Loading...
1993 06 24CHANHASSEN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR ~EETING 3UNE 24, 1993 Chairman Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Mike Mason, Jim Bohn, and Gary Boyle MEMBERS ABSENT= Charlte Robblns STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Executive Director; Todd Gerhardt, Asst. Executive Director; and Paul Krauss, Planning Director APPROVAL OF H%NUTES: ChmteI moved, Mason seconded to approve the Minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting amended to change from Submitted by Don Ashworth to Submitted by Todd Gerhardt. All voted in favor and the motion carried, VISITOR PRESENTRTIONS: None. UPDATE ON THE CHRNHASSEN COMMUNITY CENTER. Gerhardt: At our last HRA meeting it was decided that staff was to go back and meet with Clayton Johnson and work out some type of arrangement on looking at the possibility of land swap arrangement. From discussing with Clayton over the phone several weeks ago it was decided that he was going to research and talk to people to see what type of revenues could be generated off of that site and how it might go about being developed. Staff also decided at that time to hire Harvey Swenson to come in and start looking at appraisals about the bowling center site and the two Btoomberg properties. Harvey had started working on that and would hopefully have some numbers by our next HRA meeting. It was also decided that staff was to prepare a newsletter that would be sent out-to the residents telling them of the progress to date. In our review with the task force and the work done by Curt Green and M.A. Mortenson. Right now we feel that the best person to put that newsletter together would be Bill Morrtsh from the University of Minnesota in con3unction with his 2001 downtown vision plan. And that he do an off skirt of that vision plan and potentially lay put the entire downtown as a part of that newsletter and how the community center may be incorporated as we finish out the downtown and the redevelopment of the backside of the Dinner Theatre, Target development, James development and include that as a part of the newsletter. ~nd secondly we met with Bill Morris from Decision Resource who will be doing the market study survey of the Chanhassen residents and determining what the citizens-feel about the community center concept. Staff felt that the best time for him to do that would be approximately a month after we've completed the newsletter and get it out to the residents. So 8ill has agreed to work with us in that survey, market study analysis. I've also scheduled a meeting for this coming Wednesday to go through concept 12 that you saw at your last HRA meeting by Curt Green. It would be presented to the Planning Commission, Park and Rec Commission and the rest of the City Council for their review and comment. I think that's'it. What we've been working on in the last 4 weeks. Any questions? Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3une 24, 1993 - Page 2 Mason: As a matter of fact ! do. HOW will it be decided what will be on this survey? Gerhardt: Bill was going to-be at the meeting on Wednesday but his schedule didn't fit in. There's going to be, BiI1 will come in and talk about his process and before. Chmiel: Here? Gerhardt: Yeah, to the task force and to the HRA. It's not as a group in the whole. We'll have him for the next HRA meeting. He will be updating the task force on his procedures and the HRA and he will tell you how he goes about surveying people and that he does want to take input from all the bodies and how he might go about putting his questions together and how you want them worded. He also may do a preliminary survey of the task force numbers, Council, HRA to get their feelings on where they're coming from too. So he Iikes to do that in some cases and I don't know if he's decided to do that but that's one of the options he's laid out. Chmiel: I was going to almost ask that same question. Just as long as it's, the questions that are going to go out to the people, as long as they're not biased one way or the other. And that there's that openness there that doesn't lead a question to the people to answer either negatively or positively. Gerhardt: He has such respect in the Twin City area that whoever, I mean he wants to try to get the results of the community and his questions aren't led to make them say vote for it. He gets a true opinion. And it's amazing when you talk to him about certain things and what are negatives and what are positives. What residents feel are good and bad and it's kind of interesting. He did Chaska's. He did Maplewood and some of the comments that he's received back from those communities. Just putting a hot tub as an item in the list as a potential use in a community center sends up fireworks to residents. They don't want to see any hot tubs. You know their fear of disease spreaders and everything else and it's amazing how he picks up on those things in his questionnaire. So I don't think you could influence if you tried because he wants to get a true response. Bohn: Any other questions? REVIEW PHASE I DESIGN PLANS FOR H/~NUS BUILDING ~ P~d~KIN6 LOT. Gerhardt: Approximately last September or October the HRA acquired the Hanus building. As a part of that acquisition there was discussions of some day remodeling this building and dressing it up, both on a landscaping aspect and also efficiency in the parking and potential tow lock. It would be a part of the old...in that area. One of the things that's changed since that acquisition has been the pedestrian overpass. When we acquired that building we always had thoughts that it would be a nice place, to put an overpass but we never thought that we'd ever want to throw close to $400,000.00 towards building something like that. And now with the ISTEA dollars and the applications that have been made for the city, that is... will be a reality. And as a part of..ireview of this site, he's incorporated a walkway that would connect to that overpass. Fred has also Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, [993 - Page 3 put together some different concepts that I think are essential to this area in trying to dress it up and also to gain access to the back side of this building. And Don may want to make a comment regarding potential access to the Red-E-Mix site during the next couple of months as TH [01 construction gets built. We may have to put a temporary thru this area. Do you want to comment anymore on this? Ashworth: No. We would surely not try to do that.. They will have access until somewhere between July [st and August 1st and they lose access. We have court processes going on and the timing should be almost identical. We're not anticipating a glitch. If there would be, we might have to get into like an emergency meeting or something like that. I really don't expect that. July [ is rolling around awfully quick. Chmiel: Very quick and you know, M~. Chairman. I was looking at that same thing and Just the other day when I was parked over there and all those trucks were st[il in their positions. Do they have any kind of other... plant established anywhere else? Ashworth: They have I think like 7 other locations in the Twin City area so the necessity to have the Chanhassen site really isn't there except for convenience. But that's part of the court fate because they are looking to loss of. Krauss: Going concern. Ashworth: Going concern, right. Which is the one that Harry Pauly had. That was the basis of his whole case with us, the court issue. The court ruled against him in that one. We're anticipating a similar ruling on this one. But time will tell. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman. At this time I'd like to introduce Fred Hoisington to go through the two concepts and the parking lot layout. Fred Hoisington: Mr. Chairman, members of the HRR. Many of you have already seen this presentation last evening. Gary you. Chmiel: Would you like to go outside with Fred in the hall... Fred Hoisington: Well let me say that here's the bottom line of tonight's meeting is to ask the question, whether the expenditure that we show is worth making on this particular building and only the HRA can answer that obviously. So what I'll do to get to that bottom line is very briefly present to you the plan as we... Rs all of you know the site in question is the Hanus building and this particular photo shows it as it was a number of years ago when it was more of a Junk yard than it was even what we see today. It doesn't look very good. The problem that we are experiencing today is it's highly visible from the roadway. I don't have to tell you that. It didn't used to be quite so much so but it is very much so now. Rnd so the activity that's going on back here, even though less, is still very visible and unattractive and what we've been given the charge to do is to potentially close it off. Screen it off so that it will not be visible in the future from those who use the roadway as well as those who would use this hopefully for a particular use along the railroad tracks...Highway 5. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, i993 - Page 4 Now, the plan as currently conceived shows 56 parking spaces. The building doesn't change as far as footprint and additions.or anything like that to it. But we are showing 35 parking spaces on the backside and 21 on the front side. There will be substantial berming and landscaping, essentially close that entire back side off so that you cannot see into it. As a impound lot, Gary Brown has a wrecker and hauls vehicles here when necessary. The proposal is to have sort of a quasi public street that would provide for access to this open space to the east to provide some parking in the cul-de-sac mo this holds maybe'S-6 care at a time. Could park there and walk through the Arboretum, the growth of trees and so forth that are expected... Now one of the things that Brad Johnson indicated to us, and we're now afraid...is that the tenants are going to have some difficulties with this scheme, and we understand that. We still need to address that I guess. What we did was we proposed two alternatives originally. The first alternative was to have a single row of parking in the center and provide 21 parking spaces here. The other alternative was to have a double row of parking and encroach on this area in the front. Now what Brad tells me is this...the tenants would much prefer not to have parking in the middle at all. That they'd much prefer to have parking lined up in this fashion and that's the way they park currently. And apparently Gary has had, I've counted about a dozen cars at any one time, maybe 16 at any one time. The rest of them haven't nearly so many cars. Nearly so much demand but we can expect probably the 21, based on what we know of the operation to date could be deficient and so we need to go back and look at the front portion of this to see how we can make it work perhaps a little better. Zt will work a little less well for the city and HRA is we do that but nonetheless ! think because of the lease arrangements and so forth we need to look at that again in that respect. So we'll do that and we'll see what we can do as a way of working something out b®fore we begin to work with the tenants. I think we should be looking at alternatives such as that. I'll talk a little bit later about the pedestrian bridge only to give you the schedule so that you'll know what's happening in respect to that. But ! won't talk a lot about it. If this scheme is carried out, say you will effectively totally screen the back of the building from the points, these particular sight lines along the highway with a berm about 4 or 5 feet high and evergreen plantings on top of it. $o even when the planting is intially installed, you will only see up to about or from about the group, the current roofline up. This is the building as we have at least thought about it to date. What we're talking about are two alternatives. The first alternative would be a...metal roof, standing seam metal. The other alternative would be one that would simply bring the roof up to a point and then level it off. It's a little less. expensive than the full roof system but both would do the job of screening the mechanical and so forth on the roof'and would give the building some form and shape that it currently doesn't have. The cost here is about $66,000.00. The cost here is about $87,000.00 for the full roof. The $87,000.00 includes to also replace on all the overhead doors where this lesser concept also, or involves'painting of the overhead doors. The doors are the most unsightly part of the building right now and one or two of them have been bricked in in the past but nonetheless there is some substantial need to deal with those doors as we know them. Now if we screen effectively the back side of the building, there are some things perhaps in this that we would not have to do on the back side of the building. In other words, we'd have to replace all the overhead doors and Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 5 so forth so I guess we can tailor something to kind of meet the HRA's objectives in this case as far as the building's concerned. Now, why to fulfill the Highway 5 corridor objectives which is to create this room across, rooms across the highway and this being the east gateway to Chanhassen and this bridge being a very important part of that and it having been funded by ISTEA...how this whole process would be carried out. What I want to do is give you a copy of that schedule because you have an involvement in it and so forth, and I don't need really to explain it but- we do want you to know what the steps in that process are. And Gary, if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them at this point. Boyle: Who are the current tenants? I've got to start at the very basics, I'm sorry. Brad Johnson: Toll Weldtng...Brown...Advanced Coating and Marine Fiberglass. All of them have long term leases. Not all but most of them. Boyle: You talked about the roofing. A new roof. I didn't see that anywhere in the preliminary cost estimates. Is that? Fred Hoisington: ...Gary, there are two sets of costs. Maybe you didn't get that. You should have. Sohn: When this is completed and we can go back and sell the building to whoever, they end up paying for all the remodeling we did. Fred Hoisington: I'll let Todd answer that. Chmiel: That will probably be in the total cost of selling that building. Considerations taken. I would imagine, right? Gerhardt: Right now the repurchase agreement outlines an additional $100,000.00 that they would buy it back for than what we purchased it' for. What I've asked Fred to do is to first come to the HRA. Show the plans. Get an idea of which concept that you'd like to go ahead with and then we would meet with Gary Klrt and sit down and discuss potentially saying that we've stuck more into this building and seeing if we can't see to get that price increased. Right now if you looked at some of the estimates, we are over by close to about $100,000.00-$120,000.00. $o right now our agreement is to outline the $100,000.00 worth of cost that you would get out of that total. 225 is the price we're quoting... Chmiel: I think there's a lot of different considerations given in this. The existing tenants that are there now. They're payin~ rent. What does that rent equal? Brad Johnson: Per year? About $100,000.00. Chmiel: 1507 Brad Johnson said something that wasn't picked up on the tape. Bohn: The advantage of having the roof completely covered, as a matter of fact there's two advantages. One of course is you can't, from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 6 pedestrian bridge you'll be able to see the top of that building. And from across the highway. Also with the complete roof you have less maintenance. When you have a fiat roof you're always going to have ongoing maintenance. Now that complete roof, probably without very little maintenance would last a lot of years. As long as we own it. Gerhardt: Another means of recouping your cost in that too is that you are collecting rent and that will offset any costs to that break even point for us too. Bohn: A compIete roof is probably easier to cooI in the summertime and cheaper to heat in the winter. Fred Hoisington: Jim, just in case we have to take a closer look at it with the sight lines and so forth but we would probably not see...lower roofline. Bohn: But that would be open and snow and ice would get in there and you'd have. Fred Hoisington: Maintenance problems would be different than they would...there's no questions about that. Ashworth: The primary stimulus for this was back through City Council, Councilman Wing had to leave but I think he's been a real proponent of looking at the looks of buildings and believe that when you start adding a roof component like this, that there's just a much stronger appeal for the structure itself. Bohn: We've asked new companies that come into the city and we've asked them to put a complete pitched roof on and we should do the same thing ourselves with our own buildings. Ashworth: Some are very, when you start getting into large expanses but even with the Target you know we spent a lot of time and energy Just trying to look at the imagery of that structure and what it would look like from the highway and what it would look like from 78th Street right on down the line so. Bohn: Big building, it can be done. It's just more expensive. My twin brother has a friend that is an architect in Chicago and he put a pitched roof on a K-Mart store. He said it's cheaper and safer. Cheaper to maintain. Chmiel: Or from an aspect of people breaking in a building, as they've been doing within the community, that would have a deterrent. At least not entering from the roof as they have been doing. Mason: Is there any particular reason why Option A has painting and repairing overhead doors and Option B is replacing? I mean can those be flip flopped around? Fred Hoisington: They can Mike, no problem and if we effectively screen the east side, there could be some mixing and matching of those. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 7 Mason: Yeah, okay. That would have been my next question. Thanks Fred, yeah. Boyle: But you had recommended Fred that the doors right now should be replaced? Fred Hoisington: Well Gary, I don't know that you can really say that we recommend it. I think what we're saying is, if you want to do a real good job on this building, you ought to replace the doors. The overhead doors but we recognize that it may not be practical to do that. If there's a lesser dollar commitment that is necessary, then they can be painted. Chmiel: The question I have, what are the, I was going to get over there and look at them but I didn't. What are the existing doors, in what condition are they? Fred Hoisington: Well they're kind of, they're just kind of messy right now. They're not metal. They're kind of a fiber board or something like that door. Krauss: Two of them are, ! think two are new Brad? Brad Johnson: Well...we Just spent $10,000.00 on the doors and they've been all repainted on the inside and they're all mechanically sound... They just have to be painted. Ail the panels that were rotted, they look real good. They were never painted right the first time and that's why... Ail of the panels are... Bohn: How many of the doors are blocked up? Brad Johnson: Two. Two so far. Three. Brown blocked up one and Toll blocked up two. But the doors are not, ! don't think you have to do the doors right now. They do have to be painted and the guy that's doing it said they're going to last for a long time. They were never painted right the first time. They do have to be painted... Mason: With this roof thing. As I understand it, as I'm hearing you say again, the sight lines aren't really an issue on it are they? From any point? Brad Johnson: Not as far as seein~ into this. Mason= That includes the bridge and from across the street and the whole deal? Krauss= We're pretty sure. You're up so high with that building anyway that you're certainly not going to see it from any of the roads and from the bridge, if you throw this back up and you can see how far over the bridge...actually is. Fred Hoisington: You can figure the elevation of this bridge is about 76. The elevation of this building at the roof line currently is 86. Now there's a possibility from here to here, given the distance, and the relative small amount of differential,, that you will see the mechanicals Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, i993 - Page 8 that are there now if you don't put any roof on it at all. But as far as, either one of the roof systems will not see anything. Chmiel: You're saying the existing height of the building as is now is 86 feet? Fred Hoisington: Right. 86 and this is supposed to be 976... Mason: And we can save $21,000.00 by not replacing the doors and putting a partial roof up. 8ohn: But we'll have it in maintenance. Brad Johnson: Fred, did you figure into your costs the relocation of all the mechanical systems?... Chmiel: I'm glad he brought that up... Fred Hoisington: Why would they have to be relocated Brad? Brad Johnson: They can't be on the roof anymore. That's our problem with any of these. Krauss: Unless you vent them up through the metal roofing. Fred Hoisington: And I think he has something in there about that. I think that's what he intends to do. Brad Johnson: That's the problem we ran into with, like all the buildings you've got these roofs on, you've got to put all the mechanicals on the ground. To move them... I'm not saying that but it's one of the reasons that we, originally we were going to put the units on top of Town Square. We couldn't do it because of cost so we moved them down. We have that... · Chmiel: Yeah, that's true and that was something I was going to ask and I 'm glad you brought that up Brad. Because that was one of my concerns were there going to be any fans contained on that building or where would they be placed? Because once it gets covered, then of course you still will have your spills coming off from the top because the moisture condensation that's gotten from the air conditioning. That will still probably be thrown off from wherever it's going right now. But once that top goes on, it's going to do some blockages there as well and that was the other concern I had with what's going to happen with that moisture. Fred Hoisington: Yeah. We'll have to have him take a look at that. My assumption is that he knows, Paul is the architect on this and so forth and...in that case. Then I guess YOu can give us some direction that you would not be interested in that alternative and that we should fall back perhaps to a lesser kind of thing. But we 'need to check on that I guess Gary to make sure. Chmiel: I had one thing I'd Just like to discuss with Mike a little bit. It was brought out earlier is that for every new building that we have Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 9 coming in, we're requiring them to put that kind of a roof on that we're discussing. Mason: Why is, my assumption has been that we're requiring that so people don't have to look at all the ugly stuff on top. And I'm being told by people in the know here that no one's going to be able to see it. Chmiel: True. It's up higher than what's existing, or from where the existing building is. It's 10 feet higher than the bridge supposedly. -But yet aesthetically we"re having every developer coming in this community, we're looking for everything that we can possibly get to have the attractiveness of that building. And I'm. not saying that the roof is a solution but I'm trying to point out some of those things that we continually ask for add get and then when it comes our turn we're saying, ah let's see. Maybe. We're not going to see the HVAC systems, up on top and I guess maybe that's true but yet you have to look at the aesthetics of that building and by taking that total investment and putting it into it, from what we're driving from a rental for a year to the cost that we will still acquire when we sell that building, I think you're still going to come out on the long end. Plus getting something that should have been done in the first place. Boyle: Don I agree. I think we should maintain some consistency in our past decisions and also avoid setting a potential precedent with the change. Mason: Well that's fine. I guess I'd just like to reiterate the reason I'm concerned more about what people can see and if people can't see it, ! don't care whether a new developer comes in and puts in half roof or a full roof. If sight lines were an issue, you wouldn't have an argument from me at all but I'm not going to hold this up over that. But I do want to make sure that this is the final cost on that. If we find out that the ventilation is going to add a whole bunch more to it. Chmiel: I agree, yeah. Mason: So we're talking then Option B but changing, replacing existing overhead doors to painting? Chmiel: Right. Eliminating $15,000.00 on that. If I remember. Mason: Yeah, it was 11 or whatever. Okay. Well yeah, I don't have any trouble with that. Bohn: When we did Market Square it was told we couldn't see the ventilating system on top of those roofs b~t when you come crown Kerber Boulevard you can see the top of Market Square. Krauss: If I may. Mason: That's a little different situation there. Bohn: Well it's the same thing. We're told you can't see the tops. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 10 Mason= Nell, we've got some elevations here though 3tm that. Bohn: I walked by there today and I walked across the highway on top that hill and I could see down and I figured if I added 10 feet to that building, I could see down that building. The top of that, across the Woad and on top of that hill, it's pretty high up there. I don't know how the bridge is going to come over. When you get to the other side I think it's going to be lower but right now that's pretty high up there. You're looking down into that building. Ashworth: Into which? Bohn: The top of the Hanus building. From across the highway. That's how much higher that hill is from the Hanus building. I walked over there today and I was...about it after last night. You're still higher than the Hanus building. And across the highway. Fred Hoisington: From.that hill that's 984 and the top of this building is about 986. $o you Jim, standing on top of that hill on the other side of the road are taller currently than that building. Yes. There's no question about that. But when we get a roof on, I don't care what the roof is. Whether it's the low one or the taller one, you're not going to see the mechanicals and so forth on top of that roof...you're Just not going to see it. Bohn: Is it going to be high enough so the distance across that roof is, how high is, or how far is that slope going to go towards the center of the roof? Fred Hoisington: Oh, for the smaller one? 8ohn: Yes. Fred Hoisington: I'm not sure exactly what that would be. Total height of it is probably about 3 to 4 feet Jim, you can't see a scale here. 3 to 4 feet high. Bohn: Okay. If it goes that high from the building is the longest from south to north and on 'top. of that hill you're looking at from the south side looking towards the north side. That 3 feet isn't going to cover it. Fred Hoisington: No, it's not 3. It's probably more like 6 but the fact is that that, if that was standing in front of You, immediately in front of you, of course you can see right over it. But when it's over on top of that roof, you're not going to see' in that at all. With the smaller or shorter...you can't. Bohn: I've got to see it to believe it. Fred Hoisington: You're going to be looking, right now you're only about 4 feet taller sight line than that building is and if you add 4 feet minimum you're going to be looking right across the top of it and you can't see down in it because the screening is over there. It isn't next to you. Housing and RedeveIopment Authority 3une 24, 1993 - Page 1! Bohn: Any other questions? Chmiei: Yeah, just a couple of the others on the preliminary cost estimates and I realize these are cost estimates. For the demolition regarding the fence and that pavement, they have it down for $5,000.00. $2,500.00 to take the fence down and $2,800.00. To me that seems a little excessive. Is that? Fred Hoisington: Don, I think that's right. I think Jim is trying to be reasonabIy conservative on that side. I mean it's onIy going to cost what it's going to cost but he's simply giving you a generous 'estimate. Chmiel: Okay. The irrigation system. Is that necessary within that particular area? Fred Hoisington: Well let's say that it's deslreable because there will be some grass areas there that will be used. In fact what he's done, I think he's intended to clear out into this, which there is none there now of course. To include this area as well as the slope over here. Chmiel: The City's maintaining that property, doing the cutting' and all?.- Or do we job it out to somebody else? Gerhardt: It's assessed back to the tenants. $o Fred or Brad has entered into a contract for somebody to maintain it and then assess it back through the rents. $o the tenants are basically paying for that maintenance. Chmiel: Okay, and on the landscaping. We're talking about a 2.5 inch caliper on those shade trees. What are we talkin~ as far as the heights of a 2.57 Fred Hoisington: A 2.5 caliper, those are going to be probably, I'm guessing. Paul, maybe you remember. It's 12 feet or so. Krauss: Yeah. You're looking at about 12, 13, 14 feet. In that range. Chmiel: Maybe 15. Okay. Gerhardt: I would think 15. Chmiel: Yeah, I was leaning towards the 15 foot. Gerhardt: Then you'd have to use a backhoe. Chmiel: Because then we talked about the 84 conifers that we were going to have that are 6 foot heights. 15 large shrubs. 80 small shrubs and 40 evergreen shrubs. Where are those going to be placed exactly Fred? they ad3acent to the road and my concerns are that if we put in the kinds of shrubs that I think might go in, we want to make darn sure that they are susceptible to salt or salt spray. Because you're going to be replacing every year if you don't. Fred Hoisington: Michael $chroeder, our landscape architect is very sensitive to that. Especially in this area. And he is proposing Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 12 vegetation that will be tolerant of salt in that location Don so he's very cognizant of that. The city has a track record of having difficulties with that so. Chmiel: Yeah. And that trash enclosure for $1,000.00 I think that's a little exorbitant too. Unless there's diamonds attached to the, whatever's going in. But I just wanted to. Fred Hoisington: Nell hopefully we're high. Chmiel: Yeah, I would hope so. Mason: Are we looking for a motion here? Krauss: If I could, a couple points. One of the things that, those of you who were there last night will recall is that the Highway $ task force, when they reviewed this, raised some questions about the long term use of the property. And I know in some preliminary discussions in house we've talked about using our ability as owners of the property for now to correct some situations. [cng term in terms of what can be done on the property before it is sold back and put binding conditions in the title for that. You might want to give us some guidance as to what you think the long term use of the property should be. If there's anything we should be looking to restrict. I know last night the issues of the long term parking of the boats came about. Whether or not, you know this is an appropriate place for a yard for junk vehicles or towed vehicles, which is what's being used there right now. We didn't take a position on that one way or the other really but this is the time I guess to let us know your wishes and we can start working on that. Secondly, we also wanted to run this past the Planning Commission. They were going to take a look at this last week and they went real late and never got to it. They're going to be holding a special meeting on this, next Wednesday? Fred Hoisington: Next Nednesday. Krauss: So you may want to, if they come back with a suggestion that's significantly different than what you go with, you may want to take that into account. As far as that roof goes. I think what's real important in terms of the skyline, if you will of Chanhassen, is not whether it's a full . pitch or not but what, if it adds to the skyline and I guess I would feel comfortable with either alternative here because the building is 'up high. From a distance you're probably not ~olng to be able to tell very easily that it's not a full pitch because of the way they did it. This isn't the mansard. It's a partially built roof and I think, if memory serves, the Abra building used some similar techniques on some of it's elevations because they have some kind of an air exchange unit over their paint booth that they couldn't put a full roof section on it. We allowed them to do just the same thing and I 'm wondering if Pufahls has something similar. He's got a paint booth in there. Brad 3ohnson: There's a lot of stuff in there. The Code race, ires that building, every time we change a tenant now we've got to put all air conditioning systems... Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 13 Gerhardt: At the tenant's expense. Brad Johnson: Well yeah...I'm not saying Jim is right or wrong but the problem is, the mechanical things, say for the grocery store. You've got to have a fiat roof or you just... Mason: Well do you mean then, as tenants change and we have a full roof over this, that that might have to get taken apart because they're going to put in a $25,000.00 air conditioning unit? I mean if that has to happen. Brad Johnson: Well...status of this building, if you understand. This building is owned by the city for only 2 years. You can't make any changes through the tenancy or through the use of that building because you'd be in violation of the purchase agreement. Secondly, you've got leases in there and in some cases they're running for 20 years. Chmiel: How many of those do we have? Brad Johnson: Two. Which are half the building. You guys are kind of, we're not advocating anything because we'd like to see...but you've got to deal with the tenants rights. You're the landlord. The tenants have the rights. You don't. Through the lease process. The lease is before the landlord. You have obligations to the tenants. And so you've just have to deal with that as we go through this process and...and we're going to start working on it but that's the way it works. You also have an option to purchase by Brown as is. I mean a lot of things in this, from a legal point of view, other than you can fix it up. Our major concerns are not so much the roof. It's primarily the parking because there are conditions in those leases that require certain amount of parking and parking is required to be in a certain location. Chmiel: Is that spelled out specifically in the lease? Brad Johnson: Oh sure. We had an original site plan, which is very similar to what you're looking at except it had double row parking. Some of that can be worked through except the building will look so much better. Simultaneously the tenants will be looking at their signage and Toll. Here's the craziest thing. Toll likes people to be able' to look through into their door in the back. Part of the merchandising. These are issues that we'll have to deal with with the tenants but I don't have a right to do that. But they do have rights to certain signage and they have rights to certain parking, truck turn arounds. All kinds of things that will have to be worked out with the tenants, mostly which has to do with the site plan... Krauss: The parking standard doesn't work real well in a building like this. It's based on 4 stalls per service bay. Brad Johnson: I know but we've got retail. Toll is strictly retail. Chmiel: Yeah but Brad, if we have owned this building for the past 2 years and I don't know if we received any complaints but it seems like they're being able to operate with what's existing right now. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 14 Brad Johnson: That's right. The problem is we're cutting out about, in the front, potentially cutting 10 to 15 parking spots. That's the problem. Normally you require on the retail space, which would be the Toll space... 5 stalls. I said we've been here. We come in here in reverse and all of a sudden everybody says you've got to have all this parking and .all this kind of stuff. Well here, that's the case here. And all of the tenants, except for 2 load to the front where the parking isn't. Just because that's a retail site. Now we're not advocating anything except that each of them will have a right to look and make sure they have adeguate parking as part of their lease. And so you have to kind of work through their lease. The city has standards that they've been applying to us. Normally it's 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of retail. Isn't that right Paul? Krauss: Yeah Brad but you're raising an issue here with a building that was never designed or intended for retail uses that happens to have Toll in it. This building has, if nothing, if not a real checkered past. Brad Johnson: I'm not saying that Paul. Krauss: I know but while Toil is obstensibly a retail use, they're in a building that was designed for automotive purposes. This site cannot accommodate parking if this whole building goes over to retail uses. Brad Johnson: Paul, right now they only have one retail use. I think it's at least 3 to 4 cars per l,O00 square feet. You need about... Krauss: It's 4.5, yeah. Brad Johnson: ...and if I were here with a building and presenting it to you or the Planning Commission I'm Just, because ! think that's a good argument. You would reject this building because we would not be showing enough parking in the front. I mean I've been through that. Chmiel: You're talking apples and oranges here I think. Brad Johnson: We're not just...tenants, you'.ye got to make sure the tenants are comfortable with the parking out front because it's their business and if they get hurt because there's no parking, which could happen, then the owners' liabte. Gerhardt: I think Fred started his conversation out...parking. Mason: Yeah, he did say it needed to be worked out. You know before we take any action on this, I want to find out more about air conditioning units having to go in when tenants change hands and what's going to happen if that's a full bore roof and if in fact this assumption is correct about ventilation. I mean I think those are some pretty big issues that I think I personally would like to know about before we sign off on this. Bohn: I think we should know about it. Mason: So I guess then I'd at this point I'd make a motion to'table this until we can find that information out. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 15 Chmiel: I agree. Paul· Krauss: Well we'll also be able to give you some feedback from the Planning Commission after Wednesday morning. I just mentioned to Fred though, I think Fred's kind of concerned that the goal was to do this project this year and if this slips another whole month, we may have some difficulty achieving that. If we can get you the information, we'll have the Planning Commission reaction in a little while and I've got to believe Fred can get the answers architecturally. Fred Hoisington: We get the answers real quick. Krauss: If we need action on that in the meantime, I don't know Don is there anyway of getting that? Ashworth: I was wondering if we could consider an alternative and that would be that, if the cost estimates stay within the amount shown, and the work can be done as stuff anticipated that it can be, the award would be based on the... If additional things do need to be done, it would be made on the basis of the partial roof. Fred Hoisington: And/or coming back to the HRR. Ashworth: Well this option hopefully would give us the ability to make a decision one way or the other. So he confirms the number's right. Ne stay with the full roof. He confirms he didn't add it in, Ne go with the partial roof. Mason: What I'm hearing from Brad is when tenants change they have to put in new air conditioning systems? Brad Johnson: No. What's happened is that building was, the Code keeps changing, okay. And they'll keep, I can put a user in there and we have, lately if Ne change a tenant Ne try to downgrade the use rather than upgrade so Ne don't want to put any more automotive in there because it's a very expensive process. Rnd the thing...butlding codes, they're the one that require it. It's just all part of conditions... Mason: Sure · Brad Johnson: Brown was in there and he discovered he had to spend $25,000.00 on...system. It was rea. lly interesting you know. He didn't know that. Chmiel: Being that we own it and being selective as to who we can have in there, I think Ne can eliminate that basic problem as well, could Ne not? Brad Johnson: Well we have been doing that because Ne didn't want to spend the money. We had a tenant change recently and ! didn't... Mason: Well okay, I'll withdraw my motion to table it. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 16 Bohn: Do we have a motion then that, do you want to make a motion? Mason: And it would be worded thusly. I will make a motion to accept the review of Phase I design as stated with Option B, changing replacing existing overhead doors to preparation and painting said overhead doors, with the assumption that there will be no additional cost based on ventilation problems that may occur with the full roof if, are we going to put a limit on how much more money would have to be spent before we'd go to Option A? Chmiel: That's really hard to say. Mason: Well and that's why I almost think it would need to come back here. Ashworth: I was going to say, it can't exceed that number. Mason: Okay. Then not to exceed that cost. Okay, I'll make that motion. What I just said. Boyle: What'd you say? Mason: Do you want me to say it again? Boyle: No, no, no. Bohn: Is there a second to the motion? Boyle: Second. Mason moved, Boyle seconded that the Housing and Re~evelo~nt ~uthority accept the review of Phase I design as stated in Option. B, not to exceed the price quoted in the staff report, and amended to read, replacing existing overhead doors to preparation and painting said overhead doors. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chmiel: It's all clear as mud right? As murky Minnesota River. ~W~D OF BIDS ON DOWNTOWN ENTRY MONUMENTS. Ashworth: As the HRA is aware, this project has drug on for somewhere between 2 and 3 years. At one point in time we considered...finally coming back down to Just a wall conditions at both Great Plains and at Market Boulevard. I shouldn't say Just a wall because this is approximately 8 feet in height, 3 foot letters and then Jeff Farmakes is the one who had come back requesting that the HRA consider a maple leaf or a brass maple leaf that would fit on the top. If this project would have been completed when we did most of the work in the downtown, I don't think it would be standing out like it does right now. Originally the $8 to $i0 million in total costs associated with underground utilities, storm water, and sanitary, etc, coming back with a project like this that represented. 2, 3, 4~ of the total project is going towards something that will help make the whole area look better. It would have gone-through, I'm guessing much easier than today when it's standing all by itself and everyone can look at Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 17 this and say, $300,000.00? I mean that's a lot of money. It is a lot of money but again if you remember, you are purchasing 2 walls. The walls themself I think are right around $70,000.00. One's $75,000.00 and one's $65,000.00. The remainder of the costs are in landscaping, both at this corner and down by the Holiday. And lighting of the letterl~, etc. This is approximately what we had estimated for entry monuments but I think again when you look at these, the numbers do Jump out at you. I won't deny that. It's a lot of money. Chmiel: I thought that on Great Plains we're going to have a wall that was not quite 8 foot in height. Was that one not going to be less? Ashworth: It was reduced in height. I think we knocked about 2 feet off of it so it was closer to the 6 area. And it does it, if I remember correctly, the one at Great Plains does not include 2 seating walls. Again it is a massive structure. You're talking about 8 feet by, I think this is 33, 50, 65 feet in length. That doesn't include this seating area. All of the parts of the bid were independent. So for example, we could delete out the seating wall section and for that matter, you could actually delete one ...so for example, if you deleted the Great Plains wall, it would be about $94,000.00-$95,000.00. Gerhardt: Just to add to some of Don's comments. I mean the maple leaf came in dramatically lower than what we had estimated in the beginning. We were looking at dollar amounts around 20 to 30 I think in the beginning and that is a copper maple leaf. Bronze. Chmiel: It turns green. I'm trying to think of the name of it. I can't think of the name of it. Boyle: Well I guess my question would be, where does this fit in the priority of the projects we have going Don? I mean we've got a community center. Senior housing. A few things like that. You're right. It's a lot of money. I agree with you on that. I think it's a tremendous amount of money. I would hate to get to a final decision on a community center or senior housing or park or library addition and say geez, we're $300,000.00 short to do what we really want to do because of the sign and maybe I'm, maybe that's naive 'thinking but that's kind of where I'm at on it. Chmiel: I think as you indicated it makes a statement for us. Saying this is Chanhassen. In most of the communities that I've been driving through and seeing what they have, it has something added to it. I think they see the State Highway sign that just automatically says Chanhassen. What I'm looking for in this is something that would have welcome. Chanhassen makes a statement that this is us. This is where we are but does it really draw that to the people. Does it look like it could be just cold? Is it. warm and inviting? To come into the community. I'm Just throwing some things out. Bohn: Put a fireplace in the middle. Chmtel: Well, you don't want it that hot. The hottest place in town... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.). Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 18 Chmiel: ...church as it looks and it's made of wood and painted and it's attachec~ to a telephone pole. And it says Welcome to New Prague. Then when you come in from the other side of town, they do make a statement. It's not humongous. It's not big but they do have brick and this made accordingly and a little bit of wood structure with it. And it makes a statement and it's quite noticeable because they do have green area around it. And it doesn't look too bad but when you come in from one end of town, it sort of surprises you. When you come in from the other, it gives you a little different impression. And that's one of the things that I, on 19 as you go up there. 21 and 19. You look at that and this .I, it doesn't have some of the things that we're looking at as well as with the maple leaf up on top. Which surprised me of being just 12,600 because I thought that was going to be one beck of a lot more dollars. And does that also include the fillagre that would go with it, the scroll? Ashworth: In fact I think it's under that one. The low was under $10,000.00. Get hat dt: side. That was an additional $1,500.00. The little things .on the Ashworth: Yeah, but I mean the total between the two is $8,500.00. Chmiel: Okay. I guess when I first saw that I thought that would probably cost us as much as $150,000.00 to get someone to be commissioned to pull it together and go through the process. But thus came in rather low and I like that part of it. Gerhardt: Jeff had quotes of 211 think. I think that included trucking costs. Bohn: Did you see the one on TH 41 when you come off TH 5 going into Chaska? Chmiel: Yes. They just changed that, or they just put it in recently. Councilman Wing: It says nothing. Chmiel: No, but it gives a certain amount of warmth to it with the fencing and the rock that they've put in. Mason: What do you think of this Council? Councilman Wing: At a proper time I'd like to make a comment. Chmiel: Make your comment. Bohn: Make your comment. Councilman Wing: The thing I picked up on from the Mayor was the need for a statement. To me statement means a pretty massive structure. The disagreement I have here is that Market Boulevard is our main entry point and it's true it's the middle of downtown but that's where people coming - from the south, northbound on TH 101. To me the entry points are east and Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 19 west. Coming from the east, when I hit Chanhassen right there by the cement plant, that's the entrance point for me. Then I hit the West 78th Street. Same coming from the west. Almost all the traffic is going to be swinging off into the service road or coming down West 78th Street and that's going to be an entry so it may be irrelevant at this point. But my big concern here is the history. For as long as I've been on the Council, or been active here, this has been an issue that's been discussed and we went to a plains type tower, then to a cement tower, and a maple leaf and staff has gone backwards and forwards and charged ahead and got stomped on and finally Jeff Farmakes comes in and says well, here's what I think and · everybody says hey, this is wonderful. So staff continues on the direction on HRA or Council or whoever is driving this program. Actually HRA and then we get to the point and all of a sudden everybody is. saying, well it ought to be this and we don't like this and it's too expensive and hell, we knew this a year ago. This is old news and so I guess we either have to make a decision to do this or don't do it but if I Nas staff, I'd never bring it up again. I'd drop it on the HRA and never, ever, ever bring it up again. I'm not saying it's critically...How does it fit the City? Do we know? Is it worth the money long term? I think it has to be massive and make a statement, and I don't know about the warmth issue. That's a personal opinion so perhaps, if this is confusion, that $39.95 sign down at the entryway that the State puts up is adequate and we can just put a welcome under it, population 12,942 and maybe that's adequate. But if you're going to sign downtown, it certainly is expensive. Now, the only thing I really honestly wanted to say on this say on this issue, other than I like this. I think it would look wonderful. I'm really confused about the money and I'm glad I'm not sitting where you are. I don't want to have to make that decision. Chmiel: I was Just going to bring that r.tght back to you. Because that's the issue that I see. What we've come up with and designs that Jeff has done I think are great but when it comes time to fees up the dollars of $348,000.00, it Just absolutely disconbobbles me. It really does. Completely. Mason: Disconbobble. I've got to write that one down. Councilman Wing: I do not want to make that decision. That's why I'm going to kind of cut my statement off. I guess I personally would support this. I think it's a need. I think it's important to our community. I'm not sure about the dollars. You're going to have to argue that out and that's why you're there. Something just keeps, oh. One thing that was brought up under this discussion is the issue of priorities and one thing I would really like to hear from HRA and have HRA determine once and for all. I would like in writing, as a Councilmember the list of priorities. You've got x dollars to spend. I'd like to see the priority list. The X cost estimates and then maybe kind of stick with that priority list and that priority list as I mentioned at the Council meeting, maybe doesn't include subsidizing certain issues in the city. Maybe there's, the Abra's we don't want to subsidize or Mr. Johnson, we don't want to subsidize at this point. I don't know but whatever the list of priorities is, let's keep the money there and not get off center here. If this is a priority, spend it. If it's not on the priority list, we maybe don't have the money. Thank you for the time. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3une 24, 1993 - Page 20 Bohn: As far as entry monument to Chanhassen, once 212 is built, if it ever is, I think most of the people will be coming into Chanhassen by way of TH 101 off 212, which is Market BoulevaTd and that's exactly what they'll see. Personally I don't really want to Spend the. money for the one on Great Plains Boulevard. Ashworth: You've reduced the cost of this down to $193,000.00, and I'm assuming you'd still want to do the maple leaf, which would be another' $8,500.00. If you just did Market Boulevard and you dropped off. You have to make a decision then if you want that, what I'll refe~ to as the sitting wall. Bohn: Expensive sitting. Mason: !'ye been, as' Don knows, I've been agonizing over this one for quite some time and I've been trying to think of, as a citizen, as an HRA member and as a City Council member and right now I wish I wasn't both on HRA and City Council. I like that. I like it a lot. Gary and I were chatting right before the meeting about this and we, I think we essentially came to the same conclusion about priorities. And I kind of feel llke I'm lampooning the people that put all the work into this right now and that's not my intent but I look at, beck I look at $322,000.00. [ look at $200,000.00 and I think that can buy a lot of library. That can buy a lot of senior housing. That can buy a lot of other stuff and ~uite honestly Z think we've felt some sting, at least since I've been on HRA, which hasn't been that long, but we felt some sting about how we're using TIF money. And regardless of whether I'm appointed or elected, you spent $300,000.00 on your monument. Why didn't you spend the $40.00 on the sign? I can Just see that one comi.ng and if I felt strong enough about it, I'd say well yeah but this is why we did it. Personally I have trouble defending this right now. A lot of trouble defending it. Ashworth: Can I make one additional? Hopefully Councilman Wing will come back next time we... The majority of the expense for the wall and the $193,000.00 for the whole project is the landscaping. Redoing this area in here. The lighting associated with the wall. $o when they come back to you and say you spent $300,000.00 on an entry monument, I mean it's not a true statement. The entry monument is $75,000.00. Councilman Wing: Wasn't that about the same p~ice... Chmiel: Close. Bohn: Yeah. Pretty close. Most the money was always going to be on the landscaping, which we're going to have to spend money on landscaping anyway. Boyle: Well that was my question; I mean is the landscaping going to happen anyway? I mean is this part of the plan? Ashworth: It really should occur. And I think it will occur totally at some point in time but I Just want to make that point. When we say that $75,000.00 for this wall. We choose the other wall at $65,000.00. The difference then between those numbers and the numbers you have here is the Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 21 landscaping, redoing of the ponding area, the walkway areas, etc. Chmiel: I'm glad you brought that back up again because that was one of the factors that completely slipped me on that. If we're looking at landscaping, do we have this definitely broke down as to wall cost, si dewa 1 k. Ashworth: Every component in here has been separated· Chmiel: Okay. Do we have that information anywhere that we can see it? I don't have it. Ashworth: The problem with that is there's so much detail that sometimes it's hard to see what is the total number. And there are certain items in there that Todd and I have talked about. In fact we did not know that they had them in them. For example he's putting in a tremendous number of geraniums. That's an annual like. Mason: Well that's Todd's Garden Club that will take cate of that right? Ashworth: And so we would delete that out. Chmiel: That's only $3,120.00. I just came across it. Ashworth: That's just for the one. So you're dropping maybe $5,000.00 out of it, or something like that. Chmiel: Yeah. About $6,000.00. Still $6,000.00 is a long way from what we're looking at· Everything's here: Boyle: Well $200,000.00 is a lot of landscaping. Ashworth: $100,000.00 is landscaping. Chmiel: Well even yeah, $100,000.00 is a lot of landscaping. Believe me. It really is. I did a $100,000.00 landscaping Job on a facility in Maple Grove and it far exceeded total number of trees that'are existing there. Gerhardt: This has electricity so you can put twinkle lights in. Chmiel: Yeah. Boyle: I'm very glad to hear that Todd. Mason: That's the good twinkle lights. Councilman Wing: You know I think you ought to be a little bit careful, back on this to include the landscaping in the your thinking because if you remember the video imagery of the wall, without the landscaping it was pretty unattractive...but the wall was nothing without the landscaping and they were... Mason: Can somebody tell me again why we need an B foot high wall as opposed to a 6 foot high wall? Why can't we for example put the Great Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 22 Plains wall on the Market Boulevard wall? Councilman Wing: It was sight lines. In fact the 6 foot wall would be... because it was down Iow. The 8 foot was actually a little bit lower than the 6 foot would be at the other place. I mean all these things are coming back but I remember... Bohn: Less chance of kids climbing on top of the wall because they can't reach it. Mason: Oh, ! bet you there are kids climbing on top of that wall. Bohn: Well it'd be 12 feet to climb on it. Some of them will but most of them won't. Mason: I beg to differ on that one. Ashworth: And there's a lot, in fact I think there was some reduction in the height of this wall. I know there was on the other one. And Jeff Farmakes was real concerned because he wanted to take and make sure that the distance from the top to the letter would be a certain size and the letter size and I mean, Dick is correct from stating that there have been a lot of hours put into this thing. Chmiel: Yeah we know. A lot of times we've looked at it and'a lot of times other people have put time into it. Ashworth: I sincerely do not believe that if we came back and, we like this one so well a year from today came back in and put the other one in at Great Plains, I really do not think that the cost would change that much for doing that one potentially a year from now. If you wanted to kind of rest assured that this is really what we want before you would duplicate the problem...or similarly said it was that great. Let's do that one. I really don't think that there's that much cost differential in just doing one versus doing both. At least at this year. Chmiel: One of the things that I did ask for, which Dick eluded to, when I asked to know exactly where the total amount of dollars that we have within HRA. I wanted to see a total figure so we could come up with that conclusion as to what dollars we'd have to spend for each of the specific projects that we have been discussing. I still haven't gotten that and I'd like to get that. And that was at least probably 4 weeks ago or 6 weeks ago. 8ut I think, I get a little uptight with the total amount of dollars that we would expend on this and I'm not saying it's, as I told Jeff Farmakes, I thought he came up with one beck of a design for that. No question in my mind but I still want to know what the total amount of dollars that we're going to have and as Michael has said, we're talking library. We're talking senior citizen. We're talking our community center. I want to know if we can do all of them. If it comes to the wall and we have enough dollars in there, then I'd say fine. Mason: Well that goes along with what Gary said about priorities too. Chmiel: Right, exactly. Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 23 Mason: I mean I quite honestly, I agree with you Don. I'd feel a whole lot better about it if I knew that all the other things that we want to do are going to happen. Boyle: That's where I'm at with this statement I made earlier. Bohn: When can we get this information? Ash~orth: Well it's. Chmiel: What's the time line on this? Ashworth: I was just asking Todd when we were going to take... We're looking at the community center $5 million. Senior housing 2 1/2. Library $1 million. Downtown park $1 million. We were talking there with the total projected dollars available of approximately $1l million. The difference between the ones I just gave-you is $1.5 million. What project am I missing? Gerhardt: Downtown traffic signals. Chmiel: What about, we haven't consummated the deal with our Red-E-Mix. Ashworth: I've already got that. That's already in those numbers. Chmiel: Is that in there? Ashworth: And Taco, etc. I don't have in there the dollars for actual demolition, although those are going to be minor.' I don't have dollars in there for a gateway type of a thing but hopefully that's not going to be that high. Oh I know. Our West 78th Street which was right at $1.5. So that's your total listing of $11 million. Chmiel: And you have this total project in with those numbers as well? Ashworth: I made the assumption on this that this was $300,000.00. What we did was we did a bond sale associated with like Highway $ improvements and this has remained as a part of those dollars. Now that doesn't mean that you can't reallocate those dollars to something else but basically those are already in what I call previous funding. Bohn: If we put the, next year decide to put the Great Plains monument in but not at Great Plains. Say maybe where the Red-E-Mix plant is and the Taco shop was, would it cost the same? How much difference would it from this year to next year? Say we own the property on both spots. Ashworth: I don't think that there'd be any difference. The only difference in my own mind is the smaller wall and also the constricted. In other words, you wouldn't have the seating. We looked at Great Plains, because it's a smaller piece of property and start wrapping. The big one just wouldn't fit at that location. I think if you tried to take this wall or that wall, the Great Plains one, and put it onto the Red-E-Mix property, it would become kind of out of place because it's such a big piece of property and it would be a relatively small wall in comparison to that Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 24 whole plain. I think that the architects would just...I can't believe that you just can...If you would emmulate it, that has been drawn at Great Plains, I sincerely believe it would be the same cost a year from today as it is now and would be the same cost on the Hanus site. I don't know of any differences. Bohn: 17 and 5. Ashworth: The big difference would be, you'd want to look at each location and say, does this really fit into this location. A lot of time and energy was put in, in terms of looking at the size and the lettering all the rest as the wall would go on Great Plains. A lot of time and energy as to the sizing of this thing on Market. You'd do exactly the same thing as it would apply to Red-E-Mix or 17. Boyle: Don, I don't question location or any of that other size or anything else. I think a lot of time and effort and study and money's been put in to make the right decision on that. I really do. I personally think that, again I go back to priorities but landscaping, I mean you've got that large of amount going just in landscaping. Ail of a sudden now that becomes, wow. Seems like a tremendous amount. I don't knw how many square feet we're talking about here but it seems like a tremendous amount to do some landscaping, as well as even Great Plains Boulevard for the landscaping. Ashworth: It's not all landscaping. I mean as you may have already looked... I can't remember the exact. I think we had in terms of a site grading and costs...bringing these elevations in was like...You've got this one is a final on, you've got some walkway areas through here and that's x amount per square foot. You've got the...The trees aren't $I00,000.00. I'm guess just, well in fact I saw it on there. The trees. Chmiel: Sugar maples. 3 inch caliper. $10,800.00 for 30 of them. Ashworth: As the Mayor noted, $6,000.00 in geraniums would disappear so there's 6 out of that. Bohn: How much in there for grading? Chmiel: I don't, mobilization. Just to mobilize is $19,000.00. Boyle: But that means building a wall. Chmiel: No, it means getting there and getting things organized and starting the wall. It doesn't really cover that part of it. Well they have to bring in 160 cubic yards but that's insignificant. 8ohn: Do we need a motion on this? Mason: Yeah, I think so. Chmiel: I think we do. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3une 24, 1993 - Page 25 Boyle: And I thnk that's what everybody's sitting here right now agonizing how the heck are we going to do this? Bohn: Do we need a motion on this tonight? Ashworth: Tonight, probably not. In looking here, we didn't find how long the bids are valid for. Typically they're 30 days and I think we took the bids, you received them. I'm not sure how much additional time we have. I would suspect that maybe if you wanted to think through this and we meet a special meeting, 5:00 or 6:00 just for this one item. If you wanted to do it a week from today or 2 weeks from today.' I'm sure that would be acceptable. Boyle: What more are we going to know 2 weeks from today than we know tonight? Mason: We're not. Chmiel: Nothing much more. Boyle: Unless it's a more thorough breakdown of that $11 million and how we felt if the $$ million for the community center or the senior housing, etc, that would be the only thing that would make me feel a little warmer maybe about where this fits in the priorities. Councilman Wing: Sitting out here, I think you've hashed out what you'll know in a week or two. A better understanding of the philosophical question that you started and I'd like to pick up on...better understanding of is this an asset to the community? Is it a long term investment in the community? Is it worth the expenditure? More important, does the Board have philosophically the right to spend this kind o~ money on this kind of project. If you answer any of them yes, I don't have the, t'm not going to sit up there. Chmiel: That's the whole thing right there. Councilman Wing: stunned. ...I think you've got to sleep on it. I'm sitting here Mason: Well yeah. I've been sleepin~ on it ever since I got this packet and philosophically I can't spend that kind of money on this. And I apologize to all the people that have put in the time and the work and the effort on this. And maybe this is a case of hindsight for me but I can't do it. And I can't I'd feel differently in another week from tonight. 8ohn: Gary. Boyle: I 'd like to have the week or two weeks. Bohn: Don. Chmiel: I would like to see the complete breakdown on the tax increment... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.). Housing and RedeveIopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 26 APpROVA~ OF ~ILLS, Chmiel: ...for that amount of $13,677.00 for Carver County Treasurer for other acquisition costs. What was that on? I was wondering if that was anything to do with Roger. Legal fees. It says acquisition. Gerhardt: It's I think, it looks like some type of real estate payment. Taxes or something. Ashworth: I ' 11 pull the check. Gerhardt: Because it went to the Carver County Treasurer so the only thing that the Carver County Treasurer would get money for would be taxes. Chmiel: Yeah, but I was just wondering what were we acquiring with. the costs related to that. Acquisition means getting something. Gerhardt: June 14th. Taxes were due in May. Mr. Chairman, Clayton Johnson had asked time on the agenda so he could give you an update on their progress with the hotel and their redevelopment efforts... If you could do that at this time. Bohn: Clayton. Clayton Johnson: You guys went by that item 2 on the agenda so fast we didn't have time to stand up. 8ut I wanted to bring you up to speak in terms of we're proceeding in the spirit of the understanding that we have that we're going to try to proceed with the private development on the front side while the decision is being made in the back. I wanted to let you know what's going on. We have a letter of understanding that we have reached with a restaurant operator and with that in mind we're working very hard to finalize that. That's in regard to the restaurant. In regard to the hotel, the hotel partners have met and voted to proceed with the expansion. The current lender on the facility has indicated a willingness to open up the mortgage and permit the construction of the expansion to take place. The retail, the former location of the hardware store is being rehabbed. We've got one tenant, Team Sports that's currently occupying and we're currently having meaningful discussions with two other tenants to take the balance of that space. The Dinner Theatre came out of bankruptcy on June 7th and is now owned by National Westminister Bank and they. will be selling the operating portion of the Dinner Theatre. We have hired an architect and a surveyor. We've had our first meeting with the Planning staff and we are currently aiming for a submission to the Planning Commission on August 2nd, and that submission to the Planning Commission will be a replatting of everything on the south side of'West 78th Street. It will be the hotel expansion. The rennovatio~ of the existing building to accommodate the restauzant. There are some issues that the current, as I understand the process. We have to start on ~ugust'2nd in order to have Council approval by the end of September which would be required for these projects to proceed on schedule. So there is one rather large issue. Right now I've instructed our attorneys to proceed with the platting, maintaining all of the current industrial and commercial uses in the rear of the property. If there's to be a decision on the recreation center that Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 27 does affect those properties and that plat, that would be beneficial but I guess that isn't something that we can bank on. We're .going to proceed as though the current industrial uses will continue and that issue of what happens back there will have to be addressed later. There is one issue though that is very critical that we need your cooperation on. We need the, and that is exactly where this dividing line is, if there is a civic center, recreation.center back there. Where the dividing line will be as it relates to the existing Animal Fair building. Our architects are shortly going to have taken that about as far as they can, and probably in the course that it gets to be August 2nd and those decisions haven't been made, then I guess that also will have to progress as though it's going to continue as an industrial use, so that the rest of the project can proceed. Okay? Chmiel: Can I ask Just a. Clayton Johnson: The other thing. We will be back at this meeting next time requesting approval of our redevelopment plan as it relates, even though we're talking about the private side here. We're still banking on two things. We're banking on that is a redevelopment effort. We're going to be asking for some assistance for that portion of the project. And the other thing is that we're still operating under the assumption that someday we'll be done with Filly's. If the decision is that the civic center, recreation center is not built back there, we're still going to be looking for this group to take some action. Chmiel: Can we just call it a community center? Thank. you. Too many terminologies are getting out there and people are getting completely confused. Clayton Johnson: Yeah. I try not to talk to anybody about it. So I think that is the issue of next meeting. We will be meeting with the staff. Trying to draft and get...their support on that redevelopment plan that we would come and ask for your approval at the next meeting. Chmiel: Okay. Just a quick question. The expansion as you're looking at the hotel. I'm looking forward to seeing that because I've been hearing that they can't get enough rooms. There's no room at the Inn. Is that . going to be to the east side of the existing building? Where the sort of hole in the wall is? Clayton Johnson: Yep. We're filling in that hole. Chmiel: Good. Bohn: The restaurant would be goino where Animal Fair is?- Clayton Johnson: Animal Fair is leaving at the end of June and we are hopeful to having the lease finalized with the restaurant operator by July 15th. We have the financing for that portion of the project and we would like to see that proceed. So that will be an item that we will be bringing back to you next time. Boyle: And you said Team Sports is one of the proposed tenants? Housing and Redevelopment Authority June 24, 1993 - Page 28 Chmiel: Existing in the hardware store. Clayton Johnson: They don't have their sign up I don't believe. We've rennovated that portion of the building. You should go over and take a look. Boyle: Yeah, I didn't realize it was in. Bohn: Good. Thank you Clayton. Hason= And the mystery check. Chmiel: And the mystery check. Gerhardt: The mystery check is a tax statement and it's for the Hanus building. We'll get reimbursed back through the rents on'that. Chmiel: Okay. With that I would move we accept the accounts payable. Hason= Second. Chmiel moved, Hason seconded that the Housin~ and Redevelopment Authority approve the Accounts Payable as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. HR~ PRESENT~TZONS: Ashworth: I have one quick item if.I may. I distributed copies. It's labeled, Independent School District #112, new Chanhassen elementary school and what this is is, it sets out the programming aspects that the school will be looking to. Those parts of the elementary school that have been identified by the school district be built in this facility. So classroom sizes, kitchen areas... We have similarly been working with them recognizing that we wanted to augment anything we do down here with additional facilities, like on this elementary site. And so for example instead of just simply having them build an elementary school auditorium like this one, if you build the wall 6 feet higher, you can accommodate adult basketball. If instead of building a 3/4 court, you extend it out another whatever number of feet, you can have a full court. So there's a couple of alternatives in here in terms of how we might modify some of the things they're doing to insure that from an after hour useage standpoint that it can better serve the community as a whole. This is going to be brought back to the Park Commission and back to the City Council. I simply wanted you to be aware that this is something that we are doing because it does, it should provide relief for any .type of a facility that we would build here. I shouldn't say relief. The two can be used in conjunction with each other and it will insure that we don't end up with conflicts between adult recreational needs and youth recreational needs. And there's some alternatives. .For example, one of them would actually have us build a fieldhouse type of a facility up there instead of a gymnasium. This is not ' an HRA cost but it does impact you as it relates to what's going on down here. Boyle: And that means the community center? Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3une 24, 1993 - Page 29 Amhworth: Right. That's ali I have. Bohn: Can I have a motion for adjournment? Mason moved, Boyle s~conded to adjourn the me, ting. All voted in f&vo~ and the motion caTTied. The meeting ~as adJouTned. Submitted by Don Ashworth Executive Director Prepared by Nann Opheim