10-20-86 agenda~ ~~~
.~
r .
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA LETTER N0. 33
October 20, 1986
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Report on the Proposed Development Concepts for the Graham Avenue
Development Site Area in the LHN.
BACKGROUND•
At the HRA meeting of September 29th, 1986, two development
concepts were presented for the Graham Avenue Development area
site. Walker Methodist presented'a concept for the construction
of apartments with space for the VFW and Trestman Music and Big
Wheel properties would expand their present building and
renovate. Tushie-Derrick presented a mixed use concept which
included housing, retail and office space. Mr. Shaller also
indicated that the Shaller-Trestman concept. of renovation and
expansion of their buildings presented in the Spring was still
viable.
Since the presentations in September, staff has identified the
criteria against which proposal would be evaluated. Staff also
met with Tushie-Derrick and Walker to gather more information and
better understand their concepts. From previous discussions
information was available on the Shaller-Trestman proposal.
Attached to this letter is a listing of items to be evaluated for
each proposal. ,The information available to date for each
proposal is provided. If there are few or no remarks with some
criteria that is because the information is not yet available.
RECOMMENDATION;
It is recommended that the HRA review the criteria on which each
proposal is to be evaluated and determine if there are additional
items which should be included. Secondly, each project should be
reviewed and the relevant information recorded. If some aspects
of a proposal are. of concern, please indicate those concerns to-
staff. Finally, while there are a number of items to be
evaluated, both the Walker and Tushie proposals have two areas
which should be studied immediately, traffic and marketability.
The results of an analysis of these two items could have
significant influence on the selection of a proposal. Thus, it
is proposed that for the November meeting, staf_f_will provide a
preliminary analysis of traffic impacts from each development.
The specialist would utilize information readily available and
would not undertake another study from the beginning.
Regarding marketability, we will retain the services of a
marketing. specialist to review the Walker market study of last
spring, evaluate the current conditions in the market place and
report on the marketability of 150 to 250 units of rental housing
for the elderly. Regarding the Tushie proposal, written evidence
of tenant interest would be requested for review by staff.
~~ 1
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
1. The marketability of rental housing units for the elderly
should be closely evaluated because it is essential to the
success of such a project. While Walker has recently
indicated that they feel their market. study of last Spring is
still valid staff is aware that some marketing people are of
the opinion that the. elderly market for both rental and sales
is almost saturated. An independent analysis of existing
information would be valuable to the HRA in evaluating the
Walker proposal.
2. With the Tushie proposal marketability is important also but
the mixed use nature of the development and conversations
with the developer seem to indicate there is a ready market.
However, the intensity of this development and the. related
traffic and ability of the adjoining streets to handle the
traffic should be of primary concern.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Select a developer based on the information now available.
DECISION MODE-
Proceeding as indicated may make it possible to select a
developer by December or January.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Ex utive Director
PROPOSAL:. TUSHIE-DERRICK (LYNDALE PARTNERS).
1. Development team:
-identify members
-experience-with similar projects
-financial capability to be determined
Developer: Lyndale Partners (Tushie/Derrick/Shaller/Trestman
Architect: Tushie Montgomery and Associates
Contractor: Bossardt/Christianson
New partnership, members of the partnership have mixed use
development experience in cooperation with local government.
2. Brief description of overall project and comments regarding
building height, location, shadows, etc.
Copy of preliminary elevation drawings are attached (A rear
building elevation will be prepared as the review process
continues) for "Landmark Center" a stepped 5 story mixed use
development with five district uses: Office (63,200 square
feet), VFW (44,600 square feet), residential (37,400 square
feet), retail (34,300 square feet) and medical (18,700 square
feet). Also included is 159,600 square feet of covered
parking and 10,100 square feet of mechanical space. Total
land area needed for the project approximates 4.8 acres with
the building set back from Lyndale Avenue and Lake Shore
Drive to accommodate parking to the front.
There are 278 surface parking stalls and 500 parking stalls
within a privately owned ramp. The first level, primarily-
retail and medical uses, covers 60,000 square feet of floor
area and is reduced to 16,400 square feet in the fifth level.
A "shadow" analysis and the building height relationship to
adjacent buildings would have to be studied further. All
present use would be relocated: VFW, Cricket Photo, Big
Wheel, Trestman, Lynch, Davis, LSD "common lot". - -
3. Site lines; on site, off site
It has been represented by the developer that the mature tree
line closely approximates the fourth level of the building.
