Loading...
HRA 09/16/1982 City of Fridley AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1982 7:30 P.M. Location: Community Room I (upper level ) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: CONTINUED: APPROVAL OF JULY 21 , 1982 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: AUGUST 12, 1982 APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: AUGUST 27, 1982 (SPECIAL MEETING) 1. CENTER CITY PROJECT A. Receive Barthel . Realty, Inc. letter dated August 16, 1982 (Information and discussion) B. Receive Northern States Power Company letter dated August 20, 1982 1. Memo #82-64 from Executive Director (temporary relocation of 64th Avenue power lines) 2. MOORE LAKE PROJECT A. Memo No. 82-65, Executive Director - Proposal for Development "96 unit Luxury Condominium Project, Moore Lake Redevelopment District B. Receive Erland Eckberg .letter dated September 1, 1982 (Requesting Right of Development) 3. FINANCE A. Check Register 4. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 12, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the August 12, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Carolyn Svendsen, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Nasim Qureshi , City Manager Sid Inman, City Finance Director Dennis Schneider, City Council Ed Hamernik, City Council Mark Haggerty, 6441 University Ave. N.E. Mark G. Sopko, BWBR Architects, St. Paul Len & Judy Schollen, 6381 University Ave. N.E. Bill Ekstrum, 6441 University Ave. N.E. W. G. Doty, 6379 University Ave. N.E. Lawrence Manipley, 5901 Brooklyn Blvd. Ted Burandt, 6211 Riverview Terrace Cheryl Nybo, 1612 Berne Circle Roland Stinski , 3647 McKinley St. N.E. David Fuerstenberg, 1601 -- 662 Ave. N.E. Margery & Robert Fehling, 5809 Tennison Drive. Brian Seckinger APPROVAL OF JUNE 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF JULY 15, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE JULY 15, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING& REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF JULY 21 , 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MINUTES: Mr. Coroners stated they would continue the approval of these minutes until the next meeting when Mr. Rasmussen would be present. CENTER CITY PROJECT: A. Shopping Center - Phase III (Letter dated Aug. 6, 1982, from Executive Director to Barthel Construction) Mr. Boardman stated he has not received any response from Marlin Hutchinson of Barthel Construction regarding a status report on the retail center. He stated he has had information that Barthel was having financial difficulty, and he wanted a report for this meeting. Mr. Boardman stated he became somewhat concerned when he received a telephone call from Mr. Hutchinson about a month ago when Super Valu decided they would not go into the Center City area. Mr. Hutchinson had stated they could not put the package together and were withdrawing. Three days later Mr. Hutchinson called again and said they had acted hastily and were still trying to put the project together. Mr. Boardman stated when he did not receive any other information after a month, he sent this letter to Mr. Hutchinson but has received no answer. Mr. Boardman stated he had reminded Mr. Hutchinson of No. 2 of the Right of Development Agreement that, "Each party must keep the other informed of potential problems and delays. If, in the opinion of the HRA, Barthel Construction is not proceeding in a timely and positive fashion, the HRA may withdraw this selection." Mr. Coroners asked if there was any action Staff would like the HRA to take. Mr. Boardman stated it has always been the concern of the HRA to not get involved in too much, especially with the right of development they have given on the other side of University which could commit $1 .9 million in acquisition costs. In light of the fact that Barthel has not been responding and based on the information he has received that Barthel is having financial difficulty, he did not feel Barthel was going to be able to perform on their right of development. He felt the HRA should discuss this possibility and consider the withdrawal of the right of development. He felt that in light of the financial situation, it is going to be very difficult to do any retail in this area. Sthce work is going on in the Center City area east of University, they may want to delay any activity on the other side for 1-l11 years before promoting that area. Mr. Commers stated that if Staff feels the HRA should be looking at other areas, rather than develop the shopping center area, he would like HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 3 Staff to put together a 5-year plan and also set out the priorities in that plan for the HRA's consideration. Each of the development areas, all property the HRA presently owns, and all financial information should be_ included in that plan.. Mr. Prairie stated Staff may want to inform the businesses in that area so they know that development may not be happening. Mr. Boardman stated he has kept in touch with Fred Levy's attorney and has tried to keep the business people updated on any progress, although he has not had very good information to give them in the past. He felt that if the HRA does determine that the right of development should be withdrawn, then he would send out letters informing the business-people of the HRA's action and that the HRA is rethinking their redevelopment priorities. Mr. Schneider suggested that it might be possible to send out some type of newsletter on a regular basis just to keep the business people informed of what is going on--good, bad, or indifferent. Mr. Boardman stated that was a good idea. Mr. Commers stated he thought they should send a letter to Barthel inform- ing them that their right of development expires on October 15; and if they do not respond, the HRA will terminate that right of development. Mr. Prieditis agreed. He stated it bothered him that Barthel has not responded in any way. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO REQUEST THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ADVISE BARTHEL CONSTRUCTION THAT UNLESS THEY RESPOND AND GIVE THE HRA A STATUS REPORT ON THE RETAIL CENTER IN PHASE III OF THE CENTER CITY PROJECT, IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE HRA TO WITHDRAW THEIR RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT BY SEPTEMBER 15, 1982. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Office Building Project (Letter dated Aug. 6 from Mark Haggerty, Memo #82-57 from Executive Director, and background information) Mr. Boardman stated the HRA members had also received a commitment letter on the financing of the project from Miller Securities. Mr. Boardman stated he would bring the HRA members up to date on the office building project. From the HRA's March meeting through the May meeting, Mr. Haggerty was trying to put a package together for a 30,000 sq. ft. and then a 36,000 sq. ft. office building. When it came back to the HRA on May 13, Mr. Haggerty was not able to put the package together because of some difficulty in getting the proper signatures on paper. At HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 4 that time, the HRA told Mr. Haggerty that if he could get- the package together, he should come back. Mr. Haggerty is now back before the HRA. Mr. Haggerty has gone in with Mr. Gus Doty to do a 36,000 sq. ft. office building. With Mr. Doty, all of the proper signatures have been -e - obtained and the financing has been committed. - Mr. Boardman stated there are a couple of issues that are different than was talked about before. One of those issues is the acquisition of property--Mr. Haggerty's building which was talked about before, but now, with Mr. Doty involved, Mr. Doty also has some property he would like to have acquired. The property is located just south of the bank, just north of the Rice Creek building. Mr. Boardman stated that because of the situation, in order to put the project together, Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty need to sell those properties. At this time, they are requesting the HRA to purchase those properties so they can put front-end money into the project. He stated Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty were at the meeting to answer questions. Mr. Boardman stated there are several issues that have been discussed before. He referred to Mr. Haggerty's letter dated Aug. 6. Item #3: "The Fridley HRA would commence construction of the plaza immediately to the west of the proposed building site in the spring of 1983." Mr. Boardman stated it was discussed before, but no commitments were made, that in order for an office building to be built in that location, most people have indicated they would not do an office building unless a plaza was developed. One of the things they are trying to accomplish is an overall development. With the clinic going in, and if they put an office package together, they have a horseshoe kind of area that is right for the development of a plaza. He thought one of the things they looked at with the presentation of the development of a theme was a potential for staging and that staging was based on development, trying to complete portions of the area and show other developers they are serious about development in this area. Mr. Boardman stated another issue that was discussed was that the HRA would develop the parking and then parking would be leased back to the developer on a 50-year lease with the option that the developer, after 31 years, could purchase the property for $100,000.00. Mr. Boardman stated that in Item #5, Mr. Haggerty is proposing to hire BWBR to do the building and Hagmann Construction, who are also doing the construction of the clinic, in an attempt to maintain a character in the area. Mr. Boardman stated that in Item #6, the contract says the City will pay for relocating 64th Ave. That is already an agreed statement with Columbia Park Properties. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 5 Mr. Coroners stated that in previous HRA minutes, there was some dis- cussion about drainage and site preparation problems. What estimates do they have on what that is going to cost the City if they are required to do the site preparation and drainage? Mr. Boardman stated that in talking to the city engineers, they do not have that kind of problem. The only thing they have to ensure with the parking lot development is that they drain out to the street so whatever they do within the plaza area itself will not create a drainage problem in the plaza. Mr. Inman stated the engineering estimates for the project are $109,000 for the parking lot, $56,000 for the street, and $15,000 for the sewer and water. Mr. Boardman stated Item #7 in Mr. Haggerty's letter refers to the acquisition of the land under the building. Mr. Haggerty is agreeing to pay $40,000 for the cost of that building at $2/sq. ft. They are looking at the HRA deferring the initial payments on that property until Dec. 31 , 1986, at which time the interest will commence. That interest would be at 11%. On the first day of Jan. for ten subsequent years, the actual payments in ten increment payments would be $4,000/yr. plus interest. Mr. Boardman stated that in Item #8, Mr. Haggerty is agreeing to a mini- mum real estate tax of $2/sq. ft. Mr. Boardman referred to Item #9 of Mr. Haggerty's letter: "The HRA would grant to the partnership a zero lot line on one of the walls of the building in order to allow the partnership to expand or in the alternative would give us some form of development rights to develop another office building in the Center City area." Mr. Boardman stated the HRA does not necessarily grant the zero lot line, but Mr. Haggerty is saying they want the building next to the property line for potential future expansion. Mr. Boardman stated he questioned the ability of future expansion on. that building and whether that should be put in the contract documents. He would have to discuss this with Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Boardman stated he and Mr. Haggerty have discussed that when the City does the parking lot, they would also do the landscaping around the building and separate that portion of assessment and assess it back to the building proper. He stated he did not have any real problem with that. Mr. Boardman stated another consideration talked about was that Mr. Haggerty did agree to pay a certain amount of maintenance toward the plaza. That was worth looking into to help defray some of the maintenance costs in plaza. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 6 Mr. Corners asked for Staff's recommendation. - Mr. Boardman stated they have the opportunity right now of getting the - Center City under way. They have started with the clinic, and if they can get the office building developed, he thought it would show people they are serious in this development. He stated the project has good _ potential , all the papers look in order, they have a financial commit- ment from Miller Securities, Mr. Doty and Mr. Haggerty are in a position to sign contract documents and are looking at getting the project started and under way in the fall . Mr. Haggerty stated that if the project is approved, they are looking at breaking ground on October 15, with closing on the bond documents on October 1 , and a completion date of June 15, 1983. Mr. Boardman stated there are several pluses for the HRA. They have the ability to sell bonds yet this year and invest those bonds. If the building is started in October, a substantial amount of that building would be up before Jan. 2, 1983, which will start generating tax increment in 1984. Based on those conditions and all the other conditions discussed to date, it was his recommendation that the HRA follow through and commit to the office building. Mr. Prieditis asked what the NRA was investing in this project in propor- tion to the project's value and how did it compare to previous situations and the normal average? He felt it seemed like they were investing a lot of money and agreeing to a lot of conditions. And, maybe a developer coming in later on would want the same kind of conditions. Mr. Boardman stated he felt it depended on whether they are talking about the development of the plaza as a condition. He felt the plaza develop- ment should be handled as a separate issue. He stated they have to look at buying land and land costs through purchasing as investments in the project. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Inman to review the financial information to help give the HRA some insight into the feasibility of this project. Mr. Inman reviewed the cash flow projections with the HRA. He stated that from a financial perspective, if they take the position that this project is financing the acquisition of other properties and assume they are going to sell those properties, it- is a substantially good deal for their financial picture. Mr. Haggerty stated he would agree that buying the Doty property was not as if the City would be throwing money away. He felt the property was worth it. They would also be making an investment by purchasing the Madsen building. He stated the real point is that it is very difficult to development an office building on this site. Tenants refuse to commit before the building is in the ground, so they are taking a risk. He stated they are willing to take that risk. He stated they are asking for a lot, but he felt the City's financial return on their investment was very good. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Commers stated he thought it looked like the City was-not making anything for a long time. The City is running the risk of carrying those properties for a possible lengthy period of time without a plan for development of those properties. Mr. Doty stated the office building project was a sizeable commitment by the City and would require the ultimate purchase of the Madsen build- ing. They are just talking about the purchase now as opposed to later. He stated he felt the purchase of his property was no risk at all . Mr. Qureshi stated he would speak on why staff has been working so vigorously to put this package together. He stated at the groundbreaking ceremony for the clinic on July 16, there was some discussion among the City Council and HRA members. Questions were raised about what was happen- ing with Mr. Doty's property and there were some concerns that maybe Staff was trying to stop development in that section. Staff gave some rationale on why that property should be considered for a different use, at least to keep the options open and encourage development in the Center City project. In the discussion, it was suggested that Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty should get together and put a package together. He stated they did contact Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty. Mr. Qureshi stated it has always been Staff's position to promote this a•ea as the core of the Center City area. The idea was to try to develop the core, and then they came up with the idea of the plaza. The clinic is now a reality, the HRA will be considering a contract with an architect to work on plans for the plaza, and the office building is under consider- ation now. Sizeable commitments have been made by the HRA for the reloca- tion of 64th Ave., and other commitments have been made to the clinic. The office building would complete all the development in this area, and they would have a sizeable chunk of the Center City area completed. Staff feels if that is all completed, they will have something physical to show other developers that this is the kind of development the City would like to encourage. Mr. Qureshi stated that regarding Mr. Doty's property , the City has a number of choices to consider. They can keep the property open for a while to see how the clinic develops. If the clinic doesn't develop any further, they have a property that could develop into another mini-office. Mr. Qureshi stated the City has been working on the west side of University for almost two years trying to get a project going, and they have nothing to show for it. They have given commitments for a right of development to two developers, and now its looks like this second will also fall through. Mr. Haggerty is taking a risk. The HRA is taking some risk, but this is a solid proposal . Staff feels it is a good proposal , and feels more comfortable with this package than any other project considered before. I HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 8 Mr. Qureshi stated Mr. Haggerty was requesting $150,000 for the purchase of his property. Staff's recommendation was $115,614 plus relocation of $19,386. Mr. Doty is requesting 3.32/sq. ft. Staff's recommendation was $3.00/sq. ft. . - - E Mr. Prairie stated that at the HRA's July 21 meeting, the suggestion was made that they hoped Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty could get together on an office project. He felt this project would help the whole area, which is what the HRA has been working toward, and he thought the office building was a feasible project. Mr. Commers stated he did not personally believe it was appropriate for the HRA at this time to acquire additional properties without a plan for development. He thought the office building standing by itself was a very appropriate project, and if it could be done without the acquisition of vacant property, he would be in a position to support it. But, with that condition and some of the other terms that would have to be negoti- ated, he could not support this project. Mr. Doty stated that nothing less than $3.32/sq. ft. for his property has been negotiated, and that is a firm price. The property is worth $100,000, and he would not sell it for less. His participation in this project is conditioned on the purchase of his property by the HRA for $100,000. He felt $100,000 was a very fair price, and he had every intention of walking out on the project if he is offerred anything less. Mr. Haggerty stated he understood the problem with the zero lot line, but he would like to have some type of right to develop another office building in the area. They would certainly be willing to take a time limit on that if the HRA wanted that. He stated his law firm does want a place to stay while the new building was being constructed, and some type of rent to the HRA would be reasonable. Mr. Hamernik referred to Item #3 in Mr. Haggerty's letter stating: "the Fridley HRA would commence construction of the plaza immediately to the west of the proposed building site in the spring of 1983. In addition, the Fridley HRA would landscape around the proposed office building with a mini-plaza and would assess the cost of the building's landscaping over a period of 10 years at the City's or HRA's regular interest rate." Mr. Hamernik stated he questioned whether the HRA really wanted to obli- gate themselves to an expenditure if there is some question on what the cash flow is going to be. He had the feeling that some of the obli- gations incurred on the other project are causing some implications or problems that are difficult to deal with. He would like to see the HRA enter into an agreement with as few stipulations as possible that are outside the existing property. Mr. Haggerty stated all they are talking about with the mini-plaza is just some grass with some trees--they just want to have something. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 9 Mr. Coroners that on page 2 of the Addendum, it provides that the HRA will agree to install at no cost to the redeveloper a plaza which shall adjoin the redeveloper's office building with the City of Fridley City Hall and that said plaza will include landscaping amenities. He stated that some limitations have to be placed on the development of this plaza. In answer to Mr. Hamernik's question, that is an item that is outside their present commitments. Mr. Qureshi stated that if the HRA wants to develop this property, they are going to have to take some bold steps. Do they want to develop it next year or five years from now? If they want to develop it next year, it is imperative they move with the whole package. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEIDITIS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR A 3-STORY, 36,493 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING IN THE FRIDLEY CENTER CITY PROJECT, NOTING THAT MR. HAGGERTY STATED THE MINI-PLAZA COULD BE AS LITTLE AS JUST GRASS, AND THAT STAFF WORK WITH MR. HAGGERTY IN MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE ZERO LOT LINE QUESTION. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS AND SVENDSEN VOTING NAY, PRAIRIE AND PRIEDITIS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED BY A TIE VOTE. Mr. Commers stated he appreciated Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Doty for coming to the meeting and stated he hoped some other proposal could be made for that property. Mr. Doty asked the HRA if they foresaw the possibility of acquiring his property for any reason at this time. He stated his application for variances to develop a building on his property was tabled at the Appeals Commission because someone heard that the HRA might want to acquire his property. He would like some clarification that the HRA has no intention of using his property; and, therefore, he can proceed with his develop- ment plans. Mr. Commers stated the answer was obvious. At this time, there were no other proposals before the HRA that would cause them to want to acquire Mr. Doty's property. Mr. Boardman stated the reason the Appeals Commission tabled Mr. Doty's variance request was because Staff knew the question of the acquisition of Mr. Doty's property was going to be before the HRA at this meeting. The Appeals Commission decided to wait to see what action the HRA took on this acquisition. There was no sense in continuing on with the variances if the HRA voted to purchase the property. The HRA has now determined not to purchase Mr. Doty's property; therefore, there is no reason why it shouldn't continue on through the Appeals Commission to the City Council . HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 10 Mr. Doty stated he just wanted to make certain this did not happen again, a-nd he thanked Mr. Commers for his answer. _ Mr. Qureshi stated Staff has a policy that when anything is happening in the Center City area, the HRA should have the opportunity to give input. If the HRA has no input, then the item goes through the regular process. As a regular rule, they will be bringing these kinds of things to the HRA for the HRA's review. Mr. Commers stated he appreciated the HRA being advised when these kinds of things do arise. C. Design Contract for Center City (Memo #82-58 from Executive Director & Contract documents) Mr. Boardman stated the "Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect" received in the agenda has been modified, and the HRA members now had a new copy. He stated the type of project they are looking at with the architect is a redesign or some modified design of the schematic design phase and the design development phase. They are not interested at this time in getting into an actual construction document and bidding, negotiation, and construction phase, so anything that deals with the last three phases will not be included as a part of this architect's document. Mr. Boardman stated that if the HRA did approve this contract, he would like to have a working meeting between the architect and the HRA. That meeting should be held as soon as possible. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE "STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE INTERDESIGN, INC." AND PROCEED WITH INTERDESIGN ON THE CENTER CITY DESIGN THEME. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. D. Discussion on Consultant for Commercial Relocation (Memo #82-59 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated there are seven businesses they will be involved in relocating over the next nine months. He stated single family relocations were simple enough that Staff could handle them, but there were a lot of things involved in commercial relocation, including unit appraisals and getting out and actually searching for new locations. It would involve a lot of staff time, and he felt they should go with a professional in commercial relocation. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 11 Mr. Boardman stated VonKlug &Assoc. are probably the most knowledgeable professionals in the Minneapolis area. He stated Bill VonKlug of VonKlug -& Assoc. has offered two proposals: (1) A general---proposal that has to be followed with HUD monies when HUD monies are included. Fee: $14,500; (2) A more basic method for relocation. Flat fee of $9,000 for seven businesses. In addition, they would have to get unit appraisals or personal property appraisals. Mr. Boardman stated businesses usually prefer Proposal #2. He stated he has some questions that need to be answered, and he would like the option to choose which proposal was the most appropriate. MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO GO FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH VONKLUG & ASSOC. TO OBTAIN THEIR SERVICES ON COMMERCIAL RELOCATION. Mr. Boardman stated Len Schollen, who owns Lennies, has found a building where he would like to relocate. If the City can relocate them into a building they have already found that is already set up as a laundromat, it may reduce the costs of relocation. He stated they may want to start some relocation in lieu of rent, but he will have to look at each situa- tion on an individual basis. Mr. Commers stated that if any of the tenants come forward with this kind of proposal , they should look into it as soon as possible in order to accommodate those tenants.' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. E. 362 and 378 - 64th Ave. N.E. 1. Approval of Sale of Structures to Badger Movers Mr. Boardman stated he had sent a notice out for bids to have the structures removed. The high bid was from Badger Movers. They will pay the HRA $4,250 to move both the houses. They are ready to start work next week with authorization from the HRA. These houses were owned by Arthur Smith and Art Singer. Mr. Commers stated the HRA received a very nice letter from Mr. Singer complimenting Mr. Boardman for working with him and getting him relocated in another home. f. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE BID OF $4,250 WITH BADGER MOVERS TO REMVOE THE TWO STRUCTURES AT 362 AND 378 - 64th AVE. N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 12 2. Approval of Bid on Removal of Basement and Backfill Mr. Boardman stated that once the housesare removed, they need to remove the basement foundations and backfill. That will also take out all the driveway, all concrete, and retaining walls on the site. He stated they went out for bids,and Ted Renollet was the low bidder of $1.295 to do this work for both structures. He would recommend the HRA approve this bid.' E MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE BID FROM TED RENOLLET OF $1,295 FOR THE BACKFILLING AND REMOVAL OF BASEMENT FOUNDATIONS AT 362 AND 378 - 64TH AVE. N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. F. 332 & 336 - 64th Ave. N.E. (Letters from G. Stanley Rischard and response letters from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated on June 28 he had received a letter from Mr. Stanley Rischard, the attorney who has been retained by the property owners of 332 and 336 - 64th Ave. N.E. In that letter, Mr. Rischard is requesting the HRA to proceed with condemnation. Mr. Boardman stated he had contacted Mr. Rischard after receiving this letter and they had set up a meeting to discuss a possible negotiation purchase price on those properties. At that meeting, a $200,000 price for the purchase of the garage with an $85,000 purchase price for the purchase of the house were presented, and no reasonable negotiated price was reached. At this point, Mr. Boardman stated he was looking for authorization from the HRA to proceed with condemnation. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO FILE A PETITION WITH ANOKA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT WITH REGARD TO THE CONDEMNATION OF THE PROPERTIES AT 332 AND 336 64TH AVENUE N.E. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 332 64th Avenue N.E.: Lots 1, 2, 3, and North 73 feet of Lot 4, Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park, except the East 54 feet: and 336 64th Avenue N.E.: East 54 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, and East 54 feet of North 731 feet of Lot 4, Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. II. MOORE LAKE PROJECT: A. Cheryl Nybo Office Project (Memo #82-60 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated he would give a little background information on this project. He stated the HRA had approved contract documents with Ms. Nybo based on 50% lease-up. He stated Ms. Nybo has discussed this project with him several times and financing is coming down where it looks like the project could go relatively soon; however, there are some questions. First of all, Ms. Nybo has approached the HRA to see what happens if they enter into a contract with Mr. Burandt which would tie the property down, it would then give them time to wait for favorable interest rates before moving into the project. He stated that in HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 13 looking at that, the HRA could do two things: (L) If Ms. _Nybo enters into a contract, the HRA would be out of the purchase of the property. The HRA could agree to assist the development in the same amount of dollars they had agreed to assist in the acquisition of the property; (2) The HRA could do the exterior improvements, such as blacktop, curbing, landscaping for the project up to the same value they have approved on the purchase price. Mr. Roland Stinski, 3647 McKinley St. N.E., stated he was the spokes- person for Fehling & Nybo. He stated that after talking to Mr. Boardman and Ms. Nybo, he would like to make a recommendation to the HRA. The proposal would be for the HRA to acquire both properties which would be no cash outlay to the HRA, enter into a contract with Mr. Burandt to purchase his property, give him a down payment, take the property on a year's contract for deed with a balloon payment inside of one year, the HRA picking up that balloon payment at the end of one year; also to acquire the office building that is there which would still be no cost to the HRA, in that there is a mortgage being placed on the property now to pay off Mr. Burandt. The mortgage would be carried by the partnership of Fehling & Nybo until such time as she got a building permit, financing and 50% rental in order to build. Then the HRA could step in and buy both properties at an agreeable price and sell them back to Ms. Nybo at a reduced figure. Mr. Lawrence Manipley, 5901 Brooklyn Blvd. , stated he was the attorney for Ted Burandt. He stated there would be no contract for deed with Ms. Nybo. Any agreement would have to be a straight cash transaction with no terms. They have an existing disagreement which is not part of this project, but that is the reason why there would be no balloon pay- ment, no contract for deed, only a straight cash transaction. Mr. Manipley stated there were so many contingencies involved in this particular matter, it seemed best that the HRA not even review it at this point in time. Let the people involved put the deal together and then the HRA can see whether the numbers work, if there are any numbers. Mr. Coroners stated he thought it would be best for both sides to meet and work out an agreement. The HRA is interested in doing a project and looking at it, but first the two parties have to meet and try to negotiate the terms. He stated this matter should be tabled indefinitely. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO TABLE FURTHER DIS- CUSSION ON THE CHERYL NYBO OFFICE PROJECT INDEFINITELY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 14 B. Central Avenue Project (Memo #82-61 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated Dick Mochinski, represented by Dennis Ewing and Dick Reiersgord, owns some property on Old Central and Rice Creek _ Road. Right now a large majority of the property is zoned commercial . _ p Mr. Mochinski originally wanted to develop the property as industrial property. Back in 1981 , when Mr.Mochinski came to Staff with that proposal , Staff suggested that since Mr.Mochinski also did home real estate projects, maybe he should take a look at an overall townhouse/ quad-type of development. Mr. Mochinski did look at it, was very interested in it, and submitted a proposal to the HRA in Feb. 1982. The HRA at that time felt the proposal he submitted was a little weak as far as access. Mr. Boardman stated he has met with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Reiersgord off and on for a period of 6-9 months. At the last meeting, they gave him the figures. He has done a run on those figures, and the project looks like a very weak project. This would be a project phased over three years, 1983-85, for a total of approx. 90 units. He stated he has not been able to contact Mr. Ewing and Mr. Reiersgord since Ehlers & Assoc. did the bond run, and he would prefer to table this project at this time. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO TABLE THE CENTRAL AVENUE PROJECT AT THIS TIME. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. III. FINANCIAL: A. Check Register MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Financial Report Mr. Sid Inman reviewed the financial report with the HRA members. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Request from Dave Fuerstenberg of Dave's Sport Shop to Lease the Hardware Building Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Fuerstenberg is interested in leasing the hardware building; however, Mr. Fuerstenberg would like an extended HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1982 PAGE 15 lease. The question is: Does the HRA want to lease the hardware building and what kind of time commitment would they put on a lease arrangement without tying their hands to any great extent? .__ Mr. Fuerstenberg stated he is in need of more room. He stated the HRA is talking about relocating the businesses on University Ave. , and maybe one of those businesses could be relocated in Moon Plaza in his present location. He would like as long a lease as possible as a move is quite expensive. He would like a 3-5 year lease. At that time, hopefully, the new shopping center would be in. Mr. boardman stated he was very concerned about the HRA getting into a long-term lease. The HRA would not want to pay any relocation" costs, and that would have to be a condition of a lease. He stated the site is quite narrow, and there is only enough room for one row of parking. If the HRA did enter into a lease, any improvements would have to be the responsibility of the tenant, as he did not think the HRA would want to get into those kinds of expenditures. Mr. Commers stated they would have to put limitations on a lease, and with those limitations, he did not think a lease was very feasible. They would not be in any position to pay relocation costs. An 18-month lease was about the longest they could consider. The tenant would also have to be sure the building was up to code. Mr. Commers suggested that Mr. Fuerstenberg get together with Staff and discuss this further. Mr. Boardman stated he was willing to discuss some arrangements with Mr. Fuerstenberg as long as Mr. Fuerstenberg understood the limitations and was willing to work within those limitations. Mr. Fuerstenberg agreed to meet with Mr. Boardman to discuss this further. B. Information Items Mr. Boardman stated the following items were strictly for the HRA's information: 1 . HRA Annual Report to State 2. HRA Audit Report - Dec. 31 , 1981 3. Clinic Bond Sale information 4. Minutes of City Council - July 26, 1982 5. Newspaper articles ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE AUGUST 12, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submit ed, 1 vnn Caha Dnnn.nd4.... CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 27, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the August 27, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority special meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Carolyn Svendsen, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Mark Haggerty, Smith, Juster, Feikema Law Firm Tom Berg, Miller Securities Dennis Schneider, City Council Bob Barnette, City Council CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 36,493 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTHEAST OF CITY HALL: Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman to review the differences and changes in this proposal as compared to the last office building proposal from Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Boardman stated there were approximately three changes, one of which was the most complex. Mr. Boardman stated he had underlined the major changes in Mr. Haggerty's letter of August 20, 1982. Mr. Boardman stated what is being proposed is that instead of purchasing the property at 63rd & Univeristy (Mr. Gus Doty's property), they are requesting that the HRA put up $90,000 up-front money as an investment into the project. That money would go to pay for the issuance of the bond up to $90,000. In return for that $90,000, the HRA will get an option on Mr. Doty's property. That option will run until Feb. 1, 1986, one month past the option on the clinic. If at that time, the HRA exercises its option on the property, they will pay an additional $10,000 plus taxes, and the HRA will own the property. If the HRA doesn't exercise the option on the property, Mr. Haggerty will pay the HRA its $90,000 investment back with interest at a 10%interest rate. Mr. Boardman stated the partnership would be willing to pay $560 per month to rent from the Fridley HRA the building the HRA would acquire from Mr. Haggerty (the Madsen building just north of City Hall). Before the arrangement was they would remain in the building rent-free. The $560 per month is what is now being • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1982 PAGE 2 netted from that property. Mr. Haggerty and the law firm would be responsible as the master leasers of that building for all the maintenance and taxes while renting the property, and the HRA would get the $560 per month net rent. Mr. Boardman stated #4 in Mr. Haggerty's letter was changed to read: "The Fridley HRA would commence construction of a plaza to be approved by the Fridley HRA and located immediately to the west of the proposed building site during TM." He stated they did not want to tie it down to a value because the HRA hasn't yet determined what they are looking at as far as a plaza. Mr. Boardman stated one additional change was outlined in ill of Mr. Haggerty's letter: "The development partnership would be willing to put up a $10,000 non- refundable good faith deposit which would be retained by the Fridley HRA if the partnership did not commence the development on or before Dec. 31 , 1982. In the event that the development partnership .oes commence construction prior to Dec. 31 , 1982, the $10,000 would be refunded to the development partnership." Mr. Boardman stated he had brought some bond runs to the meeting for the HRA's review. Mr. Commers asked what the option price works out to be on Mr. Doty's property. Mr. Boardman stated the option price is $100,000--the $90,000 HRA investment plus the $10,000, which comes out at $3.32/sq. ft. He stated the HRA had to understand that the option runs to 1986. Leon Madsen from the City felt the present value on that property was justifable up to $3/sq. ft. Looking at that over a four year period, they have at least another 4% per year increase in values, and that is a conservative estimate in increased values. So, over a four year period, they are looking at an investment over $10,000. Mr. Boardman stated they did time the length of the option on Mr. Doty's proeprty to be one month after the option on the clinic runs out. He stated he felt very comfortable with that because they do have the option to use that property if they need it in negotiations for additional parking. Mr. Boardman stated the contract documents have been prepared. They have been partially prepared by Mr. Herrick and partially prepared by Mr. Haggerty and himself. He stated he was now looking for some approval from the HRA of the contract documents based on legal review and approval Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Haggerty about the financing. Mr. Haggerty stated Mr. Berg from Miller Securities was at the meeting. He stated Miller Securities has given them a signed letter on the terms and conditions Miller Securities would be willing to underwrite the project. With the proposal as it has been presented to the HRA, they would be able to obtain the financing. Mr. Berg stated they have been working on this project since early spring and they have given Mr. Haggerty several letters on the terms and conditions with which they would agree to buy the bonds and market the bonds. He stated he had not read the contract documents, but they are willing to do a firm underwriting. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1982 - PAGE 3 MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE "CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND FRIDLEY PLAZA PARTNERSHIP," SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY LEGAL COUNSEL. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated he has another document, Resolution No. HRA 5-1982 which is a resolution requesting the City Council to authorize bond sales for the Center City Redevelopment Tax Increment District Phase II. If the HRA approves the resolution at this meeting, it would go before the City Council on Sept. 13, with a possible bond sale on Oct. 4. That is pretty much in line with when Mr. Haggerty is talking about selling his bonds for the office building. If on Oct. 4, Mr. Haggerty has not sold his bonds, then the City can delay at the City Council level , but they would prefer to be in the position to sell those bonds on Oct.4 and get in on the good interest rate. MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5-1982, "A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TO REQUEST THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE BOND SALES FOR THE CENTER CITY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PHASE II." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Commers declared the August 27, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Special Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully su itted, Lynh Saba 4 Recording Secretary Barthel .Realty, Inc. Ma .711.1M MOM:. MLS -21370 Sesame Street Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Office: 428-4381 August 16, 1982 Jerry Doardman Fridley Housing & Development Fridley, MN. 55421 Dear Jerry, This letter is to inform you that we will be un- able to complete a development package for the Fridley shopping center side this year. This is based upon several months of analysis of the existing market. Sincerely yours, 4 , O i P/ gv eth A. :arth.l toirw IWP Northern States Power Company North Division 4501 68th Avenue North Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55429 Friday, August 20, 1982 Telephone(612)561-7200 Mr. Jerrold Boardman Engineer/Director of Planning City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55421 Dear Jerry, In regards to your inquiry regarding charges for the replacement of .overhead with underground facilities in an urban renewal area, I wish to submit the following. In an urban renewal area wherein 75% of the buildings are being demolished and undergrounding of electric lines are required by the urban renewal plan, NSP will at its own expense replace its overhead system with a standard underground system excluding underground distribution lateral and underground service laterals to individual customers. Each customer will be subject to charges, on an individual project basis, for the permanent installation of the necessary underground distribution for facilities in excess of those normally provided, or where construction costs exceed that covered by future estimated revenues. Therefore if revenues are adequate and there are no excess facilities, there will be no charges for underground service. In addition to the above charges, if any, the customer shall pay all additional installation costs incurred by NSP because of (a) delays caused by customer; (b) ground conditions, such as frozen soil , and rock conditions that impair the installation of facilities; (c) paving of streets, alleys or other area prior to the installation of underground facilities. Customer may also be required to provide an underground conduit system when required by soil or construction conditions. NSP will not remove its existing overhead service to an undemolished building until after a period of time reasonably adequate for the customer to make the necessary alternations in his electrical facilities to accept underground service. I trust this provides you with the information you are seeking. Sincerely, Warren R. Johnson Staff Assistant North Division WRJ/kf r 1 A I i I 1 I I / K f r • .a + >i + am( l , I. 1, 1e :%.f'-.....;_%:........ +J 4 Cd f. It VI `M w _. 3 17 Z _ • s o I el o t V s rleF -r- /�� � tl - - - VC-PC/f IS j- 9" (i) a •Mj' w8.1 5 • a dr - • r �� Ai e v Lo I r a .1 "..) w -. k C s v' ,d vi a + d w�w s N vv il e\-4 2 :i� 14 "4-��Ht /r �1� { • % o : aoa • b /0' Y1 N N Y1 a a r `� g/- 1141 tv H t ti T. .2,.[ { �� - g % 1 A d� j - 1 i vIli im �� y.� a ao r is I. t • 4•• "v.i. •� iii Z �-p-_..+► t a 'Iv• 1(PL lat,t,..1-ok in1 - � j qi _ _ , ii F1 , s i ' - __ v K3_ • . csv ti •= : '' ( VOA • a�roa Q Arn7aQ 0 L. r 401.—y 14,t - Mi 4COQ'� ��I a 3`- ..� - ` Ni• A ..xl 0._ __ �_ or . -s..ua�st a Meryl `�rn'7�S -crt asovaz - .lis �,• -- II„ • _» --• rf DY . N �y 1J . _ \ __ SS 4 -+ ' is • I t s' Tn?!G� p Jw. aIti 1 •,j 4i 1 1 7w js Warr � 4 • TME CITY OF-7:21, � * HOUSING :: .__ € ._ .'s.Ow and .'s. ._ ; (\. REDEVELOPMENT ...� MEMORANDUM \ AUTHORITY ' FRIDLEY :':. FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO. 82-64 DATE September 1, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Temporary Relocation of Overhead Power Lines Along 64th Avenue N.E. The City will be beginning the relocation of 64th Avenue N.E. by the end of September, 1982. There will be a necessity to relocate the power lines temporarily so that service can be retained to the Fridley Center and the Bank until underground services can be provided in this area, and the structures along 64th and University Avenue can be removed. We are presently working with Northern States Power Company on an overall underground service plan which can be phased to reduce costs to the HRA as laid out in the letter of August 20, 1982. I had not received the temporary relocation order from NSP by the time the agenda was put together, however, we will be receiving it for the September 16, 1983 meeting. The HRA presently has a $15,000 credit from NSP that can be used for relocation. JLB/de THE CITY OF 7:jimmy ' HOUSING :• 1 Ow and %, ... ... REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM ... AUTHORITY ••• E FRIDLEY '" FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO.82-65 DATE September 1 , 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Proposal for Development: "96 Unit Luxury Condominium Project Moore Lake Redevelopment District ' I've met with Mr. Erland Ekberg who is interested in the development of a 96 unit luxury condominium project in our Moore Lake Redevelopment District. The proposal is for two 13-story towers located on the Northeast end of Moore Lake. The total project would have an estimated market value of approximately 17 million dollars. Mr. Ekberg will be making a presentation to the Authority at the September 16, 1982 meeting. He is seeking a "right of development" so that he can start marketing the project. He has indicated that he will want 70% pre-sold and will need approximately one year for the lease up. I am attaching the plans for the units that I have at this time. He will be presenting a site location plan at the meeting. JLB/de- • ze, yett rit .., , .......-•• \ \). Xi A 4 • \.' .•• UNIT A 1 7,•,.: ..1.4 •. ... .. 2 I ) 11111;w . -.....• - :le- AP A 111111111111-4:11111‘: .........•••01_ . ...... . •:• . _ UNIT II , „,. .. . , . ,..„. , • .„.... . • 1.../ . - __•$9,\ ., \ ,.., 't• • . : 11 ' •' pp pi,A. \errirgl;1111111: i&i,;,..al ,._:._... -,,, g ....., -\ / r I \........ • 1 ..0,146.! :kat' -. iiM.•,, ..• C.. eau, I I 11 _ t . r cussuaues 1 )1 . i wc ar ,z4- . 4 11 WegalalIF . . balk / \\ IA J I....................... . uli 4, . • . . ...• eto, - glaani •- •' ,,, , 4 "Zral • • • • .10 talk , , • • - 'PO 181-1C4114 . ••: . . . .; 01 • : • kii I& il. I i .....,, a , . . • 1 1 I WA, ...A ... •• . i vo.„, .-.-•• UNIT C •*P.i ' .. Amiss I •• / .• . • I •••wir •/ N .,, ---1 . : —•es...0 . .) /• : lliL'e I-- 0 . . " • 1 ......_ slt • ........ ..,,ft . . . • . i UNIT D . „ma ,. .. . •. .. 14 I- . -AL,— 1 i i til °NI* i' .Pfle•••• • I:• •• wal. .. •Pt ...1-pir ,.___71St___-----------" ..• ■ EKBERG ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS AM 5884;388 ■2140 SPRUCE TRAIL MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55422 September 1, 1982 Jerrold Boardman City Planner Executive Director - H.R.A. City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 re: Right of Development Dear Mr. Boardman, I have a request of the H.R.A. to consider a 96 Unit Luxury Condominium Project to be located in the Moore Lake Redevelopment Area as per the Site Plan prepared by Ekberg Associates, Inc. The City would use tax increment financing as a vehicle to pay for the land as shown and the utilities to the site as necessary for Code Conformance. It is assumed that the design as presented by Ekberg Associates, Inc. would be granted a building permit, approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ekberg Associates, Inc. is requesting the right of development for approximately one year time frame to show market success and financial capability. To market this type of project it is important to have a model Condo Unit on or near the site as a office show room. I would appreciate your suggestions. Thank you in advance for all considerations. 41174,e/,- " Si.`erely, Erland Ekberg, Jr. AI?,46/ EKBERG ASSOCIATES, INC. EEjr:de