1993 05 20CH6NHaSSEN HOUSIN~ 6Ni)
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR HEETING
MAY 20, 1993
Chairman Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Bohn, Don Chmiel, Mike Mason, and Gary Boyle
MEMBERS ABSENT= Charlte Robbing
ST~FF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. Executive Director
APPROVRM OF MINUTES= Chmiel moved, Mason seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting dated April 22, i993 as
presented. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.)
UPDATE ON THE CH~NH~SSEN COMMUNITY CENTER.
Boyle: You're not designing that parc of it. You're just suggesting that
it could be.
Curt Green: No. I'm just suggesting that that's what I've considered.
What type of...just for size and have some architectural sensitivity to it.,
Gerhardt: How many seats are in that proposed theater? That you designed
for the movie theater, cinema? How many people would that seat?
Curt Green: About 650. Four theaters.-
Mason: 650 total right?
Chmiel: Maybe we can get some costs.
-.
Dick Duerner: I handed out some sheets. On this scheme, scheme 12, the
lower level, the rec and the community center is 49,036 square feet. The
upper level, that portion, the running track and the mechanical space, the
second floor viewing of. your racquetball is another 7,900 square feet for a
total of 56,941. I rounded it to 57,000 which gives us $5,000,087.72,
which is approximately the area we were trying to shoot for to be able to
do a decent architectural expression a~d amenities you're looking for.
Second gym on the lower level is 6,825 square feet. The upper level,
between the running track and the additional mechanical space and your
connecting link between the two running tracks is another 4,629 square
feet. That's 11,454. I rounded it ll,500 and that is $60.00 a foot. You
don't have the high humidity to contend with...Two of the exterior walls,
three of the exterior walls are there and you don't have this complicated
mechanical systems. You don't have the toilet areas and the kitchen areas.
That's why I use $60.00 on that for 690 or a total of $5,690,000.00.
Bohn: What's the difference if it was all built at one time than built
separately?
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 2
Dick Duerner: The way it's laid out, there isn't too much difference
because the addition is just stuck in there. That can be done at any time.
You're not disrupting any of your other activities there so it'd just be a
matter of time and escalation costs depending upon when you did it.
Chmiel: What's the escalation costs entail from one year to the other, or
two years?
Dick Duerner: It's been running around, in the last couple of years, about
2 1/2-3~. Labor and that. Right now lumber has really taken a hike which
isn't figured into that...actually more than that because of lumber. And I
don't know why the builders haven't looked at it but steel studs are now
cheaper than wood studs...
Chmiel: I'm sure they'll keep up with it.
Gerhardt: Dick I mean, these dollar amounts, I mean what's reaIly brought
us in line to get this amount of square footage and that is really
basically bringing this down to basically a one story facility.
Dick Duerner: One story and...some of the areas not having a lot of
circulation but at one point we had another lobby up on the second floor.
A large area down below it all tied into this major circulation that
occurs. We're not...where you come into it.. Go through the rec area to
meeting rooms and bowling alley and community center...
Chmiel: Curt, just below the Dinner Theatre and that red, that would be
the location for the new scene shop?
Curt Green: That's what I proposed.
Chmiel: Okay. What's the, have you gone through any of the numbers,
because it looks like we're going to do some swapping and trading here.
Have we gone through any of the numbers in that? And would those numbers
be included in the figures we have presently?
Gerhardt: No. These are just true construction dollars. They do not
include parking lot. They do not include any type of land acquisition that
you may have to go ahead with.
Dick Duerner: They do not include fees.
Gerhardt: Fees, but our original budget of $5.5 to $6, we did not include
those elements in there. However, some of the problems that we had was of
having to come in here and buy what is the back side of the Dinner Theatre
at a price that put us outside of our other costs. And we needed to come
up with a way of trying to minimize those dollars. One approach that.staff
is looking at is trying to work out an arrangement with Bloomberg Companies
and coming in with a private redevelopment of what would be the bowling
center and cinema area. At our last meeting there were discussions that
the city should not own the bowling center and that it should retain in
private hands. To accomplish that task would be to try to work out an
arrangement with a developer to do that. And Bloomberg has, Bloomberg
Companies have shown proof that they are capable of redeveloping things
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 3
throughout the downtown and it was logical that we may come in and swap the
bowling center property and parking lot and lands associated with that,
with what would be the Frontier Center building and the vacant land just
south of that. And leaving what would be the scene shop and the mill shop
or the Dinner Theatre property as the parking lot for the Dinner Theatre
employees. We've had conversations with Bloombergs. I don't want to speak
for Clayton on how he feels about this but I think there are possibilities.