However, it is not clear how many existing trees would
remain. Since the development would be built directly
adjacent to the Lake Shore Drive (LSD) Condominium
development, the screening, berming and planting that occurs
to the north side of-the new building would be on LSD
property for LSD to maintain. The rear delivery driveway and
receiving area would be screened with a canopy. An intended
use restriction would prevent large semi truck trailers from
-~~- `~,/
servicing. Eighteen feet of green space is provided along
Lyndale with the new Cricket Photo located within a corner
plaza. The entire first floor of the building is accessible
from the Lyndale Avenue elevation even though the grade
changes significantly along Lake Shore Drive. Underground
ramp parking will fill in where the grade changes.
4. Density; lot coverage, massing, number of housing units and
parking spaces, square footage of uses, open space
The building covers 60,000 square feet, approximately 28
percent of the total land area.- The number of levels gives
it a "mid-rise" configuration in comparison to high rise
development on adjacent areas. The stepped floor
arrangement 60,000 square feet on first, 49,000 square feet
on second, 44,600 square feet on the third, 38,300 square
feet on the fourth, 16,400 square feet on the fifth, reduces
the building mass to land coverage ratio. Forth eight (48)
units of lower cost rental housing are proposed: 46-1
bedroom, 1-studio, 1-2 bedroom (for managers). There would
be designated stalls for the residential use. Other .uses
would share the parking referred to in Item ~~2 above. Amount
of open space will have to be determined.
5. .Identification of development site boundary:
-ability to secure site control
-consensus of opinion by affected owners
-resolution of site restrictions
The Lyndale Partners have secured a purchase agreement from
homeowners Lynch and Davis. Although Shaller, Trestman, and
VFW have all made individual plans for there own buildings,
they also appear receptive to being included in the new
development. In a land trade with the developer, the owner
of Cricket Photo would receive a new building designed for
the corner. It appears that LSD is not going to support the
Landmark Center development and they own a key parcel in the
development area. There are restrictive covenants on the LSD
parcel and other dedicated easements exist in the development
area that will require further analysis.
6. Traffic Analysis:
-offstreet parking, internal and external circulation
(loading, access to various uses)
-capacity of adjacent streets
-conflicts with existing public street improvements
A traffic study has to be done. The developers believe that
there will not be that much additional retail space from what
already exists in the area. Thus from the developers
~~ ~~~ ~
0 '
perspective, retail traffic would not increase, and the VFW,
Shaller, Trestman uses would be better managed. To
accommodate the development, street and. intersection
improvements are probably required. Tushie/Derrick would
proceed with a traffic study if there is clear support for
the project.
7. Compatibility:
-adjacent uses (LSD, Lyndale Hardware,
Shaller-Trestman, Cricket Photo, VFW)
-redevelopment district
-buffering
-The proposed development has accommodated the retail uses
into a strip retail center. Further discussion with owners
and the relationship to LSD and Lyndale Hardware would have
to be studied
-Much of the development is outside the LHN redevelopment
district. A new tax increment district is requested by the
developer.
Developers position:
-Cricket Photo remains a separate building for photo studio
and processing work.
-VFW will be concerned if additional restaurants utilize the
retail space.
-LSD will have to be satisfied with the buffering and
driveway uses.
-Waste disposal to be handled internally
-Cooking odors at the VFW should be considered in developing
final plans.
8. Marketability of use, need, lease up
Approximately 53 percent of the project is committed.
Primary tenant would be VFW
-$44,600 square feet leased or owned
Retail Space .(34,300 square feet)
-6,000 square feet for Shaller intended
-2,000 square feet for Trestman intended
leaves a 26,400 square feet balance to lease
~~-
Medical (18,700 square feet)
-An out of state medical group- doctor and dental clinic is
considering a letter of intent to lease all medical space
during October, 1986.
Office (63,200 square feet)
-7,600 square feet for VFW intended
-6,500 square feet for Tushie Montgomery intended
the 50,000 square feet balance has not been "pushed" yet.
The rental housing would meet Section 8/Section 202 design
requirements and be very :affordable if the proposed rents of
$360/month can be achieved. There is a need for this type of
opportunity.
9. Summary. of estimated project costs:
-net construction
-architectural
-parking
-site
-financing
-profit
Building Construction $10,613,000
Leasehold Improvements $ 2,008,400
Site Costs 890,000
Land $ 2,000,000
Financing Costs $ 2,589,116
Marketing $ 389,225
Contingency $ 1,059,462
Total 21,006,203
Requested City Assistance ($2,.031,886)
Net Development Costs $18,974,317
(utilities, demolition,
grading, soil prep,
surface parking,
landscape)
City/HRA subsidy could take several forms: land writedown,
public improvements, tax increment interest reduction.
10. Timing/phasing of project;
A 15 month construction period is anticipated. Starting in
Spring,. 1987 after frost is out and soil can be worked
freely. The VFW, Shaller, Trestman, Cricket Photo uses would
remain while the ramp parking and building foundation was
initiated.
~~%
11. City and HRA role:
-formation of tax increment district project boundary
-zoning considerations
-financial assistance
-acquisition/clearance
-displacement
-public improvements
A new district would have to be established for those
portions of the development area outside the existing LHN
redevelopment district.
A $2,031,886 subsidy is being requested, which could take the
form of land writedown, installation of public improvements,
and tax increment interest reduction. Thus the HRA would be
involved in site assembly.
In return, 48 units of rental housing for lower income
elderly is planned.
No Industrial Revenue Development Bonds would be required for
the development. Housing Revenue bonds for the. rental
portion are to be considered.
The en-tire development would be privately owned..
12. Consistency with city zoning ordinance requirements
To be determined. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is likely
that will encompass the entire site.
13. Revenue to be realized from development including land --
proceeds Tax increment.
Proceeds from sale of land are not anticipated. The amount
of tax increment and the bond payback period would have to be
determined. For the. term of the payback period, the rental
housing would remain affordable to lower income elderly. The
Developers "Return on Investment" initial projections have
been provided and will require further analysis as the entire
financial package is evaluated.
14. Environmental review process-EAW required
To be determined.
15. Demand on existing public services, public improvements
To be determined.
6
16. Housing element feasibility:
-management
-target market (low income target?)
-rents
-arrangement of common spaces in mixed use concept
-separation from commercial uses
-amenities, services, support for residents
-unit size and type
Developing the housing portion according to NUD's Section
202/Section requirements, will produce the lowest practical.
cost. Rents at $360/month are projected which may allow
elderly with rent certificates to occupy the building.
Although some parking would be shared, the housing use would
be separate. The units would approximately 550 square feet,
have no support services except those available in the
community, and receive management from the same entity
responsible for the project. The affordable housing option
would remain that way for the .life of the tax increment
project that is developed to encompass the housing portion of
the development.
17. Employment Opportunities
To be determined.
18. Public reaction
~~ j
To be determined.
~.~
- - _:-_
~ pegs ~ -
s a° ~,:
~ ~ ' ~ ~ . LANDMARK CENTER
e ~_ ~ ~OFt LYNDA!_E PARTNERS
Richfield fvilmesota
~ ~
~~r
~ ~'~
, '`p~
` y~ t
~
r ~ ~~
iF tp ~.
/ 4
. ~ ' ~`
~ ~
...,f
C ~ d j ~
`
~
. /
r
j 1
i
~ ~ ~ .
'
~ ~ f ~ ~
S R /
rJ ti ~
~ ~ A '~
~ r , `.~ ,r ~ ; t s.
,p
# ~ ~ ~i
_ 3
r .
~ ~~ ~
'
O n` ~~ , ~~
a
D
r
n
0
O
O
9
`;,
m
Z
,~
~ -
~ ; ,~, , : LANDMARK CENTER
FOFt LYNDALE PARTNERS
~ ~ Richfield. Minnesota
`\` ~ ~ ~ ( ~ _ `1
/ ~~ 1
r \ r '~
/~
i~
,J
_.1
y
_S
4 ~
,~
0
0
0
;~
'l
v ,`
~•~.
l~ ~,,
-~~~
~.
...
o ~~
f~J
~ `\~I
/ ~
~ r,~i
r
~ rr ~r r/
r r i
r i
i r
r i
I / ~
/ / ~
r r i
r r
r ~
r i
i r
~ i /
~ r r
i ~
r !
J ;
~ ~`
~ ` ~
~ ~~ \
~, ~__,_,
~j~__,,
i
'
;,
i
,'
\\`'
,.,~ ,
..
\ .
_
~
~
ma
`,
~ `
y
7 ~
~
T
f nom,
~ r m
'r
0 r
r-! r x
'z_
~ / / r r
r / ~
~
r ~
r ~ i i ~
r r r
/ r r r
/ r
~
r r r i
c
m
i / / / m
~ ~ r ~
~ r r r
/ ! r
r
r r r ~r
i ~
l
r r
r
r r r
r
r r r l ~
( t 1 (
~ j
`~~ ~
~
~ \ ~ r
~
~ ~ ~
~ \ ~
~ ~ _ r
r
J
~ ~--
;~ ' ~ `
~2_
,f, '``
', ?~i
~ ~ ~
~ t ~ ~ i
~ 1•
~~. i ,.L'
~r
l
t # ~i -
• ~ _ .
LANDMARK CENTER
FOR:LYNDALE PARTNERS
Richfield Mimesota
// ' L /
OL / C//'
~ ~~
;". _
f~ ~ ~/
~ r
n
a z
c
a ~
m ~
0
w (7
m
z
m
f
---~
i ~
i.
1 ti
PROPOSAL: TRESTMAN-SHAILER
1. Development team:
-.identify members
-experience with similar projects
-financial capability
Richard Shaller, property owner and owner of Big Wheel
Jerry Trestman, property owner and owner of Trestman
Music
Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates, architect
First Grand Avenue or Richfield Bank & Trust, lenders
Mr. Shaller has been involved in several renovation
and new .construction projects to house Big Wheel Stores
2. Brief description of overall project. Comment on
building height, location, and shadows
The proposal envisions the renovation of the two existing
structures both of which include partial second floors.
Between the two structures, a new one story commercial
building would be constructed. The HRA owned property
would be purchased and utilized for parking. Shadows
would fall to the north and east on non-residential
property.
3. Site lines; on site, off site
The existing buildings would be retained and the new
structure on the vacated Graham Avenue would not negatively
impact site lines.
4. Density; lot coverage, massing, number of housing units and
parking spaces, square footage of uses, open space
Approximately 30~ of the site area would be covered with
buildings. The balance would be parking and landscaping.
5. Identification of development site boundary:
-ability to secure site control
-consensus of opinion by affected owners
-resolution of site restrictions
The site includes the two parcels owned by the developers,
three parcels owned by the HRA, and a public right-of-way
which would be vacated (Graham Avenue). All of the property
is within the existing LHN project. The two single family
homes on lake Shore Drive would remain as would the VFW and
Cricket Photo.
f7~"_/~
6. Traffic Analysis:
-offstreet parking, internal and external circulation
(loading, access to various uses)
-capacity of adjacent streets
-conflicts with existing public street improvements
The development is proposed to have approximately 147 off-
street parking spaces. Ingress. and egress would be from
Circle Place and Auto Lane. Loading would be from the rear
of the development.
7. .Compatibility:
-adjacent uses (LSD, Lyndale Hardware,
Shaller-Trestman, Cricket Photo, VFW)
-redevelopment district
-buffering
The development would. maintain the existing low rise
commercial character of this quadrant of the 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue intersection.
Because of distance and low rise character, the conflict with
Lake Shore Drive condominium should be minimal.
It may be possible to work out a joint parking arrangement so
the VFW could utilize the Trestman-Shaller parking.
8. Marketability of use, need, lease up
The existing buildings are occupied. Approximately 7,500
square feet of new commercial/retail space would come on the
market.
9. Summary of estimated project costs:
-net construction
-architectural
-parking
-site
-financing
-profit
Total construction cost
New Construction
Remodeling
Parking Lot Imp.
Landscaping
$385,000
125,000
120,000
35,000
Total Est. Cost $665,000
-/~
10. Timing/phasing of project;
prom plan preparation, bidding. and through project
construction approximately 6 to 7 months-would pass.
11. City and HRA role:
-formation of tax increment .district project boundary
-financial assistance
-acquisition/clearance
-displacement
-public improvements
This project could be undertaken within the existing LHN
project.
The LHN Land Use Plan identifies this area for commercial
use.
General Commercial is the existing zoning designation.
The HRA has expended approximately $250,000 to date to
purchase and manage the three vacant parcels. Additional
acquisition of property would not be necessary. However, an
expenditure of $50,000 to $75,000 for utility relocation
would be necessary..
Additional public assistance apparently would not be
necessary.
12. Consistency with city zoning ordinance requirements
The proposal is consistant with the zoning ordinance except
in the area of parking where a variance may be required.
13. Revenue to be realized from development including land
proceeds and Tax increment.
For commercial purposes, the three HRA owned parcels are
valued at approximately $100,000.
This project could result in a tax increment of approximatly
$30,000 annually. If construction was initiated in 1987, the
increased revenue would be generated in 1989. This revenue
would be deposited in the debt service fund and be used to
pay off outstanding. bonds. Without issuing more bonds. the
project could pay for itself in ten to fifteen years.
14. Environmental review process-EAhI required
The project is too small to warrant an environmental review.
~.~ -- ~.~
15. Demand on existing public services, public improvements
The demand on community services would not change much.
However, it is likely that the existing structures and new
structures would be sprinkled for fire supression. This
would lessen the need for public services.
16. Housing element feasibility:
Not applicable as there is no housing element.
17. Employment Opportunities
Not yet determined.
18. Public reaction
The Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association Board of
Directors adopted a motion in support of this development on
October 7, 1986.
~~ i~
PROPOSAL: WALKER METHODIST
1. Development team:
-identify members
-experience with similar projects
-financial capability
Walker Methodist would be the developer and manager.
2. Brief description of overall project. Comments on
building height, location, shadows.
The proposal envisions up to 250 units of elderly rental
housing.
The Trestman and Shaller proposal has been incorporated into
the plan. The VFW would expand and renovate .their existing
structures. Cricket Photo would occupy a portion of the
Shaller property.
A two level parking structure would be located adjacent to
the Trestman, Shaller and VFW property.
3. Site lines; on site, off site
The apartment tenant building would be in the line of site of
some Lake Shore Drive Condominium units. Impact from other
locations is yet to be determined.
4. Density; lot coverage, massing, number of housing units and
parking spaces, square footage of uses, open space
Of the 250 units, 45 maybe in a Section 202/8 portion of the
building if HUD solicits proposals next year and if an
application was submitted by Walker and selected on a
competitive basis. The "L" shaped building would be stepped.
The longest "leg" would be north-south. The lowest portion
of the. structure would be closest to Lake Shore Drive
(street). -Its highest point would be 12 stories, a second
component would be 9 stories and the lowest portion 7
stories.
Parking within the rental building would include 130 spaces.
On the exterior would be 10 spaces. A two level parking
structure located behind the apartments and the Lyndale
commercial space would provide 210 spaces for the VFW and
retail stores. The VFW would have an additional 51 exterior
spaces and 32 spaces would be exterior to the Trestman and
Shaller property. The total spaces would approximate 433.
-~~ i~
5. Identification of development site boundary:
-ability to secure site control
-consensus of opinion by affected owners
-resolution of site restrictions
The development would require the three parcels along Lake
Shore Drive, portions of the Trestman and Shaller and VFW
property and the three HRA owned lots. Meetings between the
developer and some of the affected property owners are now
underway. Portions of the site are outside the existing LHN.
6. Traffic Analysis:
-offstreet parking, internal and external circulation
(loading, access to various uses)
-capacity of adjacent streets
-conflicts with existing public street improvements
There would be approximately 433 parking spaces on the site.
Access would be from Lake Shore Drive and Lyndale Avenue.
7. Compatibility:
-adjacent uses (LSD, Lyndale Hardware,
Shaller.-Trestman, Cricket Photo, VFW)
-redevelopment district
-buffering
The existing commercial character in this quadrant of the
66th Street and Lyndale intersection would be continued. The
height and proximity to Lake Shore Drive condominiums may
infringe on the view of some Lake Shore units owners.
8. Marketability of use, need, lease up
The developer completed a market study last Spring which
indicated a market for such a project. It would probably
take 18 to 24 months to rent all the units following
construction.
9. Summary of estimated project costs:
-net construction
-architectural
-parking
-site
-financing
-profit
The housing component by. Walker may be valued up to $14
million.
~~-/,
10. Timing/phasing of project;
Site assembly may take 6 to 9 months, with a 15 to 18 month
construction period.
11. City and HRA role:
-formation of tax increment district project boundary
-financial assistance
-acquisition/clearance
-displacement
-public improvements
This project would necessitate the creation of a new TIF
district as a portion of the site is outside the LHN.
The developer would look to the HRA to assemble the site for
the apartments. Housing Revenue Bonds would be sought to
finance the rental units.
The city would construct and own the parking structure..
12. Consistency with city zoning ordinance requirements
The entire development site including the commercial frontage
would likely be included in a PUD.
13. Revenue to be realized from development including land
proceeds Tax increment.
The maximum revenue .per unit for the apartment site would be
$2,500 although it may need to be reduced to keep rents low.
14. Environmental review process-EAN required
To be determined.
15. Demand on existing community services, public improvements -
To be determined.
~~-~~
16. Housing element feasibility:
-management
-target market (low income target?)
-rents
-arrangement of common spaces in mixed. use concept
-separation from commercial uses
-amenities, services, support for residents
-unit size and type
Walker Management would operate the facility. The rents
would be mixed and are not yet determined. Services would
include security, transportation and food.
17. Employment Opportunities
Not yet determined.
18. Public reaction
The Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association Board of
Directors adopted a motion which found this development
to be unacceptable.
There is also concern about the concentration of elderly
in this location.
. ` - -.~
~. \\ ~\
v
\_
~ ~ ('~ ~~~
i \ ~ ~~
~~ ~~; \
- r. ~-~
J ~
C y~ \ J~
ti ~ \ S'a'm .
~ V n.
~:
g -- ---- - - 3 ~ 2
=i
\ ~~
`~~ ~ ~ ~ l-
.~ ~~ .
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
' ``~~
~, ~ `~
~~
~~
'/~ ~. y \
o
r ~
~ ~"~.
~\ ~~ ~~
? ~ ,\ (`_.
~~ ~ ~ , 'r"
\ [~
~~ e ~ ~X• ~
1 ~ ',Y
~ D ~ ;.
°~
~ ~~ U
~.
~:
\ ~.
~. `_i {
~ _/ ~ ` ~ / V
~:;/
~~-~
Z~
O"
H ~_
O a ~
U ~
~ - =_
Z -_ . _ -
~ - T~
w =r~
T
~~ =~
~\
~ ~ ~
\ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
,~ f
`. ~
/ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~~
v'i~ ~~
~; ~
`/ ~_ ,
~'
.,,
~' _` _ ..
~~ r ~` \
~ ~
~-.*'~
~~ y7b~ 7
.~
,~ ~~, j ~ ,
~/ `
'3"~~'
~~ /~ ~',~ ~~~ ~ _ ,ice ~ ti~~ = `~1~; .
\~,/ ~ t ~~. _ ~o .~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~~~: ~~~ DVS,- _ .
yi ... ~Y ~ ~ ~ /
,-. ~ ~ _ _
\ ~~,
-fir'°?," ~~ ~ . ~y ,~ ~.~{ N Z ~'
~ ~~
~ ' ~ '• i ~' . (\/ ~ eat- W _~ ~
~ ~ ~ J i. i V ~ \ \ \ 5 VJ ws
/ c .4
N
~`.~ ~ y ~ ~i Y~" 2 S H qi
'~NA'~' c T
~ c1~ ~~;~
~` ~
' ~ ~ ~
~ ~
cm
.\ ~~
~!
~~ eo `~~ g ~
a~
a~
~, ~ ~ ~
._ _ .
N
~~~
a ~ ~~
~h
:.4'
C
-~
~,
?~
~J
"; ~~A~~
~4~
;` r ,~
~~ ~
~j
'= „.~.
.,
<" ~_
•~
~~~ `~
/` ~' l
';
~ ~~
~~~r
< <'i ~
fi~
~~ ~-
~_
.3 ~.~:-
~;--
~.
~r~ ~
~~
0 ~ `~~
o~
~ ~~
c~
?~
Y
M C1
{~
Q
a
w -_
W Vr ~
J
W ?i ^ a
€~_-~
J .~.
< I
,~~
'~
y" <- ,~
jl ~
~~~ /~
,¢ ~~ ~F ~ 7
p y './
,/, , j,
`~ ,~ i
~~~ ~ % ~.
~ ,~ :~'
,,, ~ /
~ ~ , ~,
~~/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 32
October 20, 1986
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Authorization to Issue Certificates of Completion for Townhouse
Units at 66th Street and Rae Drive Developed by George E. Branton
Construction Company.
BACKGROUND:
In September, 1986 the HRA approved the final plat for a portion
of the site together with related amendments to-the Homeowners
Association agreements.
Buyers for six of the eight units constructed by George E.
Branton Construction Company have now been qualified (two three
bedroom units are .still on the market). The closing on the sale
of the units is likely to take place in the next few weeks prior
to the November HRA meeting. For a closing to take place, the
HRA must authorize a Certificate of Completion. Ordinarily one
Certificate of Completion is issued when an entire development is
completed. However, because this development has four separate
buildings and eight units, certificates must be issued for each
unit as they are finished. A certificate would also be issued
when the site improvements are complete. In anticipation of this
situation, legal counsel prepared a "Certificate of Completion-
Partial" for each-unit as they are completed. A "Certificate of
Completion-Final" would be provided to the developer when
everything is complete including the site work.
The development is nearing completion. Interior finishing of the
units is now underway. Driveway ,installation should also be
completed soon.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
which authorizes the Chairperson and Executive Director to
execute the Certificate of Completion-Partial, as it relates to
the finishing and sale of the individual dwelling units, and the
Certificate of Completion-Final, provided all requirements of the
development agreement have been satisfied. The Chairperson and
Executive Director would also be authorized to execute second
mortgage documents and other documents that may be required for
closings to occur.
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
1. As of this writing, except for the identification of
purchasers for two units, the developer has substantially
complied with the development agreement in the construction
of the units and provided eight new townhomes for moderate
income family ownership.
~/-/
2. With construction completion, staff would release
Certificates of Completion-Partial for individual units and a
Final Certificate for the entire development given the
following conditions:
-Development Agreement requirements met
-The City's Building Official issues a Certificate of
Occupancy for the unit being sold
-The neighbors retaining wall (Burkhardt-921 Rae Drive)
which was pushed out of alignment during earth moving
work by the developer, is reset by the developer
-The neighbor's 1" to 1-1/2" caliper tree (Howard -
915 Rae Drive) which was located near the property
line and inadvertently cut down during the installation
of a fence, is replaced by the developer.
3. The HRA is required by the
a Certificate of Completion
.satisfactorily completed.
development agreement to provide
provided that work is
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
A refusal to issue the Certificate of Completion-Partial/Final
would have to be based on non-compliance with the development
agreement. At this time, there does not appear to be a basis for
this finding given the conditions outlined i°n this letter.
DECISION MODE•
The lender, Rothschild Financial Corporation, has indicated that
six of Mr. Branton's eight units have qualified buyers and that
closings could occur "anytime". Four closings have been
scheduled for October 31, 1986, provided the finishing details
for individual units are completed. The site work, weather
permitting, should be completed soon. Delaying HRA action to
authorize the release of Certificates until all work has been
completed (i.e., the regularly scheduled November or December,
1986 HRA meetings) may place identified buyers and Mr. Branton in
an untenable position in terms of financing.
Res ully submitted,,
Jam D. Prosser
Executive Director
~: i ~ ~ / ~~
r x
HRA RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION
FOR 66TH STREET/RAE DRIVE HOUSING
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in
and for the City of Richfield has considered the status of the
66th Street/Rae Drive Housing Development; and
WHEREAS, it has-been determined that the developer has
substantially complied with the development agreement in the
construction of the eight townhouse units; and
WHEREAS, all eight units are near completion; and
WHEREAS, qualified buyers have been identified for six of
the eight units and the lender has scheduled closings; and
WHEREAS, marketing efforts should soon identify the
remaining buyers; and
WHEREAS, the HRA is required by the development agreement to
provide Certificates of Completion and other supporting documents
in advance of total project completion, to facilitate the sale of
individual units and the timely completion of the entire project;
and
WHEREAS, the Certificates of Completion would be released
given the following conditions:
-Requirements of~the Development Agreement are met;
-A Certificate of Occupancy is provided by the City Building
Official;
-The retaining wall at 921 Rae Drive is repaired;
-A properly sized and located tree is provided at 915 Rae
Drive
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
That the Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized
to execute the Certificate of Completion-Partial and Certificate
of Completion-Final and other supporting documents to facilitate
the closing of individual units.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield this 20th day of October, 1986.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary