Loading...
11-12-85 agenda ~~_1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. x+39 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request by Several Council Members for Reconsideration of the Rezoning Property " from C-2, General. Commercial to PC-2, Planned General Commercial for the CDR Development at X94 and 35W Council Members: Several Council Members have asked that the CDR rezoning ordinance passed on second reading at the October 28, 1985, city council meeting be placed on the November 12, 1985, city council agenda. The CDR rezoning changed the CDR property from C-2, General Commercial, to CC-2, Planned General Commercial.- The ordinance has not been published to date so the rezoning has not been made effective. For this matter to be reconsidered, a Council Member from the prevailing side must make the motion to reconsider. If there is a second to the motion, it takes a majority vote (three votes) to pass the motion. The motion to reconsider is not amendable, but it can be debated. If the motion to reconsider passes, then the city council can take up the rezoning ordinance for consideration. Provided in your backup is Council Letter No. x+03 and the rezoning ordinance that was provided to the city council at the October 28, 1985, city council meeting. Respect 1 submitted, John G. Cartw fight City Manager JGC/eja _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. X03 j .Agenda October 28, 198.5 II The Honorable Mayor I, and Members of the City Council City of Richfield - Subject: Second Reading Of Ordinance Rezoning Property From C-2, General Commercial To PC-2, Planned General Commercial For The CDR Development At 49~+ And 35W i Council Members:. At the October 14, 1985, city council meeting, the city ~I council approved a PUD plan and first reading of a ordinance to rezone the property owned by CDR Development from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial. The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance was scheduled for 'I October 28, 1985• • It is recommended that the city council conduct a public ~ hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance rezoning the subject property from general commercial to planned general commercial. Project details are attached in the backup for your information. If the city council passes the ordinance on second reading, the city staff intention is to not publish the ordinance at this time. Publication would proceed if a Bevel-opens agreement is cioncluded and when the moratorium restriction on rezoning permits is lifted. The special use permit and variance issues described in the October 14, 1885, city council letter when the rezoning .ordinance was considered on first reading will not be acted upon until there is an approved developers agreement and the moratorium is lifted. Respectful bmitted, John G. Cartwri t City Manager JGC/eja AMENDI~NT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled: "Boundaries: of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in the following respects:. I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is amended to read as follows: (g) That area lying between thecenter lines of 77th and 78th Streets and between the center lines. of Garfield Avenue and Interstate Highway 35W except that part of such. area .zoned as PC-2 and described in Section 7 of this Appendix C. II. Section 7 of Appendix C is amended by adding paragraph (5) thereto to read as follows: (5) That part. of the following described .property: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township. 28, Range 24. And The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 ~ Township 28 , Range 24 AND The West 1 / 2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest. 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24. And The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the South- west 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Secion 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1)4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the South- east 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24. except that part taken. for road and being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. which lies Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the Southwest corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would passe through the South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the. point of be~innin~ of the line to be described; thence running Westerly • -2- alori~~the last above described_coursefor 321:17 feet1 thence .deflecting Ito :the right at an ankle of 90 -degrees ~00 minutes-for 1:5feet; thence ' ~ deflecting to the left-at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.5 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 500 feet and there terminating. And All that part of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the .Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the east 30 feet. thereof. Which lies southerly and southwesterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as be~innin~ at the northwest corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly: along 'the north line of .said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence easterly and. southeasterly adistance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest navin~ a radius of 400.00 feet and a central ankle of 71 degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence south- easterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet ~alon~ a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central ankle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said-line there terminating. And lies southerly of a line described as commencin at the nor wes corner of id East th t sa Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, thence southerly along the west line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the South- west Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 a di _ ~ of 294.17 feet to the. point of be~innin~ of ,ne line to be described; thence ' easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 658 feet and said line there terminating. I~ - _3_ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield; Minnesota this day of _ _ _ . _ ~ 1985 , John Hamilton, Mayor .ATTEST: Tom Ferber, City Clerk ~/1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. X38 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $6,325,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1986 Council Members: The purpose of this council letter is to recommend that the City Council authorize an advance refunding bond sale in January, 1986. This sale would be subject to market conditions being advantageous for such a refunding transaction at that time. . The City is authorized by provisions of Minnesota State Statute to issue and sell general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when it is determined by the City Council that such refunding would be necessary or desirable for reduction of interest costs. On July 31, 198, the City sold $5,750,000 i general obligation redevelopment bonds at a net interest rate of 7.58%. Bond market conditions have improved since that time,. and it is now likely that the City could refinance at an estimated 8% interest rate which could create interest savings ~ to the City over the life of the issue of approximately $185,000. j Evensen-Dodge, the City's financial adviser, has determined that the best possible time for the City to attempt to conduct this refinancing transaction would be January 16, 1986. While the bond market is good at the present time, certain arbitrage regulations would adversely affect the interest savings of the refunding sale if it were conducted within 30 days of the .city's short-term temporary bond sale for the ILN project, tentatively scheduled for December 2, 1985. Proposed Federal legislation which, if introduced, could possibly prevent such advance refunding bond transaction if it is not authorized prior to December 31, 1985. Thus, the City Council is being asked to take this action now in an effort to reserve the opportunity to transact an advance refunding in • January, 1986. We are not certain whether this attempt to preserve the city's right to issue an advance refunding would Q` be successful in the face of more restrictive tax laws, but we believe every effort should be made at this time. • The proposed resolution sets the sale date for January 16, 1986. Also, a preliminary debt schedule indicating anticipated savings which could be realized from such a bond sale is provided in this agenda item backup. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the advanced refunding bond sale for January 16, 1986, with the following understanding: (1) the sale may, in fact, not be possible depending on how and when federal legislation concerning tax exempt financing is introduced; (2) the City staff and Evensen-Dodge will monitor bond market conditions and advise the City Council to suspend the bond sale authorization if it appears that market conditions during the middle of January will not be conducive to the City receiving advantageous interest savings; and, (3) the City incurs no cost in the event we do not proceed with the advance refunding transaction. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca twr' ht City Manager JGC/e 'a • J cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Manager - - , r ~ f. RICHFIELD ~ REFUNDING BONDS C ~ SAVINGS REPORT - - - - - - - - PRDP05ED DEBT SERVICE - - - - - - - - PRIOR CUMULATIVE DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST TOTAL 015 SAVINGS SAVINGS I 21 1186 266,225.00 266,225.00 1,225.00 B/ 1186 275,851.04 2/ 1187 65,400.00 5.000000 236,443.75 577,294.79 582,450.00 5,155.21 6,380.21 8/ 1187 234,818.75 2/ 1/88 95,000.00 5.500000 234,818.75 564,637.54 578,950.00 14,312.50 20,692.71 6/ 1188 232 206.25 2/ 1/69 200,000.00 5.900000 232,206.25 664,412.50 675,200.00 10,787.50 31,480.21 8/ 1/89 226,306.25 2/ 1190 225,000.00 6.200000 226,306.E5 677,612.50 688,575.00 10,962.50 42,442.71 6/ 1190 219,331.25 2/ 1/91 250,000.00 6.400000 219,331.25 688,662.50 699,575.00 10,912.50 53,355.21 6I 1191 211,331.25 2/ 119E 275,000.40 6.640000 211,331.25 697,662.50 708,075.00 10,412.50 63,767.71 8/ 1192 202,256.25 2/ 1/93 300,000.00 6.800004 202,256.25 704,512.54 714,175.00 9,662.50 73,430.21 6/ 1193 192,056.25 • 2/ 1194 320,000.00 7.000000 192,056.25 704,112.50 717,550.00 13,437.54 86,867.71 i ~ 8/ 1194 180,856.25 2/ 1/95 345,000.00 7.240000 180,856.25 706,712.50 718,212.50 11,500.00 98,367.71 8/ 1195 168,436.25 2/ 1196 365,000.00 7.400004 168,436.25 701,872.50 716,212.50 14,340.00 112,707.71 8/ 1/96 154,931.25 2/ 1197 390,000.00 7.500000 154,931.25 699,862.50 711,150.00 11,287.50 123,995.21 81 1197 140,306.25 2/ 1198 535,000.40 7.650040 140,306.25 815,612.50 828,250.00 .__12,637.50 136,632.71 8/ 1/98 _ 119,842.50 _2/ 1199 580,000.00 7.840000 119,842.50 819,685.00 830,750.00 11,065.00 147,697.71 8/ 1199 97,222.50 2/ 1l 0 770,400.40 8.000000 97,222.50 964,445.00 977,950.00 13,505.00 161,202.71 6/ 11 0 66,422:50 C 2/ 1/ 1 785,000.00 8.200040 66,422.50 917,845.00 930,200.40 12,355.00 173,557.71 8/ it 1 34,237.50 2/ 1/ 2 825,400.00 8.300004 34,237.50 893,475.00 905,025.00 11,550.40 185,107.71 6,325,000.04 5,473,417.29 11,798,417.29 12,246,525.00 185,107.71 ACCRUED 38,093.72 38,093.72 38,093.72 6,325,040.40 5,435,323.58 11,760,323.58 12,246,525.00 223,201.42 L RICHFIELD /J/~ REFUNDING BONDS SAVINGS-REPORT DATED 1/ 1186 WITH DELIVERY OF 1130/Bb BOND YEARS 70,bD2.083 AVERAGE COUPON 7.752 AVERAGE LIFE 11.162 N I C % 7.922701 % USING 98.1000000 N 0 T E CUNULATIVE SAVINGS ARE NET OF 265,000.00 N E T P R E 5.,.E _N T V A L U E S A V I N G 5 A T 8.0000000040 % E Q U A L 5 144, 896.85 PREPARED BY EVENSEN DODGE, INC. - RUNDATE: 10-24-1985 RUNTINE: 09:11:35 • C L ~`v~~ ' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager M Council Letter No. X37 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for Ajustments to Employee Grou Insurance Covera es and Premiums (Term Life A g Insurance, Dental Insurance, Health Insurance, and Short/Long Term Disability Insurance) Council Members: At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of ' premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. The first type of insurance is a $10,000 Term Life Insurance policy provided for all the General Services and Management employees. The City pays the full premium for this • insurance, which was $2.20 per month per employee in 1985. The rates for this coverage in 1986 will be reduced by 7~, to $1.80 per month per employee. No increase in this coverage is recommended in 1986. The second type of insurance provided to General Services and Management employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1985, the City contributed $13.00 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium. The rate proposed for 1986 is $13.50 per month per employee for employee-only coverage. It is recommended that the City contribute the full cost of $13.50 per employee for General Services and Management employees for 1986. As in the past, employees who desire dependent coverage will pay the full cost of such additional premium. The third type of insurance Covera a is rou health g g P coverage, of which there are three optional plans available through Hennepin County joint purchasing. The City pays the full individual employee premium and provides varying additional contributions, up to a maximum specified premium for dependent coverage. Such contributions vary, depending on the employee group. The 1985 and 1986 monthly premium costs of these plans are as follows: 1985 1986 ~ Mo. Rate Mo. Rate Increase Group Health Plan Individual $ 63.20 $ 68.35 8.1~ Family 169.83 183.05 7.8~ Medeenters Health Plan Individual $ 67.15 $ 69.85 4.0~ Family 180.15 187.35 4.0% Physicians Health Plan Individual $ 97.51 $ 99.57 2.1~ Family 204.70 211.07 3.1~ In 1985, the City contributed up to a maximum of $132.00 per month per employee for employee and dependent coverage for eligible General Services and Management employees. It is recommended that this amount be increased to a maximum of $140.00 per month per employee for 1986. By increasing the maximum City contribution, the City would be able to offset the dependent coverage increase charged by two of the providers and two-thirds of the increase charged by the third participating provider. The fourth type of insurance, provided to General Services and Management employees only, is disability insurance. Short- term disability insurance is self-insured and funded out of the current operating budget, similar to the manner in which Sick Leave costs are covered. Long-term disability insurance is provided through a group LTD policy secured by the City. The 1985 premium rate of $.55 per $100 of salary will remain in effect through 1986, reflecting no increase in premium. The average monthly premium costs projected for 1986 are $9.61 per month for General Services employees and $16.83 per month for Management employees. No increases in coverage or rates are proposed for 1986. Summary The life insurance coverages were bid by Hennepin County this year, resulting in a 7~ decrease in premium costs. The current rate is $.22 per $1,000 of coverage, or $2.20 per month per employee. The new rate will be $.18 per $1,000 of coverage, or $1.80 per month per employee. However, the cities participating with Hennepin County will be required to provide increased recordkeeping and premium billing information. The current rate has been guaranteed for the next four years. For 1986, the budget includes a projected 4.6~ cost increase for health insurance coverages for General Services and Management employees. The proposed increases represent a 4.63 increase in health insurance costs paid annually by the City. ~v 3 Under this proposal, the. total 1986 monthly contribution for Management employees would be $172.13 per month, and for General Services employees, $164.91 per month. Rates for Local 49 employees, Police Officers, Police Supervisors and Firefighters have not been established for 1986. However, the latter employee groups are anticipated to receive insurance contribution increases comparable to the ones proposed for General Services and Management employees. .(See attached comparison) This assumption is based upon insurance contributions for similar union employee groups in comparable cities. In summary, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution designating 1986 maximum insurance contributions for General Services and Management employees so that these non-union employees maintain their competitive relationship with organized employee groups. The 1986 budget includes the necessary monies to meet the premium contributions by the city. R pe tf submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager JGC/eja • 1985 INSURANCE COMPARISON POLICE POLICE GENERAL ; LOCAL OFCR. SUPV. SERVICES MGMT. ; 4g FIRE FED. ASSOC. i i i 1985 INS. M0. $ Health $ 132.00 132.00 ; 153.90. 141.00 142.00 160.00 Life 2.20 2.20 ; 1.10 1.10 2.20 5.50 Dental 13.00 13.00 ; 13.00 13.00 Sub-Total 147.20 147.20 i 155.00 155.10 157.20 165.50 i LTD 9.031 15.802 ; TOTAL 156.23 163.00 ; 155.00 155.10 157.20 165.50 • 1986 INSURANCE COMPARISON i i POLICE POLICE GENERAL i LOCAL OFCR. SUPV. SERVICES MGMT. i 49 FIRE FED. ASSOC. 1986 INS. i II M0. $ ~ Health 140.00 140.00 ALL CONTRACTS IN NEGOTIATIONS Life 1.80 1.80 Dental 13.50 13.50 Sub-Total 155.30 155.30 ~ LTD 9.613 16.834 TOTAL 164.91 172.13 1Based on average monthly salary of $1,641 (5~+2°~ x 1984 Salary) 2Based on average monthly salary of $2,873 (5~+2~ x 1984 Salary) 3Based on average monthly salary of $1,748 (4.5~+2~) x 1985 Salary) 4Based on average monthly salary of $3,060 (4.5~+2%) x 1985 Salary) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. x+36 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Development Proposals For The Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site Dear Council Members: Staff has recently received two redevelopment proposals for the Cedar Avenue liquor store site. A copy of each proposal is attached to this letter. The Nacon Properties proposal was i received on Monday, November 1985. The Lincoln Companies proposal was received on Wednesday, November 6, 1985. HRA staff has had to commit nearly all available time to the developer agreement negotiations for the ILN project area during the week i of ,November 4-8, 1985. Time did not permit the staff to analyze the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store site proposals. ~ The writer proposes that the city council at the November ~ 12th meeting receive the developer proposals and hear the. presentations. The staff will make an analysis of the two ~ proposals and submit staff recommendations at the city council II meeting of November 25, 1985. Residents in the adjoining ~I neighborhood will be invited to the November 25, 1985, council meeting. Nacon is proposing a two story and basement structure to be owned by Republic Airlines Credit-Union on the southern portion of the site. On the north portion of the site, they are i proposing a single story service retail center. -There are three options for this facility which relate to the future of the liquor store. The attached documents detail the proposal. Drawings will be available Tuesday evening. The Lincoln Companies, which was previously selected by the Council as the developer of the site, has also submitted a proposal. This proposal is similar to that previously .submitted. It envisions the construction of a one story office- service center facility with two options depending upon the location of the liquor store. i It is recommended that the Council hear the presentations, direct staff to present an analysis of the proposals at the November 25th meeting and to invite the residents from the surrounding neighborhood to the council meeting on November 25, 1985. Respectfully submitted, n G. Ca wri t .City Manager JGC/eja • NACON Pl~OPERT/ES NATIONAL CDNSOLFDATED (6 7 2) 445-9050 OFFERED SALE PRICE TO CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR 6636 CEDAR AVE. Total land area: 113,520 Square Feet (The square _ footage includes the South 30 feet of 67th Street) Offered sale price. of 113,520 Square Feet at $2.58 per square foot or $293,340.00 for total parcel net to the City of Richfield. I Conditions of offer: ~I 1) We will. purchase property "AS IS". We will remove all the present structures on site at our cost. 2) We ask the 1986 taxes to be prorated at time of closing and the balance of the 1986 tax for the .remainder of the year be calculated on the land value only. 3) The City of Richfield will provide a Warranty Deed for I!, the parcel at time of closing. 4) No commission will be paid to Nacon by the City of Richfield on the sale of this parcel. 8050A E. H1GHWAY 101 - SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ~ 3 H~1 COH P>~iOPERT/ES NATIONAL CONSOLIDATED (612) 445-9050 OFFERED SALE PRICE TO CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR 1825 E. 66th STREET AND 6636 CEDAR AVE. S0. Total land area 144,144 Square Feet (The square footage includes the South 30 feet of 67th St.) Offered sale price of 144, 144- Square Feet at $ 2.77 per s>:}l:}are foot or $399,280:00 for total parcel net to the City of Richfield. Conditions of Offer: 1) We will purchase the property "AS IS". We will. remove all the present structures on both sites at our cost. 2) We ask the 1986 taxes to be prorated at time of closing and the balance of the 1986 tax for the remainded of 1986 be calculated on the land value only. 3) The City of Richfield will provide a Warranty Deed for both parcels at time of closing. 4) No commission will be paid to Nacon by the City of Richfield on the sale of these two parcels. 5) The City of Richfield will allow us to close on the two parcels as follows; A) Close on the North half of the property Feb. 1, 1986 B) Close.on the South half of the property after July 1, 198 8050A E. HIGHWAY 1 O1 - SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Bill Henning & Company . 8050A E. Highway 101, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-8621 November 5,1985 Proposal for Bepublic Airlines Credit Union Facility See below for estimated cost: Main Floor 7,500 sq.ft. $375,000.00 Second Floor 7,500 sq.ft. $375,000.00 Lower Level 6,935 sq.ft. $792,700.00 Main Level 7,500 sq.ft. $210,OOd.00 Credit Union Related Improvements (see attachment A) Parking lot 45,000 sq.ft... $ 45,000.00 Landscaping (Allow) $ 20,000.00 Land .69,696 sq.ft. $176,72$.50 Total Estimated Costs: $1,394,428.50 Note: Excluded in the above estimated costs, that Republic will have as added cost to Construction, are as follows. 1) Interior $100,000.00 Design (Allow) 2) Electrmnic Items $150,000.00 and other equipment (Allow) Total Costs added for Republic: $250,000.00 f . _ . / Bi11 Henning & Company 8050A E. Highway. 101, Shakopee,. Minnesoto 55379 (612) 445-8621 November 4, 1985 Proposal for 3 options to the City of .Richfield. Site Location: fi6th and Cedar Option 1. I- To construct a 17,000 sq.ft. Service Retail Center, this center gives. the City of Richfild first right to Lease space from Biil Henning, also adding a basement for the Liquor Store Tennant. The liquor store tennant asked for 6000 sq.ft. with a 5000 sq.ft._Basement. See below for cost estimated for construction., Building: (17,000sq.ft.) $ 595,000.00 Basement: ( S,000sq.ft.) 100,000.00 Demo. ( pesent gas station,etc. i fora clean site.) 13,000.00 Land 222,156.00 Commission: (NACON Properties) 22,216.00 Total estimated Cost: $ 952,372.00 Option 2. To construct a 17,000 sq.ft.'Service Retail Center without the Cities Liquor Store being a tennant. In this case we would not put in a basement. See below for construction costs: Same as option 1. $ 952,372.00 less the basement cost: - 100,000.00 Total estimated Cost: $ 852,372.00 Option 3. To construct 2 separate facilities, see as fgllows: 1) Liquor Store 6000 sq.ft. with a full basement of 6000 sq.ft. Building: $ 210,000.00 Basement: 120,000.00 Demo. (clean site) 6,5.00.00 Land: (city owns) ~ Total estimated cost $ 336,~uu.uu . ~~J C~/ Page 2, Nov. 4, 1985 continued Option 3 ~ . 2) The Strip Center would be 8800 sq.ft: see estimated costs below. Building $ 308,000.00 ( no basement ) land 117,000.00 Demo ( clean site ) 6,500.00 Commission: 11,700.00 " Total estimated costs: $ 443,200.00 Note: The demo cost fora clean site was estimated at 13,000.00 for option 3 we just divided the cost in two. i., RICHFIELD OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER Development Proposal Cedar Avenue Site November 5, 1985 _ _ - Prepared bys The Lincoln Companies _ For Submission to: Richfield City Council 5 F. 1 1 t ' ~,i~ , j y ~ ~ ~r' _ _ t r r - - 1 , - - -r!, j: 1 _ . - , i , . - ~ _ _ _ J - ~r'~'~ ~ ~I, ~ ~ ~ _ 1 `r, ~ r ~ . --~i _.~_,~,,a-,~-._ _ _ ' "l- ~ RICHF~E ~ NyINNE50T A ,S ~I~FIELD, ~ ~ . I ~ The Lincoln ( Companies j 7205 Ohms Lane ' Edina, Minnesota 55435 j (612) 893-9000 November 5, 1985 City.Council City of Richfield - Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site .6636 Cedar Avenue South Gentlemen: The Lincoln Companies is pleased to submit our evaluations and proposal for the redevelopment of the Richfield Municipal Liquor Store site at 6636 Cedar Avenue South. As you .are aware, our firm has demonstrated a strong interest in this redevelopment for some time. After completion of our initial site and development analysis, a Development Proposal was submitted to the City of Richfield on March 5, 1984. This proposal is submitted in response to the City Council's request _ for re-evaluation in light of-the recent Nacon Properties proposal suggesting a mixed retail/office use for the site. Site Evaluation Any analysis of a proposed development must begin with an in-depth evaluation of the site in question. This site consists of approximately three acres. The property offers excellent visibility and access to Minnesota State Highway 77 and East 66th Street. The surrounding area consists of quality residential homes to the west mixed commercial and multi-family residential to the south, and a combination of multi-family residential and predominantly "B" class commercial to the north. Presently, the Cedar/66th area does not have a distinctive image or identity -which can be capitalized on for additional development. Accordingly, any potential redevelopment of the site must accomplish at least two goals: ~~-1~ _ Richfield City Council November 5, 1985 Page 2 _ 1) Establish a distinctive identity to the marketplace; and 2) Protect the neighborhood quality of the single-family residences to the west. With these two factors in mind, the particular use must also be one which will successfully attract tenants or users to the site. Our evaluations of the site determined that a first-class office--showroom facility, similar to those developed in the . southwest quadrant of .Hwy. 77 and I-494 was the most appropriate. This determination was made for the following reasons: 1. Ezistinq Market Need. The growth and expansion of new industries, especially in the high technology and service. company fields, created a new market need for a facility which provides a greater proportion of office space, a stronger location, and a high quality, office-like appearance. The development community has just begun to respond to this market demand. The subject property is highly suited to meet the _ requirements of these facilities. It has excellent visibility and efficient access to major highways. The site is unique in its proximity to both Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and downtown Minneapolis. Our v proposed development highlights these factors with a strong, office-oriented design. Our market studies indicate a strong potential response to this development. 2. Effective Ose of Site. Our review of the subject site, made jointly with city staff, indicated that this particular project would be an extremely efficient use of the site. The proposed. building covers approximately 35$ of the total site but is able to provide ample parking. An attractive appearance will be presented to all four sides of the property. Necessary accesses are provided without damaging existing traffic patterns. As the enclosed site plan demonstrates, our proposed design envisions significant landscaping. ! ~ Richfield City Council November 5, 1985 page 3 3. Neighborhood Computability. The Richfield - Office/.Service Center will be an excellent neighbor to the surrounding residential and commercial areas. The acceptance of this project has been amply demonstrated at the neighborhood meetings which have been held. The adjacent residences will be effectively buffered through - heavy landscaping, using mature trees and berming. The principal hours of operation of .the project's tenants wi11- be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekdays, which will protect the .quiet evenings and weekends of the neighborhood. setting. The project's presence will not brir}g with it the excessive .lighting, traffic, or patron use associated with retail/commercial facilities. Further, the nature of the project is such that truck deliveries are much less frequent than that associated with traditional office-warehouse facilities. As stated above, we have designed the project to offer a larger proportion of office use. The project will not be a large-scale manufacturing or assembly-type facility.. Instead, it will house smaller enterprises, probably in the high technology/electronics industry, using principally smaller, delivery type vehicles rather than large semi-trailers. In addition, the persons who work in the new facility will turn to adjacent commercial areas for dining and, quite probably, -some shopping. 4. Business and Employment Growth. At present, Richfield does not have a modern, commercial/industrial presence. According to our current estimates, the. Richfield Office/Service Center will house from two to six small companies or corporate divisions. According to studies prepared by the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks, it is reasonable to project that this facility will serve from 60-80 employees. Many of these positions will be held by skilled workers and middle management persons. t-l~ ~ Richfield City Council r_ November 5, 1985 page 4 Thus, the project will invite new businesses to join the City of Richfield and expand the community's employment base. It must also be noted that these positions will-offer career oriented, permanent employment.. 5. Improved Tax Base. The. development of the project will greatly improve the City's existing property ax base. The facility will have a construction -cost of approximately $1,450,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. facility or $1,125,000 for a 30,000 sq. ft. facility, either of which will generate significant property taxes. • We rejected other potential uses for the following reasons: 1. Multi-Family: The construction of additional _ ~ multi-family housing, probably mid-rise, is contrary to the .ambience of the adjacent single family neighborhood. Further, such a use does not take advantage of the excellent freeway visibility the site offers. _ 2. Retail: We do not perceive-the Cedar/66th area as a prime .retail location. This site would probably attract only those tenants who would serve the adjacent neighborhood - convenience food stores, video stores, dry cleaners, etc. 3. Conventional Office: The density required to make a conventional office building work on a site this size would _ require mid-rise construction. Also, the office market .currently is over-built, with substantial increase in supply being developed in the I-494/Met Stadium area. Proposal In view of the above analysis, we propose the following. alternatives: A. A 40,000 - 43,000 sq. ft. office/service center, assuming the liquor store is relocated off-site. The - project would have a construction cost of approximately $1,450,000.00 and an estimated market value for tax ur oses P P of $1,650,000 - $1,800,000. l~ /3 Richfield City Council November 5, 1985 - page 5 B. A 30,000 - 32,000 sq. ft. office/service center, assuming the liquor store is relocated to the corner of Cedar Avenue and 66th Street. The project would have a construction cost of approximately $1,125,000 and an estimated market value for tax purposes of $1,300,0.00 - $1,450,000. Sale Price Under either scenario, our firm is prepared to purchase the property for a sale price of $2.70 per square foot. Design Narrative The development of the Richfield Office/Service Center is erceived as a uni ue and excitin o or i cr p q g pp tun ty to eate a significant office development meeting community demand for quality flexible office space. Located at the southwest intersection of 66th Street and Highway 77, encompassing 2.99 acres, this parcel of land enjoys an envious presence in close proximity to the airport/I-494 strip. It is unique in its location, and proximity to major transportation arterials, visibility; access and area identification. It represents an exceptional-opportunity to locally oriented businesses and firms who would be accessible to the strip while benefitting from the economies afforded. by this location. It is our intent to create an environment of the highest quality with emphasis on producing an attractive ,presence, visibility and image. The design solution evolved into a sensitive, articulated building providing maximum flexibility for 45,000 square feet of office/service space. The combination of shared entrances and 14' clear height throughout provides for the flexible spatial needs of various size businesses while maintaining a low profile, organized office development. The "sawtooth" design maximizes exterior office space overlooking inviting landscaped "plazas", and orients the developmenty toward the high visibility -l~ ~ Richfield City Council November 5, 1985 f_ page 6 intersection of Cedar Avenue and 66th .Street. Extensive use of glass and brightly finished metal soffit panels set within the warm brick exterior result in an extremely attractive development. Careful consideration is given to the preservation of the mature xow of dense evergreens along the west property line. This natural feature is utilized as a truly effective buffer to the adjacent residential area. In addition, all service vehicle traffic is routed through the site., around the building and directly towards the access ramp onto Highway 77. In doing so, _ it is proposed that the portion of 67th Street between Old Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue be vacated. This will eliminate the existing traffic volume generated through the neighboring residential area towards the ramp at Highway ?7 and also allows 'for additional landscaping to the south. Generous landscaping is provided throughout the development. The articulation of the building complements the highly landscaped .entrance plazas. Selective placing of landscaped parking islands, and gentle berms, results in an aesthetically pleasing environment. Careful consideratton has been given to the interrelationship of the building to the site, massing of the structure, site forces, roadway patterns and adjacent development. The Richfield Office/Service_Center, evolvin from these factors results in a 9 strong architectural :statement and exciting addition to the City - of Richfield. City Participation In order to develop the project as described in this proposal, the developer will require the approval and .participation of the City Council concerning the following items: 1. Negotiate and close sale of the subject site. 2. .Establish appropriate zoning classification or variance - for light-commercial use. Richfield City Council November 5, 1985 'v Page.7 3. If desired by the City, vacate 67th Street between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that this Proposal responds to the City's need for sensible, quality development and the needs of the marketplace as well. The project will enhance Richfield's employment opportunities and tax base. The combination of the design concept and the quality of the materials to be used, together with significant landscaping and open areas, protects .adjacent areas. and minimizes environmental impacts. The Lincoln Companies is already a neighbor in the City of Richfield.. .The sense of partnership between our firm and the ~ City, created through our mutual efforts in the Richfield Shoppes ..project, leads us to our strong belief in the bright future for this community. The Lincoln Companies has a tremendous pride in Richfield and its revitalization. We believe that the Richfield - Office/Service Center will be a positive contribution to the City in a variety of ways and is the best possible use of the site. We look forward to the opportunity to work in concert with the City and its- residents to make this project a reality. _ Very trully_yours, _ H~ LINCOLN C MPANIES ~ - Charles W. DuFr sne - Executive Vice esid nt CWD:sko :i ~ • _ . . - ~i ~ - _ ~ .,N. 18th AVENUE SOUTH „ ~ - - OFFER - B~ ~EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE~~EEEEEEE~~E/EEEEE~E/.~~~EE~Eta~~/EEEEE~E~_ - - - ` - •tr I OELIVEIIT _ , {.tl r ~ ~ 1.' i I ~ euLOea ~..yi / ' i ~ ~s w...~..... ~ - - t ~ ~ i~ - _1 / . ~ ww d~.weMi ~ I Iyt-- ~ ~ i ~I - ~ ~ -ua. E. _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - 1 _ _ ~ CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH i ins cB oN ~ ~ r' ` ~ SITE DATA ~ ~ ~ ' MOMWAY 77 srtE Al1EA (l.os ACAESI uo.aoo sasr. / mALOmo Al1EA ~nooo eo.PT. / PERCEMTAO[ lUILDMO Al1EA TO M1E E6% I / TOTAL PARKEIO REQUIRED sASEO uvoR got oPPICE T: cARe eox oeRVICE n cARe os cARs SITE PLAN TOTAL ?ARKEq sROwR too CAIN ~ ~ I U 16 ]O 60 NOATN •a~MMrc~ ¦w_ o+CRMM •KKIIrn, NC. .wa IODRSUNSKY KRANK ERIpC80N ~WCaPI PROPERTIES »•a `e'~-ir ~ ~«.w _ » _ _ . RICHFIELD OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER , a wur ~uanwR ns rcae rw~ rarM K y - « « « RKFiFElO. AANNESOTA Al rwtYOlR NNI N/1Nf•1lo0 Sfi.Y- \if- ~.J ~~j" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 435 Agenda: November 12, 1985 ' The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Second Reading of An Ordinance Establishing A New License Category to be Known as Video Gaming Devices and a Resolution Setting Rates For Said Devices Council Members: ' On November 26, 1984, representatives of the mechanical amusement device industry appeared before the city council to protest the annual license fees charged by the city for such devices. The 1984 mechanical amusement device license was $105 per machine and the license fee established for 1985 was $110 per .machine. The position taken by the representatives of the mechanical amusement device industry, and their attorney, who appeared before the city council, was that the city license fee was far in excess of the city cost to provide inspection and licensing services. State statutes provide that the city cannot use its licensing power to generate revenues in excess of the costs actually related to the licensing process. After receiving the petitioners input on this matter, the council directed the City Attorney and the Director of Public Safety to work with representatives of the mechanical amusement device industry to examine the city fee structure in this matter. In December, 1984, the City Attorney and the Director of Public Safety initiated the license structure review requested by the city council. At that time, the city required the industry to obtain 1985 licenses at the rate established by the city council ($110 per machine), so the machines would not technically be in violation of our licensing code while this matter was under consideration during the current year. The industry was informed that any modification in the license fee structure resulting from the study would be retroactively applied to 1985 license fees. On this basis, and under protest, the required licenses for the current year were purchased. In examining this matter with industry representatives, it became clear that the machines creating the real problem for the industry were video games. The nature of their construction, and the mini-computer utilized for-their operation, created some unusual maintenance problems. Therefore, the industry practice is to remove a mechanically inoperable video machine and replace it with one which functions properly. In addition to the rotation of video machines for maintenance purposes, the industry rotates the specific gaming devices from one location to another throughout the year in an effort to maximize utilization. The present provisions of our ordinance code require a Richfield license for every operable video machine in the city. Therefore, because of the rotation of these machines this provision means that the industry is required to buy many more licenses than those actually needed for the video machines in operation in our city at any one time. In the city's discussion with the industry representatives, it was determined that a more practical approach for licensing of video games, based on the rotation of these games, in and out of the city, would be to license a particular premises for a specified number of games. Therefore, the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to reflect this suggested licensing practice for video games only. Since it appears only video games are the devices frequently rotated within our city, we are not .recommending a change to premise licensing for other mechanical amusement devices. The second issue related to this lengthy study of video game licensure relates to the license fee itself. The relatively • high license fee for mechanical amusement devices was originally based on the fact that such devices could result in an unusual amount of police activity related to groups of young people who tended to utilize these machines. Our actual experience has shown that mechanical amusement devices and video games really do not create any unusual demands for public safety service. The licensing process itself is similar to that used for vending machines. Additionally, we have not conducted on sight inspections of video games more than once a year. Again, this is similar to the licensing procedure used for other vending machines. Based on our actual cost experience, we believe that the license fee for mechanical amusement devices should be similar to the license fee for other machine or vending devices. Therefore, the proposed license fee for mechanical amusement devices was reduced as a part of the recent budget process to an amount of $19 per machine for 1986. In an attempt to address the problems experienced by the mechanical amusement device industry with regard to video games, the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance which establishes a new license category to be known as video games. Video games will no longer be included under the category of mechanical amusement devices. Additionally, we propose a revised fee system to license each premise for video games, as opposed to the traditional license practice of licensing individual i mechanical devices. We think that this proposal to deal with the problems presented to the city council last November by industry respresentatives will fairly meet their needs and provide a more effective process for the city in the administration of this license activity. Summary-License Fee Per Machine or Premises 1984 1985 1986 Vending Machines (pop, $ 28 $ 18 $ 19 candy, snacks, .etc.) Mechanical Amusement Devices (pinball) $105 $110 $ 19 Video Games 105 110 Store Location (a) 1-5 games ~ $ 90 (b) 6-10 games $150 ($90+$60) (c) Each additional $ 6 The $19 license fee for mechanical amusement devices was set in the resolution passed at the final 1985 budget meeting when all fees, licenses and permits were established for 1986. The vending machine industry would like to see Richfield include all soft drink, candy and snack food vending machines under the premises license. The Director of Public Safety does not recommend this change because the fees now being proposed reflect the city's cost to inspect and process license fees. At the October 28, 1985, city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to the ordinance and scheduled the public hearing for November 12, 1985. It is recommended that the city council give second reading approval to the attached ordinance and approve the resolution setting the 1985 and 1986 fees for video games. Respectfu y submitted, ohn G. Ca twr ht City Manager JGC/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No..:434 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Capital Improvements. .Second Reading. Council Members: On October '8, 1985, the city council approved a revision to the 1985 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). This council letter is concerned only with changes to monies appropriated from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The original 1985 CIB budget approved $350,000 to be used to finance certain capital improvements. On April 22, 1985, Transitory Ordinance No. 17.19 was passed by the City Council providing for such expenditures. The October, 1985, revision reduced the original appropriation from $350,000 to $216,000. ~ The list of CIB projects funded all or in part from the municipal liquor store operations for 1985 (Special Revenue Fund) are: 1985 1985 Adopted Budget Revised Budget Energy Improvements $ 10,000 $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements 10,000 5,700 Legion Lake Park 248,300 150,300 Forestry X4,700 0 Little Bob's Park 50,000 50,000 Parking Lots Lincoln Field/Donaldson Park .27,000 0* $350,000 $216,000 *This project now appears in the 1986 CIB At the October 28, 1985, city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to the transitory ordinance which appropriates monies from the Special Revenue Fund to reflect the revised project allocations for 1985. Projeets_ receiving funding from other sources (Revenue Sharing, • / ~O~ Municipal State-Aid, user fees, etc.) do not require a transitory ordinance for implementation. Those projects will proceed in accordance with the adopted revised 1985 Capital • Improvement Budget. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to the transitory ordinance appropriating $216,000 from the Special Revenue Fund to the Capital Improvement Budget. Respectfu s bmitted, ' t.... . ohn G. Car 'g t City Manager JGC/eja l j / ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 432 Council Letter No. 433 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfields Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Bonds for the ILN and Authorizing Execution of Tax Increment Agreement Council Members: This letter requests the City to adopt the above identified resolution. By so doing, the City Council would be authorizing ' the sale of bonds, the proceeds of which would be utilized to fund a large portion of the Phase I improvement costs., which are proposed in the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan document dated October 21, 1985. The balance of the revenues for Phase I are to be derived from MNDOT and the federal government as indicated on page 66 of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. The Estimated Project Costs as identified in the attached resolution are the same as those costs which .appear on page 65 of the Plan document. Attached to the resolution is Exhibit A. Exhibit A is an a reement to be entered into b the HRA and Cit It states g Y Y that the tax increments received by the HRA from the County will be paid to the City until the bonds are amortized. The City agrees to issue at the request of the HRA bonds to finance public costs in the ILN project area, and agrees at this time to sell bonds in an amount not to exceed $18,675,000. Also attached to this letter is a pre-sale analysis for the $18,675,000 bond sale. Mr. Burggraaff of Evensen-Dodge, Inc. will be present at the Tuesday evening meeting to review the analysis. The analysis indicates the bonds would be amortized by the tax increment generated by the CDR development, development on the "Hampton Inn" site and the appreciation in value of the balance of the district. These are the same assumptions indicated in the Plan booklet. To provide maximum protection to the HRA/City, the bonds would be short-term and would be paid off by long-term bonds if development proceeds as proposed. The expenditure of the • ~ majority of the bond funds would be tied to the progress of the CDR development. Initially, the title and appraisal work prepatory to property acquisition would be initiated along with • engineering and design work for the improvements. However, the "best efforts" of the HRA/City to purchase the property would only be utilized after the construction of the office building and parking ramp had progressed beyond footings and foundations. The "best efforts" of the HRA/City to construct the public improvements, i.e., rights-of-way improvements would be initiated only after the construction of the hotel had progessed beyond the footings and foundations. The temporary bond issue is for a three year period. After one year the bonds can be .called and thereafter on any .six month date that debt service payments are due. The reasons for the three year temporary bond issue is based upon the expectation that interest costs may be more favorable several years from now. Also, because of the short term feature, the city's financial advisor believes that the spread between the interest costs the city would pay and the interest that could be realized from the temporary investment of the bond proceeds will cover the bond issuance costs and the bond discount costs. This affords protection to the city in the event the developer(s) are unable to proceed. Additionally, the CDR developers are required to provide a $150,000 letter of credit which is further protection to the city to meet bond issuance and discount costs if the development does not occur. • The disadvantage of a three year temporary bond issue is the possibility that Congress may remove the tax exempt feature on future TIF bond issues. An additional protection has also been provided for the HRA/City. If the CDR development proceeds and the increment from the balance of the project including the "Hampton Inn" site lags behind projections, the HRA/City have the option of reducing the scope of the public improvements and thereby reducing expenditures. In the agreement with CDR, the HRA/City would use its "best efforts" to acquire property and to construct only those improvements west of Lyndale Avenue excluding the Focal Area Improvement and the off-street parking areas north of 77th Street. Finally, the ability of the HRA/City to amortize the bonds would be further enhanced by CDR's agreement to execute an Assessment Agreement and a Deficiency Agreement. The Assessment Agreement establishes a minimum market value for the development upon completion. The minimum market value numbers were utilized as a base value in the tax increment cash flow. The Assessment Agreement is also executed by the County Assessor. With the Deficiency Agreement, the Developer agrees to pay to the city additional monies to help meet debt service on the bonds if the increment from the development is less than projected. IRS rules limit the maximum amount of these payments to 5~ of the-total principal and interest payments. City Council approval of the issuance of bonds and to enter into a Tax Increment Agreement is appropriate at this time because of the structure of the bond issue which includes a short-term issue prior to a long-term .permanent bond, the phasing of expenditures by the HRA/City being tied to the progress of CDR, the $250,000 liability to the City/HRA by CDR, and, the Assessment and Deficiency Agreements. Recommendations City staff recommends approval of the: 1. Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $18,675,000 General Obligation Temporary Redevel- opment Bonds City of Richfield, 1985, and, 2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Tax Increment Agreement with the HRA which pledges the tax increment received from the ILN Tax Increment District to the City to meet debt service requirements on the G.O. Temporary Redevelopment Bonds. . Respectfully submitted, hn G. Ca wr' t Executive Dire or JGC/eja CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. x+31 i Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City. of Richfield Subject: Resolution Calling a Public Hearing On A Proposed Project (Hampton Inn) Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Aet Council Members: Palseo, Inc. representatives, developers for the Richfield Hampton Inn franchise, have asked the City of Richfield to pass a resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday, December 9, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., on a proposal that the city undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act. This action is often referred to ws considering the issuance and sale of IDRB's/ As reported elsewhere on November 12, 1985, city council agenda items, negotiations with Palsco have been stopped since it appears the Hampton Inn. project no .longer meets the criteria of minimum estimated market value as established in the moratorium ordinance (Transitory Ordinance 17.18, as amended). The writer recommends that the request by the developers for a public hearing on the proposed $7,000,000 IDR bond issue be approved at this time. The resolution calling the public hearing for December g, 1985, is a preliminary action. The reason that favorable action should be taken at this time is to position the city so it can act if negotiations on a developer's agreement can be completed before December, 1985. The city cannot wait until mid-December to start the legal process and hope to authorize an IDR bond issue before December 31, 1985. The city, by passing the preliminary resolution, does not commit the city to act at some future date, but it does keep the. door open if action is desired. Respectfully submitted, John G. C twr' ht City Manager JGC/eja II ' • / / / / v Exhibit A. • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota will meet in the Council chambers in the City Hall in the City of Richfield at 7:00 p.m, on Monday, , 1985, to conduct a public hearing on a proposal that the City under- take and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474. The project is proposed by PALSCO, Inc. a Minnesota corporation (Company) and consists of the acquisition and betterment of a 150 room hotel facility to be known as Hampton Inn and to be located at the II northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and Lyndale Avenue South. The principal amount of bonds or other obliga- tions proposed to be issued by the City to finance the project is estimated to be not in excess of $7,000,000. A draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota Depart- went of Energy, Planning and Development, together with all attach- . meets and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall, City of Richfield, Minnesota during regular City business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays). An erson i y p w shing to express a view with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project will be heard at the public hearing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas Ferber City Clerk Dated: November 12, 1985. • _ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Office of Executive Director Council Letter No. 430. HRA Letter No. 63 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of Richfield Subject: Status Report on a Proposed Developer's Agreement with Richfield Hampton Inn Franchise Representatives Council Members and Commissioners: On February 11, 1985, the City Council adopted an interim zoning ordinance (Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18) which established a moratorium on new building construction in the ILN redevelopment area. Then, on June 24, 1985, the City Council amended Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 in a manner which reduced the minimum estimated market value which needed to be met in order for the processing of permits, licenses, rezonings, plattings or land divisions. The June 24 amendment reduced the estimated market value from $20 million to $2 million. This amendment also indicated that the project would have to be on a single tract of land and would have to have a minimum area of 80,000 square feet. (Copies of the relevant sections of Section 3, subdivisions 2 and 3 of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 as amended are attached to this letter.) The Hampton Inn proposal, as discussed with the City Council in May and June of 1985 was represented to meet the criteria contained in the ordinance amendment of June 24. Therefore, subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance amendment the city staff began working with representatives of Palsco, Inc., the proposed developers of the Hampton Inn Motel. (See March 29, 1985, letter to Dennis Kraft from Thomas C. Larson of Palsco, Inc. Late this past summer the city staff began work on the financing element of the ILN redevelopment plan. As a part of this process, development agreement negotiations were initiated with representatives of Palsco, Inc. early this fall. One element of the negotiations related to the establishment of a minimum estimated market value for the Hampton Inn proposal, consistent with the amount contained in the ILN redevelopment • and tax increment financing plan. The plan called for an i , approximate estimated market value for the Hampton Inn proposal of $3,780,000. The city staff then attempted to negotiate an assessment agreement with Palsco which established this minimum estimated market value. Palsco representatives then indicated that the amount the city was requesting for the estimated market value was substantially greater than they thought it should be. These representatives also indicated that the maximum estimated market value they would agree to in the assessment agreement was approximately $2,855,000. The latter mentioned amount was substantially less than the minimum value established by the Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18, Section 3, subdivisions 2 and 3. Therefore, at this time the city staff is stopping all action on processing the PUD district rezoning amendment which i was recently submitted by Palsco. At such time as Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 expires (this should occur on March 13, 1986) the PUD processing can be resumed. As a result of the aforementioned action, the public improvements scheduled for the ILN area and located east of Lyndale Avenue will have to be delayed or will have to be financed using state or federal funds. Palsco representatives may wish to reevaluate their position and, if this happens, further negotiations can continue. Respectfu y submitted, ohn G. Ca twr ht City Manager JGC/eja APPENDIX A. TRANSITORY ORDINANCES TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. 17.18. AN INl'~;rtIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED F1CR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA.. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A. The City is concerned with the. proper and more economic use, development and possible redevelopment of that area of the City generally referred to as "Interstate-Lynda le Area", hereinafter referred to as the "Area", the boundaries of which. Area are more specifically described as follows: Ali of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the Minneapolis North- field Southern Railroad tracks and south of 77th Street with the following ad- e ditions.: (a) the area west of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W, between 76th and 77th Streets;. (b) in the area between Emerson and Aldrich Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street; (c) the entire block between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues. south of 76th Street; (d) the east one-half block of the block between 75th and 76th Streets; (e) the west one-half of the block between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues, south of Century Court apartments and north of 76th Street; (f) the entire block between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues between 76th and 77th Streets; and (g) betr~reen Garfield and Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street.. B. There are a number of planning and land use issues arising in the Area which require comprehensive planning, among which are the following: 1. The City is deficient in commercial and industrial tax base. Very little undeveloped land remains within the City. The location of the Area is such that with proper planning it has the potential to provide a location for some of the most valuable and desirable commercial and/or industrial develop- meat within the City. 2. The Area presently contains tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped land which cannot be developed to the optimum without improving .access and im- proving traffic patterns. 3. The Area may best be developed pursuant to a unified plan and/or in large segments rather than on a piecemeal basis. 4. The Area contains a number of buildings which are aging and appear to be in a deteriorating condition. Some parts of the Area present a poor visual appearance because of such factors as lack of uniform setbacks, unrelated facades, inadequate or inappropriate loading and unloading areas, insufficient parking, excessive land coverage, conflicting traffic movements and other functional inadequacies. 2/11/85 OROiNf1NCE COOS A.74 CITY OF RICHFlEiO, MiNNE~O fA • 5. •Present streets serving the Area do not appear to provide the best access from main thoroughfares to some parcels at the east and west edges of the Area. 6. The Area includes and is bounded by single-family residence districts which are jeopardized or adversely affected by non-residential traffic. There appears to be aneed to relocate and redesign streets and other traffic control facilities in and around the Area so as to safeguard such residential areas and so as to minimize existing land use conflicts. 7. Several of the streets in the Area are of substandard design. It appears necessary and desirable to formulate a long-range master plan for control and movement of -traffic within rid around the Area. ~I 8. It appears necessary and desirable to avoid further piecemeal develop- . merit and redevelopment of the Area so as to reverse the undesirable development patterns which have existed and which now exist within the Area including fragmented land ownership and under-utilization of the land. I g. It appears that there are or may be substandard building conditions and structures used or intended to be used for industrial or other purposes within the Area. 10. It appears that by reason of sociological and technological changes, as well as by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence and the faulty arrangement or design of buildings and improvements in the Area, there is a need for compre- -hensive planning and development of the Area. 11. It appears that there is or may be a lack of suitable public ive land covera in some arts of the Area, deleterious land facilities, excess ge P use, and obsolete layout of land tracts and developments, requiring planning and redevelopment. ' 12. The foregoing factors and other factors are found to be injurious to e citizens and oro er owners of the .health, safety, morals and welfare of th p ty around the r workin and bein in and the Ci and ersons occu in ro er o g g ty P PY g A P tY Area. 13. The presence of such conditions has caused an impairment of the value s has threatened sources of ublic revenues, has deprived •of private investment P the c~~.,~~snity and its residents of better facilities and job opportunities, and has otherwise adversely affected the public welfare. C. There is a need for the formulation of a new comprehensive plan and program for the development and/or redevelopment of the Area. Such plan and program will require intensive study over a number of months. There is a need for an interim ordinance applicable to the Area for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and to insure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the new comprehensive plan and development-redevelopment program for the Area. There is a further need to regulate, restrict or prohibit uses, developments or subdivisions of land within the Area during the planning process, so as to avoid the occurrence of events which will be inimical to the orderly develop- ment and redevelopment of the Area in future years. 2/11f85 fr.'~.., 'v'' _ ~ Section 2. During t~^.e period ti^st his intzrim ordinance is in effect, no property witl2in the area shall be developed or redeveloped nor shall any licenses or permits, rezonings, plattings or lend divisions pursuant to Richfield Code of Ordinances, C'c~aptar III, ?arts I, 1~7 and VI, be issued by th,e City for any such development or redevelopment except as provided in Section 3 hereof . . Section 3. Subdivision 1. Votwithstanding the limitations, r*astrictions, and prohibitions contained in the foregoing Section 2, t':e city council may grant permits for c'evelopment or redevelopment wit'Zin t'~e Area, but only if it finds that the development ar redevelopment involy=d ~~rill comply with t'^.e follo<aing cri~ri.a: A. Tt~ permit will rot involve the construction of a new building or the enlaro meet of an ~x:.sting building. . 3. The construction will not matzrially change the fu-~re use, development or redevelopment of t.'~z property involved or any adjacent properties. C. T~ construction will not increase ~e fair rar'_set value of tt~.e property involved by more than L~zn percent. . D. T'~ construction of y~he improvement will not intensify traffic or parking problems on the subject oroperty, adjacent properties, or ac~;acent highways and streets. _ E. Thee proposed project will not exacerbate or i..-:tensii~j conflicts bet:Jeerl residential and non-residential tiaffic within tie Arne. F. Granting of the permit will not maisa a ma'tizri3l dii:ferenca _ - in or ornate a serious iamediment i,~ the development or redevelopment of tr+e property involved upon completion of t'^.e pianriing process.: G. , T~ permit will irn~olve ~e repair, wainy~zrancz or ~e- guardiru3 of e:cis~ing structlres or the completion of build:.,; iny~zrior impravetren is wt+d.ch am necflssary fo proper con- ti.^ued utilization bf t.'ze property pendi.~ t"n planning process. Sucd. 2. The provisions of y~_i.s ordirrnce stall rot prevent t'^.e City rcm procnss:rg licenses, permits, rszcnir:gs, platti.ngs or Iand divisions uA t'~e point OI', but :~Ot ~^_Cluding, t':eir act..lal ~SSU2.^.C° L r: e ;JrO~eCt Cr prOJectS involved will comely wi. th the folla<~r' criy~ria: ~ - - ,I A. The project will be on a single tract of land having an area of at least 80,000 square feet and will involve development or redevelopment within the Area which will have an estimated market value in excess of ~ $2,000,000 per acre. 8111 No. 1985-18 (8/3/85) . B. The project involved is consistent with and complementary~to the development or redevelopment of other adjacent properties within the Area. I 8/3/85 ~ OROiNANCS CGDE A. 76 C~7Y OF RICNF3ELD, MINNESOTA , • 1~.~ C. The proposed project will, in the opinion of t}•.e council, contribute to and accelerate the development or redevelopment of the balance of the Area. Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing Subdivision 2, no license, permit, rezoning, platting or land division shall be issued for any project described in that subdivision unless the site for the project is removed from the provisions of this ordinance by amendment to Section 1-A hereof. Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in effect-for a period of one year from its effective date, provided that in the event t'~e planning process has not been w~,~leted within t`1e one year period, its ef~ectiveness may be extended for such additional periods as the City Council may by resolution determine to be appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of eighteen (18) c~onths. Bill 1985-1 {2/11/85) i 2/11/85 C~C?N.~NCE CCCE a.7i C1?Y OF AIC.~FIELD, `AINNcSO C~ ~ BILK NO. Ai~IENDMF'~i1T TO TRA~~SITORY ORDINANCE. NO. 17.18 " API" AMENDlysrivL TO T?~Ai'~7SITORY ORDI`IANCR NO. 17.18 ENTITLED. "P.~V INTERS.yi ZONNG ORDINAi~tC~ ADOPTED r OR T.~ PURPOSE: OF' PROTECTING lnr. PTiAs~1NING PROCESS I:I A CERT~i2N ARE~3. OF L n r• CITY , REGULATING , RESTRICTI~tG A~VD: PROH2:32TPTG CER'T'AIN USES,- DEV~_.LOPM.~7TS A,VII SUBDIVISIONS Wlrrs~T SIICH AREA. . CITY OF 82C8FIEI~D DOES ORDAIN:. Section 3, Subdivision 2,. Paragraph A, of Transitory Ordi.- mace- Nc . 17.18. eatitled. "fin Interzm. Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of Protecting the. Pla*zning Process in. a. Certain Area of the. City, RegulatiAg, Restricting and Prohibiting. Ce.r*~»-: tTses, Developments. and. Subdivisions ' wi Y a .Such. Area " is- hereby amended. to read "A.~- The pro3ect will be on a single 'tract or' Land. having as area o= at Least 80,.000 . sauar~ Leet and will involve development or redevelopnent. wi`~.hin the. Azea which will have an estimated ~narke-t value. in excess of ~~8-393;999. 52,000,040 ner- a~,.. ~ . " Passed. by the City Council. of the City of Richfield., r~zae- scta,. ~-~T1s day of ].985'_ ~sayo r . al~~sT: - , City Clerk i i / 3-~ March 29, 1985 Dennis Kraft City of Richfield 6'700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Kraft: I feel it important since we have met several times, as well as have had several phone conversations, to outline our proposal and the obstacles that we appear to be running up against prior to the con- struction of our proposed hotel. We have proposed the construction of a new 1$0-room, Q.-story Hampton Inn Hotel on the Intersection of 494 and Lyndale Avenue South. The sight currently houses a small motel complex. Hampton Inn Hotel is a division of Holiday Inn, offering moderately priced accomodations in the $38 to $40 per night range with no food or beverage services. The construction of the hotel itself, as well as the furnishings and fixtures are of the same high quality as required of the full • service Holiday Inn Hotel. The chain was announced in late 1984, with II lans to construct in 1 8 a ro im t 1 h P 9 5 x a e 100 otels nationwide with PP y national advertising, as well as a nationwide reservation system. You currently have a rendering depicting the outer appearance of the hotel when completed. The sight that we are looking at provides adequate room for not only the hotel, but sufficient parking to meet Richfield ordinances. A bus service would be provided to and from the airport. The hotel would provide the people of Richfield with 2$ to 30 fulltime jobs. We will not be asking the City of Rich- field for any special incentives, and are not in need of industrial revenue bonds or tax increment financing; however, we would obviously consider it if available. The project will provide immediate tax benefits to the City of Richfield, as the project will cost in the area of 4.5 to $ million dollars. As~we indicated to you at our meeting, Hampton Inn intends to construct four such hotels in the Metro area, one of which will be located some- where on 4~)4. There are other developers looking at other sights; however, we feel that this sight is the most attractive current sight on 494• Should another developer make application to Hampton Inn for a franchise with a buildable location somewhere else on 494, there will not be another one built in this area. We do not intend to let this happen, and are currently reviewing other locations in the area which are available. One such location is immediately across 494 on Lyndale in Bloomington. 1~3-~ Dennis Kraft Page 2 March 29, 1985 You-have indicated to me that the planning commission's recommendation to the City Council will be to decline our request to remove the property from the moratorium area, thus eliminating the possibility of construction on this sight for anywhere from one year to eighteen months. We would like you to reconsider this decision. If there is anything that we can do that might change this, possibly meeting with the consulting firm in advance of their planning, we would like to pursue that alternative. If you feel there is a chance in changing your plans, we would be most happy to meet again with you, the consult- ing firm, or the City Council. Please drop me a line, at your earliest convenience. .Sincerely, _ ~ " Thomas C. Larson PALSCO, Inc. TCL~ljl ~.,rt .1[,.~•.e...) L" f.t-t l t,~.C.~, ~t •'1C.-ec.) i.L~r't ,y 't / ? ~ r T G l: ry _ a ~ ~ r ~ ~ tt~-~...~ ~t(J:tb~h-t'~il ~'[.do~c•t, ;,~.dtt.~r l~~.ia^t ~.G.t ~L'•-~t. CG•..:..a~ /~-f CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. X29 HRA Letter No. 6~ Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners. Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of Richfield Subject: Resolution approving Agreement Relating To Development Proposals, ILN Project Area Council Members and Commissioners: This letter requests the approval of the above identified proposed Agreement. Signatories to the Agreement would be the HRA, the City of Richfield and CDR Investments/Minnesota. Although this proposed document is separate from the Contract For Private Development, it is an integral part of the results of the CDR negotiation process. The Agreement covers the land area generally south of 77th Street north of 78th Street west of L ndale Avenue and east of ~ Y Emerson Avenue. This is land which has been proposed for redevelopment in the October 21, 1985 Plan document. CDR is interested in redeveloping this area and would like assurances from the HRA/City that if it expends considerable resources to formulate proposals they will receive consideration. To help assure orderly and appropriate development, the Agreement divides this area into four sub- areas; Emerson to Dupont Avenue, Dupont to Colfax Avenue, Colfax to Bryant Avenue and, Bryant to Lyndale Avenue. Proposals may be submitted for one or more entire contiguous areas. The proposal(s) must meet design development criteria which would be established by the HRA in early 1986. CDR would be required to pay the fair market value for property acquired by the HRA and subsequently sold to CDR. Because the HRA/City would like to minimize the length of time required to amortize possible future bond issues, the new development would need to be of sufficient magnitude to permit bond amortization in 15 years and provide an additional increment equal to at least 20~ of the total tax increment estimated to be generated by the proposed development. As an alternative, a developer could pay all of the costs of development without any city participation in land acquisition. ~ The term of this proposed Agreement is until December 1, 1987. However, other prospective developers and property owners may submit proposals to the HRA/City for review during this time. If the proposals meet the above identified criteria, CDR would be notified of the submission. CDR would then have 60 days to submit a proposal for the same areas. During the time CDR is allowed to submit a proposal, approval of the competiting proposal could not be made. ,With a submission by CDR, the HRA/City would then fully evaluate each and select the one which in its judgement best met the criteria. Or, the city could ,.reject both proposals. Summary During the remaining six weeks of 1985 and for all of 1986 the city agrees not to actively seek development proposals. However, the city will respond to any proposals brought to the city by others. .This provision takes into account that the city will for the most part be involved in planning during 1986 on how best to redevelop the ILN area south of 77th Street between Emerson and Lyndale. During 1987, the agreement provides that the city may actively seek development proposals from property owners and developers. Also, the agreement provides that if CDR is unable to arrange their financing within 180 days (May, 1986), the agreement may be terminated by either party. The city is protected on the temporary bond issue for the bond issuance and bond discount costs by the following: (1) $150,000 CDR letter of credit; (2) Assessment agreement; and, (3) Deficiency Agreement This proposed Agreement helps assure the HRA/City that appropriate development proposals will be presented for other areas of the ILN, encourages CDR to submit proposals, but makes it possible for the HRA/City to objectively evaluate and select that which is the most appropriate. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council and HRA adopt the appropriate attached resolution approving the Agreement Relating To Development Proposals. Respectfully submitted, • John G. Cartwright City Manager JGC/eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITH CDR INVESTMENT/MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a proposed document entitled "Agreement Relating To Development Proposals" (Agreement), which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for inspection; and WHEREAS., .the City Council has reviewed the Agreement and determines that such is in the best interests of the City and service the health, safety and .general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY .City Council of the City of Richfield that the Agreement is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf. of the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk i l~ AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Date THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of November 12, 1985. Parties The parties to this agreement are: CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a public body corporate and politic (nH~n ) and CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA, a Minnesota general partnership with Darrell Nichols, Fred Bolstad, and • as general partners, ("Developer"). Recitals City and HRA have established the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.77 and Chapter 462 (collectively "the Act"). They have also established a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District ("TIF District") and have adogted a financing plan ("TIF Plan") for the TIF District to facilitate the financing of public development and redevelopment costs in the Project Area. The plan for the Project Area contemplates redevelopment of much of it by public or private means. The. City and HRA deem it to be in the public interest to facilitate and encourage such redevelopment. Developer has expressed interest in making one or more proposals to City and HRA for the redevelopment of ..part of the Project Area. Developer desires assurance, however., that if it commits substantial time and resources to the formulation of such proposals, the City and HRA will give reasonable and deliberate consideration to them. i:~ ~ u City and HRA wish to encourage such proposals, reserving, however, as they must, their full governmental discretion to accept or reject any such proposals if and when they are presented by Developer.. City and HRA also desire to provide guidance to Devel®per as tca certain ~sinmum ele~rercts which a redevelopment propersal from Developer should contain in order to be entitled to their consideration. It is the purpose of this agreement to set forth the basis upon which Developer array make, and City and HRA will consider, such proposals.. " The part of the Project Area to which this agreement relates, generally described, is that area of the City lying South of 77th Street and North of 78th Street, between Emerson Avenue and Lyndale Avenue ("the Development Area"). For the purposes of this agreement the Development Area is divided into the following four separate areas ("Separate Areas."): (l) That part of the Development Area lying west of the centerline of Dupont Avenue extended. (2) That part of the Development Area lying between the extended centerlines of Colfax and Dupont .Avenues. (3) That part of the Development Area lying between the extended centerlines of Bryant and Colfax Avenues. (4) That part of the Development Area lying east of the extended centerline of Bryant Avenue. Agreements THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of their mutual undertakings as set forth herein, the parties covenant and agree as follows: Section 1. City and HRA hereby grant to Developer the right to make proposals, during the term of this agree- ment and subject to its provisions, for the redevelopment of the Development Area or any one or more contiguous Separate Areas. No proposal shall involve the redevelopment of a portion of a Separate Area. Sec. 2. Any such proposal must conform to the follow- ing criteria: -2- l ~ _ A. It shall designate which properties, if any, would need to be acquired by City and/or HRA and resold to Developer in order to accomplish the development. B. It shall comply with development standards and plans for the area covered by the proposal and must be consistent with the overall development plan for the Project Area. C. It shall provide for the payment by Developer of the fair market value of cleared land if any land is pro- _ posed to be acquired by the City and/or HRA and sold to .the Developer to facilitate the development. D. It shall be of sufficient market value, when completed, to provide tax increment which, after deduction for the fiscal disparities contribution from the project, will be sufficient to amortize over 15 years the greater of 120 of (1) the Public Costs reasonably estimated to be incurred by the City and/or HRA in connection with the project or (2) that percentage of the public costs reasonably estimated to be incurred by the City and/or HRA for the entire Development Area which the area subject to the proposal • bears to the total land area (square feet) in the Development Area. The term "Public Costs" as used in this Paragraph D includes all costs ordinarily and necessarily incurred in connection with the making of any additional public improvements to serve and reasonably required in connection with the project including the costs of any required property acquisitions, demolition, relocations, administrative and general costs, financing costs including bond issuance costs, capitalized interest and bond interest, less any land sale proceeds and any reimbursement from any third party, specifically related to the project. Sec. 3. City and HRA will give full consideration to any proposal or proposals from Developer meeting the guidelines contained in the foregoing Section 2, it being understood that City and HRA, by this agreement, cannot contract away and shall not be deemed to have contracted away any of their governmental discretion with respect to any proposal relating to the Development Area, whether on questions of rezoning, subdivision approval, environmental review, property acquisition, incurring of indebtedness, handling or settling litigation regarding development rights within the Development Area, or any other matter. -3- J Sec. 4. During the term of this agreement, if City and/or HRA receives a proposal for any of the Separate Areas from any person or entity not a party to this agreement ("Third Party Proposal"), City and/or HRA will promptly notify Developer of receipt of such proposal and its contents. Developer shall have 60 days from the receipt of such notice, or until the expiration of this agreement, whichever is earlier, to submit for consideration its alternative proposal for the same Separate Area or areas (plus additional Separate Areas if it chooses tv do so). During the period that the Developer is permitted to submit an alternative to the Third Party Proposal, City and HRA will not approve the Third Party Proposal. Upon timely submission of Developer's alternative proposal, City and HRA will give full consideration to both proposals. If Developer does not submit a proposal within such time period,-City and HRA may proceed to consider and act upon the Third Party Proposal in such manner as they deem appropriate. Sec. 5. The term of this agreement is from the date hereof through December 31, 1987. Sec. 6. City and HRA are in the process of planning for the development and/or redevelopment of the Project Area. They do not expect to be in a position to actively solicit development property for the Project Area before December 31, 1986. Recognizing this, they agree that they will not, prior to that date, solicit development proposals for the Development Area, but this shall not restrict the City and HRA from res- ponding to unsolicited proposals from third parties. Sec. 7. This agreement is independent of any other agreement between the parties. Sec. 8. Any rights or privileges conferred upon the Developer by the provisions of this agreement shall not be assignable to any other party except additional general partners without the written consent of City and HRA. -4- 1~ IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its City Manager By Its Mayor HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Executive Director By Its Commission Chairman CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA a Minnesota general partnership • BY Its General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and , the City Manager and Mayor of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and ~ , the Executive Director and Commission Chairman of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public -5- t. . ~ ~ Gj ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF ASSESSOR THIS AGREEMENT, MADE and entered into this 12th day of November, 1985, be and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (HRA) and CDR INVEST- MENTS/MINNESOTA, a general partnership consisting of Darrell Nichols, Fred Bolstad, , and , its general partners (Developer): WITNESSETH: ' WHEREAS, parties have contemporaneously with this Agreement entered into a Contract for Private Development (Redevelopment Contract), dated November 12, 1985, regarding the redevelopment of certain real propertq (Property) located in • the Interstate, Lyndale, Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area in the .City of Richfield legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Redevelopment Contract the Developer will construct a commercial development described as the Project in such Agreement to be completed in accordance with the Project and Public Improvement Schedule contained in the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, the HRA, the City and the Developer desire to establish minimum market values for the .Property and the Project to be constructed thereon during the time of the private development, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8; and WHEREAS, the HRA, the City and the Hennepin County Assessor have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the Project which it is contem- plated will be erected. ~r ~ WHEREAS, the HRA, the City and the Hennepin County Assessor have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the Project which it is contem- plated will be erected. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Upon completion of each phase of the Project and until the date on which the tax increment will no longer be remitted to the HRA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1 (Maturity Date), the minimum market value for each such completed phase of the Project and the land described in Schedule A shall be the amount specified in the attached Schedule B, "Minimum Market Value Schedule". 2. The Hennepin County Assessor shall value each completed phase of the Project and Property and assign a market value which shall not be less than the minimum market value provided in Schedule A hereto. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the discretion of the Hennepin County Assessor or any other public official or body having the duty to determine the market value of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to the Property and the Project to be built thereon, market value in excess of the minimum market value specified in this Agreement. 3. Neither the preambles nor the provisions of this Agreement are intend- ed nor shall they be construed as modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract. 4. This Agreement shall remain in effect and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties until the Maturity Date. 5. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Developer shall . pay all real property taxes assessed against the Project and the-Property. The Developer agrees that prior to the Maturity Date: (1) it will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any tax statute ~ 1~ relating to the taxation of real property contained in the Project determined by • any tax official to be applicable to the Project or the Developer or raise the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings including delinquent tax proceedings; (2) it will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of any such tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained in the Project determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Development or the Developer or raise the i, unconstitutionality of such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent proceedings; (3) it will not request the Hennepin County Assessor to reduce the assessed market value or assessed value of all or any portion of the Property; (4) it will not petition the board of equalization of -the City or the board of equalization of the County to reduce the assessed market value or Assessed Value of all or any portion of the Property; (5) it . will not petition the board of equalization of the State or commissioner of revenue of the State to reduce the assessed market value of all or any portion of the Property; (6) it will not commence an action in a District Court of the State or the Tax Court of the State pursuant to Minn. Stat., Chapter 278, seeking a reduction in the assessed market value or assessed value of the Property; (7) it will not make an application to the commissioner of revenue of the State requesting an abatement of real property taxes pursuant to Minn. i Stat., Chapter 270 with regard to Minimum Market Value; and (8) it will not commence any other proceedings, whether administrative, legal or equitable, with II I any administrative body within the City, the County, or the State or with any court of the State or the Federal Government. The Developer shall not, prior to the Maturity Date, apply for a deferral of property tax on the Property pursuant to the Act. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, nothing • contained herein shall be deemed to limit the right or opportunity of the l~ ~l Developer as to one or more phases of the Project and Property, to take any action which would result in a reduction of the assessed market value of the Project; provided, however, that Developer shall not seek any such reduction if the minimum market value of the Project and Property would be below the sum of the minimum market values listed on Schedule B. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN _ AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Commission Chairman sy Its Executive Director • CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA sy Its General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and , the Commission Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public l~ -i 3 Schedule A PROJECT PROPERTY That part of the following described property: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, ~I And The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the. West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, ~ Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for road and being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast • Quarter which lies Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the South- west corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would pass through the South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence running Westerly along the last above described course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet; thence de- flecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.50 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there terminating. And All that part of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the east 30 feet thereof. Which lies southerly and southwesterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at the north- west corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly, along the north line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 7I degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence southeasterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said line there terminat- ing. And lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the South- east Quarter of Section 33; thence southerly along the west line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 a distance of 294.17 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 658 feet and said line there terminating. • la Schedule B Minimum Market Value Schedule Project Phase MMV Office Building and Land $28,254,836 Leasehold Improvements to $ 6,642,000 Office Building Parking Ramp $ 7,920,000 Hotel $20,880,000 Total Minimum Market Value Upon Completion of All Phases of Project $63,696,836 ~l f~ CERTIFICATION BY ASSESSOR The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be 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 value contained in the foregoing Agreement appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsi- ble for the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the market value assigned to such land and improvements upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon shall not be less than the amounts contained in paragraph 1 and Schedule B of the attached Assessment Agreement until expiration of this Agreement as provided in paragraph 4 thereof. Assessor County of Hennepin STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The. foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by the Assessor of the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Notary Public l/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager s'' Council Letter No. X28 HRA Letter No. 6~ Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Approving A Contract For Private Development With The HRA, City of Richfield and CDR Investments/Minnesota, ILN Project Area Council Members and Commissioners: This letter requests the approval of a Contract For Private Development with the HRA, the City and CDR Investments/ Minnesota (CDR). The contract relates to the development of the property owned by CDR. CDR has proposed the construction of a development on a ten acre portion of land they recently purchased in the northeast corner of the intersection of 1494 and 135W. The site is located within the ILN redevelopment project and tax increment financing district. The HRA, City Council, and Planning Commission have been involved in reviews of the development proposal during the last few months. The initial presentation of the concept by CDR and their architects KKE was made at an HRA meeting on June 17, 1985. Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and ILN Advisory Committee were invited to attend the presentation. At their August 19, 1985, meeting the HRA authorized staff to initiate negotiations on a developers' agreement. The CDR development has been widely publicized in the Mpls. Star & Tribune, the Richfield Sun-Current, and Your City, Your Schools. In addition, during the time the ILN Advisory Committee was working with staff and the consultant on a plan for the area, an ILN Newsletter was mailed out from time to time i to approximately 1,100 addresses within the study area and neighborhoods adjacent to it. The second newsletter briefly noted the proposed development concept. Most of the presentations and some of the media stories have included a perspective drawing of the development concept as well as a discussion of its components. Recently, the architect has progressed from concept drawings • to working design drawings. The .CDR project consists of three ~ primary components: a 500,000 square foot, 25 story office ~ v building, and 1600 car parking structure to be completed by late 1987; and, a hotel with approximately X400 rooms to be completed by late 1988. The first phase of the public activities in the ILN are ~ directed primarily. at the installation of extensive pub~:ic improvements to upgrade the public rights-of-way for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The improvements will provide an overall upgrading of these facilities in the ILN but the most intensive and extensive improvements are located west of Lyndale Avenue to facilitate the CDR proposal and minimize the conflict i between. commercial and residential uses. Acquisition of ~ property to permit construction of the public improvements is necessary. The primary source of revenue for the construction of the Phase I public improvements would be bond proceeds. Tax increment revenues would amortize the bonds. Thus, the Contract for Private Development becomes an important means to help ' secure the tax increment cash flow. CDR s development would be the primary source of tax increment revenue. Staff, especially the City Attorney., has labored intensively over the past weeks to obtain a Contract which strikes a balance between protecting the interests of the City and preserving or enhancing the incentives for the developer to proceed. Following is a summary of the major points of the Contract: ' i (1) Signatories to the Contract would be the HRA, City of • Richfield and CDR Investments/Minnesota. (2) The CDR project will have a minimum market value of at least $63,696,836 and this number is to become part of an assessment agreement also signed by the County Assessor. (3) The City will utilize its best efforts to issue tax ~ increment bonds to construct the public improvements. However, if interest rates are too high, or if the developer is in breach of the contract or does not execute all the appropriate documents, the HRA/City is not obligated to proceed. (4) Neither the City nor the HRA may unreasonably withhold the granting of any permits or licenses, however, the HRA/City cannot be limited in any way from exercising its legitimate legislative discretion. (5) CDR will assume a liability of $150,000 to cover costs incurred by the HRA/City in selling bonds and undertaking preliminary activities related to the installation of public improvements such as real estate appraisals and design costs. The $150,000 guarantee • is in the form of a Letter of Credit with the HRA/City as payees. The $150,000 plus interest earnings from the / invested bond proceeds should be sufficient to cover bond issuance and discount costs if CDR does not proceed with their development and it is necessary to call the bonds. (6) CDR must execute a Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement. This Agreement provides for cash payments to the City if the tax increment from the development is not sufficient to meet that portion of the principal and interest payments on the bonds supported by this project. The total payments under this section are limited by IRS rules which at this time are 25~ of the total amount of ' principal and interest. This limit may be reduced by Congress to 5~. (7) CDR must convey, at no cost, an easement sufficient to permit the extension of West 78th Street from Emerson Avenue to Girard Avenue. This roadway would be constructed in 1986 prior to the other public improvements. The estimated cost including design and it engineering would approximate $257,000. (8) CDR will sell to the City land for right-of-way purposes west of Emerson Avenue and south of 6th Street to 7 permit the installation of realigned 77th Street. (9) The purchase of the property for road improvements and construction of those improvements is to be undertaken i . in concert with development progress by CDR. The purchase of property for the public improvements will onl~r be initiated when construction of the office and parking structure footings and foundation has begun. The construction of 77th Street will be undertaken only when the construction of the hotel footings and foundations has been initiated. In both instances the "best efforts" of the City would be utilized to undertake and complete the activities within a specified time frame. (It is important to note the following: The October 21, 1985 Plan document identifies and defines the full scope of the public improvement program contemplated. However, the HRA/City are obligated by .this Contract to only construct the improvements west of Lyndale Avenue excluding the Focal Area Improvement and parking areas along Lyndale Avenue). (10)CDR is obligated to consult from time to time with the HRA/City on the status of design planning and construction. (11)Upon satisfactory completion of the development by CDR, the HRA will issue a Certificate of Completion. L There are also provisions related to restricting CDR from transferring or encumbering the property, holding the HRA/City harmless in certain types of liability situations, events related to default and the mortgage financing of their ,project. This Contract For Private Development strikes a proper balance between protecting the City while at the same time making it possible for CDR to proceed with its project. Conclusion It is the opinion of staff that there is a good likelihood that Congress or the state legislature may enact legislation that will in effect be th sunset of tax increment financing with the use of tax exempt bonding. Richfield probably will not have this opportunity again to achieve such a major development project. Failure to act at this time could be fatal. The long-range benefit to the city government and school ;:district is great. The CDR project offers an assessed value for local taxing purposes that will not occur again in the foreseeable future. Recommendation It is recommended that the HRA and city council adopt the resolution approving the developer's agreement. Respectf}a~l,ly, submitted, ~~4 John G. Cartes-'ght City Manager ' CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Among ~i I~ THE CITY OF RICHFIELD and THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD and • CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA III 'I, I This Instrument Drafted b Y LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612)333-0543 Final CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 12th day of November, 1985, by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (HRA), the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City), and CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA, a Minnesota general partnership consisting of Darrell Nichols, Fred Bolstad, , and its general partners (DEVELOPER). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the HRA have created and established the Inter- state, Lyndale, Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) pursuant to • the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.77 and Chapter 462 (collectively, the Act); and WHEREAS, the HRA and the City have, pursuant to the Act, duly established a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District) and adopted a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) to finance all or a portion of the public redevelopment costs of the Project Area; WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as hereinafter defined and particularly to make land in the Project Area avail- able for redevelopment by private enterprise for and in accordance with the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the City has determined to utilize its best efforts to provide substantial aid and assistance through the sale of bonds and other obligations to finance the public redevelopment costs of the Project Area; and • i f , WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed a development as hereinafter defined • within the Pro'ect Area which the HRA has determined will romote and carr J F Y out the objectives for which redevelopment in the District has been undertak- en, will assist in carrying out the obligations of the TIF Plan, will be in the vital best interests of the City and. the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which redevelopment in the District has been undertaken and is being assisted:. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual obligations of the parties contained herein, each of them does hereby represent, covenant and agree with the other as follows: ARTICLE I. RULES OF INTERPRETATION • Section l.l. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 1.2. The words "herein" and "hereof" and words of similar import, without reference to any particular section or subsection, refer to this Agreement as a whole rather than to any particular section or subsection of this Agreement. Section 1.3. Reference herein to any particular section or subsection of this Agreement are to the section of subsection as originally executed. Section 1.4. Any titles of the several parts and sections of this AGreement are inserted for convenience or reference only and shall be disre- garded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. • 2 r , 1 ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS • Section 2.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, the following terms have the following res ective meanin s unless the context hereof clearl re uires P g y q otherwise. (a) Tax Increment Bonds (or Bonds). The general obligation tax incre- went bonds issued by the City to finance the Public Improvements and related costs; the terms also include any bonds or obligation issued to refund any such Bonds. (b) Project. The construction and development of office, hotel and related parking structures by the Developer on the Project Property pursuant to the Project Plan. (c) Project Property. The real property described in the attached Exhibit A, upon which the Project will be constructed. • (d) Project Plan. Collectively, the plans, drawings and related documents attached hereto as Exhibit B, together with amendments thereof made pursuant to Section 4.5 of this Agreement. (e) Public Improvements. The improvements shown on the attached Exhib- it E. (f) Market Value. The market value of the Project Property as de- termined by the City Assessor in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 273.11 (or as finally adjusted by an assessor, board of equaliza- tion, commissioner of revenue, or any court). (g) Unavoidable Delays. Delays caused by Acts of God, casualty, war, civil commotion, embargo, riots, strikes, unavailability of mate- rials (but not unavailability to Developer of funds), unusually prolonged or severe bad weather, litigation commenced by third . parties, failure to obtain the required environmental or other 3 ' /I approvals and all other causes or events which are beyond City`s or • Developer's control. Section 2.2. Exhibits. The. following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Project Property Exhibit B: Project Plan Exhibit C: Public Improvement Plan Exhibit D: Project and Public Improvement Schedule Exhibit E: Assessment Agreement 'I Exhibit F: Letter of Credit Exhibit G: Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement Exhibit H: Residence Properties Exhibit I: Certificate of Completion ~ • ARTICLE III. REPRESENTATIONS AND UNDERTAKINGS Section 3.1. By the Developer. The Developer makes the following i representations and undertakings: ~ (a) The Developer has the legal authority and power to enter into this Agreement. (b) The Developer has the necessary equity capital and will utilize its I best efforts to obtain commitments for mortgage financing necessary for construction of the Project. (c) The Developer will undertake to construct, operate and maintain the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Redevelopment Plan. (d) The Project will be acquired and developed by Developer at a cost of at least $70,800,000. 4 I i ~ //1 I I (e) At such time or times as may be required by law, the Developer will • have utilized its best efforts to comply with all local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations, will have utilized its best efforts to have obtained any and all necessary environmental reviews, licenses or clearances under, and will have utilized its best efforts to be in compliance with the requirements of the. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Minnesota Environ- mental Policy Act, and the Critical Area Act of 1973. The Developer has not received notice or communication from any local, state or federal official indicating that the activities of the Developer may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. The Developer is not aware of any facts the existence of which would cause Developer to be in violation of any local, state or federal • environmental law, regulation or review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. (f) The Developer will utilize its best efforts to obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Pro3ect may be constructed. Without limitation to the foregoing, the Developer will request and seek to obtain from the City all necessary variances, conditional use permits and zoning changes. (g) Any signing erected upon the Project Property shall satisfy the following criteria: (i) Only the signs depicted in the approved Construction Plans will i be permitted, provided, however, that customary signs utilized 5 ~v Ilr in connection with the construction of major projects as posted • by lenders, vendors, etc. will be permitted during the con- struction period. Further, reasonable signs for leasing of the premises will be permitted consistent with local zoning ordi- nances. (ii) Ar_y signs thereafter erected upon the Project Property, whether in addition to or as a replacement of the signs contained in the Construction Plans will be an integral part of the building in terms of design and quality. Billboard type signs on the rooftop, building facades or other areas on the property will not be permitted except that .temporary billboard signs which I are permitted by ordinance may be erected. All signs erected ' or placed on the property will advertise only the businesses or • products or services of the businesses .occupying the property. (iii) The criteria contained in this Paragraph 2.1(g) are intended to ' be minimum criteria, and the Developer represents that it will abide by any more restrictive requirements contained in appli- cable City ordinances or state statutes currently existing or hereafter enacted. nothing contained in this subparagraph 2.1(g)(iii) shall be deemed to limit or restrict the right of the Developer to challenge the application of any such re- striction or criteria to it. Section 3.2. By the HRA. The HRA makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: (a) The HRA is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and will utilize its best efforts to carry out its obligations hereunder. 6 i3 (b) The HRA, for itself, makes the same covenants as the City as more fully described in Sections 3.3 (f) and 3.3(h), with all references in those sections to the word "City" to be deleted and replaced with the word "HRA" for purposes of this subsection 3.2(b). Section 3.3. By the City. The City makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: (a) The City is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and will utilize its best efforts to carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The City will, in a timely manner, subject to all notification requirements, review and act upon all submittals and applications of the Develope°r and the HRA and will not unreasonably withhold or deny the granting of any permit, license, variance, conditional use permit or other approval required to allow the construction of the • Project; provided, however, that nothing contained in this subpara- graph (b) shall be construed to limit in any way the reasonable and legitimate exercise of the City's legislative discretion in con- sidering any submittal or application. (c) The TIF District is a "redevelopment district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision lI and was created, adopted and approved in accordance with the terms of the Act. (d) The development contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan. (e) To finance the costs of the activities to be undertaken by the City, the City proposes to use its best efforts to issue the Bonds and use the proceeds thereof to construct the Public Improvements in accordance with the Project and Public Improvement Schedule and to 7 i~~ } pledge Tax Increments generated by the TIF District to the payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds. (f) The City has not received any notice from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Developer or the City with respect to the Project Property may or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices, if any, of which the Developer has been notified). The City is not aware of any state or federal claim filed or planned to be filed by any party relating to any violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, re ulation or review rocedure and the Cit is g P ~ y not aware of any violation of any local, state. or federal law, regulation or review procedure which would give any person a valid claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act or other state or federal environmental statute. (g) The City has made the findings required by Section 273.74, Subdivi- sion 3, of the Act for the TIF District, and has set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination. (h) The City shall work together with and cooperate with Developer in obtaining all required approvals from federal, state, and other relevant boards, agencies, etc. ARTICLE IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Section 4.1. Project Plan. Upon execution of this Agreement the parties expressly approve the Project Plans, the Project and Public Improvement Schedule and the Project Schedule, subject to such later changes. as may be made pursuant to this Agreement. 8 I l Section 4.2. Assessment Agreement. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the Developer and City shall execute an Assessment Agreement as defined in Minnesota Statutes,. Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, establishing a minimum market value of the land and completed Private Improvements to be constructed on the Project Property. The Assessment Agreement shall be in the form and amount shown on the attached Exhibit D. The Assessment Agreement must be approved by the Hennepin County Assessor and filed of record and recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder's Office. Section 4.3. Evidence of .Developer's Ability to Perform. Developer shall use its best efforts to obtain, within 180 days from the date hereof, I financing commitments sufficient to undertake the office building and parking ramp portion of the Project as shown on the Project Plan and, within that 180-day period, shall furnish the City and HRA with evidence of such commitments. Section 4.4. Developer's Failure to Perform. Should Developer fail to perform its obligations contained in Section 4.3 hereof, this Agreement shall terminate, and, except for the obligations contained in Section 4.6 hereof, none of the parties shall have any further obligation or liability to each other pursuant to this Agreement. Section 4.5. Sale of Tax Increment Bonds. It is acknowledged by the Developer that the City and HRA intend. to finance the construction of the Public Improvements through the sale of the Bonds. It is anticipated that the City, in the exercise of its discretion, will use its best efforts to sell the Bonds in accordance with the Project and Public Improvement Schedule. However, the City shall have no obligation to sell the Bonds if: 9 . 1 (a) The City determines that the interest rate on the Bonds is at such a level that the anticipated tax increment may be insufficient to meet debt service; or (b) Prior to the date of the Bond sale, the Developer is in breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; or (c) Prior to the date of Bond sale, the Developer has not executed the Assessment Agreement, Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement and present- ed the City with the Letter of Credit required under this Agreement. In the event that the Bonds are not sold on or before December 31, 1985, this Agreement shall terminate and no party shall have any obligations hereunder nor any responsibility to reimburse the others for any costs or expenses. The Letter of Credit, if it has been delivered, shall be returned. Section 4.6. Letter of Credit. In the event the Developer does not proceed with the Project (including the construction of the Hotel portion), it shall be liable to the City and HRA, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $150,000, for the following losses or costs which they sustain: (a) Bond issuance costs. (b) Investment losses with respect to the Bond proceeds. (c) Expenditures incurred in preparation for the making of Public I Improvements. Prior to the sale of the Bonds, Developer shall provide the City and HRA with a demand Letter of Credit in substantially the form of the attached Exhibit F in the amount of $150,000 naming them as joint payees.. The Letter of Credit it . shall serve as security for the compensation to the HRA and City of-the actual losses or costs described in this Section 4.6 and may, to that extent, be presented and collected by the HRA and/or .City upon the presentation of a 10 I~ statement by them to the issuer of the Letter of Credit of their actual losses or costs. Concurrently with the presentation of such statement to the issuer of the Letter of Credit, the City and HRA shall present to the Developer a copy of such statement supported by invoices, evidences of payment, investment. records, and other reasonable documentation. The Letter of Credit shall be returned to the Developer upon the commencement of the Hotel portion of the Prod ect . Section 4.7. Limitation on Total Guaranty and Deficiency Payments. Prior to the date of delivery of the Bonds, Developer shall execute and deliver the Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit G, and agrees to perform the obligations thereunder. In no event shall the amount paid to the City pursuant to this Agreement or Exhibit G exceed: (a) to pay principal, 257 of the aggregate principal amount of the TIF Bonds • that has been retired or is then due and payable, less the amount of any previous payments made for this purpose; and (b) to pay interest, 25~ of the interest that has been paid on the TIF Bonds or is then due and payable thereon, less the amount of any previous payments made for this purpose. Failure of the City to give the Notice on Demand required by this section does not relieve the Developer of its obligations hereunder. The HRA covenants and agrees that it will not accept any payments from Developer under this section which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. The City, HRA and Developer reserve the right to obtain an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel as to the effect of the accep- tance of any such payment or any payment made pursuant to Exhibit G upon the taxable status of the interest on the Bonds. In no event shall Developer be obligated to pay in any 12 month period, a sum in excess of 5~ of the annual • debt service due on the Bonds unless and until the City files with the 11 • } ~i 4 Developer an opinion of bond counsel reasonably satisfactory to Developer to the effect that such excess pa ents would not im air the tax exem t status of 3'm P P the Bonds. Section 4.8. Commencement of Construction. The Developer shall, ten days prior to commencing any phase of construction, furnish to the City: a A ( ) copy of the executed contract or contracts, containin a g guaranteed maximum price, between Developer and its contractor for construction of the Project certified by Developer to be a true and correct copy thereof; and (b) A copy of executed performance bonds provided by each of Developer's general contractors in connection with their respective construction contracts; provided, however, that such obligations shall be .required only to the extent any such performance bonds are required • by a mortgage lender in connection with the Project. To the extent required by a mortgage lender, such bonds shall also (a) include the City and the HRA as obligees, and (b) be certified by Developer to be a true and correct copy thereof. (c) Evidence that a mortgage securing the financing of construction has been filed of record against the Project Property. Section 4.9. Sale and Conveyance of Right of Way. Prior to the com- mencement of construction of the office building and parking ramp portion of the property, the developer shall make the following conveyances to the City: (a) A perpetual easement, in recordable form, for public roadway over, under, across and through the area abutting on the southwesterly line of the Project Property to provide for the extension of West 78th Street from Emerson Avenue to Girard Avenue. The easement shall be of sufficient width to permit the installation of the 12 j roadway on the Project Property in conformity with the City`s design standards; provided, however, in no event shall it be greater than 60 feet in width and provided further that there be no surface parking setback requirement. The conveyance shall be without cost to either the City or the HRA. (b) A warranty deed, in recordable form, subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record, to the land now owned or hereafter acquired by the Developer which lies south of West 76th Street, east of Girard Avenue, and west of Emerson Avenue, and northerly and northeasterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as follows: I~! Beginning at the northwest corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly, along the north Line of said East Half of • the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 195.00 i feet; thence easterly. and southeasterly a distance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 400.00 feet and a cental angle of 71 degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence southeasterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet along a tangential curve ~ concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said line there terminating. Except as hereinafter provided, the City agrees to pay in cash for such conveyance, upon the determination of marketable title, an ~I amount equal to the purchase price, together with closing costs, reasonable attorneys` fees, and reasonable brokerage fees which the Developer has paid to purchase any one or more. of the four residential parcels legally described in Exhibit H.~ The Developer agrees that it will notify the City prior to entering into any agreement to purchase such property of the expected purchase price. 13 r ~ ~ v ~l .Upon such .notification, the City shall have 10 days to notify Developer (i) that it believes the expected purchase price to be excessive; and (ii) the amount which it will reimburse the Developer for such purchase. If the Developer proceeds with the purchase, the City's obligation under this paragraph (b) with respect to such residential parcel shall be limited to the amount contained in its notification. ARTICLE V. CONSTRUCTION' OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Section 5.1. Public Improvements - Acquisition. At such time as Devel- oper has complied with the requirements contained in Section 4.8 of this Agreement with respect to the office and parking ramp portion of the Project, and has commenced the construction of footings and foundations for that portion, the City will use its best efforts to acquire the land necessary for construction of the Public Improvements described in Exhibit C. Section 5.2. Public Improvements - Construction. At such time as Developer has complied with the requirements contained in Section 4.8 of this Agreement with respect to the hotel portion of the Project, and has commenced the construction of footings and foundations for that portion, the City will use its best efforts to award construction contracts and construct the Public Improvements described in Exhibit C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City will use its best efforts promptly to construct that portion of the Public Improvements consisting of the Roadway Improvements along the southwestern portion of the Project Property linking West 78th Street and Girard Avenue South irrespective of construction activity of the Developer. Section 5.3. Consultation with Developer. The City agrees to furnish ' ~ from time to time during the term of this Agreement, and prior to completion 14 ~ 1l of construction of the Public Improvements, any information, which may be reasonably requested by the Developer, related to probable completion dates or changes in details of the Public Improvements. It is understood and agreed that the nature, size and location of the Public Improvements will be based upon Exhibit C subject to any changes thereto reasonably determined by the City to be necessary after consultation with the Developer. Section 5.4. Progress Reports. Upon Developer's reasonable request, the City. will advise the Developer of the status of the City's performance of its obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE VI. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT. Section 6.1. Consultation. Developer shall consult on a regular basis with the City or such persons as the City Council may reasonably direct on design concepts and specific drawings and specifications so as to assure compliance with building requirements under this Agreement and the orderly review and acceptance of the Project Plans and Project and Public Improvement Schedule together with any changes therein that may be made from time to time, for the work and construction to be performed by the Developer. Such review shall not relieve Developer of the obligation to complq with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, and to obtain appropriate building permits from the City. Section 6.2. Minimum Development Obligation. It is acknowledged by the Developer, HRA, and the City that the Project is to be constructed on land adjacent to the public roadway improved by the City through the use of public funds. It is, therefore, contemplated by the parties to this Agreement that the Project shall be of the approximate magnitude and gross floor areas for ' ~ the proposed uses which are established by the Project Plans. It is 15 r ~ ^ / ll' v understood and agreed that the final size of the Public Improvements and Project will be determined by the construction plans reasonably approved by the City and HRA pursuant to this Agreement, and the Developer agrees to construct and develop the Project in accordance with the Project Plans. The Developer also agrees to furnish from time to time during the terms of this Agreement and prior to completion of construction of the Project any informa- tion related to probable completion date or changes in the details of the Project as may be reasonably requested by the City or HRA. Section 6.3. Submission of Project Plan Revisions. The parties to this Agreement recognize that the Project Plan is likely to be revised during the i, implementation thereof. At any time during the implementation of this agreement the Developer may submit to the City and to the HRA proposed revisions of the approved Project Plans in order to enhance the achievement of the objectives of this Agreement, to respond to financing arrangements, to improve and refine the approved project concept, or to enhance the marketability or the economic feasibility of the Project. The City and the HRA shall indicate their approval or further requirements in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the proposed revisions in the Project Plans, provided, however, that City and the HRA shall approve such revised Project Plans unless they reasonably find that such revisions would materially impair the objectives of this agreement, impose potential material additional I financial burdens on the City, or materially and adversely affect the project concept. Any modification of the Project Plans submitted pursuant to this II subsection not approved or rejected within the time limit specified shall be i deemed approved. Section 6.4. Submission of Construction Drawings. Developer shall file with the City and HRA, copies of detailed construction plans promptly withir. 16 v I1 ten days after their completion. After completion of construction Developer shall promptly file with the City and HRA copies of any "As-Built" drawings which are prepared for the Project. Section 6.5. Construction. The Project constructed by the Developer on the project area property shall be in conformity with this Agreement and all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. Section 6.6. Progress Reports. During the term of this Agreement Developer shall from time to time advise the City and the HRA regarding information having a bearing upon their interest or performance under this Agreement, and, after the date of commencement of construction of the Project Improvements by the Developer, the Developer shall file with the City quarter- ly progress reports. Section 6.7. Completion of Protect. With respect to the timing of the completion of the Project, Developer shall use its best efforts to conform to the Project Schedule. Section 6.8. Certificate of Completion. Promptly after notification by the Developer of completion of construction of any portion of the Project, the HRA shall inspect the construction to determine whether the Development is completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. In the event that the HRA is satisfied with the construction, it will furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion in the form of Exhibit I. Such certification by the HRA shall be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect to the obligations of the Developer to construct the applicable portion of the Project. The certification provided for in this Section 6.8 shall be in recordable form. If the HRA shall refuse or fail to provide a certification in accor- • dance with the provisions of this Section 6.8, the HRA shall within 30 days of 17 such notification provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating • in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the applicable portion of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the HRA, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. ARTICLE VII. RESTRICTIONS AND MUTUAL RIGHTS Section 7.1. Restrictions on Use. Developer agrees as a covenant running with the land not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, reli- gion, sex, or national origins in the sale, lease, rental, or in the use or occupancy of the Project or any improvements located thereon, in violation of any applicable law, or regulations. . Section 7.2. Restrictions Against Transfer or Encumbrance of Property. Until City issues its Certificate of Completion for the Project the Developer shall not make or suffer to be made any sale, assignment, conveyance, lease, transfer, mortgage, encumbrance, or lien of or upon the Project Property, whether by express agreement or operation of law, without the prior written approval of the City. This section shall not prohibit: (a) the creation of mortgages, encumbrances, or liens upon the Project Property for the purpose of financing the purchase of property and the construction of the Project pursuant to this Agreement; or (b) easements, covenants, conditions, or restrictions as may be deemed necessary or desirable by Developer in connection with the construction or leasing of the Project; or 18 ( ' r .F? / / V ` (c) the execution of agreements to convey, transfer, all or part of the property where such agreements are to be effective on or after the date of execution of a certificate of completion; or (d) leases of space for tenants in the Project; or (e) the admission of additional partners to Developer, or the transfer of partnership interests in Developer among existing partners. Provided that the persons constituting the general partners of Developer at the time of execution of this Agreement shall continue to be general partners. In 'the event of the creation of any mortgage, material encumbrance or lien, without the voluntary act of Developer, the Developer shall notify the City promptly of any such occurrence. Section 7.3. Mutual Rights of Access. Developer shall permit represen- tatives of City to have access to the Project at all reasonable times for the • purpose of this Agreement, including, but not limited to inspection of all work being performed in connection with construction of the Project and the Public Improvements. No compensation shall be payable nor shall any charge be made in any form by any of the parties for the access provided in this sub- section; provided, however, that the City shall hold Developer harmless for loss, cost, or damage of Developer arising out of negligent acts of such representatives. ARTICLE VIII. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE Section 8.1. Indemnity. From the date of this Agreement, until the issuance of the Certificates of Completion or the termination of this Agree- . went, which ever occurs first, the Developer, its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and HRA harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, obligations, damages, penalties, costs, 19 1 charges, expenses, or cause of action arising out of injury to person, per- sons, or damage to real or personal property due to negligent acts or orris- - sions of the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, employees or agents in carrying out its obligations pursuant to this Agreement to the extent the City's. immunity has been waived by reason of Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04 'I i (or amendments thereto) provided, the City or HRA give written notice to the Developer of any claim, demand, or suit within 30 days of City`s receipt + thereof. City shall give all reasonable assistance requested by Developer in the event of any cause of action raised pursuant to this subsection naming Developer as respondent. Section 8.2. Developer's Insurance. Prior to commencing construction of the Project, Developer shall obtain, and keep in full force and effect during the construction of the Project, a builder's all risk insurance policy as to the portion of the Project Property on which construction is occurring with coverage equal to the co-amount of Developer's construction contract or contracts for all improvements to be located on the Project Property. Such builder's risk insurance policy shall name the City as additional insured. Developer shalt also obtain and keep in full force and effect during construction of its improvements, for the benefit of City and Developer, an owner's comprehensive protective liability insurance policy with personal injury and property damage coverage of at least $1,000,000. Such policies of insurance shall be written by insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. Prior to commencement of construction of the Project, Developer shall file with the City Clerk a certificate of insurance setting forth that all coverages required herein are in full force gnd .effect and providing that City will be given ten days written notice prior to termination or cancellation of such coverage. 20 ARTICLE IX. EVENTS OF DEFAULT • Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined (By Developer). The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term 'event of default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides), any one or more of the following events (and the term "default" shall mean any event which would with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, be an "event of default" hereunder): (a) Failure by the Developer to pay when due the payments required to be paid or secured under any provision of this Agreement including the payment of property taxes and special assessments. (b) Failure by the Developer to observe and substantially perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, after written notice to the Devel- • oper as provided in this Agreement. (c) If the Developer shall admit in writing its ir_ability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the Property. (d) If the Developer shall file a petition or answer under the federal bankruptcy laws. (e) If the Developer, on a petition in bankruptcy filed against it, be adjudicated a bankrupt, or a court of competent jurisdiction shall. enter an order of decree appointing, without the consent of the Developer, a receiver of the Developer or of the whole or substan- tially all of its property, or approve a petition filed against the Developer seeking reorganization or arrangement of the Developer 21 under the. federal bankruptcy laws, and such ad3udication, order or • decree shall not be vacated or set aside or stayed within 60 days from the date of entry thereof. Section 9.2. City's and HRA's Remedies on Default. Whenever any event of default as defined in Section 9.1 occurs, the HRA and the City may, in addition to any other remedies or rights given them under this Agreement, but only after the Developer's failure to cure said default within 30 days of written notice thereof, take any one or more of the following actions unless Developer has in good faith taken steps to diligently cure such default within ~ such thirty-day period and is in good faith continuing promptly to pursue such cure: (a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from the Developer, reasonably deemed adequate by the . HRA, that the Developer will promptly cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement; (b) Cancel and rescind this Agreement; or (c) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the HRA or the City to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement. In the event that Developer is diligently pursuing to cure default so as to defer any remedies on default listed hereunder, such delay shall not defer dates of obligations set forth in the Assessment Agreement or the Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement. Section 9.3. Events of Default Defined (By City and HRA). The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "event of 22 ~ default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides), any one or more of the following events (and the term "default" sha]_1 mean any event which would with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, be an "event of default" hereunder): (a) Failure by City or HRA to observe and substantially perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, after written notice to the City or HRA as provided in this Agreement. Section 9.4. Developer's Remedies on Default. Whenever any event of default as defined in Section 9.3 occurs, the Developer may, in addition to any other remedies or rights given it under this Agreement, but only after the City's or HRA's failure to cure within 30 days of written notice of default, take any one or more of the following actions unless the City or the HRA has • in good faith taken steps to diligently cure such default within such thirty-day period and is in good faith continuing promptly to pursue such cure: (a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement, the Assessment Agreement, and the Guaranty and Deficiency Agreement, but not the Letter of Credit, until it receives assurances from the City or HRA, reasonably deemed adequate by the Developer, that the City or HRA will promptly cure its default and continue its performance under this A reement• g (b) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the Developer to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the City or HRA under this • Agreement. 23 ,3v l/ ARTICLE X. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES. Section 10.1. In General. Except as otherwise provided in this Agree- ment, in the event of any default in or breach of this Agreement, or any of its terms or conditions, by any party hereto, or any successor to such party, such party or successor shall, upon written notice from the other, proceed immediately to cure or remedy such default or breach, and, in any event, within 60 days after receipt of such notice. In case such action is not taken or not diligently pursued, or the default or breach shall not be cured or remedied within a reasonable time, the aggrieved party may institute such proceedings as may be necessary or desirable in its opinion to cure and remedy such default or breach, including, but not limited to, proceedings to compel the specific performance by the party in default or breach of its obligations. Section 10.2. Other Rights and Remedies; No Waiver by Delay. The City and Developer shall have the right to institute such action or proceedings as it may deem desirable for effecting the purposes of this Agreement; provided, that any delay in instituting or prosecuting any such action or proceedings or otherwise asserting such rights shall not operate as a waiver of such rights to or deprive it of or limit such rights in any way (it being the intent of this provision that a party should not be constrained so as to avoid the risk of being deprived of or limited in the exercise of any remedy because of the concept of waiver, laches, or otherwise to exercise such remedy at the time when it may still expect otherwise to resolve the problem created by the default); nor shall any waiver in fact made with respect to any specific default be considered or treated as a waiver of the rights of the City or Developer with respect to any other default or with respect to the particular default except to the extent specifically set forth in writing. • 24 .3~ ~l • Section 10.3. Rights and Remedies Cumulative. Except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties to this Agreement, whether provided by law or by this Agreement, shall be cumulative, and the exercise by any party of any one or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other such remedies for the same default or breach or of any of its remedies for any other default or breach by the other party. No waiver made by any party with respect to the performance, or manner or time thereof, or any obligation of another party or any condition on its own obligation under this Agreement shall be considered a waiver of any rights of the party making the waiver with respect to'the particular obligation of another party or condition to its own obligations beyond those expressly waived in writing and to the extent thereof, or a waiver in any respect in regard to any other right of the party making the waiver or any other obligation of the party. ARTICLE XI. MORTGAGE FINANCING Section 11.1. Mortgage and Holder. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "mortgage" shall include a deed of trust and other instruments creating an encumbrance or lien upon the Project Property, or any part there- of, as security for a loan. The term "holder" in reference to a mortgage shall include any insurer or guarantor of any obligation or condition secured by such mortgage or deed of trust and the lessor in a sale and lease back transaction. Section 11.2. Limitation Upon Encumbrance of Project Property. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, neither the Developer or any successor in interest to the Project, nor any part thereof, shall engage in any financing or any other transaction creating any mortgage or other 25 ~ 3 v encumbrance or lien upon the properties, whether by express agreement or operation of laws, or suffer any encumbrance or lien to be made on or attached to the Pro3ect Property, except for the purposes permitted by Section 7.2 herein. During such period, the Developer (or successors in interest), shall, upon request of City or HRA, advise them of any financing, secured by mortgage or other similar lien instrument, it proposes to enter into with respect to the Pro3ect Property, or any part thereof, and Developer shall, upon request of City or HRA, promptly notify the City of any encumbrance or lien that has been created on or attached to the Project Property, whether by involuntary act by the Developer or otherwise. Section 11.3. Mortgagee Not Obligated to Construct. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to those which are or are intended to be covenants running with the land, the holder of any • mortgage including any such holder who obtains title to the Project Property or any part thereof as a result of foreclosure proceedings, or action in lieu thereof, but not including any other purchaser at foreclosure sale (other than the holder of the mortgage itself) shall in no way be obligated by the pro- visions of this Agreement to construct or complete the Project or to guarantee such construction or completion. Nor shall any covenant or any other pro- vision in the deed be construed to so obligate such holder; provided that nothing in this section or any other section or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to permit or authorize any such holder to devote the Project Property or any part thereof to the uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses or improvements provided or permitted in the Project Plans. Section 11.4. Copy of Notice of Default to Mortgagee. Whenever the City • shall deliver any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to any breach 26 lrJ or default by the Developer of its obligations or covenants under this Agree`- • went, the City shall at the same time notify the holder shown in the records of the City. Section 11.5. Mortgagee's Option to Cure Default. After any breach or default referred to in Section 9.1 each such holder shall (insofar as the rights to the City 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 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 Project, nothing contained in this subsection or any other section of this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder, either before or after foreclosure or action in lieu thereof, to undertake or continue the • construction (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect improvements or constructions already made) without first having expressly assumed the obligation to the City, by written agreement satisfactory to the City, to complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, the development of the Project or any part thereof to which the lien or title of such holder relates. Any such holder who shall properly complete the Pro3ect or applicable part thereof shall be entitled, upon written request to the City, to a Certi- fication of Completion by the City to such effect in a manner provided in Section 6.8 herein. Section 11.7. City's Option to Cure Mortgage Default. Zn the event of a default or breach prior to completion of the Pro3ect by the Developer, or any successor in interest, in or of any of its obligations under, and to the holder of any mortgage or other instrument creating ar_ encumbrance or lien • upon the property or part thereof, and the expiration of all applicable cure 27 s ~ ~ y periods with respect thereto (whether referring to a specific period of time or a period of time in which to diligently pursue the curing of any default), the Cit at its o tion ma cure such default or breaches. In such cases the Y P Y , City shall be entitled, in addition to and without limitation upon any other rights or remedies to which it shall be entitled by this agreement, operation of law, or otherwise, to reimbursement from the Developer or successor in interest of any reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in curing " such default or breach and to a lien upon the Project Property (or the part thereof to which the mortgage, encumbrance, or lien relates) for such reimbursement; provided, that any such lien shall be subject always to the liens of (including any liens contemplated because of advances yet to be made) any then existing mortgages on the Project Property authorized by .this Agreement. • Section 11.8. Subordination and Modification for the Benefit of Mortgagees. In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the construction of the Project by the Developer, the City and HRA agree to subordinate their respective rights under this Agreement to the holder of the First Mortgage, but only provided that the First Mortgagee provides that if the holder of the First Mortgage shall foreclose on the Project, or any portion thereof, or accept a deed to the Project in lieu of foreclosure, it shall consent to the Assessor's Minimum Market Value set forth in the Assessment Agreement. Section 11.9. Certain Rights Limited. Except as provided in this Article XI, the exercise by the HRA and the City of their rights and remedies contained in this A reement shall alwa s be sub ect to and 1-invited b and g Y j Y~ shall not defeat, render invalid or limit in any way, (a) the lien of any • 28 / ~l mortgage authorized by this Agreement and (b) any rights or interests provided • in this Agreement for .the protection of the Holder. ARTICLE XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 12.1. City's Representative Not Individually Liable. No member, official, or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect in this Agreement, nor shall any such person participate in any decision relating to this Agreement, nor shall any such person participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested.. No member, official, or ~I employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City for any I' amount which may become due to Developer or any of its successors under this ~I Agreement. ARTICLE XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS I Section 13.1. Severability and Entire Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, then (unless an adjustment of the party or parties thereby adversely affected such provision was such a material part of the consideration for the entering into this Agreement that without it they would not have entered into this Agreement) the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provisions, or a portion thereof, in such provision of this agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. This Agreement sets forth the entire under- standing between the City, HRA, and the Developer, with respect to its subject 29 ~ l matter, there being no terms, conditions, warranties, or representations with • respect to its subject matter other than that contained herein. This Agree- ment shall be binding upon and .shall inure to the benefit of the parties thereto, their respective successors and assigns. Section 13.2. Amendment to Agreement. This Agreement may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in writing and signed by the parties hereto. Section 13.3. Third Parties. Except. as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement are for the exclusive bene- fits of the parties hereto and not for the benefit of any other persons, as third party beneficiaries or otherwise, and this agreement shall not be deemed to have conferred any rights expressly or implied, upon any other person. Section 13.4. No Partnership or Agency Created. This Agreement does not create any partnership, joint venture, agency, or employment relationship - . between the parties hereto, or render any party liable for any of the debts or obligations of any other party. Section 13.5. Time is of the Essence. The parties understand and agree that time is of the essence with regard to all the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Section 13.6. Formalities and Authority. The partieG hereto represent and warrant that they are validly existing in lawful entities with the power and authority to execute and perform this Agreement. Section 13.7. Notices and Demand. A notice, demand, or other communica- tion under this Agreement shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is deposited in the U.S. Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally: 30 ,3~ l~ Developer: • City: City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 HRA: Executive Director 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manager THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Executive Director By Its Commission Chairman CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA By - Its General Partner 31 ll/,~~ 0 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and , the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and , the Commission Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public • 32 ~ l ' Exhibit A • PROJECT PROPERTY That part of the following described property: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And !i The East l/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest l/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of II the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, V Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for road and being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast • Quarter which lies Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the South- west corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would pass through the South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence running Westerly along the last above described course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet; thence de- flecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.50 feet; thence deflecting to the ~ right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there terminating. And All that part of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the east 30 feet thereof. Which lies southerly and southwesterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at the north- west corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of .the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly, along the north line of said East Half of the•Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of l 110.00 feet; thence southeasterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said line there terminat- ing. And lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the South- east Quarter of Section 33; thence southerly along the west line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 a distance of 294.17 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 658 feet and said line there terminating. • • ` s ~ ~ t,~l _ ...7 _ ' €7 Q a'3y ~ ~C ~ i C7 ? ,t ~ . . . Q,i : . . CI Q >v ~Cry}L_ C1 ~~yy w. ~~~Y{ i CI ~ L~ ~ i7 C7 CJ C7 ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ 1_.T' t.J LJ tJ LJ ~ {.t ~ .I ~t~ ~ ~ ~ L.-..... ~M 3.. Lf C3 C © _ C! ? ~ ~ _ C7 _ ? Cl 0 ? J Il ~ .J a_ _ ~ _ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ? o ~ _ B ° ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ - r-------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ i !1 ~ 1 ~ . _ ~ ,..,...a'` wen ~hrt S~ ~ l . _ _ f ~ ~ ~ e t ,B! o C t~, ~ ° i J _ _ _ -....._r_ - _ ~ _ - ~ - _ _ t Development Program * * ~ * ® Exhibit Public Dav.lopm.nt S,t. j L1V North Improvement Public Improvements Redevelopment Plan ~ Roadway Improvements i ~ Landacapad BuffsdSuean Vacating of Roadways ~ Sewer lJft Station t a o.r minW t study O $treetaGape 1 ~ ~0 2 ~0 J'=0 4 :C SC~u Ft. trees Signal Inatallatlan Improvemante/AedesMan drouktlon It1~11' City of Richfield. Minnesota ,~ri.~,.. ~,~o=~, / l~ I v Exhibit D • PROJECT AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE ~I 1. June 1, 1986 - Developer commences construction of Office Building. 2. September 1, 1986 - Developer commenced construction of Parking Ramp. I 3. At such time as Developer has commenced construction of footings and ~~i foundations for the Office Building and Parking. Ramp, .the City will com- mence acquisition of the land necessary for construction of the Public Improvements. 4. May 1, 1987 - Developer commences construction of Hotel. 5. At such time as Developer has commenced construction of footings and I! foundations for the Hotel, the City will award construction contracts and construct the Public Improvements. 6. August 1, 1987 - Developer completes Office Building and Parking Ramp. 7. Subject to unavoidable delays, City completes construction of Public Im- provements eleven moaths after commencement of construction. • 8. January 1, 1989 - Developer completes Hotel. ~i . I [ Exhibit E • ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF ASSESSOR THIS AGREEMENT, MADE and entered into this daq of , 1985, be and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, " MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (ARA) and CDR INVEST- MENTS/MINNESOTA, a Minnesota general partnership consisting of Darrell Nichols, Fred Bolstad, , and its general partners (Developer): - WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, parties have contemporaneously with this Agreement entered into a • Contract for Private Development (Redevelopment Contract), dated November 12, 1985, regarding the redevelopment of certain real property (Property} located in the Interstate, Lyndale, Nicollet Redevelopment Pro3ect Area in the City of Richfield legally described ir. Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Redevelopment Contract the Developer will construct a commercial development described as the Pro3ect in such Agreement to be completed in accordance with the Pro3ect and Public Improvement Schedule contained in the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, the HRA, the City and the Developer desire to establish minimum market values for the Property and the Project to be constructed thereon during the time of the private development, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,. Section 273.76, Subdivision 8; and • ~ WHEREAS, the HRA, the City and the Hennepin County Assessor have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the Project which it is contem- ` plated will be erected. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Upon completion of each phase. of the Project and until the .date on which the tax increment will no longer be remitted to the HRA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1 (Maturity Date), the minimum market value for each such completed phase of the Project and the land described in Schedule A shall be the amount specified in the attached Schedule B, "Minimum Market Value. Schedule". 2. The Hennepin County Assessor shall value each completed phase of the Project and Property and assign a market value which shall not be less than the minimum market value provided in Schedule A hereto. Nothing in this Agreement • shall limit the discretion of the Hennepin County Assessor or any other public official or body having the duty to determine the market value of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to the Property and the Project to be built thereon, market value in excess of the minimum market value specified in this Agreement. 3. Neither the preambles nor the provisions of this Agreement are intend- ed nor shall they be construed as modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract. 4. This Agreement shall remain in effect and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties until the Maturity Date. 5. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Developer shall pay all real property taxes assessed against the Project and the-Property. The Developer agrees that prior to the Maturity Date: (1) it will not seek • administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any tax statute / ~ /1 • relating to the taxation of real property contained in .the Project determined by an tax official to be a licable to the Pro ect or the Develo er or raise the Y PP j P inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings including delinquent tax proceedings; (2) it will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of any such tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained in the Project determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Development or the Developer or raise the unconstitutionality of such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent proceedings; (3) it will not request the Hennepin County Assessor to reduce the assessed market value or assessed value of all or any portion of the Property; (4) it will not petition the board of equalization of the City or the board of equalization of the County to reduce the assessed market value or Assessed Value of all or any portion of the Property; (5) it • will not petition the board of equalization of the State or commissioner of revenue of the State to reduce the assessed market value of all or any portion of the Property; (6) it will not commence an action in a District Court of the State or the Tax Court of the State pursuant to Minn. Stat., Chapter 278, seeking a reduction in the assessed market value or assessed value of the Property; (7) it will not make an application to the commissioner of revenue of ~I the State requesting an abatement of real property taxes pursuant to Minn. Stat., Chapter 270 with regard to Minimum Market Value; and (8) it will not commence any other proceedings, whether administrative, legal or equitable, with any administrative body within the City, the County, or the State or with any court of the State or the Federal Government. The Developer shall not, prior to the Maturity Date, apply for a deferral of property tax on the Property pursuant to the Act. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, nothing • contained herein shall be deemed to limit the right or opportunity of the 1 ~ Developer as to one or more phases of the Project and Property, to take any • action which would result in a reduction of the assessed market value of the Project; provided, however, that Developer shall not seek any .such reduction if the minimum market value of the Project and Property would be below the sum of the minimum market values listed on Schedule B. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Commission Chairman By Its Executive Director . CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA By Its General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and , the. Commission Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public v/ l/ • Schedule A PROJECT PROPERTY ~ I That part of the following described property: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for road and • being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast i Quarter which lies Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the South- west corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would pass through the South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence running Westerly along the last above described course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet; thence de- flecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.50 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there terminating. And All that part of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the east 30 feet thereof. Which lies southerly and southwesterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at the north- west corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly, along the north line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to-the southwest having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 50 minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of • ~ ~ 000 110.00 feet; thence southeasterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said line there terminat- ing. And lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the South- east Quarter of Section 33; thence southerly along the west line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 a distance of 294.17 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 658 feet and said line there terminating. • i C ~~'y Schedule B Minimum Market Value Schedule Project Phase MMV Office Building and Land $28,254,836 Leasehold Improvements to $ 6,642,000 Office Building Parking Ramp $ 7,920,000 Hotel $20,880,000 Total Minimum Market Value Upon Completion of All Phases of Project $63,696,836 • • _ ~U i ~I CERTIFICATION BY ASSESSOR II I The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be 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 value contained in the foregoing Agreement appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsi- ble for the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the market value assigned to such land and improvements upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon shall not be less than the amounts contained in paragraph 1 and Schedule B of the attached Assessment Agreement _ until expiration of this Agreement as provided in paragraph 4 thereof. Assessor County of Hennepin ~ • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by the Assessor of the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Notary Public l ~r Exhibit F IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT 1985 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attn: John G. Cartwright City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attn.: John G. Cartwright RE: Our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. Amount: $150,000**U.S. Funds Gentlemen: • We hereby authorize you to value on ourselves at sight for any sum or sums not exceeding a total of: One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for account of: CDR Investments/Minnesota For 100X value of beneficiary's signed statement (signature verified by finan- cial institution) as follows: "CDR Investments/Minnesota has defaulted on that certain 'Contract for Private Development,' dated November 12, 1985 by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, .the City of Richfield and CDR Investments/Minnesota as per Arti- cle IV, Section 4.6 thereof," accompanied by a statement of their actual costs or losses. The drafts drawn under this credit are to be endorsed hereon and must bear the clause "Drawn under (bank name), Credit No. dated , 1985." k'e hereby agree with drawers, endorsers, and bona fide holders of drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this credit that the .same shall be duly honored upon presentation at the (bank name). • Authorized Signature ~ ' r Exhibit G • ` GUARANTY AND DEFICIENCY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the day of 1985, by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN Alv'D FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (HRA), the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City) and CDR INVEST- i MENTS/MINNESOTA, a Minnesota general partnership consisting of Darrell Nichols, Fred Bolstad, and , its general partners (Devel- oper). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has on November 12, 1985, entered into an agreement II entitled: Contract for Private Development (Agreement) with the HRA and the ~ • City for the purpose of causing the redevelopment by the Developer of certain real property described in the Agreement and situated in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota (Property); and WHEREAS, the Authority has established the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) and established within such Project Area a redevelopment tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71, et. se~C., which includes the Property; and WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the HRA and the City to use their best efforts to construct certain Public Improvements within the Project Area and ~ requires the Developer to perform certain covenants and promises, and to con- . struct certain improvements thereon (which improvements and Property are herein- - after referred to as the "Project") all as more fully described in the Agreement • and ]_ocated on land described. in the attached Schedule A; and ` / ~ WHEREAS, in order to provide the HRA with the funds necessary to construct Public Improvements within the Project Area, the City has issued its general obligation tax increment bonds (Bonds), which. bonds mature February 1, 2005 (Maturity Date); and WHEREAS, the HRA and the City are unwilling to undertake said transactions unless the Developer guarantees its performance of certain covenants and prom- ises as more fully described in the Agreement and as further set out below: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the HRA and the City to the Developer for the purpose of inducing the Authority to carry out the aforementioned transaction with the Developer, the Developer agrees as follows: I. If the tax increment generated from the Pro3ect, payable with the real estate taxes due in any calendar year commencing in 1988 and ending on the • Maturity Date or when the Bonds are otherwise defeased or paid, is less than the amount contained in Schedule B, the HRA shall notify Developer of the difference between the tax increment generated from the Property and such amount (Deficien- cy) and shall make written demand of developer for the payment thereof. Devel- oper shall, within 30 days after receipt of written notice of demand from the HRA, pay to the HRA the Deficiency. 2. The foregoing obligation of the Developer to pay any Deficiency is subject to the limitations contained in Section 4.7 of the Agreement. 3. This Agreement to Pay Deficiencies shall be and remain the personal obligation of the Developer until (i) January 1, 2005 or (ii) the last date on which the tax increment will no longer be remitted to the HRA pursuant to - Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, or (iii) the date on which the Bonds are paid or defeased. • S J1' HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Commission Chairman By Its Executive Director CITY OF RICHFIELD ~I By ~I Its Mayor 'i By Its City Manager CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA By Its General Partner ~ ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ICI SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and the Commission Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1985, by and the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Notary Public I • -5~ ~l Schedule A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That part of the following described property: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 II of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for road and being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast ' Quarter which lies Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the South- west corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would pass through the South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence running Westerly along the last above described course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet; thence de- flecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.50 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there terminating. And All that part of the Fast 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the .Northeast 1/4 of 'the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the east 30 feet thereof. Which lies southerly and southwesterly of a line 45.00 feet southerly and southwesterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning. at the north- . west corner of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence easterly, along the north line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section_33, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 501.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 50 57 l~ minutes 13 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence southeasterly and easterly a distance of 501.83 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 400.00 feet and a central angle of 71 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds and said line there terminat- ing. And lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the South- east Quarter of Section 33; thence southerly along the west line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 a distance of 294.17 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes OC seconds, a distance of 658 feet and said line there terminating. I /~i Schedule B TAX INCREMENT LEVELS FOR THE YEARS COVERED AGREEMENT TO PAY DEFICIENCIES Year Tax Increment Level 1987 $ 64,019 1988 513,896 1989 2,222,377 _ 1990 2,912,693 1991 3,068,919 1992 3,160,293 .1993 3,254,395 1994 3,351,306 1995 3,451,110 1996 3,553,893 1997 3,659,745 1998 3,768,757 1999 3,881,023 2000 3,996,642 2001 4,076,980 2002 4,159,713 • 2003 4,244,910 2004 4,332,646 2005 4,422,996 „ j 1 ' l~ Exhibit I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION The undersigned hereby certifies that CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA, a Minnesota general partnership, has fully and completely complied with its obligations under Article VI of that document entitled "Contract for Private Development," dated November 12, 1985, between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (HRA), the CITY OF RICHFIELD (City) and CDR INVESTMENTS/MINNESOTA with respect to construction of the portion of the Project in accordance with the approved Project Plan and is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construct under such above-referenced Article with respect to such portion. DATED: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA sy Its Commission Chairman sy Its Executive Director ~/o-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 427 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of A Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) For The CDR Investments/Minnesota, Inc. Project Council Members: On August 12, 1985, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager and staff to undertake the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the CDR Investments/Minnesota, Inc. project in accordance with Section 116D of the Minnesota Statutes. The City Manager and staff were also authorized to engage or hire any consultants deemed necessary to aid in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet provided that the cost of such consultants would be the sole obligation of CDR Investments/Minnesota. Attached for city council consideration is a draft copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and a noise and air quality analysis required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These documents indicate: that the project has an estimated construction cost of approximately $58 milllion dollars; that it has a total project area of approximately 11 acres; that the amount of development will not exceed 79,000 square feet; and, that the number of parking spaces proposed to be constructed will not exceed 1,900. The EAW also describes the current and recent past land uses on the site and categorizes the various types of land uses by percentage. In addition the EAW examines project area soils, addresses the impact of the project on ground and surface water, and identified dust, noise and air pollution aspects of the project. The EAW also describes the summary of issues which will be generated by this proposed project. MPCA has reviewed the documents and has said the city can proceed as follows: 1. The City Council accept the EAW and authorize its distribution as provided by law; 2. That the City Council issue a press release on this document and send a copy of it to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for their review and comment; 3. That the City Council by resolution schedule a public hearing for December 9, 1985. City administration recommends the steps outlined above. Respeetfu bmitted, II ohn G. Ca twri City Manager JGC/eja I I II~ PRESS RELEASE ~ J~,~/ The City of Richfield has received a draft Environmental / '7 Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the CDR Investements/Minnesota, Inc. Project. This project is generally located on an 11 acre site lying between 76th Street and I~9~+ and between Emerson Avenue and the extension of Girard Avenue. This project has an estimated construction cost of approximately $58 million dollars. The amount of development will not exceed 749,000 square feet and the number of parking spaces proposed to be constructed will not exceed 1,900. The types of land uses prposed include office, hotel and related uses. The draft EAW discusses project area soils, talks about the impact o the project on ground and surface water, and discusses dust, noise and air pollution aspects of the project. The draft EAW also describes the summary issues .which will be generated by this proposed project. The City of Richfield will conduct a public hearing to receive comments on this draft EAW at 7:00 PM on Monday, December 9, 1985 in the Council Chambers of Richfield CIty Hall at 6700 Protland Avenue South. Written comments will also be accepted by the City of Richfield if they are received. by January 2, 1986. - Copies of the draft EAW are available for review 8:00 AM to X4:30 PM Monday thru Friday at the City of Richfield Community Development Department at 6700 Portland Avenue South. - I - I NOISE AND AIR QUALITY ANAL_YSI_S FOR C.D.R. OFFICE AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT IN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Prepared For: C.D.R. INVESTMENTS OCTOBER, 1985 Prepared By: b ~ STRGAK-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS 630 TweMe Oeks Cen9er. 15100 Waysafa 8oulevar0 N I.. Minnesota 55391 16721475.0010 COMMISSION N0. 085ob33 / v ' ICJ ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : 1 Figure 1 - Location Map _ 2 Figure 2 - Air and Noise Receptor Site 3 LAND USE (AIR AND NOISE. RECEPTOR SITE) 4 • NOISE ANALYSIS 5 Table 1 - Traffic Data for Noise Analysis 6 Table 2 - Predicted- Traffic Noise Levels (dBA) 7 NOISE IMPACTS/MITIGATION $ AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 9 Table 3 - Traffic Data for Air Quality Analysis 10 Table 4 - Predicted CO •Concentrations 11 APPENDIX "Air Quality Technical Report - Airport South Transportation and Environmental Management Study" by BRW, Inc. - Background CO Monitoring Section. INTRODUCTION. The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of a noise and air quality analysis prepared for the proposed C.D.R. Offic and Hotel Development in Richfield, Minnesota. The report is organized ` in the following sections: o' Project Descriptions o Land Use (Air and Noise Receptor Site) o Noise Analysis - o Noise Impacts/Mitigation o Air Quality Analysis • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed C.D.R. Development is to be located noutheast quadrant of the interchange of I-35W and I-494 (see Figure 1 - Location Map). The development will include a 500,000 square foot office and 400 room hotel. Main access to the site is proposed to be provided to/from I-35w via the interchange with the realigned west 77th Street and to/from I-494 via the interchange with Lyndale Avenue (see Figure 2 - Re- ceptor Location Site). The development will be open in 198b. _ 1 1v - ~ ~ Cem ~ Cem cn ~ ~ .Wood. .~a~e i~meter ~ ~ ~2o J~ ~J ~35w) ` ~ ~c~ w ' ~ ~ _ T - © ~ - } ~ ~ y X85-- 1f r ~ ~:..1i.. ~~-~f"1 I- ST West Q 3~ ~ i, ~ -fr High Sc ~ Danaldsdn i ,j. z ~ nc H ` ~ ark `l, F e . ; South - ~ c, Sho ir~~ b enter ~ • - s ,g~~~. ~ r _ ~ l . _ ~ • ~ I ~I. ~ . I, ~ Humboldt. F-Iekg~~a - ~ ~ _ • .i ~I Sch ~ ~ i ~ ~ . ~ _ Y ~ _ _ ~ _ ` _ r ~ - ~ o : ~ - ~ t i ~ ..l~,' Bry T II f/ Pa rk .U~. ~ .:.,.t ~ r-^-'^t-. ~ i ~I k~a rk ~ X71 / J~ ~ ~ D STRGAR-ROSCOE-I:AUSCH.INC. C.O,R. OFFICE AND HOTEL FIGURE 1 consul.nnc ErwINEEKS . LINO wevevoes D E V E L O P M E N T No~sE AND PROJECT LOCATI N iw TWEWE OAKS CENTER ~ 13soo WAtZATA xVO. A LR O U A L 1 T Y A N A L Y S I S O MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA SSJ91 - ~a~, us.oolo C.D.R. INVESTMENTS COMMISSION NO. 0 8 5 O a 3 3 l b-~ q a ~ ~ ° ~ ~ _ .ESi ru aRSi / i• 1 ~ >E ~ ~ O ` C r' , r I ' I ~ `ITE~''~OUNDRI\S~ I ~_Q a A ~ ~ _ ? - i _ ~ E TING -TRI~ REMAIN ~ - ' P ~ K~0 CARS j ~ STORIES RECEPTOR SITE ( ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ f• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f,~/.~ ~ OFFICE Bll~~v • Iillllilllllll i I ~ii i _ I ' ~ - _ ~i, - ~ HOTEL ~ ~ n _c , ,;.`v\ i/~i// ~i FACE PA K NC ~ I \ \ ~i ~ i i - ~ I .er rM smen t - h~av~A1E H~3•~AY 491 C D STRGAR-ROSCOE•EAUSCH, iNC. C.D.R'. OFFICE AND HOTEL FiGURE_ Z ~=~L~ conwl.nnc cn<anfERS . r.Ano suRVfvoRS D E V E L O P M E N T _ NOISE AND RECEPTOR LOCATION 6~OTWEWEOAKSCENTER~15500WAYZAU~vO. AJR ~UALITY~ ANALYSIS MINNETONKA,. MINNESOTA SS791 ie,z~ as-ao,o C.D.R. INVESTMENTS COMMISSION NO. O a 50lS S 3 GA ND USE (AIR .AND NOISE RECEPTOR SITE) Land use adjacent to the site is shown on Figure 2 and is generally summarized as follows: West: I-35W North: Existing Residential East: Existing residential apartments north of West 77th Street and future. mixed commercial south of West 77th Street South: I-~94 _ _ One air quality and noise receptor site location was selected for analysis based on consultation with the MPCA. The receptor site, shown in Figure 2, is at the southwest corner of an existing single { family residence. It is approximately 120 feet from the centerline of West 77th Street. _ - 4 - 10-11 NOISE ANALYSIS f~ Traffic generated noise levels were estimated for both peak daytime and nighttime conditions for 1985 with existing geometries and for 1987 with the realignment of West 77th Street for the conditions without the development, with the development, and with the devel- opment and_with berms along West 77th Street. ' - Traffic volumes utilized in this analysis were based. on existing volume counts, traffic forecasts performed by BRW, Lnc. for the ILN Redevelopment Project, the annual growth factor for the area road- ways as used in the Air Quality Technical Report for Airport South, and on development. traffic for this project. The resultant traffic data used in the noise analysis are summarized in Table-1. Traffic noise levels were estimated using the manual FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model as detailed in FHWA publication FHWA-RD-77-108.. The estimated noise levels are summarized in Table 2. 5 _ TABLE 1 1N TRAFFIC DATA FOR NOISE ANALYSIS i C.D.R. OFFICE AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT (Auto/Medium Truck/Heavy Truck) I Roadway 1985 1987. Without1987 With Segment Time Existing Development Development 1/W. .77th Day 2054/42/21 2122/34/22 Night 974/20/1.0 105.6/21/12 2/W. 77th Day 1812/37/19 2427/50/35 Night 977/20/11 - -1169/24/12 3/w. 77th Day 1229/25/13 1762/36/18 Night ~ 642/13/7 827/17/9 . 4/W. 77th Day -1042/21/11 1837/38/19 Night 554/11/6 835/18/8 5/W• 77th Day 1266/27/14 2060/43/21 Night 460/10/6 1065/22/11 W. 77th LT DaY 188/4/2 Night 230/5/2 Site Inbound Day 289/6/3 Night 353/7/4 Site Outbound Day 733/15/8 Night 237/5/2 35w Day 6288/276/346 6737/296/371 6945/305/382 j Night 3030/133/166 3245/143/178 3345/147/.184 494 Day 9218/405/506 10078/443/554 10390/457/571 Night 4444/405/506 4759/210/262 4906/216/270 Ramps Day 1323/58/73 -2833/124/156 2921/128/161 Night 607/27/33 650/28/36 670/29/37 W. 76th Day 1601/33/16 Night 733/16/8 y Emerson Day 407/8/4 Night 196/4/2 W• 77th Day 136/3/1 Night 68/1/1 - 6 - _ -/3 . TABLE 2 PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (dBA) C.D.R. OFFICE AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT DAYTIME ~ NIGHTTIME CONDITION L/10 L/50 L/10` L/50 1985 (Existing Geometrics) 66.1. (1) 6.3.3 63.5 59.9 1987 Without Development 73.3 71.1 70.5 67.5 _ _ i ..1987 With Development 73.4 71.2 70.6 67.6 1987 With Development ~ .and 3 Foot Berm (2) 73.~t 71.1 70.5 67.5 Minnesota State Standards for Noise . Area Classifications 1 65.0 60.0 55.0 5D.0 (1) Underlined values indicate state standard is exceeded. (2) Berm would be located adjacent to West 77th Street on the northside of the street and adjacent to the existing homes along Emerson Avenue. Y - 7 - NOISE IMPACTS/MITIGATION Existing traffic conditions generate noise levels which are near or exceed State Standards during the peak hours at the receptor site. The realignment of West 77th Street planned by the City of Richfield and the growth of traffic in the area will result in more traffic .being diverted to West 77th Street from West 76th Street. This will bring more traffic closer to the receptor site resulting in increased noise levels. The result is that the noise levels will increase by 7.0 to 7.8 decibels for 1987 without the develop- ment over the existing noise levels. The development will have significant impact only on- tr-affic vol- umes adjacent to the receptor site. As a result it will increase volumes over the "No Development" condition by less than. 1 decibel. In addition, construction of a three foot high berm along West 77th Street in front of the existing residences would reduce the noise levels by less than 1 decibel. The small impact. of the berm is due to the fact .that the noise is largely due to I-35W, I-494 and other segments of West 77th Street. The relatively high estimated noise levels in this area are primar- ily due to the following conditions: 1. High existing traffic volumes on I-35W and I-494. 2. Close proximity of the receptor site to .traffic flow on I-35W, I-494 and the realigned West 77th Street. 3. Lack of significant buffering of the receptor site from these sources of traffic generated noise. Noise levels at the receptor site is primarily influenced by traf- - fic noise generated along I-35W and I-494. Although abatement of noise along I-35W and I-494 is possible, it is beyond the scope of this project. Also, construction of berms along West 77th Street were found in the analysis to provide very minimal reduction in noise and benefits would be small since the human ear cannot normally detect a difference in noise levels of less than 3 dBA. , - 8 - AIR QUALITY ANALYSLS The air quality impact of the proposed development has been ana- Iyzed using the MOBILE III emission factor computer model from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and .the CALINE 3 dispersion computer model from the California Department of Transportation. The MOBILE III model output provides the most current"emission fac- toss for .use in the dispersion model. .The CALINE 3 model is aline source dispersion model which is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone to characterize pollutant dispersion over a roadway... - The analysis estimated the carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at the worst case receptor site shown in Figure 2. The site was chosen at the proposed apartment where the wind vectors-and traffic queues would cause a maximum concentration of CO. The analysis was done for the year 1987~to reflect one year after completion of the proposed development. The traffic volumes for 1987 utilized in this analysis are summarized in Table. 3. The in- tersection and roadway geometrics were assumed to include the re- vised geometrics at the frontage road and Yellowstone Boulevard as recommended in the Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Traffic Report. The estimated total concentrations at the receptor site is summa- rized in Table 4. The traffic related component of the total CO concentration was calculated using the traffic forecasts and the MOBILE III and CALINE 3 computer models. This is the concentration of CO at the receptor site due to the traffic volumes, roadway geometrics, vehicle fleet and percentage of cold starts in the im- mediate vicinity of the receptor site. The background concentration of CO is that which exists in the area without the direct influence of the local traffic. Background con- - centrations are added to the concentrations due to local traffic to determine the total concentrations at the receptor site. In coordination with. MPCA, it was determined that the two week con- - tinuous carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring program of background con- centrations performed by Interpol, Inc., for the Airport South Study and detailed in Interpol report number 2-118 would be ade- quate for use in this study. The CO monitoring program was conducted byYInterpol, Inc. in coor- dination with MPCA staff to insure agreement regarding site location, monitoring equipment, monitoring procedures, data collec- tion and reduction procedures, .and the quality assurance program. The results of the monitoring program are included in the appendix. • - 9 - ~D .TABLE 3 TRAFFIC DATA. FOR AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS C.D.R. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT " 1 Hour ~ 8 Hours Cruise. Cold' ~ Cold Roadway Segment Lane Speed G/C* 1987 Starts 1987 Starts West 77th 1 EB 30 31$ 15 13.7 15 " 1 WB 30 776 15 335 15 West 77th 2 EB 30 522 _ 15_ 299 15 2 WB 30 729 15 299 15 West 77th 3 EB .30 407 15 274 15 3 WB 30 0.47 501. 15 274 15 West 77th. 4 EB 30 0.65 243 15 316 15 4 WB 30 704 15 316 15 West 77th 5 EB 30 349 15 316 15 5 WB 30 713 15 316 15 . -West 77th 6 WB - LT 30 0.18 194 15 9 15 Entrance Inbound 30 149 15 10 15 Entrance Outbound 30 0.35 378. 95 25 95 I-35W 50 1,908 5 1,235 5 I-494 50 1,903 5 1,195 5 Ramps 30 1,605 5 725 5 *180 second signal cycle, 4 phase operation. , _ 10 _ -/7 TABLE 4 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS C.D.R. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Carbon Monoxide (CO) Level ` 1-Hour 8-Hour Condition Background Projected Total Background Projected Total 1987 With Development 6.2 ppm 17.1 ppm. 23.3 ppm 4.O ppm 1.9 PPm 5.9 PPm MPCA Standard 30,0 ppm 9,0 ppm ~ The receptor site is the existing single family residence as shown on Figure 2. The site is located .120 feet from the centerline of West 77th Street. I I 11 The projected C0 concentration levels due to traffic in the .area were ,modeled for the one-hour and eight-hour traffic flow peak periods. The peak one-hour period falls within the 4 PM to 6 PM period and the peak eight-hour .period.. falls within the 10 AM to 6 PM period. Therefore, the peak monitored background levels during the corresponding hours were selected for use in this analysis. The appropriate background levels were first adjusted from 1984 to 1 8 back round 9 7 levels usin the e g mission factors from the MOB g ILE III program developed by the U.S.E. P. A. Next, the background lev- els were adjusted to account for the projected increase in total vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The background results are shown in .Table 4 along with the pre- " dieted concentration levels due t o traffic. The total estimated C0 concentrations for the receptor site are well below the state standards. Based on this analysis, the proposed project will be in compliance with state standards.. • y 12 _ 1 APPEiJDIX I ~3 - /6 - BAC><GROUNO CO MONITORING CO Monitoring Program Carbon Monoxide {CA) monitoring for the Airport South Study was carried out ' - between November 1 and November 19, 1982. The purpose of this monitoring was to'determine ambient background CO concentrations in the -study area. ' CO was monitored continuously at two sites; site 1 was Iodated at the Control Oata Corporation facility at 88th Street and. River Ridge Road, and site ~ was located in the starters building of the Rich Acres Goif Course west or Cedar Avenue and ,south of 66th Street. The locations of the sites with respect to major roadways are described in .Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. TABt_E t MONITORING SITE LOCATIONS pirection Distance from silo 1980 Situ Roadway Feet Meters to roadway AOT CDC- Old Shakopee Rd. 800 240 W 6,900 Site 1 Cedar Ave.(TH 77) 2,300 701 W 20,200 I-494 5,750 1,753 N 54,300 • Rich Acres Cedar Ave.(TH 77) 2,200 670 w 25,900 Site 2 I-494 5,240 1,597 S 54,300 I Moniforinq Resulis The CO monitoring report (Interpol) report number 2-1418) shows the results of the study and documents the monitoring and calibration procedures carried. out. Monitored CO concentrations were generally less than 2 PPM during most of the monitoring period. However, on November 16 and 17 one- hour average ~ concentrations as high as 7.2 PPM were monitored. These high one-hour readings resulted in eight-hour average concentrations as high as 3.7 PPM at the CDC site and 5.8 PPM at the Rich Acres sits. The CO concentrations during this episode are described in Table 2. These C0 concentrations are mainly a product of motor vehicle activity in the metropolitan area. The monitoring sites .were purposely located as far from the major roadways in the study area as possible to minimize the effect of these local sources. The Rich Acres site is also influenced by jet aircraft CO emissions which may explain the more prolonged elevated Concentrations at the Rich Acres site. There were no events at the Met .Center on November 16 or any other known abnormalities in traffic con- ditions. Thus, it can be concluded that the .high concentrations during this episode are a result of adverse meteorological conditions charac- terized by light and variable winds and poor atmospheric mixing. d ttlilOU _ a/ Q ~ ~ ~gjlt ® ~d _ f trr~ r 3 ~ ~ OC~f~ o ~ no ' ~ PCB + ° ' f 4 ~ _ _ ~ ~ = SI ~t r Y r - l M 1. rrt s : l.• ~ ~1:. ~.~.~t'[;:~_:..: ~ ~ CCU f ~ wr. lrrrr ~ -may. C 1 1 ,~i wfr rfrrr d I A - ~ V 77 l?.)1J1f1111~}c,V Utuuc . ~ L ~.o..,a_,I FIGURE 1 ~ ~ CARBON MONOXIDE MON1TORfNG SITES .IU. ;LU, ~I O SITE 1 -CDC O SITE 2 -RICH ACRES q / ~ I; ~ ~ O ~ Z MILES TRANSPORTATION ~BQ~ Ord: S AND ENVIRONMENTAL T MANAGEMENT STUDY ~~3~~~ ~ i T A8L E 2 • CO MONITORING RESULTS - NOVEMBER t6 and t7, 1982 f Wind Wind Speed CDC Rich Acres Date Time Direction (MPH) 1-Hour 8-Hour.* 1-Hour 8-Hour" tt/t6 a:00-5:00 PM 220 5.8 0.5 t.9 a.0 1.6 5:00-6:00 ??0 3.5 0.7 1.5 a.2 1.9 6:00-7:00 X10 4.6 t.0 1.0 7.0 2.5 7:00-8:00 150 3.5 7.0 t.6 7.1 3.1 8:00-9:00 190 5.8 5.3 2.0 7.2 3.9 _ 9:04-10:00 Calm 3.Z 2.4 7.1 4.7 10:00-11:00 190 5.8 3.0 2.7 5.6 - 5.4 11:00-12:00 130 5.8 2.6 3.0 a.l 5.8 11/17 12:00-1:00 AM 120 6.9 2.7 3.3 3.9 5.8 1:00-2:00 Ca.Im 2.7 3.5 3.0 5.6 2:00-3:00 110 5.8 2.5 3.7 2.7 5.1 3:00-d:00 90 3.5 t.0 2.9 2.2 a.5 Maximum Recorded Concentrations 7.0 3.7 7.2 5.8 " 8-Hour concentrations are for the 8-hour period ending in the stated hour. i • I 8ackgrbund Determination The purpose of the Airport South CO monitoring program was to determine ambient background CO levels. The background feve{s are then to be added to modeled CO concentrations resulting from local sources to determine total CO concentrations in the study area. The background values needed for this analysis are a one-hour average CO concentration for the peak hour of local (project generated) traffic and an eight-hour average CO con- eentration far the peak. eight hours ofi local traffic. .The analysis is to consider "worst-case" conditions, thus the relationship between the CO con- centrations monitored in the Airport South Study Area during November, 1982, and CO concentrations expected during "worst-case" conditions must be . determined. to order to identifiy worst-case conditions for 1982, the CO monitoring results firom the MPCA permanent CO monitors in fihe Metropolitan Area have been evaluated. Results were available from 6 monitoring sites for January through November 1982. Table 3 shows a summary of 1982 monitoring at the 6 sites in comparison to November 16, 1982, monitoring. As shown in Table 3, two of the six permanent monitors recorded the maxi- mum eight-hour average CO for the year on November 16, 1982. The maximum one-hour concentrations for the year are higher than those monitored on November 16 at a{I six permanent monitors. In additon, the maximum one- . hour concentrations recorded during the peak traffic period (3:00-6:00 PM) is less than the yearly maximum at four of the six permanent monitors. 6 /f~-~,~ • TABLE 3 r-- C0 MONITORING RESULTS (PPM) MPCA PERMANENT MONITORS - 1982* ONE-HOUR AVERAGE EIGHT-HOUR AVERAGE Nov. 16 1982 1982 Max. Nov. 't6 1982 Site Maximum Maximum (3:00-6:00 PM) Maximum` Maximum ' SQV ^nth b Hennepin 9.7 14.6 10.9 6.6 $.3 (Minneapolis) Third Ave. b Fourth St. 7.5 12..5 8.5 4.8 5.6 " (Minneapolis) 1$29 Portland 11.0 19.8 7.0 7.7 7.7 (Portland at E.18th St. Minneapolis) Tenth St. b Minnesota 8.5 9.7 9.7 6.9 6.9 ` (St. Paul) Fourth St. b wabasha 7.0 15.3 11.6 6.2 7.5 _ {St. Paul) • 1569 University 12.7 21.8 21.8 9.8 14.2 (University at Snelling St. Pau I ) * January through November, 1982. The monitoring results were also compared to background CO concentrations derived fior other projects in the metropolitan area (Table 4). Comparing the 1982 values shows. that the eight-hour average of 5.8 PPM monitored for Airport South is greater than any of the eight-hour background con- centrations derived for these other projects. The one-hour concentration. of 7.2 PPM is greater than the background derived for four of the studies and less than that for three of the studies. On the basis of these comparisons, it is highly .probable that the eight- hour concentration ofi 5.8 PPM monitored at the Rich Acres site is the maxi- mum background concentration which could be expected in the Airport South Study area. However, worst-case conditions are likely to result in a higher one-hour background concentration that was monitored. - •v On an average, the maximum one-hour concentrations monitored at the per- manent monitoring sites during the peak traffic period is 1.232 times the maximum monitored on November 16. Based on this relationship, the maximum one-hour average CO concentration which could be expected in the Airport- South Study Area during peak traffic hours is 8.9 PPM (7.2 PPm x 1.232). Thus, worst-Case background CA Concentrations for 1982 are 8.9 Pt'M one-hour average and 5.8 PPM eight-hour average. 7 ~ TAt3tE 4 BACKGROUND CO .CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) • TWiN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1-HOUR/8-HOUR YEAR _ Study Area 1977. .1978 1979 1982 ~ 1990 Hiawatha Avenue TH 55-Minneapolis 4.9/3.71r 4.2/3.26/ 2.4/1.8-~/ North Crosstown • TH 610 Brooklyn Park 6.2/3.3-~ 4.6/2.52/ Metropolitan Sports• 8.,4/3.93! Facility-$loomington 12.8/6.43/ Metropolitan Sports Facility-Minneapolis. 12..4/6.63/ 7.414,23 I-35E Pleasant . Ave-St. Paul 15.6/5.84/ 13.0/4.95/ 6.2/2.6'4/ 4.2/2.5?/ Suburban Areas 5.7/3.42/ • C.R. 62-Minnetonka, 5/ Eden Prairie 2.2/1.8- . Airport South (Maximum Monitored) 7.2/5.8 1/ Air Quality Report, Hiawatha Avenue Location and Design Study, June 1981. 2/ Study on the Attainment of Carbon Monoxide Standards, Minnesota Department of Transportation, August 1980. • 3J Twin Cities Metropolitan Sports Facilities Draft Envrionmental Impact Statements, Minnesota State .Planning Agency, December 1977. 4/ Air Quality Impacts of Proposed I-35E Project in St. Paul, Minnesota, February, 1981. 5/ Air Quality Report County Road 62, May 1982. 6/ Derived through straight line extrapolation1between given values. e lt?(lOll " ~ `d:~~ _ Future Background Concentration s_ r-~ Background C0 concentrations in future years will be influenced by two distinct factors. First, vehicte miles of travel in the Twin Cities area I will continue to increase, causing background CO concentrations to .increase.. Second, emission control devices on new vehicles will reduce I r-- average vehicular emissions as new. vehicles replace the old, causing,. background CO concentrations to decrease. Beginning with th.e background C0 concentrations .derived for 1982, background in future years is-the. nets j~' resuFt of correctCng for both of these factors. Annual increases in vetaicle miles of travel (VMT) will be greatest in the suburban communities influencing the Airport South Study area. A compound annual YMT growth rate of 2~ has been calculated by comparing existing ' (1980) traffic volumes to the MetropolLtan Counci"I year 2000 regional tra- vel model projections. - - Decreases in average vehicular emission rates were obtained Prom the MOt31~E 2 emissions model. The average emission rate estimates are based on - vehicle speeds of 19.6 MPH, an ambient temperature of 20' F, and a national average mix of vehicte types and model year milage accrual. c: These factors are applied by multiplying the 1982 background concentration by the ratio of target year average emissions to 1982 average emissions and by the VMT growth factor for the target year. TABt_E 5 • BACKGROUND CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) Average ` Emissions VMT Year 1-Hour 8-Hour (q/mi.) Growth * j i 1982 8.9 5.8 75.68 1.000 1985 7.7 5.0 61.44 1.061 1990 5.9 3.9 43.09 1.172 1995 5.4 3.5 35.45 1.294 I 2000 5.5 3.6 33.02 1.428 * VMT growth is the fractional increase over -1982. .levels based on a compound annual growth rate of 2~ Background CO concentrations are expected to decrease through 1995 due to decreases in average vehicular emissions. By 1995,'ythe influence of R cleaner cars .will be less than the influence of increased VMT resulting in slightly higher background by 2000. 9 1+ ~(i~)1;~; 's . ~ - E.R. + (68ed in by EQB) 5/1/84. ~ / Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE BOX: REGULAR EAW ? SLOPING EAW NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts-that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs. written com- mentsshould. address the accurary and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the ElS. Such comments .must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 612/296-8253; non-metro: 1-800-652-9747, ask for envi- ronmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30•day comment period ends. 1 • Project Name 35W - 494 Development 4 2. Proposer CDR Investments/Minnesota. 3. RGU City of Richfield fired ~olstad (Partner) Contact Person Ron Erickson. John. Saaat (KKE) Contact Person f)Ann1S Kraft Address 5001 West 80th Street, #901 and Title Community Development Director Bloomington, MN 55437 Address 6700 Portland Avenue South Phone 831-6601 Richfield, MN 55423 Phone 869-7521 4• Project Location: 5~ 1/4 5~ 1/a Section Township Range a. Coun Name Hennepin Mi nnea of i s ty City/Township Name p b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW: 1. a county map showing the general area of the project. 2. a copy(ies) of USGS 71/2 minute. 1:24,000 scale map. 3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures. roads, extent of flood plain, wetlands, wells. etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area, if available. 5 • Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary). SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. Q I _ 1 V • Does any part of the project area involve: a, shoreland zoning district? No Yes /'j~ _ 1~ b. delineated 100•year flood plain? - No Yes ((J pt c. state or federally designated river land use district? Na ~ Yes _ tf yes, identify water body and applicable state classification(s). and describe measures to protect water and related land resources; . _ ~ 9• Describe anyphysical alteration (e.g.. dikes. excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system, .lake, stream, and/or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im- pairment of the water-related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. NOT APPLICABLE. - 20• a.Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? if yes. explain © No ? Yes (indicate quantity and source): ' During construction there is a possible need for minimum dewatering for footing excavation of the parking structure: - b.Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? If yes, ex- plain: ® No ? Yes 2 Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. Prior to grading and excavation of the site, perimeter siltations fences wi11 be erected to control erosion. Ultimately, all site areas will be paved, sodded, planted, or left in their natural state. AA ~L• a. Wi1l.theprojectgenerate: 1. surface and stormwater runoff? No Yes 2. sanitary wastewater? No Yes 3. industrial wastewater? ~ No Yes 4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? ~ No ~ Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. The City Community Services Department has confirmed that the 486 gallons/minute sanitary sewage and the 40 cubic feet/second site drainage runoff can be adequately handled by the existing sanitary and storm sewers. In addition, the water main adjacent to the site can adequately provide water service. b. Identify receiving waters. including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the discharges listed above. ]f discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide per- _ colation Jpenneability and other hydrogeological test data. if available. The building heating/cooling system will be a core water system with heat pumps from boilers with a tflree-way valve sysaem ahrough_a coaling tower: The coolzn tower will be dumped approximately twice a year, with a discharge into the sani~ary system of approximately 10,000 gallons each time.. Z 3 • Will the project generate (either dunng or after construction): a. air pollution? No ~ Yes b. dust? ~ No ~ Yes c. noise? ~ No Yes d. odors? ~ No ~ Yes _ If yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land uses; expected lev- els and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust); odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. Construction equipment w~'11 generate tEle normal noise, exhaust fumes, and dust. All equlpment.w111 be muffled, CJater will be used to control dust during demoli- tion and construct%an. The above conditions wi17 be eliminated after construction _ and the establishment of surfacing and turf: The construction period for `the hotel and office 'building will be approximately 18 months each, with construction 3 - starts staggered by approximately 6 months.. See Attached ~ _ , ' ~ 24• Describe the type snd amount of solid and/or hazardous waste including sludges and • - ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: v 'Normal waste typical for hotel and offices uses will be-taken to a land fill by a private contractor. It will be generated at a rate of approximately~80 cubic c yards/day. No hazardous wastes will be generated. - ZJ• Will the project affect: ~ a: fish or wildlife habitat, or movement oLanimals? ® No ? Yes b. any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened. or of special concern (animals and/or plants)? ~ No ? Yes - if yes, explain (identity species and describe impact): 2 6 • Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): ® No ? Yes 2 ~ • Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a, designated park or recreation areas? No ~ Yes - b. prime or unique farmlands? ~ No _ Yes - c. ecologically sensitive areas? - - ~ No - ti's d. scenic views and vistas? - No Yes e. other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes If yes, explain: ' - 2 S • For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributedby the project and the directional distributions of traffic. SEE ATTACHED REPORT .FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER. I 29• Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not; what additional utilities and/or services will be required? - ? No ® Yes Summary of Issues For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by °yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping I?AWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. Item 16: See attached sot-ls report. Item 22: See notation under Item 22. Item 23: All motorized equipment will be muffled, and the site will be watered for dust control. State regulations NPC-2•and all applicable City ordinances on noice levels will be maintained. - CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT hereby-certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. - Signature _ Date 4 II Title _ _ ; . ~ , I ,J ~ W„~,y ,~p, ~.,..~,r~• _'h; ` ~ ~/'r~:,rp :~~~~L~~~ _ 1F,~• v v j j." ~ - ~ p ~ 1 ! 1 ~0 ' ~ ~ fi't' ` l7?'~ W f .I j I I ~ I . . fem. t,. ~ ^ s ` P ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~-~I. _ _ .~r ~ ~ ! ~ 7• ~i ^~I . I«..w 'iF" III I I u ~ I r# H ~ r' • I I F ' rl >3 ~ Ate-- .t ' E ° , / ; . F . ~?'!~iE _ ~ p M k,~t "C'~ • e"`;" i E ( y Ir N „"1~ ' ~A ' I Y, ~!d!Y _ ~I~I [ ~ 1' ~ , I b s~ I . F _ , ~ i?~"'; i ' I ,C i I )I I • ' ` s .7 Y 3 w ~ i _ " y{~ ~ LEA • e ~ ~ u`f ~ ~ • ~ ' ,1 F f E i . f, ..few.r, .n: 1rr" .uJrjx:':r-"...F vyi"r. Y" a k ~ r - ~ 1 r -s~sS ~ y ° ~ ~s t l •C~ Atl t / 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~I r? 1 I • i ~ - I ~ ` pi• / ? ~ . L••• QN aye a ~ ' : ~ a- ~ _ / • " - ~ wa I ,/II~- n to ~t.~l~ f ..l.J ~ ~ k,_ ` rk : ~ • ~ i il- . " ( - ed - ~ 'rat ware, ks ` - - eF ew,.Sc ithd ~f r i . ~ ~ ~ i/ ~ ~ ~ • + . ~ . n L_.Jl;,:" LCk t or bl J b i ' ~T k' a - a ~ ~j~~ ~ / a: . 1 _ ~ ..i rte. f , < ~ ~ M _ 1' . •a+~/ I S ri an SR- ' en r ~ r~ ¦ ~ + ,~•,~@ r TNQlIL `YY~ ~ • ~ . _ ~ a ! ; d / P • ~ Ae'-"`~-~ a~ + H A~ t:... -/~a~~ 'r~ ad . ~ l >g r i f~ ~ r ~ ~ c L°.. ~ I~ le J ~ ~ ~i u J 0 Gm ;_Can ~ ,i.~W d La j ~ e o s'i c i o 'R w ~6enKt _J i' leis ~ t. ' •.35w ~ ~ . a c i 8 > ~ B ,,lo \ ~~y„~ it L^~ ~ ~ - _ - ~i ~ - l d _ ~ ~Q ~ 3 7 Pa Ian • _ N 4 , ~ i _ 'G ve~Pits; ,i , r ~ Oonsldson i t ^ i I \ i L / T ~ k h y f ~ s eso i " 1 ~ ~ ~ _ LJU J ~ '~:J _ ~ ~ , ~ J ~ ~ L~/ W ` a t] ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ R sevelt I ,~'~~i, C-'~et~Pit~s ~ i^, ~ ri= , -a _ F;.•~ •~.i' ~ i ~ T~ - ~'I`~. r tt,; 11 v ~ r I L. nI I Jx„ I ~ 4C ~ r 1' ~rr ii ~ M..:'~?l -:I ._~7 ~ ! ~b/r et • = :IL~-'~' '-tui jn . 6 • -y-•` ~ r ~i~-~~`~ ~~r ~ i ~il? ~ 1+. 1~-.:~•-?-- ~ r ilTtadec ~ _ ~ • hoppin enter ~ ¦ -~r • r ~ u~;~• ~~i ` 1 •J , . ~ _ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~a~~(~'~,^, ryta'•y~"'~ i ~ ~_~i - ~ ~ ~ ' I i~~1 ~ ~ ~I l ti . ( t9 i~`~"~:w r- af•;- ~ ! =7. , fe to n ~ ~I?+,l 1 869 '4 _ II ''Ivry-~' ' ~ s'~_#' ~ . 1 A_1 ~t~- ~il~• • ~•:a:.+ , . Pla gri~fdrr a ~r -ice 1 ~7'-"~' B2 r ~ l i 4 ~ / '''C~i 1~ ( % i• I • "orthQ: ~ ~ I / l~ 1r ;~t.._.._~Ii' I~~ "t ~ ~ L;2 ~'II_~ _ ~ ~ _ I ~ ~k ~i vl acr+ 1. ~ J~~ oar ~ `~ii• ~ e•S ~ I ~ ~ ~rk~ T ' ~ 1 -ti _ _ ~ i ~C ~ ~ ~I ~ ! - - ~ / • ` ~ ~ . ~ Psrk _ ~ ~ t . ~I ~ it , BryariC-f ~ ~ ~ f ..1i ~ ? ~ Q' I I_ ine5~~ lw. = ss~ =.~.~,~re !l~ ~~iV~. d~ I ti~Gl rk' C'~ ~ I- 4 ~1 } I~ d II ~ 1Ci ~ L~k~ ~ ~~Tf { t` ~ + J 1'' O , ~ , ~ ~.~~j Ii III `'=~~J'~JW ~ ~ 3~EF w •'~~1~.ae / _sr sy.Lake '-;r J~! I ~ ~ ~~~~~:I_ n I~ / I. EAler Pa~ec _ L ~ r ' \ w T 1j9~ ' 1 .•4 ; ~ ~ S? I ~ t'°?+~ t •~i 1~~~ Va e'r ~Yie•e ~'~;I~ ~.1~ i . ; _ = Aii~Seh' ~~.1.,~„~'>,c,.•,v I' ,~J ~ = ~I • ho' A}.` 1 ~ _ . ~ ~ _ +LJI ~ I • a(' ~ ~'Athlet+G'I n' n ~ ~ ~ • : ~ ' J ~ ` \ 1 I~ i F ~ efi ~ C ~i[h &h I ah. 1, atl-._\ _ ~_ih~. Field ;J~L~ _ ,i BM''8<7:~,I W ~ - 9G~., 3x•.JL~ i r'F 1 ~ (i } e/S: 1I e ~ 90. _ f~li~/a~ s ~~i i~'•~jC 1 .11 'j~'h .i ~:9~-r~~yTank• ~ i~t ~ 0 M I'N~l''r~~7?"1~ li ~i;- ~ ~ • ~ ~~i ~ ~ . t~ • ~ % vallty view Playtield ~ - ~jn~. ' ~ w II s~` it s~ a: ; ~ o l II I ~ ! i ~i G i a l ~ Ii S 1 v wl , 1`> "~r~ "•Y'~}` r j~~ ~ij~ ~ 1 , ~I i ~i 9an - s:.:l~ / / :.:`-''s ipMrii:ll 1 ~.~.r~.:+x~r..n4 ~ it .`a'~\L . sclr: ~S+` r~r~ll.s - ~;~i-r-ru? ! ,t'ao " N A ~ I r ~ r~n~ u ~ ~ . a ~ .r - ~ ~ - ~ / ~ psi saieEt, M ~f 1 ~ ~ ~ _ o r, ~ . k~: ' 'SII~E''$Otjt~RlES . - 0 - i. ~ ~ • E TING TR~ _ REMAIN , ~ ~ ( ~ P 1600 CARS F ~ 4 STORIES _ ~ ~ l ~ !i ~ ~ ~ ~ . , O ~ V ' " _ / ~ OFFICE 64 r~~, 11 I I l~ i ITI I I I I I I:I I i CO~~FE~`CE A.:PA ~ ~ i ~ 1 1 _ ~ _ _ r ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~SU~FACE PARK NC . : y:` v~ - - - ~ inn r a a II . /1~~~',~ PROJECT . ~ . ~ ~ , ~ ~ ff ' ~ w~sfi rn'stRe r ti ' ' . ~ fVTH~5UTE HC~•MIAY 494 , ~r . . ! ~ /U /L~ . I ' 6th STREET ~ r' ~ _ ' • • ~ PARKING RAM!' ;rte' ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ,s . _ , ? . ~ ~ 't • ~ i a~~ r ' ~ i t HOTEL - ~ - . j - ' , , i i _ - j ` ~ .NORTH / ` - . . 1-494 . - i i Multiple Residenc{e General Industrial I- ~ Single Family ' General Commercial Limited Business rttrrrrrrrttrYrtrrrrrtrrrrrrrrrrr r ~ rr tr~r t tr r rr r r ttrrrriirrr 33rtrr rr t`1~~1l~1~1~11t11~I~tR~E~~~~I~~ ~~~~,,~:,~~tll~,:;:.:~l:l:fl,:::~:t _ F. t L l - LAKE ~ . ~ ~ III 11~ - I ; . t ( I, 1~ ,`y~ 1 1 f f . r 1 III NE! I I II f wr ~'r~~~.~~ II I C`I! ~I ~L1111... I 1 I I ~ I I ~ I I . ~I ~ II ! 11(.111 11 I II II I~ I I i~ f woooiAl(E ~ / ~ ~ I i ~ III ~ 't:'1 I I I ~ 1 ~ ~ I 1 1 r 1 ~ j ~ ~ tl I ~ ,I R f l I ~ ~ti,l (I . 1 " I III ~ ~ ~ . I . { ' I ~ . ~~c= ' _ u I ~I I I~ ~ I ~f ~ ' ~ = ; ~ I I i~ II l N ..u ~ ~ . i~ i~ I ~ ' . 111 I II I I I ? I I i ~ , .wl 1 ~ • ~ i~ ~-II I I I ~ II ~ I III ; ~ ~ _ II~II ~ U I! I ~ 1 r _ 1 ....r•irti• tlr ku~:ira~::.:>' ~ ~ 1'~...... ~ I . _ ~ ! I I I~ I1I I. I I I~ 1~- ,Y » I~rarwc ~M tb,.M..+ ?u? - I I II 1` ! I III p II 1 I~ ~ ~ I I I . I 1~' ~ 1 ~ ! f III II I I I ~ . I~ _ ~r, ~ r` t r r r r r r r t r r r t r~ t 1 Y r r r i i t t i t~ r r i r t r r t r t r r j r 1!! I t r ` r t r r i r l r I r r i t r~~ t ~`1~~~i~aI~~~t1{~~~s~~~#~~t1~1 ~~rfs3ss~~ti~~:ss~s::~:i _ . ~ • ~ 5. The proposed project will consist of an approximately 25-story office structure encompassing approximately 500,000 gross square feet; an approximately 375-room motel with restaurant, banquet, and coffee shop facilities having approximately. 600 seats; and an approximately 1,600- car parking structure. The site consists of approximately 11 acres and features a~varied topo- graphy, with a lower area at the west central property line. The north- eastern portion of the site is covered with mature trees which are part of the original forest areas of Richfield. The buildings have been planned and located on the site to compliment the site's natural features and maximize the retainage of the existing trees. In addition to serving as an exciting development amenity, the trees will provide a buffer between the development and the surrounding residential areas to the northeast. The parking structure is planned in the lower areas of the site and is proposed to extend only one floor above. grade at the 77th Avenue entrance to the site. Parking studies have been prepared by Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch, Inc., consulting traffic engineers. .These studies indicate considerable joint parking use between the office and hotel structures due to staggered peak hour uses. This feature allows for green open spaces on the site. Surface parking for the hotel will consist of approximately 300 cars. 85• oi•oo~y•~ /G~~3~ Services Since 1957 ENGINEERING TESTING ~~co~oora~ea J S. BRAUN. P.E. G.D. KIUEMPKE. P.E. MINNESOTA: Minneapolis; Hibbing, St. Cloud, Rochester, St. Paul + P.N. ANDERSON DALE R ALIEN. P.E. Affiliated Olhces C.G :E. MES J. CRAIQ Jr., P.F. _ ~RTH OAKOTA: Bismarck, Williston; MONTANA: Billings R. P. . ~ ~To: . ~~L 15~~ Box .35108 Mpls., MN 55435 t,~yg.) 941-5600 ~ I . ~ E:~ I t~ ~ KK Jul 12 ` ~ ~ 1985 Y ~ [ COMM• p0. Korsunsky-Krank-Erickson Arch.. Inc. Attn: Mr. Ron-Erickson I ~ A A 330 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 ~ RE: FOUNDATION CONCEPT ANALYSLS Cloverleaf Motel Site NW Quad. of I-494 and 35W Richfield, MN Mr. Erickson: • We are pleased to furnish this foundation conce t anal sis for p Y the above project. The purpose of this analysis was to research and summarize the available soils and bedrock information in the area of the. project and to outline potential foundation alter- natives. AVAILABLE INFORMATION The most recent conceptual plan which we have. seen indicates that a 25-story and a 10-story office tower are proposed for this. site. In addition, a 400-room hotel and a parking ramp will also be constructed. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of I-494 and 35W in Richfield- and covers approximately- 14 acres. The site is currentiy occupied by various buildings which will be removed as part of the development. For our analysis, we have reviewed the..'soils and bedrock infor- mation from a number of sources. These include soil data from projects which we have been involved with in this area area bedrock maps and soil maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey. i CONSULTING ENGINEERS /SOILS AND MATERIALS .Affiliated. Company for Chemical & Environmental Testing and Consulting Braun Environmental Laboratories, lnc. .Korsunsky-Krank-Erick.,on Arch., Inc. -2- July I2, 1985 l~ ~ 7 S UNYVIARY OF SO I L AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS The available geological data indicates that .the site is in a gl.aeial outwash region. .Within this area, the predominant soils are granular in nature with varying percentages of silt, .tend to vary in grain size, and will be intermixed with various sizes of - gravel, cobbles and possibly some boulders. The granular soils would generally be in a loose to medium dense. condition near the ~ surface and will tend to be denser at depth.. ~ ~ i Underlying the granular soils, we would anticipate that strata of cohesive soils may be encountered. Borings conducted in the general area have occasionally encountered relatively thick layers: of clay soils. below the upper sands. These clays generally have a stiff to hard consistency. - We would not expect bedrock to be encountered at t-he site. Area bedrock maps indicate that the bedrock surface is typically more than 100 feet below the existing surface in this area. Based on the available data., we would not anticipate that ground- water will be encountered during construction unless deep excava- tions are made. However, isolated perched water conditions may be found. These conditions would likely be caused by thin strata of relatively impermeable soils imbedded in 'the granular soil. • The U.S.G.S. maps of the surface features in this area indicate that' a low area currently exists northeast of the site.. We would not anticipate that this will affect the development unless the buildings. are Tocated near or in the low area. A copy of the U.S.G.S. map of this area is included with this concept analysis. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION ALTERNAT-IVES We have extrapolated the existing data in order to provide a ten- tative design scheme for this project. The information contained herein should therefore not be used for final design purposes. Soil borings must be conducted prior to the preparation of final foundation plans. These tentative design alternatives are being made without the benefit of site specific soils information. Depending on the magnitude of the column loads and the level of the lowest floor of the buildings, there are a number of alter- natives that cane be considered for foundation support. Our alternatives for foundations are: 1) Dependent till _he lower floor slab elevation and column loads, spread footings could be utilized on this site. Allowable bearing pressures for such footings could likely range up to 10 kips per square foot. This bearing pressure has been utilized on Y ~ ~rr a Korsunsky-Krank-Ericson Arch., Inc. -3- July 12, 1985 other structures recently built in the .general area on what we would .anticipate are similar soils, - ~ For this project, we would anticipate that the shorter towers and ramps could be supported on spread footings. For the. 25-story tower, the column loads may require another type of foundation _ support. To utilize the high bearing pressures at the site; additional testing beyond the standard penetration test borings would be required. The additional testing should include, but not be limited to, pressuremeter testing. Results of these tests will assist in providing the design consultant with the optimum bearing pressure 'and will also assist in refining estimated settlements. 2) If settlements are found to be excessive, it may be feasible to subcut the existing soils, stockpile them on site, and .then re-use them to refill the excavation.- As the excavation is refilled, the soils would ,be compacted to relatively high den- - sities. Utilizing this approach, settlements would not only be reduced, but a uniformly compacted surface for the foundations and floor slab will be provided. 3) Another possible alternative would be to utilize drilled caissons. Because bedrock is relatively deep, soil bearing caissons could be used. This type of foundation support has been utilized on several existing structures in the metropolitan area and has performed very well. To utilize this type of foundation, both end bearing and skin friction resistance are incorporated.. Projects on which these types of foundations have been utilized have had column loads. in the range of 15 kips to 3100 kips. Maximum tip stresses have ranged from 12 kips per square foot to 80 kips per square foot. The higher bearing capacities require -that dense to very dense sands exist below the caisson tips. 4) Some of the buildings on adjacent properties are supported on driven piling. Given the anticipated soil conditions of the. site, it is our opinion that driven pipe piles or monotubes would provide adequate support for the structure. Based on our experience with driven piling in this area, we would anticipate that pile capacities. in the range of l00 tons per pile could be obtained with lengths less than 100 feet. S UMMAR.Y Predominantly granular soils ar.e ant.}cipated in the proposed construction area. Limited amounts of fill may exist in areas of the site, particularly if old cisterns, septic tanks or other buried containment tanks were constructed and subsequently aban- _ rr wqun Korsunsky-Krank-Erickson Arch., Inc. -4- July 12, 1.985 ~U doped. Groundwater will likely not be encountered at this site unless deep excavations are proposed. The type of foundation support will be dependent on the column loads, settlement which can be tolerated, .depth of basements, and the desired bearing pressure. GENERAL It has been a pleasure to have been of service on the preliminary - phases of this project. If we can be of additional assistance in evaluating the information contained in this preliminary report or in conducting the necessary soil borings, analysis and recom- mendations for design purposes, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, BRAi)N ENGINEERING TESTING , INC. . Michael M. Heuer, P.E. Project E gin r C. G. Kruse, P.E. Vice President - Engineering iV9Y1H/CGK: gec f • Y The content of this report and supportmgdocument5 are for the excluswe use of the adtlressee.ln the absence of our nor wntten a royal ~ ~ P PP we make no representation and assume no responsibility to any other parties regarding such content.. ~ i A - EA-P' ~ ~ . v ~ ~'FRSTA TF O'~J~ OLlTH1 ;~76 M/NNEAApL,~'.(Chl.'~~8 M/.~ ~~'7~ -r't+a ~ x" ~.R:~ 1" ~ t L., ~a. i.,,,,,~~r +;'~;4: y 3'q ,t;+r'. ~9 1."]~•-. r t - ~~ty. L s ]/('EEL'' . r ~a . S I ~ ~~t. 1'•'~' y'`~ s! ~"~I tYa ~ y ~l~-.~~ ~,~r~ tir.. ~ F ~ 1'' ~ ~ ~~r' Ajg , ~ 3 P s ~ * Wx :a trc, ~t y x tt~" yti.. ~ ; t:~ . . ~ ark - . ' - ~ yep ~ - -.tv ~ C ~ ~ 854 1 ~ •j °pp~ enter ` ~ ~ ~ © ~ , . ~ i , ' ~ , i ~ it ,J . , • ~ ~ ~ ~ , _ ~ _ • ~-""1 " I. J . ~ ~ .1. ~ ~ Y • • -w kr ~ ~ • ~n = J - _ . ~ .111. ' ~ ~ ~ - $5-oi-oosy-a 1 _ ~ ~ GME CONSULTANTS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2083 East Center Circle / M~~neapot~s. MN 55441 / 612!559-1859 April 20, 1985 • Mr. Jerry Pelletier The .Pelletier Corporation • 4930 West 77th Street Edina, Minnesota 55435 GME Project No. 787 RE: Invoice for preliminary subsurface exploration for proposed office towers at I-494 and I-35W in Richfield, Minnesota ENGINEERING Services of Principal Engineer 4 hours @ $75..00/hour $ 300.00 Services of Soil Engineer - 4 hours @ $40.00/hour $ 160.00 Services of Secretary and Draftsman 4 hours @ $25.00/hour $ .100.00 SUBTOTAL $ 560.00 FIELD EXPLORATION Mobilization/demobilization of drill crew and equipment l hour @ $85.00/hour $ 85.00 Boring layout. and elevations 1 1/2 hours @ $80.00/hour $ 120.00 Drilling and sampling operations 7•hours @ $95.00/hour $ 635..00 SUBTOTAL $ 840.00 TOTAL $1,400.00 NOTES: Net due upon receipt. Accounts over 30 days are subject to a finance charge of.l 1/2$ per month. Please indicate GME Project Number and date of invoice on your remittance. Thank you! • GEOTECHNiCAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P. VENEMA. P.E.. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENOAL. E.I.T. • . l~ ~ TION CE EXpLO~ ' Y gUBSURFA ITY ~pOg,T pRE,LIMINAR F'EA$IBIL QW,EgS _ DATION pFFZCE T FAUN MiNNESpTA - pROP~ 49 4 AND D ~ CO ~ O $~ZpN RYCKF Z~ TKR PEI' pgpJE T N - CME i i - - . t . ~ 1G-y3 GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Aril 20, 1985 CONSULTING ENGINEERS p 2083 East Center Circle /Minneapolis. MN 55441 J 612/559-1859 The Pelletier Corporation. 4930. West 77th .Street, Suite 180 . Edina, .Minnesota 55435 Attention: Mr. Jerry Pelletier GME Project•No. 787 RE: Preliminary subsurface exploration for proposed office towers at I-494 and I-3SW in Richfield, Minnesota Gentlemen: ~T." In accordance with your acceptance of our proposal of April 12, f 1985, we have completed this preliminary subsurface exploration. Enclosed please find the report which we have prepared. Three copies of this report have been sent. to, the above address. The soil conditions in the north and south portions of the site where the proposed office towers are to be located,. consisted of loose non-organic sand. These conditions will require special correction, by a technique such as deep densification, or the use j of driven piles in order to~support the proposed structure.- ~.In the west. central portion of the site, compressible organic peat was found to a depth of about 14 feet;• underlain by loose non- organic granular: soils. In the eastern part of the low area, • loose granular soils were encountered without the presence of the peat. Soil correction would be needed for construction of a proposed multi-story parking ramp in this area. .Details on these recommendations are given'in the text of this report. If you have any questions regarding this report, please.-contact .us. Sincerely, GME ONSULTANTS,' INC. Wi 11 i am ~ C Rw ny , P . E . ~ I hszsb>t certii~~.that phis plaa~ ap~ollioe~s. Pr' ipal Engineer or zepozt was pzipazed b~ m~ os unda; astt direct, supervisi a end that 1 am ~ ~iuh ryj.~ ~~~y,~ Regis zo ~sioaal EaginNZ t~Adt~ ~ la ats o Mfa~eij~ta: Thomas Paul Venema, P.E. 4~ a:. l Senior Project Engineer 11-23~ ~r , No. /lyZ) ~ 1 ~ _ WCK:TPV:kdk ~ . GEOTECHNiCAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS ` WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P. VENEMA. P.E. WILLIAM E.'BLOEMENDAL, E.l.T. i ~I . - _ INTRODUCTION The ro osed ro'ect would consist of two office towers P P P 7 approximately 15 stories high, with a multi-story Barking ramp. F, t anal. design specifications, including building..locations, are no yet available as of the date of `.this report..: However, we understand. that the buildings are to be located on ..the: higher elevations. to the north and south sides of the site. The parking _ -ramp would probably be built in the central portion_of .the site at the-lower elevations. The area which is resentl poorly drained P Y and. covered with swamp grass in the west central portion of the. situ may be .excavated to form an open pond as- part of the landscaping. , The purpose of this report is to describe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in our borings; to review .and evaluate ~ these conditions with•respect to the proposed project; and to present. recommendations for feasible methods of~foundation design ~ which can be considered for the ro'ect. P 7 FIELD EXPLORATIONJLABORATORY.TESTING Four ..borings were drilled for this project as shown on the enclosed Soil Boring Location Diagram. ~ The number of borings was determined by Mr. Jerry Pelletier and Mr. William C'. Kwasny, P.E. of GME Consultants, Ina. The boring locations were chosen by GME Consultants. These locations are shown on the enclosed Soil j Boring Location Diagram. Ground surface .elevations were I ~ ~i _ . _ ~ i GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ I - f ~ - Mr. Jerry Pelletier 2 April 20, 1985 determined at each borinlocation referenced to USGS datum. The g benchmark for this was the southeast .flange bolt on a fire hydrant. on 77th Street West and Emerson Avenue. Accorinq to. the City of Richfield, this benchmark is at elevation 836.36 USGS. The borings were drilled with a truck mounted Mobile B-24 rig. Hollow stem au ers were used to advance all. of the borings to full g depth; casing and wash water were not used in the drilling operations. Soil. samples were obtained by the split barrel method in accordance with ASTM: D 1586-67. During the sampling procedures, the Standard Pentration Values (N-values, blows per foot) were recorded. These values are shown on the respective boring logs. The soil samples were preliminarily classified in the field,. sealed in glass tars to prevent moisture loss, and returned ta,our laboratory for examination and classification by a soil engineer. Groundwater .levels were noted during and after completion of the drilling operations. These water levels are shown in .the lower left. corner of the respective logs. A discussion, of the groundwater conditions in the borings is presented under the Site Conditions Section of this report. ~ Because of the preliminary .nature of thris exploration, and the fact that granular soils were encountered, the testing program consisted of a soil. engineer .examining each sample to determine ~ ~ . GME CON8t7LTANT8, iNC. ~ _ Mr. Jerr Pelletier 3 April 20, 1985 Y the mayor and minor soil components, while-also noting the color, degree of saturation, and any lenses or seams found in the samples. The soils were then visually/manually classified on the .basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classif ication System. The. capitalized symbol in parentheses following the- written description on the boring logs is the ' .estimated group symbol based, on this system. A chart describing the properties under. this system is included in Appendix of this report. The soils were grouped by type into the strata shown. on the. boring . logs. The stratification lines shown .are approximate; insitu, the transition between soil types may be gradual or abrupt in both the horizontal and vertical directions. We will retain the soil samples from this program.. for 30 days after 'the date of this report. If you wish. to have the samples retained beyond this time, we ask that you please advise us; otherwise, the samples will be discarded. SITE CONDITIONS Topography/Surface Features - . The topography of the site at the time of"drilling descended from - north, east, and south, into a depression in the center of the site.: The-change in elevation from the highest elevation to the - , 6ME CONSUI?ANTS, INC. I' - _ y~ Mr. Jerry Pelletier 4 April 20,.1985 -I_~ lowest part of the site in the depression was approximately 25 I feet, It is-our estimate that the semi-circular depression extended approximately 250. feet. from the frontage road on the ..west, to the point where the surface rose on the east.sde. ! The surface vegetation at the site had distinct demarcation. Mature oak trees were found at all points on the higher elevations. Where the site .began to descend-into the depression, i the surface was covered with grass with only a few popple,trees. j •In~the west central portion of the site, an area of apparent poor it drainage was found. We learned from the owner of the existing 4' • j house at the north side of the site, that a lake formly existed in I ~ ~ • this .area prior to the construction of I-35W. There was no information as to the depth or width of this lake. The area was ~ covered with typical wetland growth at the time of oui•drilling. It was apparent that several feet of fill had been placed on the south side of the side around the motel. Protection had -been provided around the bases of the mature trees. i Soil Conditions _ ~ The soil conditions .found in the borings are shown on the ICI respective logs. ~ In boring 1, drilled in the middle of the wetland area, we ,.•3 1 encountered loose compressible organic soils interbedded with . ! OM[ CONStlIT~NTf, iNQ _ _ - /6'18 - Mr. Jerry Pelletier 5 April 20, 1985 looser sand and silt to a depth of .about 19 feet. This was .underlain by loose fine. sand to the termination of. the boring at 20 feet. -The. relative density of the soil, based. on the• N-values, _I_ was found to increase at the end of the boring. Ln boring. 2, I medium dense silty sand and. sandy silt was found to 9.5 feet overlying gray fine sand to the end of the boring at 20 feet. We - L did not encountered any organic soil in this boring.- - . ' In borings 3 and 4, about 1.8 feet of surficial dark brown silty j • - sand topsoil was encountered, overlying"loose brown and gray fine. • sand to the termination depth of both borings at 30 feet.• In _ boring 4, the-relative density of this soil was somewhat higher l .with the N-values ranging from 9 to 21. i~ . Groundwater Conditions j In borings 1 and 2, groundwater was encountered at depths of 4.5 to 6 feet. In the two borings drilled at the higher elevations i groundwater was encountered at~depths of 29.5 and 25 feet. The j groundwater table corresponded to approximately elevation 800 to • ii 802~on the date of drilling. • The. groundwater table will vary seasonally and annually.' depending on local amounts of precipitation, evapor- ' - , surface runoff, f and infiltration.. At the lower elevation, the groundwater table may rise to a level very closethe ground surface depending on runoff and drainage patterns in the .area. ~ !i • 6ME CONSUtTAHTS,7NQ ~i t _ • /6-~f 9 A ril 20 1985 Mr. Jerry Pelletier 6 p REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion At the. proposed. office building location on the higher ground, the soils were.. granular and non-organic. However, the loose conditions of these soils would preclude the use of normal spread footings. for structures on. the order of 10 to -15 -stories in _ height. Further, routine compaction methods such as subcutting and densification with vibratory rollers would •not sufficiently densify the. soil to .support the magnitude of structural load's anticipated. Rather., it is our opinion that the feasible methods of foundation design would include deep densification by vibraflotation, or the use of driven piles, either concrete filled steel pipe piles o= steel H piles. It would also be possible to consider the use of a rigid mat foundation or a post-tensioned mat foundation. Drilled .piers (caissons) do not appear to be a ' feasible alternative for the soil conditions found in the borings • at this site. If a structure was to be planned in the low wet area in the west central part of the•site, driven piles would be the most feasible foundation type. Excavation/replacement to a depth of about. 20 .feet is normally not economical.. A structural slab and underslab gas venting 'system would be required in this area. If possible, ' the buildings should be located in areas with more favorable soil GINE CONSULTANTS. INQ _ i l6.-~a Mt7. Jerry Pelletier 7 April 20, 1985 T~ conditions to reduce foundation construction costs. --I If the multi-sto parking structure is to be: built in the rY easterly. part of the lower elevation, the. non-organic soils would be too loose to support the. anticipated .structural loads with ; normal spread footings. For this structure, the alternatives tt recommended above, deep densif ication_or driven piles,. would also I. be rec~.,~..ended. A mat foundation would not normally be feasible , tt for a parking structure due to the large area. of the building _I ' footprint. h foundation alternatives which are feasible for this . For any oft e site, additional borings extending to depths on the order of 90 to 100 .feet, as well as insitu testing by the pressuremeter, would be required. Deep Densification (Vibroflotation) For this technique, granular soils are densified in-place by . inserting a large vibratory probe. The soils can be compacted to . depths of 50 feet or greater by this method. ,The granular soils. that we found on the site would be suitable fore the use of vibroflotation. i "After the soils are properly compacted by this method,. normal spread footings can be used with design bearing pressures on the I. order of 8,000 to 10,000~pounds per square foot. If this GME CDNSU~tANt$. INC.. • i - . • ~6 ~5/ Mr. Jerry Pelletier 8 April 20, 1985 ~ _ alternative is chosen, we recommend that the architect and structural engineer contact the firms that provide this type of .service to obtain estimates for the work. There are, no firms • located directly in Minneapolis which provide deep dens~ification. Among the f isms~who provide this type of work in the Upper Midwest, are Vibroflotation Foundation, :Company, Cementation • LTD, and GKN Hayward Baker. _ _ When vibroflotation is used, •a follow-up exploration program is typically employed using additional-borings. and pressuremeter: testing to determine that the specified degree of compaction. has been properly achieved..: • , ~ Pile Foundations • Due to the magnitude of the structural loads anticipated and the. soil conditions encountered, driven piles would be a feasible. • foundation alternative far the proposed project. The piles which would be feasible for use ,on this site would include concrete filled steel pipe piles, steel H piles, or a_ composite pile • consisting of a Monotube tapered fluted tip with a steel pipe riser. The exact depth to which the piles would have to be driven _ cannot be determined at this point since significantly deeper = borings would be needed. Depending on the location and nature of the bearing stratum for the piles., design pile capacities on the order of: 50 to 200 tons would be feasible. ~ • GME CONSULTANTS, 1NC. I' Mr. Jerry Pelletier 9 April 20, 1.985 i _ ~ f Lf pile. foundations are to be driven in areas where loose sands- - were found and no organic .soil s. were encountered, the floor slabs. could be cast on grade. If piles are driven through compressible organic soils, a structural floor slab should be used.Further, there would not be any significant downdrag on the piles due to the absence. of a c...r.rressible stratum. Mat Foundation { A mat foundation. could be•considered for. the office towers, `depending on the finished floor elevations of the' basements, and the structural loads. A post-tensioned mat could also be considered. Typically, a mat foundation for a 10 to 15 story • structure would exert 1,000 to 2,000 psf net contact pressure at I the base. Additional. borings and testing would be needed to ~ I define the soil parameters for a mat foundation. Basement Design If the office towers are to have basements we recommend that a perimeter and underdrain system be considered, along with proper dampproofing of the exterior walls. As a general recommendation, I the structural design of the walls should be based on an ` equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot for. lateral stresses against the walls. • • The lowest level of the parking structure would be open to ambient GME CONSULTANTS. INC. _ ~j. ~ ~ ~ w # _ • Mr. Jerzy Pelletier ~ 10 April 20, 1985. r. + ~ r air temperatures and would also be constructedrelatively close to the groundwater table at the lowest elevation on the site Consideration should be given. to the need•,for insulating - foundations in this structure to provide. protection from frost. penetration. In open areas free. of snow,' frost can often penetrate significantly deeper than 4 feet. ~ - I _ CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Because. of the reliminar nature:-of this re ort onl ' P Y P Y generalizations can be. made regarding earthwork construction considerations on the- site. Depending on final grade for a parking structure in the low areas of the site~,~ the groundwatez • table .may be encountered during foundation construction. Alternatively, the grades .could be planned so as to avoid I construction below the groundwater table. The contractor for this project should develop a comprehensive erosion protection plan, to avoid excessive erosion on the side . slopes into the depressed area. 1 The sidewalis of all excavations for this project; as well as any utility trenches, must be adequately sloped, or shee}ed, and ' braced in accordance with pertinent OSHA regulations, in order to provide ..adequate protection to personnel working on the: project. • The granular soils encountered on this site may.~appear. to be . GME CONSUl7ANT3. INC. _ ` ( ~ Mr. Jerry Pelletier 11 April 20 ,1985 stable at vertical. or near vertical slopes upon first being excavated. However, this stability can suddenly fail due to such reasons as •dryinq or saturation. of the~side s.~opes. .This can cause dangerous conditions •for personnel working in :the I excavations.. The responsibility. to provide .safe working conditions on this site is solely that of the contractor. This _ responsibility is not borne in any manner by GME Consultants. Inc.. . • GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS • •This is a preliminary soil report prepared to evaluate the feasibility of different types of foundations for the proposed project. We have reviewed the concept of spread footings with . special deep densification, driven piles, and a mat. foundation. When planning for the project has developed definitive building grades and loads, we recommend that we be contacted to plan for .additional borings and field and laboratory testing. ' The soil conditions on this site. varied, depending on location at higher or lower elevations, and also in the relative density of the granular soil. Additional variations should be anticipated• across the site. It is for this reason that we recommend that . additional borings. be drilled at the specif is building locations. • The soil and groundwater conditions for this. preliminary . I subsurface exploration were determined at four locations.. These conditions are pertinent only at the boring locations and ,under ' _ I 8ME EANSUtTANTS, INQ 1.-- ~ _ Mr. Jerry Pelletier 12 .April 20, 1985 the environment existin at the time of our subsurface 9 exploration. Additional variations should. be anticipated across the site. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is presented in this.. report with respect to .the soil and. groundwater . conditions. - APPENDIX. Soil. Boring Location Diagram General Notes Soil Boring Logs .Unified Soi1.Classification Chart ` ~ I ~ f I f i I i Y ~ i ~l '~I ~ ~ ~ GME CONStl~TANTB, INC. ' i _ - i _ ~i - 1 e i ~ ~ ;:West 76th Street I _ _ Exi sti ng ~ r - - 8_3~ house . , ~ {828.6) z....- Emerson . ;Wetlands / ~ ~ ` Avenue ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ _ sour„. ~ ~ ~i,~ ~ ~ I - - ` B-1 _ ~ 6-2 ~ ~ 1 {806.0) (810.9) : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ West. 77th Street ~ {824.7) + - i Existing ~ motel ,Frontage - i Road I-494 R.O.W. ,i ~ ~ ` I. a Scare 0 100 200 Soil. Boring tocati on Diagram GME GONSUtTANTS, _iNC. ~ ; ~Aroposed Office Togs I-494 and I-35W toes East ceNTEa clRCS.E R1Chfieid, MinneSOta NIINNEAPOIiS,MINNESOTA531~1 WCK ~ TPY ~4-24-85 ~ 787- . /6~j _ ~ GENEAAI NQTES ORtLUNGB SAMPLING SYM80LS1 SS Split Spoon - 13/8" 1.0.. 2" O.O.. unles OS Ost . ~ Sampler - 3"Shelby Tube otherwise noted HS Hollow Stem Auger ST ; ShMby TuM - 2" OA„unless otherwia noted WS Wash Sample. PA Power Auger FT ; Fish Trail OB t Diamond Bit - NX: BX: AX AB Rock Bit AS Auger Sampb 8S Bulk Sample J5 Ja Sample ~ PM Prasuremem tat - in situ VS Vane.Sheer Standard "N" Penetration:. Blows per foot of a t40 pound hamem~r falling 30 i . on a ?inch OD split spoon,;except .1. WATER IEVEt.MEASUREMENTSYM80LSi WL Water Level WC! : Wet Caw in DCt ; Dry Caw in - W5 White Sampling " • WO While Grilling BCR : 8efon Casing Removal _ _ ACR: AtterCasingRemoval _ A8 After Boring . _ , Water tewls indicated on the boring logs m the tewls measured in the boring at the lima indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. to i pious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevation is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevation roust be sought. GRADATION DESCRIPTION arTEAM1NALOGYe Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 5096 of their dry weight retained on • #200 sieve; they are described a: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 5096 of their dry weight retained on s #200 sieve; they are described a: days or clayey silts if they. are cohesive, and silts if they are noncol+aiw. In addition to gradation, granular eafNs are defined on the basis of their relative in~place density end fine grained soils on the basis of their strnrtgth or . consistency, and their Plasticity. Cotntpj Knt Descriptive Termis) • {Ot Components Also F . _ t of _ ~ Of Sampk Size Range Present in Sample) Dry Weight ~ ~ Boulders Over 8 in. (200mm) Trace ~ - 9 ~ Cobbles 8 in, to 3 in. Little 10 - 19 (200mm to 75mm1 - Gravel 3 in, to #4 sieve Some ~ _ ~ , {75mm to 2mm) Sand #4 to #200 slew And 35 - 50 (2mm to .074mm) Silt ~ Passing #200 sieve. 10.074mm to 0.005mm) Clay Smaller that 0.005mm CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILSti RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SQIIS: Uneonfinad~Comp. Strenoth. Qu. tsf Consistency N - 8lovrs/ft.: ? Relative Density < 0.25 ~ Very Sott 0 - 3 Very Loose _ 0.25 - 0.,9 Soft 4 - 9 loose 0.50 - 099 Medium {Firm) 10 - 29 Medium Dense 1.00 - 1.99 Stiff 30 - dP Oettse 2.00 - 3.99 Very Stiff 50 - 80 Very Dense 4.00 - 8AD Hsrd 80+ Extremely Dense _ >8.00 Very Hard GME CONStfb~~iA1TS . ` ZNG fr: _ ~ I _ f .LOG OF BORING NO. t PRQIECT SIiE 1-494 and i-35ti _ Proposed Office ToMers _ Richfield, Minnesota OMNER ~ _ 'ARCHiTECTrENfINEER ~ - - . The Pelletier Corporation ' IINI:DNrINFDCI1MPRfS51Vt SIRE Nf+1N lpNSiN W ~ C W ~ 1 2 4 S Q ~ ~ W ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL , w cV ~ WA~ER i =t 2 ~ u~i u ~v~ W CONtENt ~ W tf/ pC yd _ O W ~ W r C. W N ~ STANDARD N" PENE~- MigN 1lLOWS/FT 1 y ~ s v~i SURFACEEIEYATtON'~ 8~,0 H¢ z 1'~ 2t) ~l Dark brown to black slightly organic silty fine 2 1 SS 1.3'. sand, with roots -every loose -net - (OL-SM) r { Dark gray to black fine sand. trace silt -very 3 Z SS 3.5' loose -moist • (SP-tM1 ' SUek slightly organic floe sandy silt. with roots - i ' 3 SS's 5; verr~y. looser Resist - fOll 4 ,n 6• nark gray tine sand and slightly organic sandy silt, trace roots -very loose -moist - (SP-OL) , _ 4 SS - owclc organic rune savoy sift, trace roots, strong ~ or~anit odor -very loose -net (OH) ~ 5 uartt gray t0 black tine sand aEW slightly organic J ~ sandy silt-very 1nQ,hr -wet - tSp-fN 1 ~U " 5 SS 4 ® _ Gray fine sand and fine sandy silt -very loose - _ wet - (SP-h0.) ~ 3 w 6 55 ` 16' 6rsy and black organic silt. trace well decomposed organics and wood chips -very soft -wet - (OL) i~' c~ 7 SS bray fine-sand, trace silt -medium Aense nef - lSPI 14~ _ _ 1 End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth. Borehole backfilled with cuttings i t . - I i ' ~ ~ I YYATER LEVEL OBSERVATION5 BORING STARTED 4-17-85 ' w:~- Sl~E f~~ w(i~,dr111fng-~-- GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMRIETEff ~ 4=1i-85 _ . w.l. = 4.5 feet after `boring RIG B-24 FOREMAN ROK - W ` t0ai EAft CENTEII t:111C1[ - rawNEAra.a.r , AYSMf DRAWN' HDP APVROVED MCK j JOB • 787 SHEET 1 of 4 _ _ - The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaNes _ _ _ _ _ tfelween soil ypes: insitu the transition may tfe gradual i . - - ~ - i .r:rour ~xm _ r LOL3 OF 80RING 2 PRO.,ECT sITE I-494 and I-35: - Proposed Office Towers Richfield, Mfinnesota QWNER ARCHITECT-ENGINEER The Pelletier Corporation ' uNCONfiNEO coMVatssrvE srn~voTa ToNS~FT' ~ i w ~ ~ 2 3 a S m ~ Z OESCRtPTION OF MATERIAL WATER h ` ti j ~ _ W m CONTENT Y. ~ 2 1L1 J U h- N ii ~ ~ G ~ < W ~ ~ STANOAgO PENETRAYION (f3lOW3/FOOT) ~ C ~ ~ 3 y SURFACE ELEVATION 810.9 N ¢ ~ tc ~ 10 20 30: ~0 SO 1SS 3 w 2S5 Light gray to lfight grayish brown 2G % fine sand -loose to 2', medium - 3S5 dense below 2' -moist - (SP) lg ~ / - ASS g~ ~ is F 8.5 Gray silty fine sand and fine sandy silt - methum dense -wet - (SM-ML) 9 ~ 6SS Gray fine sand, trace silt -few 9 ~ ~ seams of silty fine sand -loose to medium .dense -wet - (SP-SM) 7SS , ~ ~ 18 End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger. used full depth .Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 130RING STARTED 4-1 / -~S5 Z 6 feet whi 1 e,,_drj,11 i na GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLe ~ e~ 4-17-85 = 6 feet after boring 2oe3 EAST cENTtiR CIRCLE RIG 8-24 DRILLER RDK MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 ' . + DRAWN WDP APPROVEfl WCK, .lnBft 757. SHEET 2 of 4 - The strat~catioa lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; insito the transition may be gradual. 3ME/IPC-t/84 ~ t i~ l 1 1 LOG OF 80RING 3 / ~ ~ ~ ; ROJECT SITE I-494 and I-35W ' Proposed Office Towers Richfield, Minnesota WNER ARCHITECT-ENGINEER The Pelletier Corporation • _ i L.~.,,,.::.,~EOCOMPRESSIVEHTlIEN3TN~ONS~FT: • ~ _O_ 1 2 3 4 S m ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL. WATER W ~ ~ CONTENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M to h U ~ ~ STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOTi < _ Q N ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION 82$ • ( ¢ ~ 1SS ~ Dark gray slightly organic silty 5 1•$ fine sand, trace roots dloose - 5 2SS + moist - (SM-OL) (topsoil) Yellowish brown fine sand, trace . 3SS silt -loose -moist - ASP) 5 ® i 6.0 ' 4SS ' 4 { 5SS 5 Light brown to light gray fine sand, trace silt -loose to medium :S dense -moist to damp - (SP-SM) 7 _.i._. 7SS g 22' , 8SS 12 Light grayish brown fine to medium sand, trace gravel and silt - medium dense -moist to wet - (SP) 9SS = 14 End of boring at 30' • Hollow stem auger used full depth _ Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STAn ~ 4-1 /-t35 w.1:1~1,9._5 fpg~wh;lP drillinc GMECONSULTANTS,INC. BORINGCOMPI.~~ev 4-~7-$5 29.5 feet after bOri no 20e3 EAST CENTER CIRCLE RIG ~4 DRILLER ~pJ~ MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 ~P APPROVED WCK ' .Ingr? 787 SHEET 3 of 4 • The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. , ru~cnor ~iaa " i~~ i LOG OF BORING 4 1 { ~RO~ECt sITE I -494 and I -35W /d ~p` Proposed Office Towers Richfi'ld Minnes / i e ota )WNER ARCHITECT-ENC3INEER The Pelletier Corporation UNCONFlNED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT = j 1 ~ - O _ uJ t ? 3 ~ 5 ` W O DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL I WATER W y ~ ~ ~ ~ m CONTENT % t f- < < ~ ~ ¢ < U j < 3TANDARO, PENETRATION (BIOWS/FOOT~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION 824. ~ a W ~ ~ { O ai < 3 y ""i rn ac f 10 20 30 40 SO i 1SS 1.~~ Dark brown to gray slightly organic 5 ~ ® - ~ ' silty fine sand, trace roots 2SS 3.5~~ loose - miost - (SM-OL) (topsoil) ~ ~ I- ~ ~ Yellowish brown fine sand, trace 3SS silt -loose -moist - (SPj 9 ~ 1 4SS 9 . ~ 5SS 9 ~ M - ~ i Z ~~`i 6SS 16 Light gray and light brown fine sand, trace silt -loose to medium . dense -damp to wet - (SP) 0~,?~ 19 - 8SS = 13 - !Yellowish brown to gray fine to - medium sand, trace gravel -medium 4 2g~ dense -wet - (SP)~ 9SS ~ 24 ~ ~ End of boring at 30 feet H ollow stem auger used full depth _ _ _ Borelal a backfi 11 ed with cuttings , WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4-1 / -tS5 ~ ~ ~ ~i Z 25 feet while dri l l Ina GME CONSULTANTS, INC. aoRtNO coM~EtEa 4-17-$5 L. Z ~~Pe# after hnri n~ 2oe3 EAST CENTER CIRCLE RIG 8-24 DRIVER ROK ~ ~ I ~ MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55411 DRAWN WUP APPROVED WCK ,?~Rk 781 ~sHEET 4 of 4 The stratification lines fepreserrt approximate boundaries between soli types: insitu the transition may be gradual. r.*~cnar ~ro~ l•- UNIlrIl~D aOtt~. Ct.AaaIFiCATION aYaTEM .ate. I~?,iar L.boraeri? afawilfeetNw arhwf. • I _ wwws~.ew«.M.R.»L~r. ' G1M nixtuns, NteN or tw floss ~ Ot a pwta then 1; Ce'O~ ease /and 3 ~ ~ ~ a ~ GP ss~ mi ~ NttR~~ A ~ Not ~+netino el! Orsdetion rpuNw+~+ts fer G1A1 _ ~ ~ ~ d ~x SNty ?rsvele, Rawl~enddk ~ A ItmltsbNow"A" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u mtxtmes ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = IMa a PJ. Net than 1 Above " A" Ntte w1M ?d. i o - ~ bstwsan 4 and 7 era ba? _ x = 3~ ~ GC Qewv ~ ~I+~d~day ~ ~ ~ q = Attarbe~ Nntip aboMa "A"dual symbols ~+0 uss i r ~ t7 xtuns Nns with ?.l. Orastsr tMn 7 i _ ~ Mltif~reded wedsL pweNy ~ : D~ ~D~el • ~ srde. IkeN ar no fine ~ ~ pie t?«~a? 0. ~ ote~io 1 end 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Peorfy ~ fresh ~ . ~ aende, little a to 8nee ~ ~ Na maattn~ sn Radreion nquinmMnr: lo. SYV ~~~g ~ d ~ ? ~ ~ ~ - sky mixtunx ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ Atte~berb limits below "A" ~ c t 3 ~ iMe or P.i. Ns tl+en 4 ~(tnits plettirq in heteMd A • ~ ~ = e M nquidno Yst of dwl sync . ~ CNyM tss+d~day mix- ~ ~ ~ « Attaibsrb Nmits above " 11 beN, SC ~ 1O NM with P.l. gnetir than 7 inorpnie slits and vary floe sends. ra# flour. silty or dey ML ey floe sands or dayey silts ~ . ~ with sl(ght Aleetfdq? ( ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ r _ ~ -For deatifkstion of fitr~ned ~ l ~ ~ du«in~pl~ tidd of low Mme- _ so1N and tine faetbn of aonse~ • ~ i ~ ~ ~ sandy days. silty~sye, lan ~ oraMed sdb. 1 ~ i t Atterbaro Litnlts plottin4 in.- + ~ days - hsRd»d aree an boMsrik+a dasst- - -_ficatiom nquirin~ use of dual ~ OL O'a^k slits end o?gsnk silty x ~ Equstion of Adnei 1 day: of few pla.eidty PI-0a3 (LL -201 ~ . s ~ i a inorpsnk sibs. m".. .nor ~ 1 + ~ ~ ~ ! e ~ N1H diatomseseus fine Bendy a _ « silty soib. alastie sibs d ~ 7 OH s~i fr1M1 M i' 1 / 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Inorgenk days of Nflh P~ ~ _CL ; + ~ ~ i i ~ ~ « CH lidty, fat days 10 t~ ~ i ~ ~ _ ~ ~ OH Orpenk days o1 medium to 4~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! h1D1i pisstkity, or9ank siks 0 ! 0 10 20 30 d0 60 80 70 80 80 100 • Liquid Urnit ~ ~ ~ and other highly ar9enk MssNeky Chart to i I i UNIFIED SQIL CL.AlsSIFICATiDN SYRTEM . Mtt,~ Tr?plaal namaa t,abaafery da.lAsatlett.tka~l. _ ~ f GIN. mid Uetl~k• ~I~sN+d ~_p10 a,Ntw than d; Ct pt e~ao between i Mtd 3 ~ ~ ~ GP sand etixturaa Ntt~N oar eo fi~iwsM ~ Na m~eNtp ap grad~tbn NquNwn~ntf tdr GMII ~a~ ~ d GM 81ity graaaN. grawl+w~d~ik ~ ~ ~ AttabMq Nmitsblew"A" ~ tnixtutsa Ilea or PJ. Mss than 4 { ~ ~ u ~ ni ~ ~ Abas " A" Ntts wkh P.i. _ ; ~ - ~ between 4 u+d 7 an aer? drnlina otsat rsquhinq uaa ~ ~ • ~ GC daYa1? Off. may ' ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ Attatbsr0 Nmitf above " A" of dual ayetbob c v = tttittturaa ~ Ilea wflh ?.i. grf.cfr thMt 7 - r _ ` ~ ' ~y MlNlgradsd ssndf. pavslly ~ ~ pro fp~l ~ ~ ~ g ~ b.ew..n 1 and 3 ~ t+ndf. IittN ar ne lima ~ Cw ~fe graatw than Q: Cs ato~ao ~ ~,t ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~Y grsdad asndit, gravelly ~ ~ ~ Not 111aadeq sR getdrtbn raquiraenant•. for SW i ~ ~ ~ ~ sands. Itttla er eo fines ~ ~ . ' Y ~ ~ ~ ~ SM - 8tlty s«da. tand+Ht mixtures , ~ ~ ~ Attarbarq limier below "A" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qna or P.I. Ias than ~ Lln+itf pkminq to hstdtad _ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ g ~ e ~ ~ zone with P.1. bsewaan 4I ~ and 7 an t , Tnt eases ~ ' S ~ tsquirinq ttfs of dual fym• t ~ l ~ Clayey fr+df. aand•dslr e?la• ~ ~ a AtfatMrq 8mhf sbova'.A" boys tuna Nna with 1.1. gtsstar than 7 ~ e tnorgank silts and wry !iM ~ sands, rock Hour. filly or day- i ML with slight plaedehy ~ > > ~ ~ ~ • ~1 teorgank days of low to ma- - F« dasMaftion of tinayraead ~ l ! ~ ! .folk and flea irsetion d ooarfs• r i ~ ~ ~ dlum plaecidty. grswlty days. ~ _ ptiinad fdb. r _ ~ ~ ~Y daya, - Attarbarq Llmitf plotting Mt ~ ' - ~ = dNf - hatd+ad area era bordwlina dastl• - e ~ 9 ~tiatipm rapuhin0 uaf of dual ~ _ = j ~ ~ Otgank silts and organk fiky x ~ -E4t+at~ of Aditta: days of low plastidity ~ PI¦OJ3 (LL •201 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . Q ~ _ ~ ~ ~ J ' + Inorgank fiNs. tnicaoaotta err ~~,~L~ ' ,t MH diatomreaous flea Tandy er ~ ''^'"GH ~ filly soib, alaetk sips d P.~ ~ ~ ~ +L.1~ 1 1 ~ ~ tno?gfnk days of hlph plat: ~ ~y.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ttdty, tat d.yf r ~ i i` i i 1 ~ ~ ~ E t0 ; ~ .r~ CN Oegank days of madlum to , + . 1 L a OL. ~ ~ ; i Y ~ i , i . hph pleftioity, organic elks O 10 20 30 10 50 80 70 SO 90 100 i Liquid Umk ~ ~ ~ and other highly orgntk Martleky Chaet = 5 foih - i i i UNIFIED SOIL. CLASBlF1CAT10N aYOTEM orwp elvisfews M~ typtal nanw I Laeaslsry da.1lkatlen wleeri. - I Aso fc,oJ' . ~ ntt~ no fi~~ Cy Of a peeew tl»n 4; C!•Ot ewes between 1 veld ~ - ~ ~ g ~ ~a Pearly 9rae.d pan.ls...~.1- ~ . . ~ GP ~ Noe n,erehq all ~.d.eion raoukMrrnts fdr Gw +M+d mtaturss, NttN ar ne Anw a d ~ GIN nix nrsevelt. ~rsvd~+doik ~ ~ v~ ~ Ata+bre nn+ta MIoM? "A" ~ ~ ~ ~ Y g ~ ~ Ilse or P.1. Ms thr+ 4 AboMS •A" ~ with Pd. ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 3 ~ ~ between 4 and 7 are Oo~ - 3 ` etr~Itn. ersrt ~.oYirtep use ~ ~ ~ - GC deyeN t?~+N. 9r.wi~n+d~dey ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ AtterberE nmita atone "A" _ d dwt eyn+hola ~ ~ It11xeYHe ~ ~ IIM with P.1. pMter tIN117 . . ~ IMNiynded settdsV pweily ~ $ ~ / ~ ~ ~ s.ndr. netle a no knee ~ Cto 9~aw? then 0. ce Cte~b between end 3 ~ ~ 8 _ : ' ~ ri ~ ~ Pe+orly ¢aded aende. areneliX ~ ~ Not meeti~q all psdaion nquiremst+t~ IorSw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ands. IhNe or no floss ~ ~ ~ . ~~s~ ~ d ~ . y ~ ~ ~ ~ s>w - s»ty .ends. sand+Rc e+txtYne ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N . o"~r P°.'i« wth«~i ~A~ urt~ pbteAw in A.edMd ~ ~ " Y ~ o ~ a ~ tOM with P.I. between 4 ~ ~ $ ands ndx• ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ „ „ ~ ~n4 u ~ of d a s~yrt~r - fxayey sand~dey ~ ~ Attaeber9 nmia above A ~ tine ~ a Noe with P.1. graeter than 7 , S tnorgenie sNts and very fine ML rodt flour. silty or day- ~ with plaeNdty ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' i 1 k d d low to ~ For daatitteation d tineyremsd ~ j naPn M _ tgib and tine frsction d ooetsr + ~ ~ ~ dhxn plastidty. f>s'~h dM. 50 _ Yrainad sdis. ~ i ~ s aMwly dM• ~n - Atterber4 Lfentts plotttn4 Mr- ~ ~ dm Irtcfied ane sn borderline dead ~ i7i ~ "tkatio~ requiritq ur d dual _i_Lt~ ~ ~ O` ~k silts sod orpenk silty x ~ ~ Eeluation d A~NeM: ~ days d low plastiNty ~ Pt~0.7,3 tLL - 20) JI ~ y a_ ~ _ Ino.gank silts, micaaoua or _ _ ~ ~ ~ MH duKOn+eceou: tine sandy or ~ •j~~_ _ ~ nifty soils. Nastk sites ai „ rr/- .OH ar~f IiAlf_, f • ~ ~ tt I a ~ " ~ Inorgenk days d high plaa• ~ _CI ~ , i ~ tid:y, to d.ra , , ~L-IiA ~ i t i is OL. ~ Oman°~: days d n+ediunt to ~ , ~ ~ ~ i ~ f ~ off h~, pleatlCity, organ+~ slits o to 20 30 ,0 5o d0 70 so 9o too 4 LbYw utnlc ~ Pt ~ and other hf~hly oryenk Mpeisity Chart =o~ . i - /U _ - ~ STRGA~,-ROSCOE-~'AUSCH, INC. - CONSULTING ENGiNEEI~S TRANSPORTATION ¦ CIVIL a STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS File No. 085063.3 MEMORANDUM T0: Bon Erickson Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson. Architects, Inc.. _ FROM: Ferrol Robinson:~~~~ , DATE: August 21, 1985 SUB3ECT: TRAFFfC ANALYSIS FOR I-35W/I-494 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ' _ .This memorandum summarizes the traffic analysis required for sub- mission of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The proposed development, located in the northeast quadrant of .the i-35W/I-~9~ interchange, consists of the following uses: • ~ Office 500,000 square feet of GFA Hotel X00 rooms The hotel captains the following facilities: 200 - seat restaurant ' 150 - seat cocktail lounge 200 - seat. coffee shop 600- - person meeting rooms and banquet facilities The proposed-development is contained within a redevelopment area that is currently being studied by the City of Richfield. To in- sure consistency between the two studies, we met with the consult- ant on the redevelopment proposal (BRW) and discussed general assumptions and proposed roadway configuration for the area. On the basis of our own analysis and of the discussion with the above consultant, we developed direction of}approach of traffic and trips generated by the proposed site and assigned the trips to the proposed roadway system. The results are shown in Figure i -Direction of Approach and Fig- ure 2 - Existing and Site Traffic. 630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata MN 55391 (612) 475.0010 _ ~ - !r_11.`Z Ron Erickson - 2 - August 2i, 1985 The following table. shows the assumptions used to determine daily vehicle trips to the site: SITE TRIP GENERATION Land Use Unit Daily Trip. Rate (3} Trips- Office 500 sq. ft. GFA 10.9 per 1,000 GLA 4,905 (450 sq. ft. GLA)(1) Hotel 400 rooms 10..5 per room 3780 (360 occupied rooms}(2) Total Trips 8,685 Correction for Multiple Trips {10~} 7,840 (1) Assumes grass leasable area (GLA) is 90 percent of grass floor area {450 sq. ft. GLA). ~2) Assumes a 90 percent occupancy (360 rooms). (3) Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual As we discussed earlier today, we will be meeting with you,- City of Richfield staff and the consultants for the City to discuss the latest assumptions and conceptual plans for the site as well as the redevelopment area. It may be necessary to revise the results pre- sented here to conform with current plans. FRl j al Attachments I: - J t; ,~i._- II..i~l !I I. I! ~-L - II ..~'I~ It.'lr..i) -.I i I f. , .IL I? ~ ! li ~ !11 II I it _ 11 II ~ '~U ~ ~ I ii I I 1 1 1 11 , 11 11 111 11 ~l I II 11 _ 11 ~ 11 1. ii II II ~tl I 11 'il II ! I! ll LII • ill t~ 11 , ~ ' II 11 i II 'il it ~ 11 ~ Il i.l II I 1 ~ 111 11 ~ (i II II ~ n 11 x'11 it ~ JI , II ` I. ~ I: II ° `I. II„~ 11 II Ii ~ u ~ I1 tl' , I1 f ` ~ i1 1 1 11 i 1'1 11 ' i t ' ( it II 11 I I~ I! II .tl i ~ I 11 ` 1) ~ , (1 ~ ~ I r i I X 1 1 J r~ ~ 11 I, II 11 l l I't 11 O I I I ~ l1 ~ I ? it I I li ~ II 11 1 I ~ I I I I I I II 11 11 ll tl 1.1 I l i, i tl I 1 1 , i 11 - I I II II II II ll ; ~ II I!' I) 1.1, ~ 11 (I I ~ I II tl j I ll 1 I II 11 11 it it ll f1 I~ ~ ~ L1 tt ( ( I , I 11 1 1 11 I I I I I I 1 1 , t l ~ II 11 1 t.l 11 ~ t l I II tl II II II II , II, 11 II II I 11•; ~ I 1 11 li II 11 1 • i'1 a LI ''ll•: (I ~ i I ) I I I1 I! II ' r/ nl I I - (l' (1 II II 11 ll,,it It ~ il,, L1 , tl„ 11 ~ ;'11 I 11' 't7 tt II tl Q tt il• II ll II II II 11 ' ~ 11 t~ I1 I1,1 (l i' { 1.1 ~ ( I O I ( I t! I': II l I . ~ II I1 f1 ` Il, ' tl 1.1 I to ! • fl ~ 1' I tl I li Ll LI tl ~ O 'I L? I I ; I I 1.1 11 L1 1I • L1 i tl ' tl I i 1'' ' 11 '~t t I I I' I 11 ' ' I~ U ; Il ' II ~ I) ' 11' ~ t.t ~ II ; 11 ~ (1;~ 1) ~ 11 tt ! • tl I i~ ! • t ~ ti tl ' 11 ' ~ ~ 1 1 11 11 41 , I ~ It : i it tl ,I ~ ~ ll ~ ~ I' r• WOtt 7~flh Stmt 1~ - I, IResldentl 1 • , Collector! I 1 ,I 11 tI I1 1I i II • • t i ' 1 I ii ~ 11 t 1 I 1 fl ~ I ~ , II I~ II ` ,tell • .""'1.' I I I I I I I I I I l l ~ ll I I ! I I~~ it 1 tl ; tl 11 ; i t I t I I i t bb I I II I I 11 li ' O ll II II i , tl LSt I I ' ~1 tl 11 11 ~ II I• I !I~ ~~~.l~,l II ~ II II III! 11 ~ 11 II ~ II ~ ' li ~ i ~ 11 ~ ' II tl Iy rl II ~i 1 I I I ~ ~ 11 11 I 1.1 !I i t 11 I I ' ~ I I I I I~ I I rl f I I ~ I l I I I 11 • I~ ~ I I I. 1 ` \~l...l,.T..,.r II 'I II tl ~ III II I I II II .i (I ~ 11 1 ~ I ~ I ~ II~~ 11'`!~ I III~;!rl i U~!'11 I LI ,'~u ! ~~n.' ll. _ ~1, Ma(or ( ~,,i,~;~'~f ~ en f l • . p~~~_eo~~_ , ~ ~ ~ t'h„'„'„ ~7~..~ *.C 1 f Development ~ ~ . ` r~, u ,~;rr~~ r•r 1 oislrlcl ""T 1 si es Artar a j '~1' r'~ 1 I West 771h Slree ~ IBu ne ~ I I I I I i ! ~ , ` y Mlxefi Com~erclal Dlslrlcl• ,a I I v i ~ c,'~ N(xe~ ~omm •c I Olttrkl - - I i I tl ~ I IG ~ ! .~i I ~ ' ` .l- 1 494 ` ~j~•1 r'ti ~ , , _ 35v~~Z 4-94 P~eo~ost~T~VEtr?pMfi~t7" rl,.,n~ . ~I4, l - "DIRIEGTIOtd o>~ ~L'Q';'ROAc,H ~ v t :il}' Ili~atli~cl~l MIIllrlsCllFt _ ~ 1? it ~,.II II II~1) I'hL _n~~1111 111?Ilil~~~' ~',!f ,IIi1. ~ i it „ 11 ~I, II 1 11 " II ~'I `II it i 11 ''l 1 . / ~ , ' I 1j t 1 11 11 11~'ll li ' 11 11 tl 11 ' ( It 11 11 11 , II II QI II I II ~t,ll 11 11 ~ tl 11 ~ 11 11 11 1t i i 11 ~ 1 1 ? ~ 1 1 I I ' ~ 11 1 I1 , 111 11 11 , I I 11 11 ! 1 ' 11 1 11 ~ It 11 11 1.1 , 11 , 11 11 I I, , n 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1? I I ~ 11 I I ~ I, l l { tl 11 it 11 ' I1 11 a 11 11 tl ~ , It Il t 11 11 ~ I1 11 11 ?I.) fl ' U ' tt ' ' l 11 • • 1 II II 11 11 ~ II 11 ~ 1 i 11 11' Il ~ ~ . LI 1 ~ t1 ~~Irt j~ 11 ~ it t .'?I 11 ' t?' I) i 1 _ ti ~ t 1 t t ~ 1 it i it 11 11 11 ~ II l i 11 II ~ ili_f (1 I1 l; a 1) ( 11 ll I'r•'_ - 1 i . 11 II 11 II 11 11 II 11 ' II 1~ • It L1 i 11 ~ r ~hh~ 1 l I 11 ~ 1) I 11 ~ 11 ll 11 ll _ 11 11 ~ tl U I' + ~ t.!' II V 1 11 1 11 1 ll ! 1~ 1? II 11 II 11 II 11~•, ll , I1~ ? (I I 1.1~; I! ~ ! 11 11 11 It 11 II U 11 - it I1 ~ . 11 tl 11 tl•; { I I 1 ~ 11 1111 11 I 1 11 11 il~ ~ ~ 1'1 11 It ~ ''11'; 11 i 1. .i I I ( I 11 1 11 ' II 11 II , 11 I 1?,III tl 1 11 II if 1.1 ~ i 1 ~ tt , 1 t1 1? 11 ~ t7 !1 ! 11 n 1 Ali,. II , '1, ~ 11 11 (I 11 1 u 11 (.i.l ti II ~ 1.1 tl' I I I. Itt I ~'(•I! I it 11 It 1 11 i ' t11y~~~ ' L 1.! ~ 1 I it U i I 1.1 ~ ,I ~~~70~~ ii i I I ~~U t.! , l.t~! ~ it ~ 1 tl ~ II u ` l :I , ~ ~ Il ' ~j1 11 ~ f f I t1 11 t1 II ' S~~"`"""-~_~* t 1 11 ~ ? ? 1 I ' 11 ~r,~ 11 ( u S 1 1) ~ (1 t ll ! fl , 1 fir ! t` ~ WeN 7th Stctlt • t: y,,, ~ ne>•e>•s IResidon l 1 CoNsctort r•••'~ r"" + { c ' , ~ I' 1'. ~ 1 ,i 11 11 I Il 11 ~ Is ;Ilfl 1, i 11 11 1 I fl 1t. Il,,t.ll , `r...• •.....1. r ' i.l 11 ~ I I ' 11 11 1~ ~ II { II 11 I li ~ ~ 11 ~L a ~ II 1 11 1l 1 I Lt 1 i 1 \~11 1I ~ 11 (I III' i Il ~ ll :'j• II ( II ~ 11 .S! Y 11 tl , 11 tl 'I) l' 1 - ~ I; 11 i i l'~. I I i t I I I ll i I I I I I s l i 1 - 1 I I ti ' I t I I tt `1 ~ I~ 1 i I ~ I li I I ! f•.1I ' ~ ` i I r ~ 4r i t+ ~ t 1 I I ~ 1. ~ I (l I tt I~ V~ 11. ~ I I' I 1I I I I la ~ t 1 I 1 511r'~ I \ I .1 ~ 117 I n rl •1.1 ,~11 t . I ~ ~ 11 (l~~dan III I nlmp~_,~~_Il3oadt1 i ~ 11 1 } I 1.1 ~ e~idenl Ip ~1-1.aoP~,~-.: ,-1 lri, ~ ( News I ~ I ~ 1. - ~ • 1 ..:.a~.~ 'r.'y ~ ~ IIr1~ li~~ Development ~r~ ~•M~1~ r.~•_.._..-.,~ •11 DI9lrlct r•~ 1Mes1 77th Stsept l8uslnata ArisTl4' ' ' ~ f~ ~I 1 t , •~•1 I , ' j 1 ' ~ . _ I I 1 1- • I i . I . i : I t ..1...:~ ry "I ± ~ 1 ~ f 1 I ~ III . ~ , ; ~ 1 I I ay~? ~ , = . 4 a • 1 , I ~ I ~ i i ~ Mlxe~ Gdn+~? srclal Dlslstc/• 1 1 t 1 v ~ ' c~"' N[xecll l omm cut Olstskt ~ i I ; 11 I I 1 I~ ' I i ~ I I:~ y~ I-t , ~ ~ I I 1 I1 1 ' ~...r.~~'~•'-.~.-----•--""_' ter,...-..~.~..~ ~ ~ ~ 1-484 - 1 ~ 3~aV~l'T: ~"gT I• ieDpDSlrV~l/~t-~'M~~' • I-1„'~/1? ' . 1 ~1C~.2-- ~X~STtNU OrIJU Srt~Tt~~~~r<c. CAt~'~ qoo site prft- ~ ~ 1 .11~- 11( Ita all1~~1~ 1 N1t1111i1S(.11~1 ' ITY F RICHFIELD MINNESOTA C 0 , Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 426 AgendA November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration Of A Resolution Approving: A Redevelopment Plan And Tax Increment Financing Plan etablishing A Redevelopment Project; and, Establishing A Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Dear Council Members: The November 12th Public Hearing On October 28, 1985, the city council scheduled a public hearing on November 12, 1985, to receive testimony regarding the establishment of the area identified as the Interstate-Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) as a redevelopment project and tax increment financing district. This letter provides background information for Council consideration and recommends the adoption of the resolution approving: a Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Redevelopment Project; Establishing a Redevelopment Project; and, Establishing a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District. The public hearing has been well publicized. The notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current on October 30, 1985. A newsletter was mailed to approximately 1100 addresses within the ILN area and the adjoining area. The newsletter, in addition to summarizing the major features of the plan, indicated that copies of the plan document were available at City Hall, the Community Center and the Augsburg Park library. The County and School District have also been notified of the hearing and have each received a copy of the Plans. Overview of Project History The Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan (Plans) dated October 21, 1985, (a copy of which you have previously received) meet the statutory requirements for the establishment of a redevelopment project and a tax increment financing district. The plans also establish the basic administrative policies for the redevelopment project. The HRA and Planning Commission have both acted affirmatively on the plans. On October 8, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 52 wherein the Plans were found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (a copy of that resolution is attached). The HRA, on October 21, 1985, passed Resolution No. 267 approving the Plans and requested the City Council to conduct a public hearing, to approve the Plans, and establish a redevelopment project and a tax increment district. The Plans are the means by which the ILN planning study formulated by the consulting firm of BRW may be implemented. The ILN Land Use Plan and Phase I Development Plan, which are the focal point of the BRW study, were presented.to the HRA, City Council and Planning Commission on September 16, 1985. The Land Use Plan and Development Plan were the result of the study initiated by BRW in March of this year. In March of 1985, it was anticipated that the ILN Plan prepared by BRW would be completed first. Then, the redevelopment project process would be initiated. However, because of the significant development proposed by CDR Investments and the Hampton Inn proposal and the discussions in Congress regarding the placing of limits on bond financing, staff took the initiative and proceeded with the preparation of a redevelopment project document immediately. With the support of the HRA and City Council, it is anticipated that closing on a tax increment bond can take place before December 31, 1985. If TI improvement bonds are to be sold, it is crucial that the sale occur as early in December as possible because of the expected flood of issues by governmental bodies that are coming to the market to beat the possible congressional bond restrictions of 1986. Redevelopment Plan During the initial period of the BRW study, it became apparent that resolving traffic circulation issues was the key to improving the ILN area. Thus, a circulation plan was formulated. That plan was presented to the HRA and City Council on July 1, 1985, and subsequently to the ILN Advisory Committee. That plan is presented on page 38 of the ILN Plan booklet dated October 21, 1985. (Several sections of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Financing Plan discuss the same information). In this council letter, only the Plan which first discusses the relevant proposal or .concept will be referenced. The Land Use/Circulation Plan map also contains a recommendation that the land use in the planning area be designated commercial, thus limiting new development to commercial uses. Goals and objectives for achieving the redevelopment of the area according to the Land Use/Circulation Plan are discussed on pages 10 through 15. Capital projects which would initiate the implementation of the Land Use/Circulation Plan are identified as the Phase I Development Program. If the Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing District are established, additional capital projects would be developed over a period of several years in successive phases. The Phase I Development Program is graphically represented in a map on page 17. A description of the private and public activities proposed for Phase I appears on pages 16 through 24. These activities include the construction of the CDR office/ramp/hotel proposal and the Hampton Inn proposal. The HRA and City would work cooperatively to upgrade and realign 77th Street east and west of Lyndale Avenue, to upgrade Lyndale Avenue for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, to widen the Lyndale Avenue bridge, and to provide improved off-street parking in three areas along Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street in an area which is also proposed for renovation as a community oriented commercial area. The areas east and west of Lyndale ' Avenue and south of 77th Street would be redeveloped. In addition to the construction proposed for Phase I, detailed comprehensive plans would be formulated for the renovation and redevelopment areas to guide these activities and provide a basis for successive Phases of development. To implement the public development activities, property would be acquired by the HRA. The Redevelopment Plan section titled Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities, pages 2~ through 28, contains a map identifying the property proposed for purchase as well as a list identifying, by address, the property proposed for acquisition. The proposed Tax Increment Finanein Di ri t P1 n t r h discusses the g st c an o pages 53 h oug 55 relocation process to be followed. Tax Increment Financing District Plan As its name implies, the proposed Tax Increment Financing District Plan discusses the use of tax increment and other sources of revenue to fund the public improvements. At the September 16, 1985, HRA meeting, to which the City Council was invited, a report entitled "Report on Financing Alteratives Study for Proposed Project Improvements and Development" (Letter ~k48) was presented. It concluded that there were probably five viable sources of funding for the proposed Phase I Development Program improvements. Tax Increment. Financing was the only revenue source which has the potential of providing funds in the amount needed to successfull im lement the ro'eet. Y p P J In the Tax Increment District Finanein Plan a e 66 g ~ A g ~ Exhibit IX titled Anticipated Source of Funds indicates the likely sources and amounts of revenue available to fund the public improvements. It says that $21,810,000 may be .available, but that the budget estimates only $21,189,490 may be needed. Exhibit VIII titled Project Costs by Line Item, • page 65, is the proposed budget. Note that there is an appendix to the Plan which discusses the basis for the budget numbers. The tax increment cash flow for funding Phase I is based on the construction of development valued at approximately $74.6 million. The Hampton Inn proposal is valued at approximately $3.8 million and the CDR proposal is valued at approximately ~ $70.8 million. These values appear on page 70 in Table 4. The tax increment cash flow section beginning on page 71 discusses the assumptions made for the cash flow and contains a cash flow print-out prepared by Evensen-Dodge. Note also that the text on page 66 authorizes the use of both temporary and long-.term tax increment bonds. ILN Citizens Task Force Recommendations At their August 29, 1985, meeting, the ILN Advisory Committee adopted a motion which supported the BRW Land Use/Circulation Plan and Phase I Development Program and Public Improvements Plan. Fifteen of the twenty-five members were present and the vote was unanimous. The motion was. as follows: The ILN Advisory Committee: i a. agrees with the proposed Phase I Plan and long range redevelopment strategy; b. supports the use of tax increment. financing to implement the proposed activities; c. feels the people in the area should, from time to time, be apprised of the schedule and activities related to the implementation of Phase I; d. urges the City Council to pursue, with haste, the upgrading of 77th Street to Nicollet Avenue; e. recommends the business people being displaced be informed of opportunities to rebuild within the project area; f. believes the location, use and design of the "Focal Area" at the southwest corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue should be re-evaluated; and, g. requests the City Council to amend the charge to this Advisory Committee so it (the Committee) may continue to function during the Plan implementation phase. Recommendations Minnesota Statutes provide Richfield with a way to implement the Land Use/Circulation Plan and Phase I Development Program formulated by BRW and recommended by the Advisory Committee, the HRA and the Planning Commission, i.e., through the establishment of a Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing District. The proposed Redevelopment Project Plan and proposed Tax Increment Financing District Plan meet the requirements of the law. By adopting the attached resolution, the City Council would be approving the Plans and establishing a redevelopment project and tax increment financing district. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving: 1. the Redevelopment Plan; 2. the Tax Increment Financing Plan; 3. the establishment of a Redevelopment District; and, . 4. the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca twr' ht City Manager JGC/eja STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF t~ENNEPIN ~ ) ss CITY~OF RICHFIELD I, Thomas P. Ferber being the duly qualified and acting . clerk of the City of .Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do -hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of HRA RESOLUTION NOo 267 and that the same is on file and on record .in my office. • Given under my hand and seal this 22nd day of October 1985. p /C Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk City of Richfield Hennepin County,. Minnesota CITY OF RIC~'IELD RESOLIITION N0. 7101 RES4LIITION APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ilu~r.c~RSTATE LYNDALE NICOLLET R~,T~'DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ESTABLISHING A REDEVELOPMENT P~ZOU''ECT; ESTABLISHING A REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) as follows Section 1. Bac3cground. The City finds as follows: 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield (Authority) on its own initiative has prepared a redevelopment plan and program (Redevelopment Plan) for that area of the City of Richfield generally known as the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Area (Project Area)in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462.716 (Redevelopment Act), and has prepared a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accor- dance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 2',3.78 (TIF • ACt) . 1.02. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan are contained in a document entitled °Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment District Plan" dated October 21,1985, now on file with the City Cler3~. 1.03. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan have been, in accordance with the Acts, referred to the City Planning Commis- sion which by action taken October 8, 1985,. has commented on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and has found that they con~orm to and are not in con~lict with the general plan for the- development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.04. The Authority by resolution of October 21, 1985 has approved the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan for a redevelop- ment tax increment financing district TIF District) and referred t".em to this Council for public hearing and consideration as provided by the Acts. 1.05. This Council has this date conducted the required public hearing at which the views of all interested parties were heard. Copies of the TIF Plan have been forwarded to. Independent School District No. 280 and Hennepin County as required by t.~ie TIF Act. 1.06. This Counc:.l has fully reviewed the contents of the Re~eve',.opment Plan and TIF^ Plan. Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Project. 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project Area there exist conditions of economic obsolescence, physical deterioration, underutilization and inappropriate uses of land. 2.02. It is further determined that physical deterioration of buildings and structures in the Project Area is. so extensive as later described herein as to meet the standards of a Redevel- opment District set forth in the TIF Act. 2.03. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land in the Project Area would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial aid de- scribed in the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan; b) the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City a a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise; c) the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan.' 2.04. The findings in this section are made in compliance with Section 462.521, Subdivision 2 of the Redevelopment Act for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunc- tion with the Authority, the powers granted to the City and the Authority by that Act in order to achieve the objectives of that Act.. Section 3. Findings: Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Project Area and the City as a whole, and for the pro- tection and preservation of the public health, safety, .and general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the Authority and the City to provide public financial assis- tance to the Redevelopment Project. 3.02. It is .further found and determined that the TIF District is a redevelopment district, and that the- following conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the TIF Dis- trict: a) at least 70 percent of the parcels of land in the TIF District are occupied by buildings, streets, or utilities or other improvements; and b) at least 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard; and c) an additional 30 percent of the buildings require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as inadequate street layout, incompatible land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion,' and other hazards to health and safety identified in the TIF Plan and Redevelopment Plan. 3.03. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the Authority and this Council., that the redevelopment proposed by the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan could not reasonably be expected to occur. solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. • 3.04. The proposed public improvements to be financed largely through Tax Increment Financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the Project. Area in terms of development intensity, employment opportunities and tax base. 3.05. The TIF Plan will conform to the general plan of development of the City as a whole when the City modifies the Transportation Element o.f its Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission of the City has submitted its written comments to this Council to that effect. 3.06. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consis- tent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the redevel- opment of the TIF District by private enterprise. 3.07. The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Section 273.76, Subdivision 3, clause (b) of the TIF Act. Section 4. Project and District Established: Certification: Filing. 4.01. The Redevelopment Plan is approved. The Redevelop- ment Project is approved. The Project Area is established. • 4.02. The TIF Plan is approved. The TIF District is .established. . 4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Project Area and the TIF District are not coterminous as each is described in the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan which document is adopted herein by reference. 4.04. The Authority is requested to transmit a certified copy of .this resolution together with a certified copy of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan to the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County with a request that the original. assessed valuation of the TIF District be certified to the Authority pursuant to Section 273.76, Subdivision 1 of the TIF Act. The Authority is further requested to file a copy of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan with the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority as required by the TIF Act. 4.05. This Council shall at the appropriate time and at the request of the Authority take action to issue and sell its general obligation bonds pursuant to the TIF Act to finance public redevelopment costs identified in the TIF Plan. 4.06. The Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the Authority. • John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • HRA RESOLUTION N0. 267 RESOLUTION APPROVING. A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT - - ~ FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: REQUESTING THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL. TO CONDUCT PUBLIC`HEARINGS THEREON: AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF~THE PLANS BE IT RESOLVEII by~the Housing and` Redevelopment Authority of the• City of Richfield (Authority) as follows: Seation-~ 1 ~ Background . The-• Authority finds . as follows 1,.01. The Authority on its-own initiative has prepared a redevelopment- plan and program (redevelopment Plan) for the area - in: the: City of Richfield generally known as the Interstate Lyndale Nicol2et Area (Study Area)-in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 452.411 to 462.716 (Redevelopment Act) and his prepared a-tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273•T1 to 273.78 {TIF Act). 1:02. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan-are contained in a document entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Aedevelapment Plan and Tax Increment- District Plan".dated October 21, 1985, now on file withthe Authority.... 1.03. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan have been, in accordance with the Acts, referred to the City of Richfield Planning Commission which by action. taken en October 1985, Resolution Number 52 has commented on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and found them to conform to and not be in conflict with the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Section 2.' Referrals. 2.01. The Authority finds and determines that the objectives of the Redevelopment Act 'and TIF Act and the City~s and. Authority~s objectives for the redevelopment of the Study Area will be accomplished by the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Pian and TIF Plan. 2.02. The Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan are approved and adopted by the Authority.. 2.03. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to transmit copies of the Plans to the governing body of .Independent School District No. 280 and the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County for their review and. comment as provided by the TIF Act. Section 3. Establishment of TIF District. 3.01. The Authority respectfully requests the City. Council to conduct the public hearings required by Section 462.521 of _ ~ + the Redevelopment Act~and Section 273.7w of the TIF Act as-soon as convenient, and further recommends to the City Council that. it approve the Redevelopment Pian-and. TIF .Plan:. • 3.02.E The Executive Director 'is authorized and directed tc transmit a certified. copy. of the reaalution and the .Plans to-the City Council. Section Further Action:.FinanoinR. ~ - u.01. The~Authority intends to request the City Council from: time to time to'assist in the. financing cf the public. - redevelopment costs identified_in the TIF Plan-by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City payable from tax .increments from the TIF District. u`.02.. The Authority also-intends to request the City Council from time to time to consider varieus other notions °~necessary to the implementation of the Plans including but not limited-to, rezoning of property,-the use of eminent domain authority, the execui;ion of point and cooperative agreements, and the use of other powers which the City is authorized~to ` exec-cise on behalf of and in conjunction with the Authority • pursuant to the'Redevelopment Act and the TIF Act: 4.03. TY~e Authority pledges its cooperation to the. City Council in carrying out the. Redevelopment Plan. • Passed" by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield this 21st day of October,~1985• I '1'riomas E. Harms, Chairman ATTEST: - loan tielmderger, Secretary - h.. - 'i - - I . ~ RESOLUTION N0: ~'2' . RESOLUTION: OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA,.. PRESENTING.. THE OPINION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET _ - • REDEVELOPMENT.:. AND .TAX INCREMENT` FINANCING - PL~1idS OF ' _ THE~HQUSING~:AND .REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY w _ , . OF'. RICHFIELD,- MINNESOTA • WHEREAS,.. it has been the intent o~ the Ci.ty:~ cf Richfield to • improve caaditioas- in the. section of the City of Richfield referred to as the Interstate-Lyndale-NicoTlet area; and WHEREAS,. the. Housing.. and .Redevelopment Authority of ~ ' Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority"), has now prepared a rsde~relopment play for a redevelopment project.for the ' Interstate-Lyndale-Nicol-let- area of Richfield,. Minnesota {the "P.ro~ect Area"), dated. 1985 (,the "Plan"); and . _ • ~ _ re aced Eor the Authvri with WHEREAS, the Plant has; been p p ty ths:cooperatioa and. assistance of the appropriate city departments and a planning consultant;: and _ WHEREAS, the Authority has- now transmitted the Plan to the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield .for its review, and. has requested the vrittan opinion oP the Planning Commission on the Plea,. all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.55;' and- WHEREAS, the` Planning Commission has now studied. and- ~ considered said.Plaa, which consists of the:. , _ . Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment. and .Tax. Increment Financing •Plans _ . _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. BY THE. CITY PLANNING: COi~KISSION OF THE-CITY OF .RICHFIELD, that, having studied ,and considered.the Plan, the Planning Commission', by this. _ _ _ _ _ -2- resolution'' advises•the~Ci Council; the Authority; and all tY • intarsstgd persons,- that its- is the- opinion of the Planning . Commission tit: _ _ 1. ~Th~ Plan provides an~ou~line~tor the development and redevelopment of the~Pro~ect Area and is sufficiently complete - ta indicate the relationship of the Plan to the. objectives of the: Citq of Richfield as to appropriate: land uses- within the Project Area, ,and'. ta: indicate the general. land uses and. general • standards ot~ development or redevelopment within the Project Area; - ~ = t , . 2, The Project Area~is a deteriorated and deteriorating area- within the meaning;'ot Minnesota Statutes 462.421, 5ubd. 11; • 3~.< The redevelopment ~ prc~ect proposed by the Plan• is necessary to elimiaata, and prevent the spread of, such . deterioration;. - ' ~ ~ ~ • 4. The Project Area is subject to conditions preventing • private development and would. not 'be~made available for ~redewelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the Plan;. ~ 5. She Plan affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment•~ oS the Pra~ect Area by private enterprise, consistent with-the sound. Heads of the locality as a Whole; - The objectives and purposes of: the Plan conformta and are consistent with the general land use proposals and planning- objectives of the:City~ot Richfield's'Comprehensive Plan. . ~ The acquisition plan is• consistent with the City of Richtiel.d's Comprehensive Flan: - • ~ f 8. The traffic circulation plan and improvements proposed ars~ consistent with the goals and policies of the City' of Richfield',s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning ~+'=sion will. initiate-the proc8ss to amend the roadway functional clasaitication plan contained in the Richfield-Comprehensive Plan to reflect the improvements contained in the Interstate- Lyndale-Nicallet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans. • ~ I ,s .:3.: Passed this 8th dap oP October; 1.985 by the Planning Comatission ` oS.the City o~ Richfield, Minnesota Connie Hoverson,. Chairperson - ATTEST s Steven Quam, Secretary , _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 425 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Continuation of November 12th Public Hearing to November 25, 1985, on the Variance Request for Walgreen's Addition to Lunds Supermarket at 6208 Penn Avenue Council Members: i At the October 28, 1985, city council meeting, the council continued the public hearing concerning the variance request by Lund's Supermarkets until November 12, 1985. The council ~ directed staff to discuss with Lunds the possibility of continuing the hearing to November 25, 1985 rather than holding it on November 12th. Staff has discussed this matter with representatives of Lunds and they have agreed to continue the hearing to November 25, 1985. It is recommended that the council continue the public hearing until November 25, 1985. Staff is also discussing alternative plans with the applicant which may eliminate the need for a variance. R pectfu y witted, r ohn G. art fight City Manager JGC/eja • i J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 424 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable-Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign for H & R Block Located at 6507 Nicollet Avenue Council Members: Cr;agg Signs Incorporated has requested a permit to install an illuminated, single-faced wall sign at H & R Block located at 6507 Nicollet Avenue. The proposed sign will measure 3' x 6" x 20" (22.5 square feet). City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19 Illuminated Signs, provides that city council approval is required for illuminated signs. The inspection division has reviewed the sign permit and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the installation of this illuminated sign at 6507 Nicollet Avenue. • R pectf 1 witted, _ r~ ~ ~ ohn G. Cart righ City Manager JGC/eja F3 APPROVE DENY APPROVE DENY ~,e~~~-<•~ ~ y Manag _ ~ Inspecto .ate /I - S- Date ! t/ ~ / ~ APPROVE DENY , 1~Y1'1Q~ APPROVE.. DENY ~~t. .Plannin ~:partment City Council '!~~,lr'~""'~ Date 6r~`l~~`1 Date ' Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date / O !~/fps'' Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No~ Fee Address of Sign6507 Nicollet Ave.So. Proprietor NameH_-& R-_B16ck DBASame ~ Sign Erector Cragg Signs Inc. Address 7150 Madison Ave. W. Golden Valley,MN Type of Signs _ Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall X Single Face _ Clear Lexon X ~ Constant ~I~ Projecting _ Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ;g ..Plastic Covered _ Revolving _ Roof _ Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded _ Traveling _ Pedestal _ Searchlight ~ Neon ~ Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants. Other Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors White faces & red neon Trailer i T ~ A ~ Post ~Iliuminated -Yes ~XXNo Watts Electrical Contractof Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent SignatureLincoln Properties Phone 893-9000 Estimated Cost$2400.00 Sign Widthl3' 6" Height 20" Total Square Feet 22.5 .Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as i defined on page 2. Ttao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit. anchoring or fastening details and a copy of-the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or-over .for safe access by persons dest d for or passing the subject premises? No -A licant's Si nature and Title with Firm PP g Date I ~~~q ~s~ :Phone Number 593-0883 ~ / ~t 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 lr~f1+T-' ~ , I ; _ , - J-X 1\ ~ - ~ \ Y-^ ~ 4~ i - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - 6 . ~ ~a~, ` ,r s: w t (j / _ ~ _ 3 jl14 S+ ~ F. s fie' ~ . i 11' r p - - . G l k~ ~ . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.423 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. There is one such item on the November 12 agenda. Fertilizer . Under a mutual agreement with several municipalities includ- ing Richfield, Hennepin County solicited bids for fertilizer under a 1986 contract. As has been the case in the last few years to take advantage of discount prices, Richfield places an order in late 1985 for 1986 delivery and payment. The order must be received before December 2, 1985, with. payment due after January 1, 1986. To meet the 1986 fertilizer needs of the golf course, it is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of 18 tons of IBDU 24-4-12 at $700/ton and 2 tons of IBDU 20-0-16 at $8~0/ton, less the 9% discount, for a total purchase price of $12,994.80 from Turf Supply. Adequate funds for this item are included in the 1986 Golf Course Budget. In 1985, there were four bidders with Turf Supply being the lowest responsible bidder. Turf Supply's prices in 1986 are the same as in 1985, except that the 1985 discount was 10%. One more ton of fertilizer will be ordered in 1986 than was ordered in 1985. The 1985 total purchase price amounted to $12,222. Respectf y submitted, John G. Cartwr ght City Manager JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager r Council Lette No. 2 . 42 Agenda: November 12,1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Hearing For Issuance Of On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License For Ground Round, Inc. Council Members: The Ground Round Restaurant located at 1500 East 78th Street, holds an on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The city has been notified that Imperial Group Limited Company, the parent corporation of Howard Johnson Company, intends to restructure their organization with regard to their chain of Ground Round Restaurants. The restructuring involves the "transfer" of all Ground Round restaurants and their respective liquor licenses owned by Howard Johnson, a Maryland corporation, to The Ground, Inc., a newly formed Delaware corporation. Both corporations remain wholly owned holding companies of Imperial Group Limited. However, the officers are different than those of the Howard Johnson Company. Richfield City Ordinances do not allow for the transfer of liquor licenses. Therefore, it is necessary for the Ground Round Restaurant to reapply for an On-Sale and Sunday liquor license. It is recommended that the city council schedule a public hearing regarding this application for the city council meeting of November 25, 1985. R pectfu, s witted, t ohn G. art ht City Manager JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 421 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Proclamation in Support of American Education Week, November 17-23, 19$5 Council Members: The Richfield American Legion Post 435 has requested that the City Council proclaim the week of November 17-23, 1985 as American Education Week. Members of the Richfield American Legion will be present at the November 12, 1985 city council meeting to accept this proclamation. R peetf 1 bmitted, / ' • ohn G. Car i City Manager JGC/eja I, i • AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK PROCLAMATION NOVEMBER 17-23, 1985 • WHEREAS, the students of today are our leaders of tomorrow; and, WHEREAS, the schools are primarily responsible for the proper education of our youth; and, WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of our community to provide the best education possible; and WHEREAS, our schools and educators are responding to the National cry for excellence; and WHEREAS, involved citizens can help our schools reach higher levels of excellence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor of the City of Richfield, do hereby designate and declare November 17-23, 1985 to be American Education Week and do urge all citizens to: reaffirm their commitment to improving and supporting education at all levels; translate this commitment into action by visiting our local schools; and, donate time and talent to help make the public schools even better. DONE this 12th day of November, 1985. • John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 420 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the .City Council City of Richfield Subject: Smoking/Tobacco Awareness Day Council Members: Each year the Richfield Advisory Board of Health supports the National "D Day", which is a public awareness program related to the risks of tobacco use in our society. At the Advisory Board meeting on Monday, October 21, 1985, the Board approved a proclamation which they are requesting the city council to adopt as a part of this year's smoking risk awareness effort. The attached proclamation is presented for council • consideration. This year, emphasis will be placed on an educational effort aimed at young people and informing them of the risks of habitual use of smokeless tobacco. As in the past, members of the Advisory Board of Health will appear before the city council on November 12, 1985, to request council support of the annual "D Day" program in our community. Respectf bmitted, ~ - ohn G. ar wrig t City Manager JGC/eja I • i PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC AWARENESS- CAMPAIGN RELATED TO THE RISKS OF USING SMOKELESS TOBACCO WHEREAS, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health is charged by the City Council to study public health needs in the city and recommend policies, ordinances and programs necessary to meet these needs, and, I WHEREAS, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health supports the I, position of the American Dental Association, the American Cancer i Society, and the Surgeon General of the United States to inform the public of the risks of prolonged use of smokeless tobacco; and, WHEREAS, there is evidence linking the use of smokeless tobacco to oral cancer and other oral diseases; and, ~ WHEREAS, the practice of chewing tobaaco is popular with male athletes, and their young male counterparts tend to emulate their role models; and, WHEREAS, a nationwide survey indicates that 8-10~ of male i adolescents in the United States are smokeless tobacco users. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the council hereby approves and endorses the need to increase the public awareness of the risks of habitual use of smokeless tobacco and hereby do proclaim November 21, 1985, D-Day in the City of Richfield to initiate the campaign to increase public awareness of the risks of using smokeless tobacco. DONE this 12th day of November, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 419 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and .Members of the City Council ' City of Richfield Subject: Proclamation Supporting Fund Raising for Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. Council Members: The Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. provides counseling, education and prevention programs to Richfield youth and their families who are experiencing problems with chemicals, delinquent behavior, family communication and other youth related issues. The Storefront has developed model programs such as the property offender program, the chemical prevention program, the Project Charlie drug abuse prevention program, and the adolescent victim counseling program. The City of Richfield has provided financial support to the Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. since its origin in 1972. The Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. is now conducting a fund raiser to raise additional monies needed to support Storefront programs. Attached to this council letter is a proclamation designating the week of November 11-17, 1985, as Storefront/Youth Action Week in Richfield and urging residents to support the Storefront's fund raising campaign. Representatives of the Storefront/Youth Action will be present at the November 12, 1985, city council meeting to accept this proclamation. R pectf y bmitted, - / GtJ~ r ohn G. C twrig City Manage JGC/eja STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION WEEK NOVEMBER 11-17, 1985 WHEREAS, Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. provides counseling, education and prevention programs to Richfield youth and their families who are experiencing problems with chemicals, delinquent behavior, family communication and other youth related issues; and WHEREAS, Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. has developed model programs such as the Property Offender Program, the Chemical Prevention Program, the Project Charlie Drug Abuse Prevention Program and the Adolescent Victim Counseling Program with these programs having been duplicated in other communities in the state and, indeed, throughout the country; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council has provided continuing financial support since the origin of Storefront/Youth Action in 1972; and WHEREAS, Storefront/Youth Action is now conducting its Fund Raising Campaign from November 11 through December 31, 1985, in an effort to raise funds from the community in order to maintain its current level of services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council does hereby declare the week of November 11-November 17, 1985 to be STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION WEEK in the City of Richfield. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Richfield City .Council does strongly endorse the programs of Storefront/Youth Action and does urge its citizens to support this fund raising campaign. DONE. this 12th day of November, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 418 Agenda November 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Awarding the Sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985, Fixing their Form and Specifications; Directing their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for their Payment Council Members: At 11:30 A.M., November 6, 1985, bids were received for the sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. Bids were received from six bidders including the Northern Trust Company, American National Bank, Merrill Lynch. Capital .Markets, Piper, Jaffrey and Hopwood, Lnc., Norwest Investment Securities, and First Bank Minneapolis. Merrill Lynch Capital Markets was the low bidder with a Net Interest Rate of 7.58%. This rate is a very favorable rate for the City. As recently as six weeks ago the rate on this bond sale may have been in the 8.5~ to 9.0~ range. A complete bid summary is attached to this Council Letter for your information. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution awarding the sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 to Merrill Lynch Capital Markets, fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. Respectf ly submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager JGC/eja EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in the City of Richfield, on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, commencing at 5:30 o'clock p.m., C,T. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the meeting was convened for the consider- 'I ation of the bids which had been received for the purchase of the City's $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985, as advertised for sale. The City Clerk presented affidavits showing publication of notice of sale in the City's official newspaper and in Commercial West, a financial paper published in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which affidavits were examined, found satisfactory and ordered placed on file. The City Clerk presented a tabulation of the bids which had been re- ceived in the manner specified in the Official Notice of Sale of the Bonds. The bids were as follows: After due consideration of the bids, Councilmember in- troduced the following resolution and moved its adoption the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $1,940,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT. • BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (City) as follows: Section 1. Sale of Bonds. 1.01. The bid of (Purchaser) to purchase $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 (Bonds) of the City described in the Official Notice of Sale thereof is hereby found and determined to be the highest and best bid received pursuant to duly advertised notice of sale and shall be and is hereby accepted, the bid being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest as follows: Year of Interest Year of Interest Maturity Rate Maturity Rate 1 ' Net Effective Interest Rate: The City Finance Manager is directed to deposit the good faith check of the Purchaser on behalf of the City pending completion of the sale and delivery of the Bonds, and to return the checks of the unsuccessful bidders forth- with. The sum of $ being the amount offered by the Purchaser in excess of $1,903,000 shall be credited to the Debt Service Fund created by Section 3. 1.02. The City shall forthwith issue and sell the Bonds in the total principal amount of $1,940,000, originally dated as of December 1, 1985, the Bonds being in fully registered form and issued in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, numbered no. R-1 upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and which Bonds mature serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: -YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1987 $ 25,000 1997 $165,000 1988 170,000 1998 25,000 1989 170,000 1999 25,000 1990 170,000 2000 25,000 1991 170,000 2001 25,000 1992 170,000 2002 25,000 1993 170,000 2003 25,000 1994 170,000 2004 25,000 1995 170,000 2005 25,000 1996 165,000 2006 25,000 The City may elect on February 1, 1995, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 1996. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemp- tion is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest matur- ity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. Section 2. Form: Registration. 2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond shall be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii)_the date of authentication is prior to August 1, 1986, in which case such Bond shall be • dated as of December 1, 1985. The interest on the Bonds shall be payable on August 1 and February 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 1986, to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 2.03. Registration. The City shall appoint, and shall maintain, a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corpo- rate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, trans- ferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is pre- sented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its 3udgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Bond, whether such Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Bond and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such-registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar may .impose a charge upon the owner thereof suffi- cient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other govern- mental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation I, of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any such Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reason- able expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in ~I form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Bonds so sur- rendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to ' issue a new Bond prior to payment. • (i) In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) not more than 60 and not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing said notice in the manner required by law. Failure to give such notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any proceeding for the redemption of Bonds. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the result- ing corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Re istrar. On or before each g • principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the A Finance Manager shall transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the Clerk and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on differ- ent Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the Finance Manager shall deliver the same to the Purchaser thereof upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the applica- tion of the purchase price. 2.06. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed in substantially the following form: [Face of the Bond] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND OF 1985 Date of Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP December 1, 1985 No. R- $ KNOW EVERYONE BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Richfield, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Hennepin County, i Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to t • or registered assigns, the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, com- mencing August 1, 1986, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presenta- tion and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Paying Agent, or 'its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevo- cably pledged. The City may elect on February 1, 1995, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds of this issue due on or after February 1, 1996. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) not more than 60 and not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing said notice in the manner required by law. Failure to give such notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any proceeding for the redemption of Bonds. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth in this place. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (facsimile) (facsimile) City Manager Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. By Authorized Representative [Reverse of the Bond] This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of • $1,940,000, all of like original date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege and interest rate, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November 6, 1985 (Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to defray the expenses incurred and to be incurred in making local improvements, pursuant to and in full conform- ity with the Charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and is payable primarily from special assessments against property specially benefited thereb but constitutes a eneral obli ation of the Cit and to rovide y g g Y ~ P mone s for the rom t and full a ent of said rinci al and interest a Y P P P Ym P P s the same become due, the full faith and credit of the City is hereby irrevocably pledged, and the City Council will levy ad valorem taxes, if ' required for such purpose, which taxes may be levied on all of the taxable property in the City without limitation as to rate or amount. The bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or his attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denomina- ~ Lions. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of • the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or overnmental char a re uired to be aid i g g q p w th respect to such transfer or exchange. ' 'i i The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause .the indebtedness of the City to exceed any .constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation of indebted- ness. (Form of certificate to be printed on the reverse side of each Bond, following a full copy of the legal opinion.) ~ I certify that'the above is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion rendered by bond counsel on the issue of Bonds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, which includes the within Bond, dated as of the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds. (Facsimile Signature) ~I • City Clerk The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription of the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian in common (Gust) (Minor) TEN ENT as tenants by entireties under Uniform Gifts to Minors JT TEN as point tenants with right of survivorship and Act not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. • • ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this. assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, with- out alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless • the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee 2.07. The Clerk shall obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which shall be complete except as to dating thereof and shall cause the opinion to be printed on each Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the Clerk in substantially the form set forth in the form of Bond. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. - • Section 3. Security: Payment. 3.01. The Bonds shall be payable from the General Obligation Improve- . went Bonds of 1985 Fund (Debt Service Fund) hereby created, and the r proceeds of any .general taxes hereafter levied (Taxes) and special assessments (Assessments) to be levied for the improvements (Improvements) financed by the Bonds are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If any payment of principal or interest on the Bonds shall become due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to paq the same, the Finance Manager shall pay such principal or interest from the general fund ! of the City and such fund may be reimbursed for such advances out of ' proceeds of Assessments and Taxes for the Improvements when collected. 3.02. It is determined that the City will levy Assessments for at least 20~ of the cost of the Improvements. In order to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61 the Taxes are hereby levied as an annual irrevocable ad valorem tax levy on all taxable property in the City in the years. and amounts as follows (year stated being year of levy for collection in the. following year). Year Levy Year Levy i • It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of Assessments and Taxes for the payment of the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County, and obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. 3.03. It is hereby determined that the Improvements to be financed by the Bonds will directly and indirectly benefit the abutting property, and the City hereby covenants with the holders from time to time of the Bonds as follows: ' (a) The City will cause a portion of the Assessments for the Improvements to be promptly levied so that the first installment therefor will be collectible not later than 1986 and first installment of the balance of the Assessments collectible in 1987 and will take all steps necessary to assure prompt collection, and the levy of the Assessments is hereby authorized. The City Council shall cause all further actions and proceedings relative to the making and financing of the Improvements financed hereby to be taken with due diligence that are required for the construction of each Improvement financed wholly or partly from the proceeds of the Bonds, and for the final and valid levy of the Assess- meets and the appropriation of any other funds needed to pay the Bonds and interest thereon when due. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the City Council held on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, with the original j thereof on file in my office and I further certify that the same is a full, i true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of the City's $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. i WITNESS My hand as Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this • day of 1985. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) I s (b) In the event of any current or anticipated deft- ciency in the Assessments and Taxes, the City Council will ~I levy ad valorem taxes in the amount of said current or anticipated deficiency. (c) The City will keep complete and accurate books and records showing all receipts and disbursements in connection with the Improvements, the Taxes and Assessments levied therefor and other funds appropriated for their payment, and all collections thereof and disbursements therefrom, moneys 'I on hand and balance of unpaid Assessments. (d) The City will cause its books and records to be audited at least annually by qualified public accountants and will furnish copies of such audit reports to any in- terested person upon request. I .Section 4. Authentication of Transcript. 4.01. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and market- ability of the Bonds and such instruments, including any heretofore fur- nished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. I 4.02. The Mayor, Manager, Finance Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement dated June 15, 1985, prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is, as of the date thereof, a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as it relates to the Cit . Y The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ' a