It's a matter of sitting down and trying to work out some of the bigger
details with it. But it is an avenue that may accomplish the budgetary
figures. And with that Z guess I'd like to introduce Clayton and have him
give an overview of where they're at to date with the future expansion of
the hotel. The future retail development of what was the hardware store
area, Animal Fair and the rest of the retail in.front'of the old Frontier
Center. Clayton, do you feel prepared to go through that now?
Clayton 3ohnson: I'll just attempt to give you an update of what's
happened since the last meeting. As you know we had a joint meeting with
the HRA and the City Council and Planning Commission and Park and Rec. It
was a decision that was put before that group of were they going to build a
recreation facility or not. We took that at face value that they are. So
we proceeded with the plans. I guess the one assumption that we've made,
and one' that needs to be resolved fairly soon, is we still are assuming
that there's going to be no connection between the Fetail and the back.
Our plans, we've hired an architect. Tim Howell is here tonight. He's an
architect. He's the guy who worked with Herb and did the hotel. And we're
busy right now making ou~ preliminary drawing, our preliminary plans for
the hotel expansion so that we can get that to the point where we can get
the firm preliminary pricing and Herb and Tim are working on the
rennovation of all the retail in the front. And it would be part of the
total redevelopment plan to reface that ~etail and come to starting, we
want to get to the Planning Commission as soon as we can with those plans
and with the new signage plan and a replatting of all the 'pFopeTties. So !
guess the two things that are going to stand in our way of continued
progress is the decision for sure on is there going to be a connection
because we're assuming no connection, and we're proceeding that way. And
the other thing, there does have to be some decisions on where these
property lines are in the back since we will be shortly hiring a surveyor
and starting to draw some property lines as to how we would like to have it
platted. As I explained earlier, that's critical to us because as you
know, the Theatre's coming out of bankruptcy on 3une 6th. There's likely
to be a new owner and we have to be prepared to sell that parcel of land to
the new owner if that would come about. So we're pressing ahead as though
that is going to happen. I haven't seen this plan. I haven't spent any
time with it but really, again we're assuming it's our responsibility to do
the front and you're going to do whatever you do in the back. As far as
the back is concerned, staff did approach us this week about the
possibility of a trade and we don't have a problem'with that. I haven't
even tried to put a pencil to the values. Obviously we've got to arrive at
the values of what you're going to acquire and the values of what we are to
reacquire and we're certainly open to that because we're confident that we
can get a developer to come in and do this cinema on front and so I think
on the surface that appears to be very workable. One of the problems is
though, that you have to have something to trade. Right now you don't have
anything to trade. If you're going to trade us the bowling alley, you've
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 4
got to acquire the bowling alley and so far you haven't done that. On the
back, if the property, if the civic center buiIding was...approximately
that area, there is a question. We might choose to Ieave the scene shop
where it is. Have the road go around it and dress up that a Iittle. If
the City isn't going to acquire it, I think that it's going to be very
difficult for us to tear that down. $o the economics are just not going to
work. 8ut Herb has some ideas there what we could do.' We could pitched
roof on that and it is a steel structure but that doesn't mean that it
can't be dressed up to make it look very...but we probabIy, if that'S where
the property Iine is drawn, the road is not pushed through there, we
probably would opt for leaving that building in place. Any other
questions? Jim.
Bohn: How about the expansion of the hotel to the west?
Clayton Johnson: Well, if we were to re-acguire this, and part of the deal
with you. If you guys were to buy it and eventually we end up owning it
again, one of the things we would do in that development, we certainly
would preserve an expansion, the second expansion of the hotel on that site
on that space. We would try to. If it's doable.
Bohn: Can you do it with the lobby of the bowling alley there?
Clayton 3ohnson: That's not.
Curt Green: You weren't going to use the lower floor anyway...
