EDA 1995 11 16CHANHASSEN HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR MI~~G
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
Chairman Boyle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRF.~ENT: Gary Boyle, Don Chmiel, Mike Mason, and rrm Bohn
~ERS ABSENT: Charlie Robbins
STAFF PIH~-gENT: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. Executive Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chmiel moved, Bohn seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting dated October 19, 1995 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PI~F-NENTATION$:
Boyle: Steve, do we consider you as a visitor? Do you have anything you'd like to say at
this time?
Steve Berquist: I don't have anything to specifically address.
CQNSIDER POSSIBIJli'. LOCATIONS FOR ~ OLD RAILROAD DEPOT.
PRF~ENTATION BY MICHAF~ SCHROEDER.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report and introduced Michael Schroedor to the HRA.
Michael Schroeder: First of all, I guess I understand that these are fixed studies, looidng at
potential sites. There's a lot of different locations for each one. Some of these are shown on
land that are not owned by the City or HRA. Some are shown in areas where there will be
quite a bit of work required but all the...take quite a bit of effort after we get the structure
situated. One is shown on a site where it would require demo to a building, which might...
anyway. So running through the four alternatives, and maybe make a few comments about
each one, and you can see these are the same copies that you have in front of yotr Site A is
the site that's on the north side of the railroad tracks, east of Great Plains Boulevard.
Actually south of the Klingelhutz building. There is some additional railroad land that
apparently is owned by Mr. Klingelhutz and this is one of the sites that we were asked to
look at. The building could be situated very close to the railroad right-of-way. We think it's
important I think for this structure to locate it somewhere near the railroad, and that's
imperative. It's original location, as we have been able to determine, and I hope someone will
correct me if I'm wrong, but the original location was probably on the west side of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
railroad tracks, on the north side. We, st side of Great Plains Boulevard, the north side of the
railroad tracks.
Bohn: I think it was in two different locations.
Michael Schroeder: Yeah, it actually was moved once before. It's kind of a confusing
history. Anyway, I guess as we looked through these we felt one of the things that's
important to consider is the relatiox~-~hip back with the railroad. This site does that. This site
is actually elevated somewhat above the railroad. We started also thinidng about what this
might be used for. We don't know if the structure's actually going to have a use. Whethor...
building that's situated as an artifact somewhere or whether there's some use that can be built
into it. Whether ifs meeting service organizations or some other, for the historical society.
We don't know. That being the case, there might be a reason to try and include some parking
with it or near-by. I think the building's only about 660 square feet. It's quite small so it
wouldn't require a large parking lot but this, weX, e shown that at least in concept there will be
some parking associated with it. It will be oriented to the railroad tracks with some idnd of
feature spaces built around it~ This is a sketch of what it might look like, driving north on
Great Plains Boulevard, looking off to the east. The Chanhassen sign on one side and the
structure itself was located closer to the railroad tracks. So that would be Site A. Site B is
the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus site next to the square that's developed but...and the church. And.
what we've done is that is located on the west side of that square where again it relates to the
historic structures. In this case we're placing it in a location where it does have a relationship
with other historic features of the community. Ifs lost the context with the railroad. This
also would require demolition of the buildings that exist there now. It may also hinder the
way that that building at the end of that block would be developed, or taking away a bit of
the development potential. But it could bo located close to other historic structures which
may have some merit. We would try and locate it as close to the sq~_~__a_re as we can and try
and at least maintain that...context and to try and keep a fair amount of the site available for
future development. Again, I guess I think ifs important to have some element of the railroad
character associated with the building rather than just dropping it down on a site and saying
that it's fine to relocate a structure. All of these show that there's some semblance of a
platform, whether it's actually elevated or some other method of recalling thak In this case
we're going to be showing a ramp up from the Heritage Plaza, Town Plaza? I forget what it's
called. Up to the front of the building. The building will be oriented to West 78th Streek
And in this case...plenty of parking given the city's already invested in creating parking
behind the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus. Site C is on the northwest comer of, quadrant of the Great
Plains Boulevard railroad. This site again, and like others, has a fair amount of...but it has
two advantages. One is that it's again directly related to the railroad. And the second is that,
this is probably the closest to the original site of any of the alternatives. This particular, we
don't have the opportunity to develop parking in it's immediate vicinity. We're going to have
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
to rely on parking for the Dinner Theatre and there would be the question of how to actually
get people down to the building from there. If there's not a use for it, it's not going to be an
actively used building, or even an occasionally used building, that's probably not even an
issue. It would have groat prominence as you come into the cornrmrnity on Grefl~ Plains
Boulevard and would be situated up against a hill and visually quite prominent at the Great
Plains Boulevard. Site D is the other site that we looked aL The additional site that I talked
to Todd about earlier in the week. And this is on the south side of the tracks, again east of
Great Plains Boulevard. In access right-of-way for the West 79th Street right-of-way, this one
had a couple of features to it that I think are important. One is that it orients the railroad
tracks, which we feel is important. But second, the pathway that we could create in front of
it has a direct connection to the new pedestrian bridge and...significant or an existing
pedestrian path. It would be quite a tight fit. That's why we'd locate it a little further from
Great Plains than we might have shown in some of the other sketches. But I think it's still
going to be visually prominent. I think it's important that we remember this fight-of-way
actually gets narrower the further you get towards Great Plains. So this building's quite
narrow. It's including the ticket window in front. I think it's 20 feet 6 inches wide. Or deep
I guess this way. So it's quite a narrow structure. It would be close to the road. It'd be close
to the railroad tracks. And we could develop some on-street parking. In this case I would
say that we would try and develop like a parking bay instead of allowing more parking to
happen on 79th Street .... happens with 79th Street, it gets quite congested out there with
other cars and some of this further off the road. So we might develop like a four space
parking bay off to one side. This view is actually, as you approach the railroad tracks
looking up West 79th Street towards the I-Ianus building, the building is actually situated fight
in that excess piece of right-of-way. We haven't looked at development costs. We haven't
looked at overall feasibility. Our charge was simply to look at potential different sites and
what the structure might look like, and we can move forward from there but I can take any
questions if you have any.
Boyle: I have a question Todd. Todd, as I understand it, the Historical Society or the group
is going to raise money to fund 100% of this or what are they looking towards the HRA for?
Gerhardt: Well right now the Centennial group kind of have a sub-group to go out and raise
money. They feel like, you know they can't go out and ask people to give money for a
parade or you know, they really didn't have anything to really fund, or a project to .show
significance to the Centennial. And one of the members brought up the idea you know, if we
could do a Centennial Park or fix of the railroad depot in memory of our 100th Centennial,
that we could physically go out and raise money for a project like that. We could go to our
four new banks in town and ask them for money and businesses and take a rendering and
show them that you know, this is what we're going to do is take the old railroad depot. Fix it
up and what we would like you to do is donate money and in lieu of that we will then
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
engrave a brick with your name or family name or business name and install it around the
railroad depot. And each of Mike's alternatives you'll notice that he's put extensive block
around the building. That would allow the group to go out and solicit money and get people
to donate and also get a benefit out of it of having their name or business sit around that
facility as people walk by and take a look at it. They can see who physically helped restore
this old railroad depot. Similar project like this that l've seen recently was the park over in
Excelsior Commons area~ They built a playground structure down by the swimming beach
and I think they did an excellent job. Everybody's donation was based on the size of brick
and they're all out there prominent and did a real tasteful job in displaying their donations.
And the Centennial group is really interested in seeing how much money they can raise and
would love to do the entire thing. Now with the support of probably the Rotary, the Lions,
and our other clubs in town assisting them in that effort.
Boyle: Of the four sites, which one would be the most economical, in your gentlemen's
opinion of securing property and locating.
Michael Schroeder: The Klingelhutz and Dinner Theatre sites have obviously, there's an
underlying landowner other than the city who would have to be dealt with. The site along
West 79th Street, excess right-of-way so that I think adds a fair amount of feasibility above
the others. The Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus site is also owned by the city, but that would be
require...o£ the building, and they've preclude development options, or may limit development
options for the rest of the block.
Gerhardt: And the grading on both, I would say the Dinner Theatre and the Klingelhutz one
would be an added cost up and above what would probably be the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus and
the West 79th Street.
Michael Schroeder: In terms of the, if you had a clear site to work with, I would say that the
Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus is probably the least expensive to develop buildings because it's
relatively fiat to begin with. The West 79th Street, there would be some grading required.
There's a slight mound in there but it's relatively less than there would be on the Klingelhutz
and Dinner Theatre site. I think one of the other limitations to the Dinner Theatre site, it is
although it has some attractiveness in being the original location, it's limited in terms of
accessibility. And I guess I would like for you to think that as this project moves forward,
that the building would be more than simply an artifact. You would try to install some kind
of a use into it of some kind, even if it's on an occasional basis.
Boyle: My understanding is that is not the intent at this time.
Homing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Gerhardt: Yeah. What we've talked about Mike is turning it into kind of like a picture box
that the building would be not accessible but that it would be viewed through the windows of
the facility and that you would see like having somebody from the Dinner Theatre set up a
scene of the late 1800's. Somebody sitting at the ticket window. You know mother and
daughter sitting at tho bench waiting for the train. Mail bags in the background.
Michael Schroeder: And I think I would consider that a viable use. It's not just sitting there
empty. It's actually working as a historic interpretation. And that would work especially well
in a place where it's more immediately accessible by cars or by people so the
Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus site and the 79th Street site would have that kind of advantage in that
case.
Bohn: It could always still be used for something else too. Meeting or something for a
small group. We never know, 10 years from now we may change our mind what the uso is
for.
Gerhardt: Well you can always change your mind, yeah.
Bohn: But the location, it will get more expensive.
Gerhardt: The drawbacks are, you know in the wintertime you're going to have to buy, you
don't want to put a lot of capital costs in it. Buying the heating, air conditioning and making
the building efficient and insulating it and we didn't want to get into those type of costs in
making it ADA accessible was another thing. The structure inside, half of the building is
basically used for storage. If you've been in the facility, it's like a one room school house
with a little ticket area and then the back part was used for storage of mail and products that
would be put into the, to be used to deliver on the train. I handed out a letter to you that the
Minnesota Historical Society, you know had expressed real concern in what they call is kind
of the zoo effect, is when you put all your historical buildings into one location and not really
being it's original location. They encouraged us to try to get it back to it's original location as
possible and recommended that we try to get it down along the railroad tracks somewhere.
They do have some jurisdiction over this and because of the LAWCON property at Lake .Ann
Park and the construction of that frontage road, that railroad depot would need to be moved
and that would allow them some say over the location, or future location.
Boyle: Well I kind of agree that I guess looking at it right now, I think I mentioned A or C,
which puts it near the railroad tracks. It does not have as much parking or access feasibility
but for it's purpose, that's where I would tend to lean at the current time. Any other
comments?
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Bohn: A or C?
Boyle: Which would be both, A is I guess we'd call that the Klingelhutz property and C
would be the Bloomberg property.
Bohn: ff it was at the Klingelhutz property, it would be more, it'd still be like connected to
Heritage Park because you would have to cross the street to get there and plenty of parking.
Boyle: A, you mean. Oh you said A, I'm sorry.
Gerhardt: Under scheme A you, Al Kiingelhutz would say that's a total taking so you'd have
to buy him and Jack Barnes out of that entire site.
Boyle: That doesn't include the current building that they're in? Or does it?
Gerhardt: This, do they get to keep their building in this one?
Boyle: Actually what I tried to do it so that the existing structure that was there could stay.
It may affect their parking lot some. Their access...but you're fight. There would be a
connection. An intemal, off-street connection between the other historic buildings on that
site.
Gerhardt: I know A1 has talked about you know, if we put it there, he would want probably
us to buy the entire site out because it would take away from his ability to develop that site
to it's fullest extent.
Bohn: He bought that, where the railroad depot would go, he bought that from the railroad
after his building was already there and they were operating. He and Jerry Schlenk split up
the property and each bought part of the railroad property.
Gerhardt: Yeah, the railroad wanted to just keep a 50 foot strip through there and they sold
off the excess fight-of-way to both Jerry Schlenk and Al Klingelhutz so.
Boyle: Well Todd, do you have any comments on the northwest side then, which is referred
to as the Bloomberg property?
Gerhardt: Don feels that he would be successful in asking Mr. Bloomberg to donate that
land. It's kind of land that can't be used for development. Ifs, in Al's case, this is the prime
piece for him. Exposure as you come up on Great Plains and so I'm not trying to discourage
you from Al's if that's what you want to see. I mean I don't know where we'd come up with
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
the money to probably meet what A1 would want for it. Bloomberg's alternative would work,
unless we had to get into a laud acquisition type thing but you know, it is it's original
location. You can't dispute it being a good location. Mike does bring up the point,
accessibility. There wouldn't be any parking, with the exception of parking up in the Dinner
Theatre and walking down. And there might be some concern on visibility as you're coming
from the north and going south on West 78th, Great Plains there and seeing the facility. It
would be most prominent as you come north onto Great Plains past the car wash and out. It
would be very prominent going in that direction. The West 79th Street one again would
probably be prominent coming from the north and going south, and not very prominent as
you're driving up on it from the south heading north. So those are kind of the up's and the
down's of those two sites. Visibility on the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus, you know very prominenL
You do have the Historical Society's feelings on that would be a negative and Mike did bring
a good point out that if you did decide to put it there, it would reduce your development
capabilities there. Have an individual that has shown interest in maybe acquiring that land if
the HRA is indeed inclined to sell it.
Boyle: Todd, I think the HRA's objective might go a little bit different route tha~ what tho
Centennial committee's objective would be and I think we have an obligation to pick that
which would be the most economical to our help in this endeavor. They obviously would
like more exposure I'm sure but if, in my opinion, based upon what's been said here tonight,
if Mr. Bloomberg would be willing to donate property, it seems to me that they would have a
much easier time raising funds to offset the remaining expenditures to reconstruct this
building, which lends me to believe that Alternate D, I believe it is, would be our, one of the
better selections.
Gerhardt: The Centennial group did meet again, if I could just add. They did recommend the
Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus site but they have pulled back and said, we don~ care where it is. They
almost apologized to me saying, you know who are we to say where this thing is going to go,
you know. And they just want a project is what they said and if you can find a location,
they're willing to make the leg work in trying to rebuild it.
Bohn: When we were discussing the entertainment complex behind by the bowling alley, we
talked about a trail going all the way over to Great Plains Boulevard because you didn't want
to put a road through there. We could have them come out fight by the depot there.
Michael Schroeder: Along the tracks.
Bohn: Right.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Michael Schroeder: Actually that'd be, I think that might be a very... The problem I have
with Option, and I'm sorry not A. The Dinner Theatre site is that it's difficult to walk to but
if it is on a trail, I think that's a perfect opportunity.
Bohn: There is a sidewalk coming along Great Plains Boulevard down to it now. That
would be a trail fight there going along the railroad tracks.
Boyle: How far off of Great Plains Boulevard would the building be? I mean on this, I'm
guessing what, 50 feet or something?
Michael Schroeder: Yeah. That's something we want to make sure that you understand. At
this point we haven't studied the sight line triangles that are required from the railroad but one
of the things that this site might offer, because there's a hill there already which limits
visibility and we wouldn't necess~ly make the situation that much worse by pulling the
building up closer to Great Plains. Ultimately the location might shift. I think what we're
trying to do is a couple of things..but to say that a direction that can be moved forward on on
one of these sites.
Boyle: Well once again, Alternative C does not give the greatest exposure. It does have the
hill behind it but I think it would be the most economical.
Bohn: The Bloomberg site.
Boyle: Yes, the Bloomberg site.
Bohn: I agree with you.
Boyle: If there's no objection I think we'd like to direct staff to, excuse me question?
Steve Berquist: One question. How is it the most economical when it's going to require the
grading. You already the land on the extra easement between Great Plains and the Hanus
building. The grading that would be needed for that site...there, is relatively minor. If you
put it over on Bloomberg's site, the land would have to be donated, which is a possibility...
You've got low cost grading over here. You've got to take some dirt off here but it's a fairly
level site if you've got 100 yards of dirt... To me that, I don't even feel like I should be sitting
up here but to me that site over here on the Hanus side seems to makes more sense.
Bohn: I think if it's on the, by the Hanus site, with the plowing out of the car washes and
stuff, you probably in the wintertime wouldn't even be able to see that building.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Steve Berquist: That being the case, you've got Mike Sorenson's building on the other side.
Bohn: He's on the other side of the railroad tracks though. He's on the opposite side of the
railroad tracks. But that street, there's a big snow drift on that side.
Gerhardt: Mike, would you need retaining walls with this one? You didn't check the grade?
Michael Schroeder: You mean on the Bloomberg site?
Gerhardt: Ah no, yeah the Bloomberg.
Michael Schroeder: I believe you would. We don't know the exact grades out there but we're
assuming the grades are not, you would need retaining walls on that side. With the, the
gentleman's correct, would require more money but it might also tend to, I don~t know if
isolates the right word but it would set it in it's own context rather than having a 20th...behind
it, which might be limiting it in terms of the historic interpretation.
Boyle: Don you had something you would like to say.
Chmiel: Yeah. Todd, we were looking at some other sites besides the ones we have in front
of us. I thought we were looking at, on Market Boulevard where the existing pond is. Some
consideration was given to that. And then also to the north of the Americana Bank, with that
openness that's there and exists right adjacent to the railroad, didn't we explore that at all?
Gerhardt: The only spot I think...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mason: ...if it's going to be surrounded by 20th century, it does kind of take away the
question, why do it.
Boyle: A question that kind of comes to my mind several times here but can we just for a
minute discuss the pros and cons of the 79th Street that Steve brought up versus the
Bloomberg property. The 79th Street, we own that property by the Hanus building. That
would require less moving of dirt, is that correct?.
Michael Schroeder: It would seem that way. Again, I haven't done a grade study but I would
say definitely we would need retaining walls. I could fairly say that we would need more
retaining walls for sure at the Bloomberg site than the West 79th Street site.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Boyle: They could sell those and put names on them. Is there any other use for this property
on 79th Street? I could we ever use that for some other purpose?
Gerhardt: No.
Michael Schroeder: It's quite a narrow strip. Ifs probably 40 feet of that fight-of-way.
Gerhardt: Yeah, I was kind of surprised. You really have to push that building almost back
to where the cul-de-sac is to really fit it in there and have enough room for snow and stuff.
It is a very narrow strip in there.
Boyle: And the trail would run directly in front of it then?
Gerhardt: It looks like it goes on both sides.
Michael Schroeder: I think the trail is fight now connecting the bridge, it comes up and
around along the, just inside of the property lines up to the fight-of-way at the Hanus building
and I think fight now it comes up and runs along this side. Actually, maybe we just take it
straight down...
Gerhardt: I think it goes fight down the middle.
Michael Schroeder: I think you're right. I think it goes right down the middle and we're...to
the railroad tracks. We did show...
Boyle: It's out of the way. I mean it's just.
Bohn: You'd have to put up a retaining wall there too because of that big bank.
Michael Schroeder: You mean going down to the railroad tracks?
Bohn: Yeah. That's why I'm saying you may have to have a retaining wall on the south side,
or somewhere back in here. The other...the Bloomberg site, you have it on the uphill on the
north side...although I think at the Bloomberg, the retaining wall would be more significant.
But again we haven't studied that yet.
Boyle: Well once again.
Bohn: Yeah, we should look at, go physically look at the sites.
10
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Boyle: I think so. It's kind of coming down to that. I don't want to spend more money
researching to find out which would be the best becamse obviously if we're going to talk
economics, we don't want more research into okay, how much, to spend more money to
research.
Gerhardt: I think staff, at a minimal expense, can come back and determine you know, come
up with site preparation costs for you. I think, from what I'm hearing everybody here, it's
probably the thing that's teetering the decision almost.
Boyle: I think so and correct me if I'm wrong. Are we looking at Alternative C and D?
Does that seem to be right?.
Chmiel: Yes.
Boyle: And that is, understood Alternative C being the Bloomberg property. Alternative D
being the 79th Street property owned by the HRA, or by the city. Would you do that Todd
for us?
Gerhardt: Sure.
Boyle: And I know that the Centennial committee is anxious to get some kind of a decision
so they can get going but.
Gerhardt: Well I would hope that we could come up with something in the next couple
weeks and maybe we need a joint meeting of the City Council and I-IRA to sit down and
discuss it and show the numbers.
Boyle: I think that's an excellent suggestion.
Gerhardt: And give the Centennial the go abe. ad to start raising money for this.
Michael Schroeder: In the meantime they can use these drawings in those fund raising
efforts.
Boyle: For their fund raising efforts.
Bohn: You wouldn't be able to, the 79th Street, coming either direction, you won't even be
able to see the railroad depot until you got right down to the street.
ll
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Michael Schroeder: That's in fact correct. You would have to get pretty close to 79th Street
before you actually get the view, and even at that you're looking, because of tho way it's
situated, you'd be looking at more at the end of it than with the Bloomberg site you're be
looking pretty much square at the site...up to the north on Great Plains.
Boyle: Todd would you also give us an idea of what it would cost to maintain the old city
hall here because this is going to be a similar type of expense, I would assume.
Gerhardt: I have minimal costs in maintaining.
Boyle: Paint it once or twice...
Gerhardt: I've waived fees for people to hold like little craft fairs in there and they clean it
then for me and we do draw. I'm cheap.
Mason: You are.
Bohn: Weren't the Boy Scouts using this?
Gerhardt: No, the Boy Scouts are still in old St. Huberfs church. We are now charging a fee
and using all our facilities in line with the rec center so it is like $5.00 an hour or something
to use the facility. And so they said, well if you waive the fee you know, after we get done
we'll mop the floors, dust everything and clean the windows. I said, sounds good to mo. Ifs
very minimal maintenance on that.
Boyle: Well Todd if you will do that and kind of get some kind of cost for us and then weq. l
move forward. Thank you very much.
Steve Berquist: Can I ask a question regarding, do they want to refurbish this thing and
move it, refurbish it and make it habitable?
Boyle: No.
Steve Berquist: Or not habitable but they want to take, are you planning on putting footings
underneath this and re-do the exterior so it looks like it did back in 19 whenever?.
Gerhardt: They want to put new shingles on it They want to put siding. They want to put
new windows, doors, and.
12
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Chmiel: You can't take out those windows. Those are original. Those are windows you
can't even replace.
Gerhardt: Well, there are a couple of windows that need to be repaired. They don~t want to,
I think some of the siding is fairly good on the building. If we can get by in setting them on
a slab of concrete, I mean whatever our building department will allow us to do. If we can
put it on a wood foundation, I can't believe that that would be acceptable but some type of
slab. Concrete pad.
Steve Berquist: Does the committee have any kind of a budget7
Gerhardt: About $50,000.00 was a rough estimate and it was like $5,000.00 to move and to
re-roof it, I think they were looking anywhere from 5 to 7 and.
Steve Berquist: So a total of $50 grand.
Gerhardt: Yeah, that was kind of the number from a rough look at it.
Boyle: You know Todd, what if they only raise 25. Who's obligated to the other 25 then?
Gerhardt: Well, that would be something they'd probably come back and see if you could do
it. It doesn't need to be done this year. You know they can continue to raise it. Sitting here
today, I think we've got to move the thing. We've got to do something with it. We can store
it out at public works for a few years or whatever but space is very limited out there. For
you to only have to put $25,000.00 into it instead of 50, I think that's a pretty good deal. It's
a better deal than what we've gotten in the last few years.
Steve Berquist: But if you can save the 15, you could save the 25 and you could bring it
down and only have 10/10...
Gerhardt: Yeah. Well the Historical Society is requiring that we do locate it and I don't
know if they've got the will and the power to threaten to sue us but you know, the possibility
could be there but. That's up to this body. That is kind of the risk that you are taking in
this. If they don't raise enough money.
Boyle: Okay. Well I think we know where we all feel on it. Let's look at some cost next
meeting and see where we can go with that. Does anybody have any other comments? We
spent quite a bit of time on this. Okay Mike, did you? You okay? With that we'll move on
to old business.
13
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
(~?ON~H)ER AWARD OF BiD FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMIOCr
FOR THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item and asked Michael Schroeder to briefly
go through the landscape plan for the HRA.
Michael Schroeder: If we start from the landscape plan on page 4. Basically what the plan
shows on the north side, that we have, it's presented with the bridge from the Eden Prairie
side to, there's a ring of sugar maples that kind of nm along the north side, along the tracks
and as we pass the bridge, the...would be evergreens. On the south side we're under the
power lines and so the same kind of sweeping stand of trees...and then the southwest corner
there'd be pines again, kind of screening the thing from development... Basically we're trying
to set this bridge, it's kind of been termed a garden bridge. We're trying to set it back into
that context and to help do that we want to anchor each side with some kind of garden type
landscape and as well we would want to...abutments at either end here. Vines that crawl
down here at the center and up onto the trellis like structure of the bridge from both ends at
the center. That's the basic idea behind the landscaping.
Mason: So are you envisioning the vines to go all the way across Highway 57
Michael Schroeder: Probably not all the way across.
Mason: That would be cool.
Michael Schroeder: It would be cool.
Mason: It would be, yeah.
Michael Schroeder: ...who knows what will happen but I would imagine that might be quite
a long time.
Boyle: That'd really be cool in January.
Michael Schroeder: The lighting, there's two aspects to the lighting. One that Todd talked
about with the pole lights and it's basically, there are three pole lights at either end of the
bridge connecting back down to the path to West 79th and also down the sidewalk on Lake
Drive near the church, and they're kind of equally spaced along the path. We'd have, we
would install lights all along 79th Street as part of the I-Ianus project so there will be...light all
west of the bridge. There wouldn't be any direct pedestrian lighting on the bridge itself but
we want ambient lighting from feature accent lighting. And what we'd be doing is two kinds
14
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
of light fixtures shown here on the plan. There's the Type A fixture. The Type B fixture.
They're both basically the same thing but it's aiming in different directions... The B fixture
shines up on the abutmont...and on the center pier. Tho A Lights are oriented to beam across
tho bridgo...lig~t so that it becomes illnminated at night as you pass under it. I guess it
should also be noted that the lighting, for some reason was never budgeted originally in tho
architect's and engineer's plan and so the lighting was put into the landscape. I think tho
approaches budget of $110,000.00, which works out fine because I think we're getting
everything we wanted to get. Essentially it's worked out fairly well.
Gerhardt: The comments I've received from people, the guard rail that goes around the
structure, would the bushes be on the inside of that or the outside of that? I can't believe
MnDot allows us to do something.
Michael Schroeder: The first plan we had, within that guard rail we were showing that
there'd be shrub rows with a good row above...the level of the guard rail so thero'd be some
color in the center. MnDot doesn't allow that kind of planting in the median. Actually
MnDot had some, maybe I shouldn't say. MnDot had some pretty strange comments about
the planting plan. They didn't really look at the plants to understand it at all. At each end of
the bridge we had some highlight planting that would include flowering shrubs and some
perennial to kind of keep in the garden spirit and MnDot noted in their plan review that
nobody would see the day lilies if they drove by on Highway 5. They forgot that people
would actually be using the bridge to walk across, so.
Boyle: Any comment? Mike? Don? Jim?
Bohn: No.
Chmiel: With the total lights that we're going to have, and I see some of them are wattages
consisting, did we look at a cost over the period of a year for operational?
Michael Schroeder: We did not.
Gerhardt: Ifs a similar product that we're using on, we did use the specs off of what the spot
lights are on old St. Hube~s, and around old village hall and the clock tower, if I remember
risht.
Michael Schroeder: Yeah, we got our inground fixtures, at one time we had looked at flood
lights that were above ground. That's an inground, small fixtures but I don't know what the
maintenance costs are. I'm not sure but I don't think it was included in the original
specifications but we probably could include some timer elements so they would shut off
15
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
between midnight and until the next evening. I think right now it'd be driven by a photocell
but I should check the specs. A timer for this would not be a great cost addition to the
project and it might be worth checking into for that reason.
Bohn: A pedestrian bridge, you want the lights on all the time wouldn't you? I mean during
night hours.
Gerhardt: Well I think you can put it on a separate, the floodlights which are going to shine
on the embankments can shut off at the Acom/NSP installation lights could be on a separate
circuit.
Michael Schroeder: Correct. They would be on a separate circuit. One of the things that we
did look at is, and it was considered...was whether there needed to be a light effectively on
the bridge to illuminate the walking surface and as we looked around at other pedestrian
bridges, most do not have lighting on the surface at all. In fact many of them don~t even
have lighting on the approaches, and that's where we got to tho point of considering tho
feature light to be adequate ambient light for pedestrians walking across the bridge.
Gerhardt: So you're saying that we should maybe keep them on all night?
Michael Schroeder: No. I'm saying that other instances, they don~t have lighting at all and so
what we're doing is probably providing light in the times it would actually be used. At least
adding a timer would provide the flexibility of some... We can ask the contractor to
investigate what that would cost.
Gerhardt: If we are getting complaints that the thing isn't lit at night, you know we can shut
the timer off and run it.
Boyle: Jim brought up the concern. I would thiuk that you'd want some type of light for the
safety at night of whatever purposes of not only somebody falling but mugging or whatever.
I mean you know, whatever. Make it a safe lit, secure place for somebody to walk across at
any time of the day or night. Well if there's no further comments.
Steve Berquist: May I ask a couple of quick questions?
Boyle: Yes, you may Steve.
Steve Berquist: I notice that you're advising the deletion of the...C and you're buy them from
NSP. Or NSP's going to put them up. Would that include the...NSP? Let's say you're east of
the...
16
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Gerhardt: I don't know the number off hand but if we were to install the ceftin fixtures, we'd
enter into a maintenance agreement with NSP to come in and maintain those also. Ifs, we do
that in some of our other light fixtures.
Steve Berquist: So NSP's going to put these things up for nothing?
Gerhardt: Yep.
Steve Berquist: Well why in the world...
Michael Schroeder: Actually I believe what they do is they charge a small increment in
addition to the maintenance fee and prorate it over a very long period of _time. I _thing the
biggest concern over the Type C fixtures that we have specified was that the bids that we
received, because there's a small source specifier, or supplier, that the prices we were getting
were probably anywhere from $700.00 to $800.00 higher per pole. We were paying I thing
$31, we would have been paying $3,100.00 for what should have been a $2,200.00 to
$2,300.00 fixture and pole.
Boyle: You had another question Steve?
Steve Berquist: Well...jump down at me.
Gerhardt: Mike is right. The cost figure for the acorn is a little higher than their, what I'll
say is their wood pole with the security, mercury vapor light. I mean it's $5.00 and then it's
up to something else I th/nk. So the range is more for this type of' fixture because they are
trying to recoup the cost of the more decorative, more expens/ve lights. But it's similar to
the light poles that are down on Kerher. ff you%e ever driven down on Kerber and seen the
ones that overlook Chan Pond. Those are the ones that we would include as a part of this.
It's got acorn looking globe and kind of a fiberglass decorative pole.
Stove Berquist: Is that what they are?...
Gerhardt: Yep. This is, it was the same height that we spec'd as a part of the ceftin.
Steve Berquist: Which is what, 12 feet?
Gerhardt: I think it's 15.
Chmiel: Oh did you? Okay. Normally many of them 10-12.
17
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Michael Schroeder: The ceftin ones we specified were 15. Fm sure NSP has some flexibility
in their, they might not be fiberglass. They might actually be urethane poles but Pm sure
there's some flexibility in height of those as well.
Gerhardt: The cortins, you can get them from 15 to 20 to 25, 40.
Boyle: But we don't need anything of great height there.
Michael Schroedor: No. We wanted to keep them more pedestrian...
Boyle: Otherwise it can detract.
Steve Berquist: I'm sorry. Given that, given the NSP deal, given the fact that they amortize
the cost of these things over a long period of time, and given the fact that the maintenance
contract only goes up a small percentage, why would we, why as a design engineer would we
entertain going with the ceftin fixture knowing that the city bears the full cost of material and
installation?
Michael Schroeder: When we put the plans and specs together, the intention was to use the
same street fixture, same fixture that the city uses on all their streets. And at that time we
didn't consider going to tho fixture...more than halfway. In a way...
Steve Berquist: Then the other question is why is the city...these other fixtures?
Gerhardt: The cortin, I mean I'm not saying that the NSP poles are a great thing. I'm Saying
the NSP poles work great for a pedestrian orientation. I would not want to use a NSP pole to
light West 78th Street, County Road 17. A cortin pole is a very sturdy pole. It weathers
well. You don't have to worry about paint or paint peeling off it. It has a natural rust. Ifs
an aesthetically pleasing pole. It's a minor maintenance pole and it can take a lot of abuse.
Michael Schroeder: In fact the same pole, not in the ceftin, is the only fixture that MnDot
will allow you to put on one of it's roadways .... manufacturer has quite the market in this...
Gerhardt: But again, as a pedestrian sidewalk area, you're not having trucks going by. You
don't get the salt splash up on them. It's pedestrians and there will not be any vehicles in that
ares. We did try to stay with continuity with bringing it in there but you know the price is
up. We were going back to ask Charles if he knew anyway that we could get these things at
a lower cost and he said, well if it's a pedestrian area, we typically go with some NSP poles
like the ones on Kerber. So that's the reason we went on this route.
18
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
Mason: When are we looking to have all this done?
Michael Schroeder: The contract I think specifies the lighting and landscape work will be
substantially complete by June 1st, or June 30th of 1996. It will be spring construction in the
next year.
Boyle: The lighting would have to wait that long too?
Gerhardt: Well the bridge, the bridge sidewalks, the bridge itself wont be usable until next
spring because of the early frost and bad weather we've had, unless I wanted to pay for
blankets and warm water and some special curing to go into the concrete. I could have had a
sidewalk earlier. And I told the contractor I don't have that kind of money with this budget
and I said we'll have to wait until next spring. So the bridge will not be operational until
probably mid-June, early-June when the concrete plants get up and come on.
Bohn: It's a good thing Mark Senn isn't here because we went over this about the sidewalk
over asphalt over concrete and we went with concrete because we couldn't put asphalt in at
that late a date.
Gerhardt: You can't put asphalt in now either. Todd Hoffman has stopped the construction
of his ice rinks and nobody is putting asphalt in in the last 2 to 3 weeks.
Bohn: What I'm saying is, at that one meeting we were going to have those sidewalks in this
year.
Michael Schroeder: I think part of the problem is that the bridge construction took longer
than anticipated.
Bohn: Why did it get so long to start in the first place?
Michael Schroeder: They have a, Pm thinking for Strgar-Roscoe, they have the engineers for
the bridge itself, they set up, MnDot sets up a per day contract and a working day contract I
think is what they call them, and they were limited in the number of working days they had
during the construction season... Pushed construction later and later into the fall. I believe
that's the case.
(Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.)
19
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - November 16, 1995
CONSIDgR APPROVAL OF 1996 BUDG~-'T.
Chmiel moved, Bohn seconded to approve the 1996 budget for the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF BILK%
Chmiel moved, Mason seconded to approve the bills for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mason moved, Bohn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Assistant Executive Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
2O