of
the work associated with the West Moore Lake Drive/Old Central
intersection, Highway 65 and Rice Creek Road improvements identified
essential for the development of the 100 Iain Drive-In site by 9
Properties.
development of the 100 Main Drive-In site by Woodbridge Properties.
The agreement addressed the work in three phases, Phase I - Preliminary
Plans, Phase II - Detailed Plans, and Phase III - Construction and
ft Inspection.
t. NQ Q� RD.
H1GWM 65
�� NEST ORF. LAiM DIR. ��--
* * $ 71100.00
Prelim. Plans $ 55,500.00 36,500.00
Detailed Plans
Construction $39.800.00 _,SL- 0_g 0.00 47.509
$39,800.00 $114,500.00 $ 91,100.00
* Authorized in the current agreement $30,750.00
The additional work at not to exceed costs is identified at $245,400.00
adding the existing
contract,
s total amount of .1u1on wor k
acoomplished by S.E.H. for thesePravenentswould be$2765000
Once the detailed plans have been completed for the three projects, we can
review the construction and inspection phase of the work to an hourly rate
with a maximum total bid as the specs for the work will then be identified.
This should result in a lower cost to the City. Currently, the proposal
based upon a $2,000.000.00 construction prOJect puts the agreement in the
neighborhood of 14.0 percent for design and inspection.
Recommend the HRA authorize the City to enter into an agreement with S.E.H.
to. complete the design for the West Moore Lake Drive/Old Central
intersection, Highway 65 and proceed with the Rice Creek Road improvements.
This design work is necessary to be accomplished as soon as possible if the
construction schedule for 1987 is to be satisfied.
JGF/ts
cc: Nasim 4ureshi
Rids Pribyl
_ 00
•- DIRECTORATE o• '•�
OFEL
o0 0
PUBLIC WORKS
mss---- ,
FRIDLEY E M
ORANOUM
"M
iw86 261
I: Nasim Qureshi, city PAmger
Fl t: Jahn G. glorarr(Nblic Works Director
DATE: September 4, 1986
SLMJD(T: Lake Pointe Corporate Center
In accordance with the HRA and Woodbridge Developer 1�
gre� Schedule C,
the City is to provide public improvements including landscaping for the
Lake Pointe Corporate Development.
Woodbridge Properties had retained the services of Ernst i Associates to
prepare their landscaping plan and specifications. By letter dated July
141 1986 iron► Ernst i Associates they
ofethe HRA andtal contract
Woodbridge
amount of $9,225.00. With the work
Amendment. $5,377.66 was Pai wto Ernst &iAssociates rcp
thin the overall i identifintdheeir
_ to that date and is included
contract statement.
In order to maintain continuity and expertise for the Lake Pointwith Eranst
te
Center, I would recommend the HFA by letter execute an agreement
& Associates for an amount not to excee&$9,225.00.
JGF/ts .
cc: Rids Pribyl
Jock Robertson
5A
RESCLiTTMN N0. HRAr=1986
A REBCLVi70N ADTHORIZ ING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH ERN�AN�DR LAIC �T� FOR�R��LANDSCAPE AND
AND PLAN
SPECIFICA
WHEREAS, the Contract for Private Redevelopment and Addendumentsf
thereto, requires that the City provide Pu Pr
landscaping, for the Labe Pointe Corporate Center Project; and,
WHEREAS, the services of Ernst and Associates were retained by Woodbridge
Properties to prepare their landscaping plan and specifications; and,
WHEREAS, Ernst and Associates have identified total contract costs of
$9,225; and,
WHEREAS, with the execution of the Addendum to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
$5,377.66 was paid to Ernst and Associates by
the HRA for the work
completed to that chte with this amount included within the overall anoint
identified in the contract statement.
'gIMMRE, BE IT RESCLVID, that the Commissioners of the Fridley
Housing
and Redevelopment Authority do hereby authorize the execution of an
ion plan
Agreement with Ernst and Associates for landscaping rovenents
specifications, not to exceed $9,225, for part of the publicauthorize the
for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center project and hereby
alf of the
Chairman and the Executive Director
modifications cute the same on thosebah cars may
Authority, with such additions
deem necessary.
pASSID AND ADOPTED BY THE ERITLEY HCUSIM AND RECEVELOPMENT AUTHCRI TY THIS
DAY OF , 1986.
LpWERMCE a"ERS, CIiAIRIm
ATTEST:
JCHN L. "JOCK" ROBERTSCN
EXECUTIVE EVUMR
gip;:
i;
fr.
i
�:'
`r
^'
;j
s
�r':
�'
. b
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
Ml`RJRANUM 70: Technical Advisory C=ttittee
University Avenue N.E. Corridor
FROM: Barton-Asc bman Associates, Inc.
DATE: August 35, 1986
SUB3FZr: COST GUII]ELTNES FOR ALTERNATIVE SIGN SCHEMES
The preliminary costs indicated on the alternative design matrix were
developed from actual construction costs associated with recent Barton-
Aschman streetscape and roadway projects. For the most part, these costs
are very general and are to serve as guidelines for the TAC Committee.
Please note that a cost range is indicated for some items, in particular the
major urban design features and landscaping. The range indicates a level of
development from sizrple to more oa rplex.
If we can be of further assistance please contact us.
6A
N 8
O
L 101
M
4
V M to
O L n
O V v O Y Mv O
O
=~ wN y nM—0 & ap p p C `tC p eeS + O S.
4P L
YL
Z� �� H1 . L V �M • C G 7 Lw L Ov
+ O iT 6U1 V
�q
a� O "CN CO L pO M E Yi G O Im Q
O 7
�M i~ CO . GM4A <M d Yf O mO
U s
O Mto
Z
✓
V
~ U Y N O O 8 ✓ N N Y O
r �aa $ vg ` to
Z d ` F M O �► ~ ~ r p 7 F �U,, M
g ✓ Q ✓ V L
C 0 =O u v V.r if H_ ✓ 00
C L O to
y N �1Yk. u u u a
ta
_ L. 7 O ci O C C
W Z m �O O rON
> X pN MO > O � E � ✓ N
O LN Y'
•n O y� a E ppb uV
y� 8 w MM N C� r V M ✓ �pE ✓p O� �; 5v' nK: w
N F O G 7 N • o H M O p N M N M Li M U m
<
M J O < r
5 €
L
N O
an
✓ C C p O q N
O L
6' y y ✓ u
N L YT E V « M , 7 V ~
{{{Zuuu w M L�,r H u
W
L.
G « 61 C _O ✓�'' ✓ . O O
u O p g `^
N L COO g 82 C U A `" p�F y 1�
= L C: O O G L L M ~
p46
p�M1 C fc g L r H OC >0 U �,r
W J C M G • C G It N
O M V rS
2uo u u q u d « n ''8S u C n
Luu O V O Cp ►-
L V _ Z N N = m
W J N O O 2
r
CK
J
N a C
in NOA
q
g
« iii O
H L {1
•G
4 H ~C •M L. N a
T«� V M SOI H' O
V > Mt ` 6. d 607 Z.
« w L 6 C s g w
30. C u
dw L. u
= 16
V = N= JLU
tL7 Z u O
d
7
QTY OF FRIILEY
MEMORANDUM
TD: CHAIRMg1N ODMMER.S AND APA CDM KSS3)ON MEMBERS
F": JOCK RCBHMSMF EXECUTIVE DIRECIOR
SUBJECT: NEW PARTNERSHIP NAME FOR WINFIELD UEVELOPMENT► INC;.
EATS: SEPTEMBER 5, 1986
According to Jim O'Meara of 0'Cin nhor and Hannan, Winfield Development,. Inc.o
is
forming a new partnership-and will be obtaining the financing for their project
in the Paco Industrial Pa rk under this new partnership name. Because of the
it will be necessary to publish notice
legalities involved with the IM funding, It will also be necessary to
in the newspapers regarding this name change.
approve a new resolution authorizing the execution of a Contract for Private
Development between the HRA and the new partnership.
Because of the statute requirements regarding the publication of the notice of
name change, the resolution will be presented for HPA approval at the October 9,
1986 meeting.
Jim O'Meara assures me that this name change is just a formality, and will in norticulars of the Development
way affect either the funding of the IIS or the pa
Agreement.
7A
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WADNINOTON.D c O"ICL
IU 11
Doo
�l0►[NNbI yAMIA AVCNUC M N
wwSNINDTO«.o c &0006.1-63
3800 IDS TOWER lxorle�l••oo
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET OLrvaio.ncL
y1TC•100
L LMITLD MN.CCN'CP
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-2254 R., �'P'!�o"00%'0"3 VE
16121 341-3800 3031030•1100
• rAoaD o.ncL
V[IMOu[2 71
JAMES P.O'MEARA TELEX 29-0584 ��D;D�s►AIN
16121343`1288
TELECOPIER 16121 341-3800 12561 ""'�"•
September 4 , 1986
To: The Attached Distribution List
Re: $2,800 ,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
(Winfield Project ) of the City of Fridley
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Due to the Labor Day holiday, the Fridley City Council
is meeting on the 8th and the 22nd of this month, not on the
15th as we had previously assumed.
We have also arranged to have the City Council hold a TEFRA
hearing on this project (to conform to the request of the developer
that the borrower be a partnership of which Winfield Developments,
Inc. is a partner or affiliate) on the earliest possible date,
which is September 22 . I anticipate that we will also be coming
before the Council on that evening for final approval of the
issue.
At this point, Bank Counsel has given me his comments on
the first draft of documents. If I could have the remainder
of the written or telephone comments on these documents on next
Wednesday, I will have second and hopefully relatively final
version of the initial documents in your hands by the end of
next week.
..Yours very truly,
Imes P. O'Mea`ra
JPO: jk
IS
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Re: $2,800,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
(Winfield Developments, Inc. Project) of the City
of Fridley, Minnesota
City Underwriter
-Nasim Qureshi, City Manager Pat Forciea
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director James R. Casserly
Fridley City Hall Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
6431 University Avenue 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 2400
Fridley, MN 55432 Minneapolis, MN 55431
893-8074
Company 893-8089
Edward Bubany
Winfield Developments, Inc. Underwriter's Counsel
5780 Lincoln Drive John Utley
Edina, MN 55436 Holmes & Graven
938-8661 470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Company Counsel 337-9214
Betsey Aby
Bruce Bonjour Trustee
Lindquist & Vennum Linnea Thompson
4200 IDS Center Norwest-Bank Minneapolis, N.A.
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Eighth Street and Marquette Avenue
371-8535 Minneapolis, MN 55479
Bank Bond Counsel
Brian Whitemarsh James P. O'Meara
National City Bank of Minneapolis O'Connor & Hannan
75 South Fifth Street 3800 IDS Center
P.O. Box E1919 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Minneapolis, MN 55402 343-1288
340-3264
Bank Counsel
David W. Kelley
Leonard, Street & Deinard
Suite 1500 , 100 So. Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
337-1670
p
O
QTY OF FRIMEY
MEMORANDUM
TD: CHAImm CDMRS AND HRA WM+IISSMN MEMBERS
FROM: JOCK RCBFRZSCNF EXECUTIVE DIRDCTOR
SuBjE)rT: SHaUNOOD INN IaMDELM PROJ BCT
MTE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1986
Jim Nicklow, Vice-
-The ODntract for Private Development has been executed assured Jim Robinson, the
president and co-owner of the Shorewood Inn. v will begin within two
City's Planning Coordinator, that the parking lot pi ing
weeks and the landscaping of the area to follow shortly thereafter.
within Tax Increment District
1he public hearing to establish the Shorewood Inn public
#8 will be held by the City Council on September 22, 1986. After the
the District will be certified by the County and filed with the
hearing,
Department of Energy
and Economic Development.
8A
Final Copy Of 8/14/86
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
By and Between
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
And
SHOREWOOD, INC.
t
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Herrick & Newman P.A.
6279 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
-- E
8B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FJ
(This Table of Contents is not part of the Contract
for Private Development and is only for
Convenience of reference. )
Page
_ 1
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS
E'
Section 1 . 1 . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
f: ARTICLE II - REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
G' AND COVENANTS
Section 2 .1. Representations and Warranties by 2_1
F.
the Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 2 .2. Representations and Warranties by 2_1
the Developer. . . . . . . . . • •
ARTICLE IZI - UNDERTAKINGS OF THE AUTHORITY 3-1
Section 3 .1. Second Mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE IV - CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS
Section 4 .1. Construction of Minimum 4-1
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 4 .2. Construction Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-1
Section 4. 3. Commencement aCompletion
. . . 4-2
Construction . . . . . . • • • • • • "
. . . . .
f. 4-3
Section 4.4 . Certificate of Completion . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE V - INSURANCE AND CONDEMNATION 5-1
Section 5 .1 . Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • ' 5-2
Section 5 .2. Condemnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • •
Section 5 .3 . Modification for Benefit 5-3
of Mortgage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE VI - ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Section 6 .1. Execution of Assessment 6-1
Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 6 .2 . Real Property and In Lieu of Taxes. 6-1
ARTICLE VII - MORTGAGE FINANCING
Section 7 .1. Limitation Upon Encumbrance 7-1
of Property . . . . . . . o • • • • • • • • '
-- Section 7 .2. Approval of Mortgage, . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-
Section 7 .3. Notice of Default; Copy to 7-2
Mortgagee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 7 .4. Mortgagee' s Option to Cure Defaul.. 7-2
Section 7 .5. Authority' s Option to Cure
Default on Mortgage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Section 7 .6. Subordination and Modification for
the Benefit of Mortgagees. . . . . . . . . . 7-3
8C
ARTICLE VIII - PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ASSIGNMENT AND
TRANSFER; INDEMNIFICATION
Section 8.1. Prohibition Against Transfer of
Property and Assignment of
Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. 8-1
Section 8.2. Release and Indemnification
Covenants 8-2
ARTICLE IX - EVENTS OF DEFAULT
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined o 9-1
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default . . . o — o - Gos0000 9-2
Section 9 . 3 . No Remedy Exclusive 9-2
Section 9 .4 . No Additional Waiver Implied by
One Waiver 9-2
Section 9.5. Agreement to pay Attorneys Fees
and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
ARTICLE X - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 10 .1. Restrictions on Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-1
Section 10 .2. Conflicts of Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-1
Section 10.3 . Provisions Not Merged With Deed . . .10-1
Section 10 .4 . Titles of Articles and Sections . . .10-1
Section 10 .5 . Notices and Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-1
Section 10 .6. Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-2
Section 10 .7 . Law Governing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-2
ARTICLE XI - TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
Section 11 .1. The Developer' s Options to
Terminate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-1
Section 11 .2. The Authority' s Options to
Terminate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-1
Section 11 .3 . Extraordinary Terminate . . . . . . . . . . .11-1
Section 11 .4 . Action to Terminate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-1
TESTIMONIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-2
SIGNATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-2
NOTARIZATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-3
EXHIBIT A - Development Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
. . .
EXHIBIT B - Certificate of Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
EXHIBIT C - Certification by Anoka County Assessor. . . . C-5
ATTACHMENT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
ATTACHMENT B TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ C-7
EXHIBIT D - Permitted Encumbrances To Development
Property. . . . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
EXHIBIT E - Landscape, Parking and Access Plan
8D
draft 8/14/86
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the day of
1986 , by and between the Housing and
r Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota (the "Authority" ) , a political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota organized under the Constitution and laws
of the State of- Minnesota and Shorewood, Inc. , a Minnesota
corporation (the "Developer" ) ,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the "Board" ) of the
Authority has determined that there is a need for develop-
ment and redevelopment within the corporate limits of the
City to provide employment opportunities, to provide ade-
quate housing in the City, including low and moderate income
housing and housing for the elderly, to improve the tax
base and to improve the general economy of the City and the
State of Minnesota;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of these objectives, the
Authority has established, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 462.411 et seq. (the "Redevelopment Act" ) , the
development program known as the Modified Redevelopment Plan
for its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (which program, as
amended, and as it may be amended, is hereinafter referred
to as the "Redevelopment Program" ) in the City to encourage
and provide maximum opportunity for private development and
redevelopment of certain property in the City which is not
now in its highest and best use;
WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement the
Redevelopment Program has been prepared and approved by the
Board pursuant to the Redevelopment Act, and the Authority' s
Redevelopment Project No. 1 , as amended (hereinafter
referred to as the "Redevelopment District" ) , has been
established;
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the
Redevelopment Program and particularly to make the land in
the Redevelopment District available for development by pri-
vate enterprise for and in accordance with the uses spe-
cified in the Redevelopment Program, the Authority has
determined to provide substantial aid and assistance in con-
nection with the Redevelopment Program through the financing
of certain of the public costs of development within the
Redevelopment District; and
-1-
8E
WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the construction of
tis
the Minimum Improvements by the Derallpelorptheutermsoofhthis
Agreement and the fulfillment gene Y of
Agreement are in the best interests Of
the
eAuthof ority
and
will promote the health, safety
and he City' s
residents and are in accord with the public purposes and
provisions of the applicable State and local laws and-
requirements under which the Redevelopment Program has been
undertaken and is being assisted:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
respective rights and obligations of the parties hereto,
each of them does hereby covenant and agree, respectively,
as follows:
-2-
8F
.ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement,
the following terms have the following respective meanings:
"Agreement" means this Contract for Private Development.
"Articles and Sections" mentioned by number only are the
respective Articles and Sections of this Agreement so
numbered.
"Assessor' s Minimum Market Values" means the agreed
minimum market values for the property tax purposes cer-
tified by the Assessor for Anoka County pursuant to the
Assessment Agreement.
"Assessment Agreement" means the assessment agreement,
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, to be executed by
and between the Authority and the Developer pursuant to the
provisions and requirements of Minnesota Statutes 273.76
Subd. 8 , establishing the Assessor' s Minimum Market Values.
"Authority" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota.
"Board" means the Board of Commissioners, the governing
body of the Authority.
"Building Inspector" means the building inspector of the
City.
"Certificate of Completion" means the certificate (or
certificates, if issued separately for the Minimum
Improvements to be constructed on the development property) ,
in the form attached as Exhibit B hereto, to be provided by
the Authority to the Developer pursuant to this Agreement,
upon satisfactory completion of the Minimum Improvements.
"City" means the City of Fridley, Minnesota.
"Closing Date" means the date upon which the Authority
and the Developer close on the mortgage of the Development
Property to the Developer pursuant to Article III hereof.
-- "Company" means Shorewood, Inc. , or its successors or
assigns under this Agreement.
"Construction Plans" means the plans, specificatio�nns,
drawings and related documents on all construction wo�kto
be pezt
formed by the Developer on the Development Property,
including all on-site improvements to be performed,
1 - 1
8G
installed or constructed upon the Development Property pur-
suant to this Agreement. Such plans shall, at a minimum,
include, for each building or other structure to be
constructed on the Development Property, at least the
following: ( i) site plan; ( ii) foundation plan; ( iii)
basement plans; ( iv) floor plan for each floor; (v) cross
sections of each (length and width) ; (vi) elevations (-all
sides) ; and (vii) landscape plan, and shall include as well
adequate plans, drawings and specifications relating to all ,
driveways, walks, parking, and other improvements to be
constructed upon the Development Property by the Developer.
The site plan submitted by the Developer to the Building
Inspector for the City, if approved by the Building
Inspector and acceptable to the Authority, may serve as the
Construction Plans.
"Council" means the City Council, the governing body of
the City.
"County" means the County of Anoka, Minnesota.
"Developer" means Shorewood, Inc. , a Minnesota cor-
poration and any successor thereto permitted by this
Agreement.
"Development Property" means the real property described
in Exhibit A of this Agreement.
"Event of Default" means an event of default defined in
Section 9 .1 of this Agreement.
"First Mortgage" means any Mortgage granted to secure
any loan made pursuant to a primary mortgage commitment
obtained by the Developer from a commercial lender or other
financial institution to fund the major portion of the
construction costs and initial operating capital require-
ments of the Minimum Improvements or a Mortgage to be exe-
cuted by the Developer in connection with the issuance by
the Authority of its development revenue bonds or notes to
fund the major portion of the construction costs of the
Minimum Improvements .
"Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage.
"Minimum Improvements" means the interior and exterior
improvements to the Shorewood Restaurant located at 6161
Highway 65 , Fridley, Minnesota, including landscaping,
parking and related facilities , to be constructed by the
Developer upon the Development Property pursuant to this
Agreement, as such improvements are defined in the
Construction Plans therefore.
1 - 2
4f
SH
"Mortgage" means any mortgage made by the Developer
which is secured, in whole or in part, by the Development
Property, or any portion or parcel thereof, or any improve-
ments constructed thereon, and which is a Permitted
Encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of
this Agreement.
"Net Proceeds" means any proceeds paid by an insurer to
the Developer, the Holder of the First Mortgage, or the
Authority under a policy or policies of insurance required
to be provided and maintained by Developer pursuant to
Article VI of this Agreement and remaining after deducting
all expenses ( including fees and disbursements of counsel)
incurred in the collection of such proceeds.
r
"Permitted Encumbrances" means, with respect to the
Development Property, those encumbrances listed in Exhibit D
hereof, respectively.
"Redevelopment Program" means the redevelopment program
adopted by the Authority for its Redevelopment Project
No. 1 , as amended.
"Second Mortgage" means the mortgage made by the
Developer to the Authority which is secured, in whole or in
part, by the Development Property, or any portion or parcel
thereof , or any improvements constructed thereon, and which
is a Permitted Encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of
Section 3 .2 of this Agreement.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"Tax official" means any City or County Assessor;
County Auditor; City, County or State Board of Equalization;
the Commissioner of Revenue of the State; or any State or
federal court, the Tax Court of the State or the State
Supreme Court.
"Termination Date" means the Termination Date of expira-
tion of the Assessment Agreement, as defined therein.
"Unavoidable Delays means delays, outside the control of
the Party claiming its occurrence, which are the direct
result of strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or
prolonged bad weather, Acts of God, fire or other casualty
to the Minimum Improvements, litigation commenced by third
parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial
action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal,
state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority)
which directly result in delays.
1 - 3
81
ARTICLE II
Representations, Warranties and Covenants
Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties by the
Authority. The Authority represents and warrants that it is
authorized to enter into and perform its obligations under
this Agreement; however, no part of this Agreement shall be
. construed as a representation
PropertyAuthority
to itstsuitabi-
condition of the Development
lity for the Developer' s purposes and needs.
Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties by the
Developer. The Developer represents and warrants that
(a) The Developer is a corporation
organizednot in an
existing under the laws of the State,
tion of any provisla-
ions of its Articles of Incorporation
or By-laws, is not in violation of any provisions of the
law of the State and is authorized to enter into and
perform its obligations under this Agreement.
(b) That the Developer will construct, operate and
maintain the Minimum Improvements upon the Development
Property in accordance with this Agreement and all
local, state and federal laws and regulations including
without limitation environmental, zoning,
g code
and public health laws and regulations) .
(c) The cost of construction of the Minimum
Improvements will be not less than $590 ,000 -00 -
(d) The Developer has received no notice or communication
from any local , state or federal official or body
that
the activities of the Developer respecting the Development
Property or the construction of the Minimum Improvements
in violation of any law or
thereon may be or will be
regulation, except as may have been previously disclosed
by the Developer to the Authority.
(e) The Developer will use its best efforts to obtain,
in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and to meet, in a timely manner , all require-
ments of all applicable local, state and federal laws
and regulations wmay
the
Minimum improvementsY belawfullyconstructed
( f) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby
compliance with the ter and
and the fulfillment of or
conditions of this Agreement are not prevented or
limited by and will not conflict with or result in a
2 - 1
8J
breach of any provision or requirement applicable to the
Developer, or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or
instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is
now a party or by which it is bound.
(g) The Developer recognizes it may need to obtain cer-
tain special use or other permits from the City to
enable construction of the Minimum Improvements and the
Developer acknowledges that the issuance or non-issuance
of such permits rests with the City and not the
Authority.
2 - 2
8K
ARTICLE III
Undertakings of the Authority
Section 3.1. Second Mortgage.
(a) For the purpose of providing certain assistance to
the Developer for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements, the Authority agrees to lend to the
Developer the sum of $70 ,000.00. In consideration of
this loan the Developer shall execute for the benefit of
the Authority a second mortgage on the Development
Property in the principal amount of $70,000.00 .
Interest on this second mortgage shall begin to accrue
simple interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per
annum on the third anniversary date of the execution of
this mortgage. All payments shall first be applied to
accrued interest. The entire unpaid principal together
with all unpaid accrued interest shall be paid in full
on the fifteenth anniversary of the execution of the
second mortgage. The annual payments under the mortgage
shall be as follows:
Anniversary of Date Annual Mortgage
of Mortgage Payment
Year 4 $ 6 ,300 .00
Year 5 $ 6,300 .00
Year 6 through year 15 $10 ,907 .41
An Event of Default by the Developer under this
Agreement shall be treated as an Event of Default under the
terms of the second mortgage in which event the remedies of
the Authority shall include the right to foreclosure the
second mortgage as well as all remedies provided for under
the Agreement.
(b) Conditions Precedent. The Authority' s obligations
to provide the second mortgage as required under
Section 3 .1 . (a) above shall be contingent on the satis-
faction by the Developer on the following conditions:
( i) the Developer shall be in material compliance with
all the terms and provisions of this Agreement;
( ii) the Developer having submitted construction plans
which shall have been approved by the Authority
pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement;
( iii)there shall have been obtained from the City—all
special-use permits necessary for the constgction
of the Minimum Improvements;
3 - 1
SL
( iv) the parties shall have executed and agreed upon the
Assessors Minimum Market Values as well as having
executed the Assessment Agreement.
(v) the Certification of Completion shall have been
previously issued pursuant to Section 4.4 of this
Agreement.
i'
3 - 2
8M
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum Improvements. The
Developer agrees that it will construct the Minimum _
Improvements on the Development Property in conformance with
the approved Construction Plans. The Developer agrees that
the scope and scale of the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed shall not be significantly less than the scope
and scale of the Minimum Improvements as detailed and
outlined in the Constructions Plans.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans.
(a) The Authority shall have no obligation to the
Developer to take any action pursuant to any provision of
this Agreement, including acquisition and reconveyance
of the Development Property, until such time as the
Developer has submitted Construction Plans to the
Authority, and the Authority has approved such
Construction Plans. The Authority shall approve the
Construction Plans if : (a) the Construction Plans con-
form to the provisions of this Agreement; (b) the
Construction Plans conform to the terms and conditions
of the Redevelopment Plans; (c) the construction plans
conform to Exhibit E; (d) the Construction Plans conform
to all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordi-
nances , rules and regulations; (e) the Construction
Plans are adequate to provide for the construction of
the Minimum Improvements ; and (f) no Event of Default
has occurred; provided, however, that any such approval
of the Construction Plans pursuant to this Section 4. 2
shall constitute approval for the purposes of this
Agreement only and shall not be deemed to constitute
approval or waiver by the Authority or the City with
respect to any building , zoning or other ordinances or
regulation, and shall not be deemed to be sufficient
plans to serve as the basis for the issuance of a
building permit if the Construction Plans are not as
detailed or complete as the plans otherwise required for
the issuance of a building permit. Such Construction
Plans must be rejected in writing by the Authority
within 30 days of submission or shall be deemed to have
been approved by the Authority. If the Authority
rejects the Construction Plans in whole or in part, the
-- Developer shall submit new or corrected Construction
Plans within 30 days after receipt by the Developer of
written notification of the rejection, accompanied by a
written statement of the Authority specifying the—
respects in which the Construction Plans submitted by
the Developer fail to conform to the requirements of
this Section 4.2 The provisions of this Section 4.2
4 - 1
8N
relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of
Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the
Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority.
Approval of the Construction Plans by the Authority
shall not relieve the Developer of any obligation to
comply with the provisions of this Agreement or the pro-
visions 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 Developer desires to make any change in the
Construction Plans after their approval by the
Authority, the Developer shall submit the proposed change
to the Authority for its approval or rejection pursuant
to this Section. A proposed change in the Construction
Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected by the
Authority in writing within 30 days of submission
thereof with a statement of the Authority' s reasons for
such rejection.
Section 4 . 3 . Commencement and Completion of
Construction .
( a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall
commence construction of the Minimum Improvements on or
before July 1 , 1987 .
( b) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall
have subtantially completed the construction of Minimum
Improvements on or prior to December 1 , 1988 .
(c) All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements
to be constructed or provided by the Developer on the
Development Property shall be in conformity with the
Construction Plans as submitted by the Developer and
approved by the Authority.
(d) Until construction of the Minimum Improvements has
been completed, the Developer shall make reports to the
Authority, in such detail and at such times as may reaso-
nably be requested by the Authority, as to the actual
progress of the Developer with respect to the construc-
tion of the Minimum Improvements. The Developer also
agrees that it shall allow a designated representatives
of the Authority to enter upon the Development Property
during the construction of the Minimum Improvements to
inspect such construction.
4 - 2
80
Section 4.4 Certificate of Completion.
(a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements to be constructed in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement, the Authority will furnish
the Developer Company with a Certificate 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 phall be a condition precedent to the issuance
of the Certificate. A Certificate of Completion shall
be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and ter-
mination of the agreements and covenants in this
Agreement with respect to the obligations of the
t Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements covered
by said Certificates.
(b) If the Authority determines that it cannot issue
the Certificate of Completion, it shall, within 30 days
after written request by the Developer, provide the
Developer with a written statement indicating in adequate
detail in what respects the Developer has failed to
complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement or is otherwise in default
under the terms of this Agreement ( including without
limitation an Event of Default hereunder) , and what
measures or acts it will be necessary for the Developer
to take or perform in order to obtain such Certificate
of Completion.
4 - 3
SP
ARTICLE V
Insurance and Condemnation
Section 5.1. Insurance.
(a) At all times prior to the Termination Date, the
Developer will insure the Minimum Improvements in the
manner and amounts usual and customary for facilities of
r the same general nature, including, but not limited to,
insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum
Improvements under a policy or policies covering such
risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar busi-
nesses, including (without limiting the generality of
the foregoing) fire, extended coverage, vandalism and
malicious mischief, explosion, water damage,
demolition
cost, debris removal, and collapse in an amount not less
than the full insurable replacement value of the Minimum
Improvements, but any such policy may have a deductible
Improvements, but any such policy may have a deductible
amount of not more than $2,000 .00. No policy of
insurance shall be so written that the proceeds thereof
will produce less than the minimum coverage required by
the preceding sentence, by reason of co-insurance provi-
sions or otherwise, without the prior consent thereto in
writing by the Authority. The term "full insurable
replacement value" shall mean the actual replacement
cost of the Minimum Improvements (excluding foundation
and excavation costs and costs of underground flues,
pipes, drains and other uninsurable items) and equipment
and shall be determined from time to time at the request
of the Authority, but not more frequently than once
every three years, by an insurance consultant orinsurer
selected and paid for by the Developer and app
roved by
the Authority. All policies evidencing insurance
required by this subparagraph ( i) with respect to the
Minimum Improvements shall be carried in the name of the
Developer, the Authority and the Holder of the Fireast
Mortgage, as their respective interests may app
(b) The Developer agrees to notify the Authority imme-
diately in the case of damage exceeding $10,000.00 in
amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements
or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other
casualty. In the event of casualty to the Minimum
Improvements, the Developer will forthwith repair,
reconstruct and restore the Minimum Improvements to
substantially the same or an improved condition or value
as they existed prior to the event causing such damage
and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair,
reconstruction and restoration, the Developer wild apply
the Net Proceeds of any insurance relating to such
damage received by the Developer to the payment or
reimbursement of the costs thereof.
5 - 1
80
(c) The Developer shall complete the repair,
reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum
Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of
insurance received by the Developer for such purposes
are sufficient to pay for the same.
(d) Any other provision of this Section 5.1 not- -
withstanding,
ot -
withstanding, if temporary or permanent construction
financing for the Minimum Improvements is funded with
the proceeds of a sale of revenue bonds issued by the
Authority or the City, the Authority hereby agrees that,
until such time as the Bonds and all interest and pr
mium, if any, thereon shall be paid in full, the appli-
cable provisions of the loan agreement (or any similar
document) executed with respect to such bonds shall
control the payment, application and disbursement of any
Net Proceeds of insurance with respect to the Project.
With respect to any other construction financing for the
Minimum Improvements, application of proceeds of
insurance shall be subject to the provisions of such
inter-creditor agreement or similar agreement as shall
be approved by the Authority. This Subsection 5.1(d)
notwithstanding , this Section 5.1 otherwise shall
remain in full force and effect with respect to the
Developer' s obligations to maintain insurance, notify
the Authority of any casualty thereto, and reconstruct
the Minimum Improvements upon casualty, unless provision
is made to the satisfaction of the Authority for the
payment or discharge of the Tax Increment Bonds and
reimbursement of all other public redevelopment costs
incurred by the Authority in connection with the
Project.
Section 5.2 . Condemnation.
(a) In the event that title to and possession of the
Minimum Improvements or any material part thereof shall
be taken in condemnation or by the exercise of the power
of eminent domain by any governmental body or other per-
son (except the Authority) so long as the Assessment
Agreement shall remain in effect, shall be any unpaid
principal balance on the Promissory Note, the Developer
shall, with reasonable promptness after such taking,
notify the Authority as to the nature and extent of
such taking. Upon receipt of any Condemnation Award
the Developer shall elect to either: ( i) use the entire
Condemnation Award to reconstruct the Minimum
Improvements (or, in the event only a part of Minimum
Improvements have been taken, then to reconstruct such
part) upon the Development Property or elsewhere within
the District Area; or (ii) pay to the Authority ort-of
the Condemnation Award, to the extent any such
5 - 2
8R
Condemnation Award is sufficient for such purpose if
prior to the Termination Date, the present value of sum
of the real property taxes which would have been
assessed upon the Improved Parcel between the date of
such condemnation and the Termination Date, such calcu-
lation to be based upon (1) the Assessor's Minimum
Market Value specified in the Assessment Agreement pur-
suant to Section 6 .1 of this Agreement,
ofand
(2) the
condem-
then-effective mill rate upon
nation, such sum to be discounted to present value based
upon (1) the number of years between the date of such
condemnation and the dans (2)ethe interest rate of seven
piration of the
Assessment Agreement, a
percent (7%) •
(b) Any other provisions of the foregoing paragraph
notwithstanding, if temporary or permanent construction
financing for the Project is funded with the proceeds of
a public sale of revenue bonds as discussed in
Section 5.1(d) , until such time as the principal, pre-
mium, if any, and interest on such bonds shall have been
paid in full, the proceeds of any Condemnation Award
received with respect to the Minimum Improvementsided ishall
be first paid, applied and disbursed as p
he
loan agreement (or any similar document) executed with
respect to such bonds, with any excess received by the
Developer to applied as provided in the foregoing
paragraph. with respect to any other construction of
financing for the Minimum Improvement, app
licaNet Proceeds of any condemnation award shall be subject
to the provision of such interitortagreement
he ir simi-
lar agreement as shall be approved
by Section 5 . 3 . Modification for Benefit of b. des•
In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the
construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Authority
agrees that it shall agree to any reasonable modification of
this Article V with respect to the disposition of the Net
Proceeds of any insurance or any Condemnation Award to acco-
mmodate the interests of the Holder of the First Mortgage;
provided, however, that the Authority determines,
iis
reasonable judgment, that any such modification(s) will ade-
quately protect the legitimate intereshe ts and security of the
Authority with respect to the Project and to such Redevelopment
District. The Authority also agrees to agree
modification(s) of this Article V with respect oits sother
Holders to the extent that the Authority,
le
discretion, deems such modification(s) necessary and reaso-
nable and reasonably concludes that such modification(s)
does not impair its security as the holder of a Second
Mortgage as provided for in Section 3.2.
5 - 3
8S.
ARTICLE VI
Assessment Agreement
Section 6.1.. Execution of Assessment Agreement.
Contemporaneously with the execution of the Second Mortgage
under Section 3.1(c) , the Developer shall enter into the
Assessment Agreement with the Authority, pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes 273.76, Subd. 8, specifying
the Assessor' s Minimum Market Values which shall be
established with respect to the Project for calculation of
real estate taxes. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
273.76 , Subd. 8 , the Assessment Agreement shall be filed for
record in the office of the county recorder or registrar of
titles of Anoka County, and such filing shall constitute
notice to any subsequent encumbrancer or purchaser of the
Development Property, whether voluntary or involuntary, and
such Assessment Agreement shall be binding and enforceable
in its entirety against any such subsequent purchaser or
encumbrancer, including the Holder of the First Mortgage.
Section 6 .2. Real Property and In Lieu of Taxes.
(a) The Developer shall pay all real property taxes
payable with respect to the Development Property and any
other statutory or contractual duty ( including without
limitation the taxes or payments in lieu thereof imposed
upon the Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
272.01, Subdivision 2) which shall be payable or accrue
in the year 1986 and thereafter until the Developer' s
obligations have been assumed by any other person with
the written consent of the Authority and pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement; provided that this
Agreement shall not impose personal liability upon the
Developer for real property taxes .
(b) The Developer agrees that prior to the Termination
Date:
( i) It will not seek administrative review or
judicial review of the applicability of any tax
statute relating to the taxation of real property
contained within the Development Property deter-
mined by any Tax Official to be applicable to the
Redevelopment District or the Developer or raise
the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a
_ defense in any proceedings, including delinquent
tax proceedings; provided that the Developer may
challenge the applicability of any statute so long
as the outcome of any such review or proceeding
could not and will not adversely affect the genera-
tion and collection of tax increment.
6 - 1
8T
( ii) It will not seek administrative review or
judicial review of the constitutionality of any tax
statute relating to the taxation of real property
contained within the Development Property deter-
mined by any Tax Official to be applicable to the
Redevelopment District or the Developer or raise
the unconstitutionality of any such tax statute as
a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent
tax proceedings; provided that the Developer may
challenge the constitutionality of any statute to
long as the outcome of any such review or pro-
ceeding could not and will not adversely affect
the generation and collection of tax increment.
( iii ) It will not seek any tax deferral or abate-
ment, either presently or prospectively authorized
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.86, or any
other State or federal law, of the taxation of real
property contained in the Development Property bet-
ween the date of execution of this Agreement and
the Termination Date; provided that the Developer
may challenge a valuation in excess of the
Assessor' s Minimum Market Values, but may not seek
a lower valuation than the Assessor's Minimum
Market Values.
6 - 2
8U
ARTICLE VII
Mortgage Financing
Section 7.1. Limitation Upon Encumbrance of Property.
Prior to the completion of the Minimum Improvements, as cer-
tified by the Authority, neither the Developer nor its suc-
oessor in interest to the Development Property or any part
thereof shall engage in any financing or any other transac--
tion creating Any mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon
the Development Property or the Lease except Permitted
Encumbrances, whether by express agreement or cooperation of
law, or suffer any encumbrance or lien to be made on or
attach to the Development Property, except Permitted
Encumbrances, except:
(a) for the purposes of obtaining funds only to the
extent necessary for making the Minimum Improvements
( including, but not limited to, labor and materials,
equipment, professional fees, real estate taxes,
construction interest, organizational and other indirect
costs of development, costs of constructing the Minimum
Improvements, an allowance for contingencies, land
acquisition cost of the Development Property, costs of
issuance of any bond issue to fund construction or
acquisition of the District, amounts required to fund
any bond reserves relating to construction or acquisi-
tion of the District, and amounts required to fund any
required escrow accounts) ;
(b) with the exception of the Second Mortgage described
in Section 3 .1, their shall be only one mortgage which
has priority over this Second Mortgage and the amount of
this first mortgage shall not exceed $600 ,000 .00 ; and
(c) only upon the prior written approval of the
Authority in accordance with Sections 8 . 1 and 8.2.
The Authority shall not approve any Mortgage which does not
contain terms that conform to the terms of Section 7. 5 of
this Agreement, except as provided in Section 7 .6 of this
Agreement.
Section 7 .2. Approval of Mortgage. The Authority shall
approve a Mortgage if:
(a) the Authority first receives a copy of all mortgage
documents;
(b) the mortgage loan, together with other funds_
available to the Developer, will, in the reasonable-e
judgment of the Authority, be sufficient to construct
the Minimum Improvements;
7 - 1
8V
(c) no Event of Default has occurred; and
(d) the Authority determines that the terms of the
ion 7 .5 of Mortgage conform to the terms of Sect mortgage by the
app of
the
Agreement. However, the
Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 7 .3. Notice of Default; Copy to Mortgagee.
Whenever the Authority shall deliver any notice or demand tb
the Developer with respect to any breach or default by the
Developer in its obligations or covenants under the
Agreement, the Authority shall at the same time forward
rtgage
copy of such notice or demand to each Holder of any
dr
authorized by the Agreement at the Authorlast atyess of such
Holder shown in the records of the
Section 7 .4. Mort a eels option to Cure Defaults.
After any breach or default referred to in Section 7. 3
hereof , each such Holder shall ( insofar as the rights of the
Y Authority are concerned) have the right, at its option, to
cure or remedy such breach or default (or such breach or
default to the extent that it relates to the part of the
Development Property covered by its mortgage) and to add the
cost thereof to the Mortgage debt and the lien of its
Mortgage; provided, however, that if the breach or default
is with respect to construction of the Minimum
Improvements, nothing contained in this Section or any
other Section of this Agreement shall be deemed to require
such Holder, either before or after foreclosure or action in
lieu thereof, to undertake or continue the construction or
completion of the Minimum Improvements (beyond the extent
necessary to conserve or protect Minimum Improvements or
construction already made) , provided that any such Holder
shall not devote the Development Property to a use incon-
sistent with the Redevelopment Program or this Agreement
without the agreement of the Authority. Any such Holder who
shall properly complete the Minimum Improvements relating to
the Development Property shall be entitled, upon written
request made to the Authority, to a certification by the
Authority to such effect in the manner provided in Section
4 .4 of this Agreement.
Section 7 .5. Authorit ' s O tion to Cure Default on
Mortgage. Any Mortgage executed by the Developer with
respect to the Development Property or any improvements
thereon shall provide that, in the event that the Developer
is--in default under any Mortgage authorized pursuant to this
Article VII, the mortgagee, within ten (10) days after it or
any of its agents or employees become aware of any such
default, shall notify the Authority in writing of:
7 - 2
8W
(a) the fact of the default;
(b) the elements of the default; and
(c) the actions required to cure the default.
If the default is an "Event of Default" under such Mortgage,
which shall entitle such Holder to foreclose upon the
Development Property, the Minimum Improvments or any por-
tion thereof, and any applicable grace periods have expired,
the Authority shall have, and each Mortgage executed by the
Developer with respect to the Development Property or any
improvements thereon shall provide that the Authority shall
have,the following rights with respect to cure of such Event
of Default;
If , within fifteen (15) days after receipt of said notice,
or thirty ( 30 ) days if the Event of Default is default of a
monetary obligation under the mortgage, the Authority com-
mences the actions necessary to cure the default (and cures
the default within thirty ( 30) days after receipt of said
notice) , then the mortgagee shall pursue none of its reme-
dies under the Mortgage based upon the said default of the
Developer. In the event of a transfer of the title to the
Development Property to the Authority or a third party
approved by the the Authority, whether or not required to
cure a default under the Mortgage, said transfer shall not
constitute an Event of Default under the Mortgage unless the
security of the mortgagee has, in fact, been impaired by
said transfer . In the event of said transfer (which does
not impair the security of the mortgagee) , the mortgagee
shall permit, subject to reasonable requirements as to
financial ability, the transferee to assume all outstanding
obligations (and receive all remaining disbursements) under
the Mortgage. The Authority will not approve any mortgage
pursuant to this Article VII, which does not contain terms
which conform to the terms of this Section 7 .5-, except as
provided in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.
Section 7 .6 . Subordination and Modification for the
Benefit of Mortgagees.
(a) In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing
for the construction of the Minimum Improvements by the
Developer, the Authority agrees to subordinate its
rights under this Agreement to the Holder of the First
Mortgage, but only provided that the First Mortgage pro-
vides that if the Holder of the First Mortgage shall
foreclose on the Development Property, the improvements
thereon, or any portion thereof, it shall assume rthe
Developer' s obligations under the Second Mortgage and
the Assessment Agreement.
7 - 3
8X
(b) In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing
for the construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Authority agrees that it shall agree to any reasonable
modification of this Article VII with respect to the
rights of the Authority under any Mortgage secured by
the Development Property or any improvements thereon, or
portion thereof, to accommodate the interests of the
Holder of the First Mortgage, provided, however, that
the Authority determines, in its reasonable judgment,
that any such modification( s) will adequately protect
the legitimate interests and security of the Authority
with respect to the District and the Redevelopment
Program. The Authority also agrees to consider such
modification(s) of this Article VII with respect to
other Holders, and to agree to such modifications if the
Authority deems such modification(s) necessary and
reasonable and does not impair its Second Mortgage.
7 - 4
8Y
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions A ainst Assi nment and Transfer;
Indemnification
tY
Seof PE22ft_ _
ction 8.1 Prohibition Against elonererepresentsrand
and Assignment of Agme
reent. The Dev p
e of the Certificate of
agrees that prior to the issuanc
Completion of the Minimum improvements by the Authority:
way of security for the purpose of
(a) Except only bythe
obtaining financing necessary to enable mentDPropePtY►o
any successor in interest to the Develop
or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with
respect to making the Minimum Improvements under this
Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by
this
Agreement, the Developer (except as so authorized) has not
d will not make or create or suffer to
made or created an
be made or created any totalo�ranartrustsoreassign-
power, or,
went, conveyance, or lease, Y
transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to
the Agreement or the Development Property or any part
thereof or any interest therein, or any contract orwrit-
agreement to do any of the same, without the prior
ten approval of the Authority and compliance with
Minnesota Statutes , Section 462 .525, Subdivision 5.
(b) The Authority shall be entitled to require, except
as otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to
any such approval that:
( i) Any proposed transferee shall have heheali-
fications and financial responsibility, in tt e and
reasonable judgment of the Authority,
adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in
this Agreement by the Developer.
( ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in
writing satisfactory to the Authority, shall, for
itself and its successors and assigns, and have
expressly for the benefit of the Authority,
expressly assumed all of the obligationsof the sub-
Developer under this Agreement and agreed
ject to all the conditions and restrictions to
which the Developer is subject unless the Developer
in
agrees to continue to fulfill those lthis1Section
which case the preceding provisions of
8 ,2(b) ( ii) shall not apply; provided, however, that
the fact that
resttransferee
whatsoeverof ,
to,otheany
Develorment
-- suc-
cessor in interest
8 - 1
8Z
Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for wha-
tever reason, have assumed such obligations or so
agreed, shall not (unless and only to the extent
otherwise specifically provided in the Agreement or
agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive the
Authority of any rights or remedies or controls
with respect to the Development Property or the
construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being
the intent of the Parties as expressed in this ,
Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted by
law and equity and excepting only in the manner and
to the extent specifically provided otherwise in
the Agreement) no transfer of or change with
respect to ownership in the Development Property or
any part thereof, or any interest therein, however
consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or
involuntary, shall operate, legally or practically,
to deprive or limit the Authority of or with
respect to any rights or remedies or controls pro-
vided in or resulting from the Agreement with
respect to the Development Property and the
construction of the Minimum Improvements that the
Authority would have had had there been no such
transfer or change. In the absence of specific
written agreement by the Authority to the
contrary, no such transfer or approval by the
Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve the
Developer or any other party bound in any way by the
Agreement or otherwise with respect to the
construction of the Minimum Improvements from any
of its obligations with respect thereto.
( iii ) There shall be submitted to the Authority
for review and prior written approval all instru-
ments and other legal documents involved in
effecting the transfer of any interest in this
Agreement or the Development Property.
Section 8 .2. Release and Indemnification Covenants.
(a) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees
that the Authority and the City and the governing body
members, officers, agents , including its independent
contractors, consultants and legal counsel, servants and
employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this
Section, collectively the "Indemnified Parties" ) shall
not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or
damage to property or any injury to or death of any per-
son occurring at or about or resulting from any dEfect
in the Project.
8 - 2
8AA
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any
willful or wanton misconduct of the Indemnified Parties,
the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified
Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the
aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action
or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity
whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this
ns contemplated hereby or
Agreement, or the transactio
the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership,
and operation of the Minimum Improvements, provided,
that this indemnification shall not apply to the warran-
ties made or obligations undertaken by the Authority in
this Agreement.
(c) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements
and obligations of the Authority contained herein shall
be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises,
agreements and obligations of the Authority and not of
any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or
employee of the Authority or of the City.
8 - 3
8BB
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following
are Events of Default under this Agreement:
(a) Failure by the Developer to timely pay all real
property taxes assessed with respect to the Development'
Property; .
(b) Failure by the Developer to commence and complete
construction of the Minimum Improvements pursuant to the
terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement.
(c) Failure by the Developer to substantially observe or
perform any material covenant, condition, obligation or
agreement on its part to be observed or performed under
this Agreement.
(d) The holder of any mortgage on the Development
Property, or any improvements thereon, or any portion
thereof, exercises any remedy provided by the mortgage
documents or exercises any remedy provided by law or
equity in the event of a default in any of the terms or
conditions of the mortgage.
(e) An event of default occurs under any agreement or
instrument executed by the Developer respecting the
Development Property or the Minimum Improvements or any
portion thereof.
- ( f) The holder of any security interest in any part of
the Development Property or Minimum Improvements takes
action to enforce the same for satisfaction.
(g) A petition in bankruptcy is filed naming the
Developer as debtor, and such petition is not dismissed
within 90 days of the date of filing thereof.
(h) Default by the Developer under any provision of the
second mortgage.
( i) The Authority fails to comply with the material
terms of this Agreement, and, after written notice by
the Developer of such failure, the Authority has failed
to cure such non-compliance within 90 days of receipt of
such notice, or, if such non-compliance cannot reaso-
nably be cured by the Authority within 90 days, the
Authority has not, within 90 days of receipt of sst�ttch
notice, provided assurances, reasonably satisfacttry to
the Company, that such non-compliance will be cured as
soon as reasonably possible.
9 - 1
8CC
An Event of Default shall also include any occurrence which
would with the passage of time or giving of notice become an
Event of Default as defined hereinabove.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of
Default occurs and remains uncured, the Authority may take
any one or more of the following actions after giving 15
days written notice to the Developer by the Authority, but
only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said-
15 days:
(a) The Authority may suspend its performance under the
Agreement until it receives assurances from the Developer,
deemed adequate by the Authority, that the Developer will
cure its default and continue its performance under the
Agreement.
(b) The Authority may withhold the Certificate of
Completion.
(c) The Authority may take whatever action, including
mortgage foreclosure, legal or administrative action,
which may appear necessary or desirable to the Authority
to collect any payments due under this Agreement or the
second mortgage or to enforce performance and observance
of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the
Developer under this Agreement.
Section 9 . 3 . No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein
conferred upon or reserved to the Authority is intended to
exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but
each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be
in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement
or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay
or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any
default shall impair any such right or power or shall be
construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and
power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may
be deemed expedient.
Section 9 .4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One
Waiver. If any agreement contained in this Agreement should
be breached by any Party and thereafter waived by any other
Party, Such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach
so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other con-
current, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 9 .5. Agreement to pay Attorneys Fees and
Expenses. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and the
Authority shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for
the collection of payments due or to become due or fokr the
enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation
or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained,
the Developer agrees that he shall, on demand therefore, pay
to the Authority the reasonable fees of such attorneys and
such other expenses so incurred by the Authority.
9 - 2
8DD
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10 .1. Restrictions on Use. The Developer
agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and every suc-
cessor in interest to the Development Property, or any part
thereof, that the Developer and such successors and assigns
shall devote the Development Property to, and only to, and
in accordance with, the uses specified in the Authority Code
and in this Agreement.
Section 10.2. Conflicts of Interest. No member of the
governing body or other official of the Authority shall have
any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement, the Improved Parcel, or any contract, agreement
or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken
thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such
member of the governing body or other official participate
in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his
personal interests or the interests of any corporation,
partnership or association in which he is, directly or
indirectly, interested. No member, official or employee of
the Authority shall be personally liable to the Developer,
or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or
breach by the Authority or for any amount which may become
due to the Developer or his successor or on any obligations
under the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10 .3 . Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of
the provisions of this Agreement shall be merged by reason
of any deed transferring any interest in the Development
Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or
impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement.
Section 10 .4. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any
titles of the several parts, Articles and Sections of this
Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and
shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of
the provisions hereof.
Section 10 .5. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise
expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or
other communication under the Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if sent
by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested, or delivered personally; and,
(a) in the case of the Developer is mailed to or deli-
vered personally to Shorewood, Inc. , 6161 Northeast
Highway 65, Fridley, Minnesota 55432.
10 - 1
SEE
(b) in the case of the Authority, is mailed to or
delivered personally to the Authority at the Fridley
City Hall, 6431 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley,
Minnesota 55432, Attention: Fridley City Manager.
in the case
the
personallythe
tofirst
addressmortgage
tolbe
add dressed or delivered
supplied;
or at such other address as may be designated in wrSectgonnd
forwarded to the other parties as provide
d in this Section 10 .6. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed
in any number of counterparts , each of which shall consti-
tute one and the same instrument.
Section 10 .7 . Law Governing. This Agreement will be
governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
Minnesota.
10 - 2
8FF
ARTICLE XI
Termination of Agreement
Section 11 .1 . The Developer' s Options to Terminate.
This Agreement may be terminated by the Developer if ( i) the
Developer is in compliance with all material terms of this
Agreement and no Event of Default has occurred and ( ii ) the
Authority fails to comply with any material term of this
Agreement, and, after written notice by the Developer of
such failure, the Authority has failed to cure such non-
compliance within 90 days of receipt of such notice, or, if
such non-compliance cannot reasonably be cured by the
Authority within 90 days, the Authority has not, within 90
days of receipt of such notice, provided assurances, reaso-
nably satisfactory to the Developer, that such
non-compliance will be cured as soon as reasonably possible.
Section 11.2. The Authority' s Options to Terminate.
The Authority may terminate this Agreement and/or may refuse
to issue the Certificate of Completion (and be subject to no
obligation or liability therefore) as provided in Section
4 . 4 hereof .
Section 11 .3 . Extraordinary Termination. If the
Developer is unable to obtain all governmental permits
necessary to enable the construction of the Minimum
Improvements or if prior to July 1 , 1987 any of the other
conditions stated in Section 4. 3 have not been satisfied,
then this Development Agreement and the Assessment
Agreement, if any, shall thereupon automatically terminate.
Section 11 .4 . Action to Terminate. Termination of this
Agreement due to the occurrence of any of the foregoing
except Section 11 . 3 must be accomplished by written notifi-
cation to the Authority or to the Developer, as the case may
be, provided by the terminating Party within 10 days after
the date when such option to terminate may first be exer-
cised.
11 - 1
8GG
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Developer have
caused this Agreement to be duly executed on this day
of , 1986 .
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA
By
Its Chairman
And �Il'�(.t...� 'l
Its Director
SHOREWOOD, INC.
By �
i
11 - 2
8HH
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of —' 1986 , by Nasim M. Qureshi,
Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision
of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said Authority. .
Notary Public
11 - 3
811
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss .
COUNTY OF )
-The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1986, by Lawrence R.
Commers, Chairman of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political sub-
division of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said
Authority.
Notary Public
11 - 3a
8JJ
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before met is gip_ day of
1986 , by MMES A 1CkEou) the
7- of Shorewood, Inc. , a Corporation
Tinder the laws of Minnesota, on b alf of the Co porati n.
1��64 Y,
n n�nn �nnnni.n ,,r�^nv�.�•:.-rn. ,nni',r. N O t y Public
{ C' �' V. MORAVET7_
k'iJ .R Ct 1i 1r 1'(
11 - 4
8KK
i
EXHIBIT A
(Development Property)
The Development Property is located in the City of Fridley,
County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, and is legally
described as follows:
That part of Lots 16 and 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88 included in that
part of the southwest quarter of Section 13, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka
County, Minnesota described as follows: beginning at the intersection of the
southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 65 and the south line of
said southwest quarter of Section 13 thence east along the south line of said
southwestq uarter for a distance of 232.00 feet to a point, said point being
1294.80 feet more or less west of south quarter corner of said Section 13
thence north at right angles to the last described line for a distance of
285.54 feet thence northwesterly with a deflection angle to the left of 78
degrees , 54' minutes, 09 seconds for a distance of 163.61 feet more or less to
the said southeasterly right-of-way line thence southwesterly along said
southeasterly right-of-way to the point of beginning, subject -to any and all
easements of record.
A — 1
8LL
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, Shorewood, Inc. (the "Mortgagor" ) has mortgaged
the land described in the attached Exhibit A (the
"Development Property" ) to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a
public body corporate and politic (the "Mortgagee" ) , by A
Mortgage Deed recorded in the Office of the County Recorder
or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Anoka '
and State of Minnesota, as Deed Document Number
WHEREAS, Mortgagor and Mortgagee executed a certain
Contract for Private Development (the "Development
Agreement" ) of the above-mentioned Development Property, and
the issuance of this certificate was a contemplated
occurrence thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the Mortgagor has to the present date performed
said covenants and conditions insofar as it is able in a
manner deemed sufficient by the Mortgagee to permit the exe-
cution and recording of this certification:
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that a certificate of
occupancy has been issued by the City of Fridley, Minnesota,
and that, all physical improvements specified to be done and
made by the Mortgagor have been completed and the above
covenants and conditions in said Development Agreement have
been performed by the Mortgagor therein.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
By
Its
B - 1
8MM
EXHIBIT C
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
ASSESSOR' S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
And
SHOREWOOD, INC.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Herrick & Newman P.A.
6279 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
I
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this day of 8NN
,1986, by and between the Housing and Redevlopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a muni-
cipal corporation and political subdivision organized and
existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota ( the "Authority" ) and Shorewood, Inc. , a Minnesota
corporation (the "Developer" ) ,
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and
the Developer have entered into a Contract for Private
Development dated as of , 1986 (the
"Development Agreement" ) , regarding certain real property
located in the Authority' s Redevelopment Project No. 1, pur-
suant to which the Authority is to acquire certain property,
hereinafter referred to a the Development Property and
legally described in Attachment A hereto, and convey the
Development Property to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said
Development Agreement the Developer will construct interior
and exterior improvements to the Shorewood Restaurant
located at 6161 Northeast Highway 65, Fridley, Minnesota,
including landscaping, parking and related facilities upon
the Development Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer desire to
establish minimum market values for the Development Property
and the improvements to be constructed thereon pursuant to
the Development Agreement ( the "Minimum Improvements" , as
that term is defined in the Development Agreement)
( cumulatively, as such land and Minimum Improvements (as
Defined in the Development Agreement) may exist from time to
time during the term of this Agreement, the "Assessed
Property" ) for the calculation of real property taxes, or
taxes in lieu thereof pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 272 .01 or any successor statute, pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273 .76, sub-
division 8; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Assessor for Anoka County
have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for
the Minimum Improvements which it is contemplated will be
erected;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in con-
sideration of the promises, covenants and agreements made by
each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market values (the "Minimum Markek
Value's" ) which shall be established for the Assessed
Property as of January 2, 1988 , and each January 2
thereafter shall be $790,000.00 ,
C - 1
800
2 . In the event that the Authority does not, for wha-
tever reason, reconvey the Development Property to the
Developer, pursuant to the terms of Article III of the
Development Agreement, this Agreement shall be null and
void.
3 . The minimum market values herein established shall
pe of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall
terminate on January 2 , 1996 (the "Termination Date" ) .
4 . Nothing in this Assessment Agreement (a) shall limit
the discretion of the Assessor for Anoka County to assign
market values to the Assessed Property in excess of the
Minimum Market Values set out in paragraph 1 of this
Agreement or (b) prohibit the Developer from seeking through
the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction
in such Minimum Market Values for property tax purposes;
provided, however, that the Developer shall not seek a
reduction of the market value of the Assessed Property below
the respective Minimum Market Values set out in paragraph 1
of this Agreement so long as this Agreement shall remain in
effect.
5 . Neither the preambles nor provisions of this
Agreement are intended to, nor shall they be construed as,
modifying the terms of the Development Agreement between the
Authority and Developer .
6 . Should any provision of this Assessment Agreement be
determined unconstitutional or otherwise illegal pursuant to
a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction from which
decision no appeal can be or is taken, then such provision
shall no longer be a part of this agreement, and the
remaining provisions of this Assessment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
7 . This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties .
Housing Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota
By
Chairman
BY
Director
Shorewood, Inc. _
By
Its
C - 2
8PP
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1986, by Lawrence R.
Commers, Chairman of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
jin and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, . a political sub-
division of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said
Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss .
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1986, by Nasim M. Qureshi ,
Director, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political sub-
division of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said
Authority.
Notary Public
C - 3
800
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of
1986, by
the of Shorewood, Inc. , a Corporation
under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the Corporation.
Notary Public
C - 4
8RR
EXHIBIT C
Certification by Anoka County Assessor
The undersigned, having reviewed a certain Assessment
Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Shorewood; Inc. ,
a Minnesota corporation ( the "Assessment Agreement" ) , and
Having reviewed the plans and specifications for the impro-,
vements to the constructed and the market value assigned to
the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed,
and being of the opinion that the Minimum Market Values con-
tained in the Assessment Agreement (as said Minimum Market
Values are to be determined and assigned thereunder) appear
reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned
Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of
the above described property, hereby certifies that the
market values assigned to such land and improvements to be
constructed thereon shall , as of , and
thereafter be the Minimum Market Values, respectively,
defined in the Assessment Agreement.
Assessor for Anoka County,
Minnesota
C - 5
8SS
ATTACHMENT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
(Development Property)
The Development Property is located in the City of
Fridley, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, and is legally
described as follows:
C - 6
8T
ATTACHMENT B TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76 , Subdivision 8:
An authority may, upon entering into a development or
f redevelopment agreement pursuant to section 273 .75, sub-
division 5, enter into a written assessment agreement- in
recordable form with the developer or redeveloper of pro-
perty within the tax increment financing district which
establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed
improvements to be constructed thereon until a specified
termination date, which date shall be not later than the
date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to
the authority pursuant to section 273 .75, subdivision 1.
The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county
assessor, or city assessor having the powers of the county
assessor, of the jurisdiction in which the tax increment
financing district is located. The assessor shall review
the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed, review the market value previously assigned to
the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed
and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the
assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the
assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, shall execute the
following certification upon such agreement:
The undersigned assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property upon
completion of the improvements to be constructed
thereon, hereby certifies that the market value assigned
to such land and improvements upon completion shall not
be less than $790 ,000 .00 .
Upon transfer of title of the land to be developed or
redeveloped from the authority to the developer or redeve-
loper, such assessment agreement, together with a copy of
this subdivision, shall be filed for record and recorded in
the office of the county recorder or filed in the office of
the registrar of titles of the county where the real estate
or any part thereof is situated. Upon completion of the
improvements by the developer or redeveloper, the assessor
shall value the property pursuant to section 273 .11 , except
that the market value assigned thereto shall not be less
than the minimum market value contained in the assessment
agreement. Nothing herein shall limit the discretion of the
assessor to assign a market value to the property in excess
of-the minimum market value contained in the assessment
agreement nor prohibit the developer or redeveloper from
seeking, through the exercise of administrative and legal
remedies, a reduction in market value for property tax pur-
poses; provided, however, that the developer or redev&loper
shall not seek, nor shall the city assessor, the county
C - 7
8UU
assessor, the county auditor, any board of review, any board
of equalization, the commissioner of revenue or any court of
this state grant a reduction of the market value below the
_minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement
during the term of the agreement filed of record regardless
of actual market values which may result from incomplete
construction of improvements, destruction or diminution by
any cause, insured or uninsured, except in the case of
acquisition or reacquisition of the property by a public
entity. Recording or filing of an assessment agreement
complying with the terms of this subdivision shall consti-
tute notice of the agreement to any subsequent purchaser or
encumbrancer of the land or any part thereof, whether volun-
tary or involuntary, and shall be binding upon them.
C - 8
8VV
EXHIBIT D
Permitted Encumbrances To
Development Property
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation ( including
but not limited to building and zoning ordinances)
a restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy,
use or enjoyment of the Development Property, or regu-
lating the character, dimensions or location of any
improvement now or hereafter erected on the Development
Property, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a
reduction in the dimensions or are of the Development
Property, or the effect of any violation of any such
law, ordinance or governmental regulation.
2 . Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of
police power.
3 . Such other encumbrances listed on the title commitment
obtained by the Developer prior to the Closing Date
pursuant to Section 7.1 as to which the Authority
shall agree.
4 . The Second Mortgage and any First Mortgage approved or
permitted under Section 7. 2.
D - 1
file+`• 9'• �1 x 7M � !f !+ A T �., •
.. r � � r Vii.-v'� �. \ l.•• /! _ y l
rIV
AF
SAS P,
- •� 3 l �' t y.g� y�� ��Yds..` .�. y.
. .._� .. �{ ( .• ' ,t �.-,. .\lar�'1`,� '�� !�. `�•� yr�+�•..
Loll w t
04
y_
14
r F I-t �-' ,d'f s • •�,
t �� .. S s4•T. ``.^ �' �{il`� � •v III ��'\
I .7
06
�' 'Si�.A►�-�[•�-3 rte"a�� .
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALl & LINDGREN, LTD. PETER : BECK
JAM[S P.CARMAN JEROM[M.KAHN:E
ROBCRT L.MOff MAN SMC RRILL OMAN RURCTICN
0.KC NNETH LINDGRENJACK f.DALT ATTORNEYSTHOMAS S.NUM►HRET.JR
AT LAW THOMAS L.SCC:
ANDRCW W.DANICLSON DAVID J.PEAT
WCNDCLL R.ANDERSON JOHN W L.MITCH L
GERALD H.iRI[DELL ANDREW J.MITCHELL
ROBERT®•WHITLOCK 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY LOWER JOHN A.COTTER•
ALLw,1 T MULLIGAN :ATM LEEN M.OATHS-
ROBCRT J.MENN[SSEY 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET .BEAT G.P U K TMWEIL[R
RONALD R.FLET[MER PAUL B.PLUNK[TT
JAMES C.ERIc:SON BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 SUSAN R.BURNIOHT
J. SCOLL AMY DARR ORAD•
COWARD JDRI
JAMA!P. RI TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 ALAN L.:ILDOW
GENE N..-CLLR KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN
DAVID C.SELLEROREN TELECOPIER 16121 635-5102 TELECOPIER 16121 336-1002 _ LARRY A.:OCH
RICHARD J.KEENAN PETER J.COYLE
JOHN D.f.KEEN CATNCRINE BARNETT WILSON-
ROBERT C.BOTLE BCTTr A.MORNINT STAP
.RANK 1.NARV[Y JEf.REY C.ANDERSON
RICMARO A.fORf CHLER DANIEL L.BOWLES
RICHARD A.NORDSYE Bloomington JONATMOW O.LAND[
CHAR LE!S.
MOD[LL TODD M.VLATKOVICH
CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN REPLY TO TIMOTHY J.MCMAN US
RICHARD 1.DIAMOND RHONDA J.JORDHEIM
JOHN R.aCATTIE JILL I..OILS[RS
A"IS ST:OTHER
S M.
LINDA M.(ISMER
THOMAS P.STOLTMAN
f TEVEN O.'r VIM
fORRE fT D.NOWLIN
MICHAEL C.JAC:MAN
JOHN E.DI EHL OF COU SCL.G.
JON S.fWIERZEWSKI JOBEPTIS
JOHN A.MCMUDH
TMOMA!J..LYNN
JAMES P.OUINN
•ALSO ADMITTED IN
TODD I..PEEMAN
STEPHEN B.SOLOMON WIBCONlIN
September 5 , 1986
Mr. Jock Robertson
Director of Community Development
Mr. Jim Robinson
City Planner
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 University Avenue Northeast
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Multifamily Housing Development
Proposed by Charles Belgarde ,
Kenneth Belgarde, and Harry Yaffe
Our file 14 ,404-00
Dear Jock and Jim:
On August 14 , 1986 we appeared before the Fridley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to discuss Charles Belgarde, Kenneth
Belgarde and Harry Yaffe' s proposal to develop 358 high-quality, high-
amenity apartment homes on a 21 acre site ( the Site) generally located
south of 85th Avenue Northeast, east of University Avenue, north of
83rd Avenue Northeast and west of the Springbrook Nature Center and
Fridley Park area. At that meeting , staff advised the HRA that the
developers would be requesting the city to issue tax-exempt housing
revenue bonds in the approximate amount of $15 million. Staff also
described the developers' request that the city issue taxable tax
increment general obligation bonds to assist them in making this
project economically feasible. Tax increment financing assistance was
originally requested to resolve the gap between the amounts available
for the project through tax-exempt housing revenue bonds and equity
from the developers and the total cost of the project.
9R
LABKI--N-, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGIREN, LTD.
Letter to Mr. Jock Robertson
September 5, 1986
Page 2
Based on information provided by staff and the developers at the
August 14 informational meeting, the HRA approved the general concept
for financial assistance to the project as described by staff and
directed staff and the developers to negotiate a redevelopment
contract and amended tax increment financing plan.
Since the August 14 informational meeting, the House and Senate
Conference Committee issued its report (the Tax Report) on the Tax
Reform Act of 1985 . The Tax Report contains several changes in
current tax laws which will have a significant effect on the
development of multifamily housing projects, including stringent new
restrictions on the use of tax-exempt housing revenue bonds. The
developers and their consultants have reviewed the impact of the Tax
Report on their original proposal to develop 358 multifamily housing
units on the Site and have determined that the new rent restrictions
effectively preclude the use of tax-exempt housing revenue bonds to
finance the type of apartment homes originally contemplated at the
time of the August 14 HRA meeting. The developers will therefore be
requesting the city to issue taxable housing bonds, as compared to
tax-exempt housing revenue bonds, to make this project economically
feasible. As shown on Schedule C, the revised cash flow pro forma for
the project, because interest rates on taxable bonds will be one to
one and one-half points higher than interest rates on tax-exempt
bonds, the amount of debt that can be currently serviced out of cash
flow for this project is at least $1 million less than was the case at
the time of the August 14 HRA meeting.
In order to retain the same high-quality, high-amenity project ,
additional equity of approximately $1 million will be required. The
developers are willing to provide approximately one-half of the
additional required equity and are requesting that the city loan them
the remaining $500 ,000 . This loan, which because of changed
circumstances entails an amendment of the developers' original tax
increment financing request, involves use of the full amount of tax
increment, approximately $1 ,334 ,000 , that the project will produce.
The full amount of tax increment financing assistance requested would
be paid back in taxes over a period of 17 years - 15 years of full
increment and two years of partial increment. Because the project
will not--produce positive cash flows sufficient to begin repayment of
a note to the city in the amount of $1 ,334 ,000 until the sixth year,
no principal and interest will be paid for the first five years and no
interest--will accrue during that period. Beginning in thesixth year,
payments of principal and interest will be made such that the the
principal is reduced to $667 ,000 over 12 years. In the 17t year,
maturity date of the tax increment bonds, the entire amount will be
paid.
9B
LARKI'_�, HOFFMAN, DAILY & L.I-DGRE\, LTD.
Letter to Mr. Jock Robertson
September 5, 1986
Page I
We are enclosing revised schedules which describe the effect of the
Tax *Report on the project and the developers' request for amended tax
increment financing assistance to enable it to proceed with its
original plans for development of 358 high-quality, high-amenity
apartment homes on the Site. We will be appearing before the HRA on
September 11 to answer questions concerning these changed
circumstances. If you have any questions before that time, please
feel free to give us a call .
Sincerely,
L' da H. Fisher^ an
Sherrill O. Kuretich, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Harry Yaffe; Ken Belgarde
JC
Fridley Apartments
Summary of Request
Cost of Project (Schedule A) 17,759,500 - 18,357,500
Sources of Funds
Taxable Housing Bonds 14,000,000 14,000,000
Taxable Tax Increment Bonds 1,334,000 1,334,000
Terms of City Repayment:
8% 17 years
No payments year 1 - 5
Principal & Interest years 6 - 17
such that principal is reduced to
667,000
(1/2 of original principal)
17 year term coincides
with the term of the TIF Bonds
Developer Equity 2,425,500 3,023,500
HJY:bb
09/05/86
9D
SCHEDULE A
Fridley Apartments
Cost Estimate _
Construction Contract 10,740,000
Plans & Engineering 350,000
Assessments 100,000
Land & Carrying Cost 890,000
Soil Correction 1,277,000 - 1,500,000
Park Dedication Fee @ $500/unit 179,000
SAC Fee @ $380/unit 136,000
Loan Fees 825,000 - 1,200,000
Interim Interest 1,662,500
Contingency 300,000
General Contractor Fee 500,000
Developer's Fee 800,000
Total 179759,500 - 18,357,500
Sources of Funds
Taxable Bonds 14,000,000 - 14,000,000
EQUITY (at 10%) 1,776,000 - 1,836,000
GAP 1,983,500 - 2,521,500
TOTAL COST 17,759,500 - 18,357,500
HJY:bb
09/05/86
9E
SCHEDULE B
Fridley Apartments
Rent Schedule
Type # of Units Rent Total
Handicap 9 495.00 4,455
One Bedroom 54 525.00 28,350
Two Bedroom A 117 595.00 69,615
Two Bedroom B 27 585.00 15,795
Two Bedroom C 52 575.00 29,900
Two Bedroom D 27 585.00 15,795
Two Bedroom E 18 585.00 10,530
Three Bedroom 54 650.00 35,100
Garage 150 35.00 5,250
Mini Garage 20 50.00 1,000
Large Garage 10 75.00 750
Laundry 358 10.00 3,580
Monthly Rent 220,120
x 12
Gross Income Potential 2,6410440
HJY:bb
07/31/86
9F
SCHEDULE C
Fridley Apartments
Pro Forma
Cash Flow
Taxable Tax Exempt
Gross Income Potential 2,641,440 2,641,440
Vacancy - 5% (132,072) (132,072)
Effective Gross Income 2,509,368 2,509,368
R. E. Taxes & Expenses @ $2,650/unit (948,700) (948,700)
Net Operating Income 1,560,668 1,560,668
Tax Exempt: $15,000,000 - 9.5 Constant
Taxable: $15,000,000 - 10.5 Constant
Cash Flow (1,575,000) (1,425,000)
(14,332) 135,668
Note: 1.1 Debt service coverage ratio was used
* Due to increase in interest rates only $14,000,000 of Taxable Bonds
would be available - this increases equity by an additional $1 ,000,000
HJY:bb
-09/05/86
0r,,
SCHEDULE D
Fridley Apartments
Land Cost Analysis _
Soil Correction 1,127,000
Assessments 100,000
Dewatering 150,000
Costs Associated with Road
Road A N/S on East side of property 170,000
Road B E/W on North side of property 60,000
Value of Easements 154,000
Cost of YMCA Easement
Legal/Survey 30,000
Land 65,000
Land Purchase Price 850,000
2,706,000
358 Units
Land Cost/Unit 7,558
Less:
Land Should Cost/Unit
(Assessments paid and reasonable soil) 3,000
GAP 4,558
x 358 Units
GAP 1 ,631,000
HJY:bb
09/05/86
n �
F
SCHEDULE E
Fridley Apartments
Second Mortgage
Income rises by 4% Annually
Expenses rise by 5% Annually
Year
1/1/90 1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93 1/1/94
Income 2,641,440 2,747,097 2,856,981 2,971,260 3,090,111
Vacancy (132,072) (137,354) (142,849) (148,563) (154,505)
E G I 2,509,368 2,609,743 2,714,132 2,822,697 2,935,606
Expenses 948,700 996,135 1,045,941 1,098,238 1,153,150
N.O.I. 1,560,668 1 ,613,608 1,668,191 1,724,459 1 ,782,456
Debt 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000
Cash Flow 90,668 143,608 198,191 254,459 312,456
2nd Mortgage (140,580) (140,580) (140,580)
1,334,000
8% - 17 yrs
5 yrs no pmts
Next 12 yrs
pmts such
that principal
is reduced
to 667,000
Cash Flow 57,611 11398 7 171,876
HJY:bb
09/05/86
10
QTY OF FR33LEY
HC USIM AND REEEVELOPKENT ADZHCRITY
TO: . C HAIRPM CDM MFRS AND HRA CDM NISSIDN MEMBERS
FROM: NASIM M. QURESHI, HRA DIRECTOR
SUBJEM SELECrMN OF A VICE-CHAIR M WE HRA
DAZE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1986
It has been customaiy throughout the existance of the HRA to have both a
Chairperson and a Vioe-Chairperson. Zbe Vice-Chair is selected to assume the
responsibilities of the Chairperson in his or her absence.
Mmars Predities served as the Vice- Chairman of the HRA mtil his term expired
this June. It is now up to the members of the HRA to select a new Vice-Chair.
Zherefore, as per the July 10, 1986 request frau Chairman Oommers, this action
has been placed on the agenda for the September 11, 1986 meeting.
DIRECTORATE o00
OF o
P
&460
PUBLIC WORKS -
CRYOF MEMORANDUM
FrWLEY
k
'JD2 Masi m Qureshi, City Manager BM 259
FlipYl: John G. F1orafftblic Works Director
SLMJBM: Subterranean Engineering Corporation Contract
DATE: September 3, 1986
I have received a letter f rom the Subterranean Engineering Corporation
president to provide soil and engineering support for the development of
the Lake Pointe Corporate Oenter.
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 improvements as identified in Schedule C of the HRA Agreement.
The letter contract identif ies 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
11A
�.�tone noes
SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING TORP.
professional solutions to your soil engineering needs
Job No. X-85077
August 21, 1986
Mr. John Flora, Director of Public Works
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
re: Iake Pointe Corporate Center
1-694 & Hwy. 65 N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota
Dear Mr. 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 commencing about Aug. 26th, 1986.
To date Subterranean Engineering 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 (commencing next week) is monitoring
and testing of earthwork and fill placement for buildings, internal roadways and
utility lines; and providing engineering consultation regarding specific site or
construction conditions as needed. On May 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.
6875 Highway 65 N.E. P.O. Box 32308 Minneapolis, MN 55432 (612) 574.1242
12203 Nicollet Ave. So. Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 890-6510
11B
D
o
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,
SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP.
ti ,/ "V��
MervynMi ess, P.E.
President
MM/Pg
Distribution: 2 cc Mr. John Flora, City of Fridley
2 cc Mr. Eric Nesset, Woodbridge Properties .
SUBTERRANEAN
ENGINEERING CORP.
x MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
'-- Lompan�es
SUBTERRANEAN ENEINEERING CORP.
professional solutions to your soil engineering needs
SCHEDULE of CHARGES - 1986
Date 1404oST, 2111936
This SCHEDULE OF CHAR
GES shl apply to the following :
PONT( C0QO�ATS C�ek
RP.LLY '
��► N Esb
FEES
Soil Inspector , travel , on-site observation and testing , soils laboratory
testing of field density samples from this project . . . . $ 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 SUPPLEMENT THE INSPECTOR ' S WORK
Standard Proctor Compaction Test ,AST�l D-698 . . . . . . $ 52 . 40/test
:Modified Proctor Compaction Test ,AST�l D-1557 $ 61 . 00/test
Sieve analvsis . . . . . . $ 26. 25/test
Washed gradation . . . . . . $ 31 . 50/test
Unconfined compression test . . . . . . $ 20. 00/test
California Bearing Ratio Test . . . . . . $145 . 00/test
Nuclear Moisture-Densitv Test S 15 . 50/test
Rix.
&CES amities for Relative�sity detem mticn . . . . . . $ 90. 00/test
INVOInvoices will be submitted monthly . Payment is due upon receipt of invoice .
Interest- will be added beginning 30 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 (612) 890-6510
12
CLAIMS
11198 - 1508