Clayton 3ohnson: No. Parking underneath.
Curt Green: Obviously the bowling alley's the lower level and the hotel
could be on top of it.
Clayton Johnson: That hasn't been given a lot of study because this whole
idea of the trade just surfaced this week but I mean, that's one of the
things that, if we were to be responsible for that, we certainly try to
preserve a second expansion here. Anything else?
Boyle: And that would fit on this current .plan?
Clayton Johnson: Pardon?
Boyle: That would fit? The expansion would work on this current plan?
Clayton Johnson: Boy I don't know...
Audience: As we had discussed it...coming down that side, a single corridor.
loaded corridor or rooms facing west, it would yes.
Clayton Johnson: I don't think though in terms of making the numbers work
that it's anything that's going to, any increment that's going to be
available during the life of the district. I think obviously w~ plan on
increment coming...but that expansion would a couple three years down the
road at the earliest and then you're Just about out of the life of the
district.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 5
Gerhardt: The fun's almost over.
Clayton 3ohnson: But we'd like to look at this a little more but I think
as long as those two caveats, but we're assuming that there's no connection
and we're proceeding as though there isn't...
Chmiel: I think, I like what I see basically but there's some gaps in here
that I don't feel comfortable with yet. And that being some of the
consideration regarding all the land costs and other associated costs that
we're going to have with this facility. With the trades and whatever we're
going to go through. I think we're going to have to know exactly where
that's at. Because that's going to entail a good amount of dollars into
the entirety of this project and you're going to pop it right back up to
where we were before. And that would be one of my major concerns that I
have. Well, I'll wait until somebody else. I have something else I want
to talk to but go ahead.
Bohn: Mike.
Mason: Yeah, I think the money thing is certainly pretty crucial. I think
we need to get that pinned down. I really like the direction this is all
taking. I see some definite advantages in being able to swap some things,
if that can work out. It sounds like if everyone's agreeable to it, I
think we need to 'look into that. I like what I'm seeing here. I think
that the essence of that meeting on Monday night was pretty well captured
here. I really think so. I mean obviously, you know I think, correct me
if I'm wrong but I think one thing we need to take into mind here is that
this isn't detailed specifics yet. I think I like the overall picture here
and I think let's find out what the next step is and go with it. That's
where I'm coming from. And I agree with Don about the money issue. I need
to know where the dollars are before we say yea or nay but it certainly
looks to me like we're, I see us taking a pretty good step forward right
now. And I have some more questions but I want to get some of this stuff
out of the way here.
Bohn: Gary.
Boyle: I think we've come a long way. I think we're on the right road.
This is the track we should be. Todd, how long would it take to get the
other costs associated with the land costs, etc.? I mean what kind of
timeframe?
Gerhardt: Well the key thing here is to determine values and also I'm sure
Clayton's going to have to put paper to pencil on some revenues that the
cinema might generate and what the bowling center is willing to pay in rent
and I think we both have a pretty good grasp of what the bowling alley has
for a value and what the frontier building and the vacant land behind it
has for a value. And I think over the next few weeks that we could
potentially come back at the next meeting with some type of agreement
between the two parties. But I don't want to, that's really pushing it I
think but I say in the next couple of months we're going to know where.we
are. But the key thing here is, you know Clayton makes a good statement
that he has something to trade and we don't. But we've got to know where
Clayton stands on this and if we own it type thing, then you guys can make
Housing and RedeveIopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 6
the decision if we should go ahead and proceed with that acquisition. I
would hope that we'd have something on our next agenda In some kind of form
of agreement or understanding of how an agreement could be put together.
But I mean, a lot of this stuff has come about In the last 24 hours and I'd
like to work it out with City Manager and come up with some details and put
it into some hard facts for you at our next meeting.
Boyle: Just one other question. Does anybody know how to put it somewhat
in perspective, the square footage of this project is compared to say
Chaska Community Center. Does anybody know what the square footage of
Chaska is?
Curt Green: Well it's smaller than Chaska. I would say it's probably
about 2/3 the size.
Boyle: Thank you.
Gerhardt: Chaska has the ice arena associated with their's and they only
have one gymnasium and I think, so if you take the ice off, is it similar
in size or are you saying that's smaller?
Curt Green: If you take the ice arena off, then they're smaller...Compare
one gym, this gym to their having only one gym, otherwise It's going to be
quite similar.
Bohn: As far as I can tell, I think this plan would work for what people
at Monday night's meeting asked for. I don't really see where there's real
concern as far as why we would have to have an access to main street. That
was one of Bloomberg's concerns and it'd just like having an alley going
down, diving a block in half.
Gerhardt: Well I don't know if we're done fighting with Clayton on that
one yet. We'll look at some options on it. I mean Clayton has very good
concerns. I mean it's, I do not want to be the one to tell the person that
gets the car towed away that's sitting in front of Milly's you know, that
you shouldn't have been parking there. Suburbia's not supposed to tow cars
like downtown Minneapolis. I mean we're supposed to have land and fit
things in. And you know, that is a concern. We have to be concerned with
the viability of a business along that retail corridor to operate
effectively and I know it's a concern over at Market Square. They've put
signs out limiting l0 minute parking here and there and I think it's
working effectively over there. But it's something that I think is still,
can be considered and I wouldn't say it's out completely but I mean I think
both sides have a good basis for both needs. And I think it's Just
something that I hope will work itself out as we get into this deeper.
Clayton Johnson: Could I just make one more comment? In regard to the
land acquisition costs, I mean we bare outlined about a year and a half
ago, we started this whole process. What we're willing to sell our land
for. It didn't involve the same parcel at that time but I think one of the
things you've got to keep in mind here, it isn't that simple. In other
words, we, I think we've had the support of the HRA all along but this is a
redevelopment district and part of what we're trying to accomplish here is
to redevelop this area and that when you're looking at the increased
Housing and RedeveIopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 7
revenue that's going to be generated from this tax increment. If there had
been no civic center back here, the approach wouId have been, go in and
acquire those non-conforming uses. Remarker them to the best possibIe use
and the overall budget wouId have been, don't spend anymore than about 3 or
4 years worth of increment. Well, isn't it ~easonabIe to take the same
approach here? Why are you going to assess all of the costs of land
acquisition to the civic center? So what I'm saying is that you go and you
take the land acquisition cost. You subtract what you're going to sell
back to private development, because that's a land acquisition cost. And
what you've done is you've saved a building that's worth $30.00 or $40.00 a
square foot. I don't know, what's a tip up building worth. But the other
thing that you've got to take into consideration, I would hope that you
would count the increment coming from the private development and that's a
reduction of those costs. And that's what you would have done had you had
not involved the public structures back here. $o it's not Just a simple,
add the land acquisition to the cost of the 5 1/2 million.- I don't think
you do that. I think you take the increment that's going to flow and you
reduce those costs by that amount because that's what we would have done
had we done a private development.
Gerhardt: I'm estimating with the scenario as things are laid out right
here, you will, with private development, create approximately $100,000.00
a year in new increment. With the hotel expansion. With the adding of the
cinema and adding of the restaurant.
Bohn: 3elf, have you seen this plan yet?
3elf Farmakes: This current one? No...
Gerhardt: This plan was submitted to staff last Friday.
Curt Green:
the...
...to Todd Hoffman. Then we brought out the other plans for
Gerhardt: I guess we're at the point now where, I still have some concerns
with this area that also need to be addressed and that you also need to be
aware of. The first is, we have a parking problem potentially if we go
with this new alignment situation. And that's something that Curt, Fred
Hoisington and staff need to sit down and look at in a little more detail.
This probably comes as a surprise to Curt but if we go in with a public
street, we cannot have little access points off the parking lot into a
public street. And then the alignment in cutting off what would be the
existing scene shop reduces some parking stalls for us. And that's a minor
issue. I think we can look at trying to recapture some parking somehow.
The second issue is that we'd like to, if you feel comfortable with this
plan, we'd like to start putting some type of newsletter together to inform
the residents of where we're at with this and to keep them abreast of how
we're going. I think we're doing an adequate job of meeting with the
Planning Commission, Park and Rec, City Council and HRA and I see a meeting
in the near future with that group again to present this plan. The reason
you saw it tonight is that we're going to have community center update on
the agenda every time we meet and we had a package going out this week, we
updated you. I know it's been difficult for Gary and Jim to make some of
these special meetings that we have and I think that whenever we have an
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 8
opportunity to present something to you, we're going to. But it's always
been your direction to staff to meet with those other groups and we will do.
that. And I've got people on vacation. City Manager's gone. Todd
Hoffman's gone. Paul was at a conference so I mean we will be meeting with
that group and Jeff and the Park and Rec Commission will get a review of
this similar to yourselves and you will be invited to that meeting again.
But the key issue is that we would like to go ahead and'put some kind of
newsletter together out to the people to inform them. And the second thing
is is that we'd like to do kind of a need study survey. Market study type
analysis to justify what we've put together here too. We feel that it's,
we need to support some of the facts that we've found. It's not a step
backwards. I mean if you're going to do something like this, you have to
have a basis of something to tell people what you want to see. And I think
Curt will agree. I mean if you call somebody and say that we're
considering a community center in Chanhassen, what are your thoughts on
that? Well, what's in it? Well, we don't know. You have to have some
type of program that you can start with and that's what we've done here.
We have a program now that we can start with and we will do this study now
to see if that study will correlate with the program that we've put
together and if that study tells us that nobody will ever play racquetball,
this community center will not have a racquetball court in it. That's up
to you and City Council to decide if you want to put racquetball, even
though the study didn't. But we feel that we needed something like this
and have some type of direction of where we're going with this. I know
that's been a concern of the Planning Commission and Park and Rec and I
feel that we are at the point, if direction comes from that group, that
this is appropriate...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The quality of
the tape for the remainder of the meeting was poor and therefore hard to
hear all of the conversation.)
Chmiel: My hope is that this is not going to be another one of the
additional discussions that we've had between Minnetonka schools because...
I think what we've got to look at is the overal.l operational factors for
the city and I want that completely out of the ballpark as far as I'm
concerned. I don't think that should even be entered into it. And I think
if you proceed with the proposal that you're doing, I think you may have
some additional input in there. Maybe we don't have it here and hopefully
maybe some that will be with that...
Mason: I think that's great. Don't get me wrong. I was at that meeting
and I know...I'm not knocking that. The overwhelming, consensus of the, of
everyone in that meeting, and I was making my tally marks. It's something
needs to be done and something needs to happen there and I welcome any
input from the Planning Commission but I just want to make sure,. (a)' it's
not...and (b), this is majority Planning Commission driven and not one or
two people. And if that's the case, I think it's great. I really do.
Comments of Jeff Farmakes from the audience were not picked up on the tape.
Mason: I think that's good. I guess so far I've been real impressed with
what Bill Morrish has to do. And I think he probably has, and again that's
fine. I just want to say again, I hope that the interest that you folks
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 9
have are truly city interests. And after that meeting on Monday, that
thing that Don mentioned about some of the friction between school
districts which still continue to astound me, I hope that's not the driving
force behind what the Planning Commission is doing.
3elf Farmakes: ...it wasn't even part of the discussion.
Mason: Well, it was Monday night. It was at that meeting.
3elf Farmakes: ...I should say, it wasn't the primary focus...The primary
focus of the discussion was the...
Chmiel: Yeah, and I think that's true Jeff and as we progress with what we
go through before any final decisions are made, I think that's something
that really has to be looked at.
Gerhardt: And I think you've committed to that. I mean your outline fixed
$10,000.00 to find that answer out tonight and between Curt, myself, Todd
Hoffman and picking out data from previous referendums and providing that
over to Bill Morrish, I would hope with his experience in doing these
things. He did Shoreview's community center analysis. He did Chaska's.
He's done surveys in Eden Prairie and Woodbury I know and they've always,
they've constantly use him. I think that that's going to be our basis.
But again, when we sit and try to explain things over the phone, we've got
to have some type of program to operate off of when we're doing this. And
I guess with that, I don't have any other comments.
Bohn: Does anybody else have anything to say on the community center?
Gerhardt: I forgot but now I remembered. Why are we here today? Why did
we hire Curt and Dick? I mean last September, it's been your job to get
rid of the blight in the downtown and you've done an unbelieveable 3ob in
doing that. In relocating uses into appropriate areas. Clayton said this
every time he stood up that this is t~e last element in succeeding in that
area. That was our primary purpose in'accomplishing something in this
backside. If it's not community center, and the results of our survey show
us that, we're going to try to find some type of private use to. redevelop
the back side of this Dinner Theatre. And as we went over to Shoreview,
the Mayor was on the bus. We picked the Mayor up from his hc~Jse. We drove
down CR 17 and took Highway 5 and I think that was the kick everybody
needed again, was the views as you drove past that area from Highway 5.
That's the primary purpose that you got involved with this. .I think the
secondary purpose is that somebody feels that there's a need for
recreational type uses, meeting rooms, and that's what we're going to try
to define with this market analysis or survey that we're going to do. So I
think those are our two primary purposes and I think the primary, the
redevelopment is always going to be the number one in your mind of trying
to finish this out before the tax increment runs out.
Bohn: Thank you. Curt, thank you.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 10
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PHASE I DESIGN SERVICES FOR HANUS BUILDING PARKING
LOT. LANDSCAPING AND SIGN~GE WITH HKGI.
Gerhardt: Well I'm real excited about this. This item before you is a
contract for design services for the Hanus facility. In writing this memo,
Jim and I think Paul may have called Don and Mike to let those two know
that we made application for ISTEA dollars for the pedestrian crossway.
Paul presented this plan. We got a letter yesterday that said that we've
been awarded $283,000.00 for a pedestrian crossway. So with that, I
highlighted in my memo that we're going to start Phase I of redeveloping
the Hanus facility. That will probably be on the next agenda next month
with starting Phase II for the pedestrian crossway construction. We have
approximately one year to build that pedestrian overpass. It has to be up
and in place by September of 1994. So this will provide a link of the
people on the south side of Highway 5 to the north.
Chmiel: Is it that construction has to be begin on or before that date or
has to be constructed by that date?
Gerhardt: I thought Paul told me it had to be done. Completed. I mean !
didn't see it in writing. Paul made that comment to me. You may know more
than ! do. You sit on the Board that reviews some of these applications.
I thought he told me it had to be in place by September, 1994.
Bohn: That's $200,000.00?
Gerhardt: It was $280,000.00 and we were going to contribute $120,000.00.
The HRA is going to contribute $120,000.00 to that so it's like almost a
$500,O00.O0'construction cost for that overpass. It fit right in with.
Chmiel: Plus, tell them some of the other good news with'the CDBG funds.
Gerhardt: I don't know of anything.
Chmiel: Don't you? Okay. We have talked to the HUD, local HUD office and
the local HUD office is in the process of developing a letter being sent to
Washington saying that we still qualify and we won't miss out hopefully in
the year's total dollar amount. That's with the acquiring or getting that
change in properties that were in Hennepin County and in Carver County. And
now locating the entirety of it into Hennepin County which would then make
that legal for us to acquire that. And it is still, well' we shouldn't say
that. It is still contained within Carver County...or in the city of
Chanhassen.
Mason: Yeah, yeah.
Chmiel: Don't get the counties confused.
Boyle: ...over and above the ....
.
Chmiel: Yeah, and it looks like we might get, rather than 50, we might get
a little bit more.
Mason: Oh really...
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 11
Boyle: Is this July 1st thing a reality with the Red-E-Mix?
Mason: Todd said they told me they signed. They're going to cease
operation the 1st of July... Do we need to move approval on this?...
Gerhardt: I'd like to update Gary. My memo may not have done justice. We
purchased the Hanus facility this last fall. Along with that purchase we
were to make a $100,000.00 worth of improvements to it. $o if we bought
the building for $535,000.00, we have an agreement with'Gary Kirt for him
to repurchase that building from us 2-3 years from now for $635,000.00.
That's how we may capture our $100,000.00 worth of improvements back out of
this. $o what we're looking at doing is putting in a parking lot with curb
and gutter to catch storm drainage. Ne are going to look at a landscape
plan and we're going to look at new signage along Highway 5 and maybe some
directional signage at the entrance of Nest 79th Street. And if money
allots, we would look at maybe painting or putting some kind'of
architectural element around the building to dress that up but not make it
stand out any more, or possibly just painting the-building and looking at
signage on the building itself.
Bohn: How about a mansard roof like they did with Kenny's?
Gerhardt: Well, it could be an option but I mean with that you should know
that if you exceed that $100,000.00, it's going to be tough to get Gary
Kirt to buy into the additional costs of that mansard. That's something
you should keep in the back of your mind that you may not get that money
back down the line. And putting a mansard on a building of that size, you
may make it stand out a little bit more.
Bohn: I . .it won't be so ugly.
Gerhardt: It may be an option that we could look at. If you'd want to see
a rendering of that, we could look at it. $o right now there's a contract
in front of you with Fred Hoisington. Fred is working with us on what is
the Legion site and how that may develop with potential hotel/park and
ride. He's got a meeting tomorrow on that with the Legion folks. It's
looking good. I mean there are people interested in that and things are
falling in place. Hotel people aren't real interested in having a park and
ride next to them. They'd prefer a nice 10 story office building but.
Mason: Well when they see they're going to get this little farmers market
so that people that are staying there can buy their fresh produce on their
way in and out, they'll change their tune.
Gerhardt: Yeah, I mean that's an equal trade for a 10 story office
building.
Bohn: Has the Legion looked at another location?
Gerhardt: Well, what we would like to do is to try to incorporate
the Legion in with the hotel and that there be a small hall with the hotel
and a restaurant for the Legion to operate out of. That's what we'd like
to sit down and discuss with the Legion people if they'd be interested in
something like that. And that they'd basically be a partner in the hotel.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 12
And that they would get a long term lease with the restaurant and use of
that hall and I don't know. It sounds too good to be true if this thing
could all work out. And then we could put a little bit of cash in their
hands along with this. Hotels like restaurants with them but they don't
like to own them and operate them. And this is a way of maybe getting them
a facility with the construction cost of the hotel might help reduce the
cost o~ a single structure restaurant someplace else. And they could ~eed
off of each other. I think the Legion wants to do weddings and things like
that and with that you could basically have a little hall and have your
wedding and not even need the place and have a few drinks and not worry
about DWI's or anything else.
Boyle: What hotel is looking at this, or is that confidential?
Gerhardt: We would go out. We wouldn't put our eggs in one basket.
Boyle: It's a concept. It's not...
Chmiel: Concept.
Gerhardt: Concept and we just want to see if there might be a hotel
interested in this. That's just going' to put more pressure on the guys
behind me to put their expansion on. Or they're gone.
Chmiel: I hope everybody had seen that the Legion does have their for sale
sign out there now. It's nice and big. That's why I'think we have to
really move on it because...
Gerhardt: I don't need any action on that but I would like to get Fred
started on this. He's already started. He's already collected data on
contours.
Chmiel: Was that $4,000.00 to $6,000.'00 still the figure?
Gerhardt: Yes. And then up in addition to that would be any special
meetings with Bill Morrish to make sure that, and Barton-Aschman that we're
taking into account some of the Highway.5 Corridor discussions. How the,
that we stay in concert with the trail with the pedestrian walkway. That
it coordinates with the parking lot by the Hanus facility and that comes
down West 79th Street and connects with Great Plains. And I'm going to get
the crossing put in place by the railroad tracks yet. It's a pet peeve of
Jim's and mine and he calls me on it and i'm mad and I try to include it in
every public improvement project we've got and we're going to get it 3is.
It's just a matter of time. There's a rubber pad that goes across the
railroad tracks and it hasn't been put in place yet.
Chmiel: With all these consultants and the consultants talking to the
consultants, I think Fred is pretty much up to speed on what this is about,
right?
Gerhardt: Yeah.
Chmiel: And I would like to see some of that curtailed as much as we
possibly can. Because everytime we turn around we're fishing out
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 13
another...and I think much of this is either on paper or they know just
about what it is.
Gerhardt: Fred took this board and he just needs to know where the touch
down points were. What the pedestrian crossway. Wanted to know where, how
me may link that trail in. And it's for the best of the HRA and the City
to coordinate some of this. University of Minnesota is good in giving us
ideas but they don't put plans and specs together. They don't follow
through with the necessary government procedures of bidding things and that
and that's where Fred is very good at. Fred is very organized and he's
very efficient. That's why he's been on your last two agendas. He follows
up with things and he's very detailed, and he is a little cheaper than
most.
Boyle: Does this require a vote?
Gerhardt: Yeah, I would like approval of a contract.
Bohn: Do I hear a motion?
Mason: Z'll move approval for Phase I design services for Hanus parking
lot landscaping and signage with HKGI.
Boyle: Second it.
Mason moved, Boyle seconded that the Housin~ and Redevel~ment.Authority
approve the Phase I Contract for Design Services with Hoistngton-Koegler
Group, Inc. as outlined in their proposal dated May lO, 1993. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF BILLS:
Chmiel moved, Mason seconded to approve the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority bills as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chmiel: Oh before we go to a vote, those special assessment, payments of
that $537,861.37.
Gerhardt: Those are our first half, those are bond payments that we made
over to the bonding company.
Chmiel: Okay. That's a point that I'd like to make. If it's covering the
bonding, it should probably paten, mt bonding.
Bohn: I was worried more about the $8.92 for Todd Gerhardt.
Chmiel: I know he's a big spender. I think he took me out to lunch.
Gerhardt: I think that was coded wrong. Now I'm a consultant for you.
I've got fees for service. I think that should have said mileage.
Mason: So noted.
Gerhardt: Let's see what other mistakes we've got.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 14
Chmiel: I didn't see any others.
HRA PRESENTATIONS:
Chmiel: I don't have anything.
Boyle: Nor do I.
Mason: Nothing.
Gerhardt: I'm just real pleased with the process that we've laid out with
this community center. I mean this has been a sensitive issue I think for
quite a few people and I'm excited about Bill Morrish coming in and
introducing himself to the city. I think he can be a real key for
communication from the residents. I'm just going to feel a lot more
comfortable with getting that resolved. I just think Bill does an
unbelieveabie job of using a scientific method and determining how
residents think and want and feel.
Bohn: I was just wondering, would there'be any problem with access to the
community center to the business district on the north side?
Gerhardt: I don't think Clayton's really, his biggest concern will be to
monitor parking. I know the Planning Commission would really like to see
it and.
Boyle: Would like to see ~hat?
Bohn: The access.
Gerhardt: The access. I mean we've spent a lot of money in the downtown
in trying to create a pedestrian oriented downtown. And to push people
that they have to walk around the hotel, around the bowling center and back
up, I think looking at Curt's rendering again tonight. That it almost
looks like to me that we could get some kind of walkway down from there
into that open little plaza area. Now the thing is, it's going to be a
control thing in getting into the access in. To pay for your swimming and
that. $o those are the things, until you really sit down and look at it,
the control access thing is my concern when you come down into there. But
it looked like to me that you could put some kind of steps that would take
you down into that little treed a~ea. Where the existing drive thru is
between what is the Animal Fair and Merlins. Steps bug me for handicap
but I don't know what kind of grade difference we're talking about there.
Parking is going to be a concern, as I expressed earlier. And Curt's put
some good renderings together but his parking lots, I. mean ! would call
that a South Dakota access onto that road. I mean you just have access
after access after access. Don always corrects me and says, no it's
Tennessee. Those are things that we have to work out and those are easy
things. Those are our biggest issues.
Chmiel: I just wanted to mention one other thing too, and I didn't get
that opportunity. In what Jeff said, Farmakes. We did have a referendum
before the people and was voted down. That referendum would have been cost
that would be born by those taxpayers within the city. This is something
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 20, 1993 - Page 15
that's just a little bit different and more unique and yet is not going to
cause an encumbrance back onto the taxpayers of this community. And I
think that's one point that people should be aware of.
Boyle: I think that point has to be made very clear. Don, I agree on
that. When you talk to other people...
Mason: And that's true, and I think also that was what, 4 years ago now?
Chmiel: And my exact words were, I don't want to see a damn referendum
come back before me and I'm not going to see one.
Mason: And regardless of, I think we also need to take into fact the
number of people that have moved into Chanhassen with the number of
children in the last 4 years too. $o that's true and I'm sensitive.
pretty sensitive to that also but'that wasn't why...
I'm
(Taping of the meeting ended at this point.)
Chmtel moved, Mason seco~de4 to adjourn the meeti~. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeti~ was adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
Executive Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim