Loading...
1993 07 22CH~I~SSEN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1993 Chairman Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Mike Mason, Jim Bohn, Charlie Robbins, and Gary Boyle STAFF PRESENT: Todd GerhaTdt, Asst. Executive Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chmiel moved, Mason seconded to approve the Minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting dated June 24, 1993. All voted in favor, except Charlie Robbins who abstained, and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS= None. PUBLIC HEARING: REGARDING THE SALE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2. BURDZCK PARK ADDITION TO DOUG HRNSEN. Bohn: This is a public hearing. Todd, do you have anything? Gerhardt: Under State Statute the HRA must hold a public hearing when selling land. The notice of the public hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 8th. If the HRA at this time would like to make a motion to open the public hearing... Mason moved, Robblns seconded that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority open the public hearing regarding the sale of Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition. All voted in favor and the ~otion carried. Gerhardt: There seems not to be any comment on this. If you'd like to close the public hearing and open it to HRA discussion. Robbins moved, Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman. Attached is a purchase agreement with Doug Hansen for the sale of Lot 3, Block 2. Mr. Hansen's here tonight to give an overview of his proposed development. You saw this at your April 22nd meeting. Mr. Hansen has made some...change$ since that meeting and has the approval of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Robbins: So they are within guidelines? The changes he wants to make are within guidelines that have been approved? Gerhardt: Yes. So I think they were additional improvements to his original presentation to the HRA in April 22nd so at this time I'd like to have Doug give an overview of his proposed development. Bohn: Mr. Ha nsen. Mason: I bet he can give the abbreviated version if he wants to. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, ~993 - Page 2 Bohn: Maybe just the changesi Mason: I mean unless you really want to talk a lot about it. Doug Hansen wasn't speaking into a microphone and his presentation was not picked up on the tape. Bohn: Wasn't there originally going to add another building instead of adding onto that building? Doug Mansen: Yeah, originally it was going to be... Robbing: The same use for the building? Doug Mansen: Basically... Robbing: Pardon me. Doug Hansen: Chaska Machine... Robbing: Yeah, so it's the same use and you're Just basically scaling-it a little differently. Bohn: Is there any other tenants in there besides Chaska Machine and Tool? Doug Hansen: Our company...remodeling firm with 5 employees. Steinkraus Plumbing... Robbing: The scaling of the building, was the scaling a dramatic scaling downwards or Just a couple of feet? With that question, was the space that was scaled down going to be used now'for what, landscaping or parking or just more grounds or what? Doug Hansen: More grounds. Robbing: Okay, thank you. Doug Hansen: This is a color rendering... Chmtel: Basically that gold color that you have is going to be the ceramic that you're going to have above each of those entrances? Doug Hansen: Yeah. Chmiel: Give it a little contrast. Doug Hansen: The total size is going to be...Do you have any questions? · Chmtel: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for selling Lot 3, Block 2 8urdick Park to Doug Hansen. Bohn: Is there a second to that motion? Boyle: I'll second that motion. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 3 Chmte! moved, Boyle seconded that the Housing and Redevelopment ~uthortty approve the architectura! design of the proposing building and approve the proposed purchase agreement to sell Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition in the amount of $51,354.00 to Doug Hansen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REJECT BIDS FQR DOWNT~dN ENTRY MONU~gENT. Gerhardt: Most of the HRA was at Monday night's meeting and if you read the Villager this morning, there was a synopsis of Monday night's meeting and Don's memo and interview that ! gave telling the results of our $7.5 million short run in the tax increment district over the next 8 years. Based on those projections, staff felt that at this time it would behoove us to hold off before we start to look at constructing the entry monuments at Market Blvd. and Great Plains. If this still is a priority of the HRA, we can add this project to our list of other.priorities' But from some of the feedback we were getting, we felt at this time it would be best to take a formal motion to reject bids that were received. Robbtns: I would move that we accept staff's recommendation to reject bids for the downtown monument. Mason: I'll second it. Bohn: It's been moved and seconded. Do we have any discussion? Boyle: Todd, how much money's been invested so far in Just the plans and, I mean how much money right now do you think's'involved? Gerhardt: I would say that there's probably somewhere between 40 and 50. But I mean in that, I mean this is something that we've been working on for the last 2 years. We started off with probably I think 4 different concepts and then after those 4 concepts we entered into what will be the more vertical element. And then from the vertical element, we went into the wall elements as you see today. And in preparing the plans and specifications to take formal bids, so we've spent somewhere between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00. Chmiel: And I feel that that's money that we still haven't lost. Gerhardt: Oh no. Chmiel: Because if and when the city does ever acquire these kinds of dollars, the study is still there. We know What we can do and we can implement it. You may get a cost difference rise in this, maybe by lO~ or 15~ per year. Or it could decrease, depending upon how the economy keeps going. But I'd like to just take a little time to thank the citizens who have been involved in this and have really provided their time, of which I'm sure we could have escalated the costs much higher than where we're at right now. They could have gone up considerably by another $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 more. But we've had one specific individual, 3elf Farmakes, who has taken a lot of his time to come up with much of these designs and on behalf of myself, I'd like to acknowledge that fact and Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 4 thanking him for that. But I don't feel it's a total loss as yet because these can always be done at one given time or another. And I guess I'll just close it. Robbtns moved, Mason seconded that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority reject all bids (Schedule "A" and "B") associated with the I~wntown Entrance Monuments Sign Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. aPPROVAL OF BILLS, Chmiel moved, Robbins seconded to approve the Accounts Payable for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as presented. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. HRA PRESENTAT~0NS: Gerhardt: I handed out a Wells Engineering Minnesota item. I haven't had a chance to go through this completely but I received a phone call;from Fred Hoisington and to stay on schedule with the pedestrian overpass, this memo outlines basically the project description and the services that would be needed to go through the entire plans and specifications for the construction of the pedestrian overpass. Also included in that would be the environmental review, alternative concept drawings, soil investigation work, bridge survey, pedestrian bicycle bridge design, and project meetings and construction observation. The project team would include Wells, Barton Aschman, Miller Dunwhittle, Braun Intertec and RCM to perform the work and meeting all of these job descriptions that I've just outlined. The total cost of this would be $73,525.00. From that I cannot answer today if that can be allocated towards the $120,000.00 that the HRA was going to put towards the construction of this project. 8ut the people that would answer that haven't returned my calls yet. So what I'm asking for is approval of this contract with Wells and that I get some type of response back to you regarding these services be included as our allocation to the ISTEA dollar matching amount that we are to contribute for the construction of the pedestrian bridge. It's a lot of money but there's a lot of special conditions that go along with this bridge construction. It's not a simple process and even the bridge itself, the reason the $28,500.00 mark is in there is that this has to go through a super design construction as MnOot outlines it. You can't go with what is a conventional pedestrian overpass. So that has inflated that dollar amount due to the conditions that go along with these ISTEA applications. Robbtns: Todd, a question. On the fact that Wells Engineer, it's not that I've not heard the name but the question is, on a lot of projects in the past we've had more than one consultant come in to do a RFP, or call it what you will. Was there a reason why we have Just the one and not more than one here to look at? Gerhardt: Good question. I was going to get to that too. We could go out for a request for proposal for this work but the process in going out for an RFP would take us into a 3 to 4 month process. Maybe longer. By the time I put an RFP together, we send it out and get people's proposals back', Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 5 and interviewing them and selecting what we feel is the best candidate to do this work, we're going to be behind this project quite a ways and hoping to get this thing started next spring. So I guess I feel that this is a good team. These are people that we've worked with in the past and I've had Mark Koegler look at these numbers to see if they are within the professional realms of other consultants. He's given me his opinion that it is. And that if we were to go for an RFP, these are the numbers that we would probably see as a result of that. 8arton-Aschman' has a lot knowledge in this area of working with us but they just do not have the engineers on staff to design a bridge of this magnitude. As to the environmental reviews, Braun Intertec does most of the soil borings and would give any foundation review for footings and things like that. So these are excellent candidates here and I would say to stay on schedule and I would go with this contract as outlined. Chmiel: Todd, we do have a commitment with deadlines for the dollar allocations that we got from the State. What was that date that this has to be completed by? Gerhardt: If I remember right, it was 2 years from the date that they awarded it and they awarded it this last spring. So this project needs to be completed I would say sometime in the spring of Boyle: What was the estimated total cost of the budget again? Gerhardt: It's my guess it was $400,000.00 and the State was going to contribute $280,000.00 to the construction of it. So in a worst case scenario this thing, our total cost in this would be a minimum of $15,000.00 and a maximum of $i$0,000.00. Would be our contribution towards this project. Chmiel: How long, do you have any inkle as to how long it's going to take them to construct the overpass? Gerhardt: I think it would, with the landscaping and everything else, it would be a 6 to 8 month construction .period. In completing the project fully. Chmtel: I'm just trying to weigh and see if we could, if we should even consider going out for bids. To me that $73,000.00 is a pretty hefty cost but I'd like to know what the construction observation really is. Is that an engineer on site...construction as it's being put in or what? Gerhardt: It would be an inspector on site to insure that the contractor was meeting the terms of the plans and specifications. We do that on most all our projects where similar to a Greg Roy, Jeff Bednoir from Strgar. They're on site right now with the TH 101 project and the West 7$th Street project. You have a lot of things that you have to deal with on this. MnDot, you're building over the top of Highway 5. There's going to have to be concerns with traffic. If there's any lane closures o~ things like that and you need a person on site to insure that this project goes ahead as planned. These will be conditions with all that. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 6 Chmiel: What about the environmental review? Does this require anything with the EAW, Environmental Assessment Worksheet? Gerhardt: It shouldn't. Chmiel: I'm just looking at just that particular cost. What is an Environmental Review? I can understand their alternative concept drawings. Soil investigations, which they have to do. The bridge survey. Gerhardt: There's going to have to be an SA-2, a WEM with MnOot and a WHF, WA requirements. Chmiel: That complies okay with what MnDot is going to make sure that they, okay. Well I looked at that, it just didn't spell out. Gerhardt: It seems as if there's some environmental reviews that Barton- Aschman's going to have to do along with MnDot when you're crossing their roadways. And I'm sure it's, you know the truck traffic patterns. What's the height of the trucks that travel on that road and things like that. Chmiel: I can see that some of this is pretty close to what the norm is for putting a bridge in. Not of this size but I've seen others go in much larger. And the cost associated with always getting a consultant in is rather high. I would have liked to have seen us have an opportunity maybe to at least extend that fo~ review or to put it out oD an RFP but it's going to take too many months to tie that down. And if it costs anything towards project, and if it's not completed by that time, I know there's a clause contained in there where there's a delay and some additional dollars are going to have to be paid back. So I guess I. Gerhardt: Well the nice thing about this is if, this is Just for the design and to get the structure in. We're going to get bids on like Kraus- Anderson may come out and build the bridge itself. We will solicit bids on that and if those bids are favorable, they come in, I mean the minimum impact it might have on us would be $1S,000.00 that we would have to contribute. So the State's, or the ISTEA dollar allocation's $280,000.00 towards this. We may be able to use some of their money if we get favorable bids on the construction of the bridge. You know, the odds of us getting the bridge bids of $280,000.00 for the bridge are probably not that great but our good estimates are that the maximum that this thing should cost is $400,000.00. Chmiel: One other question I had and then I'll quit. On the soils investigation. Wouldn't MnDot and construction of Highway 5 have some soils investigations within those specific areas? And the other question I'd have is, if they do, that cost could come off of here as well for the $3,200.00? Gerhardt: The soil investigations would be borings done for the footings on the basis of each end of the bridge. I don't think we should be satisfied with borings that may be 15 feet away or 10 feet away. For where the footings are going to go. You need to know exactly what kind of soils you have underneath there to support a bridge of this size. You may have some pretty good numbers for the middle of Highway $ but when you're Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 7 talking a span of this size, you're going to want to know what kind of soils you've got down there. A perfect example would be the Target facility. Before they came in and bought that building, they plunked a circle of borings around where their building pad was going to go and they felt very comfortable with soils that were out there. They started digging and they found...right in the middle of those borings. And it cost them close to $300,000.00 to correct those soils. Chmiel: Yeah, I realize that. The other thing I was thinking, in connection with that is with the utilities that in and adjacent to there and they've taken many soil borings to make sure. Gerhardt: We can look into it. You know if they feel comfortable that they're accurate you know, we can do that. Chmiel: I would like, unless there are more questions, but I'd like to make that motion to that fact that if there are soil borings that could be picked up from surveys from MnDot as well as NSP, in and adjacent to the area that they're proposing to put this bridge, that they should so do and acquire those. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to give them to them. And if that were the case, then I would so move that. Boyle: Second. 8ohn: Any discussion? Mason: I'm a little concerned about one group just go ahead and do it without, I mean I undersatnd the time constraints and I don't like getting caught between a rock and a hard place on something like this and I guess. I'd, and Todd, maybe you know and maybe you don't. -Is there anyway we can get an extension on the deadline of this? I mean I would hate to, and are we opening ourselves up by not doing RFP's on this? Can somebody come in and say well, what's going on here? What's the deal? Gerhardt: With a project like this, I mean you've got so many people out there. You're going to probably have Braun Intertec is going to be on everybody's team because they do most of the soil borings around the area and that stuff. I can't sit here and tell you that there may be other engineers that would be upset that they didn't get it or BRW wasn't a part of it and that. If you really start to feel uncomfortable with that, we can go through the process. I guess I'm Just telling you that this is a good team. I think it's a fair price. ! think you're going to see similar dollar amounts if we were to go out for an RFP. But you know, if you feel that we should do that, I have no problem going through the process. If you'd like me to try and contact, ask Fred who else may be applying and get a quote from them similar to what this-group has done. We could try that also. Mason: Well I'd feel more comfortable with that. Chmiel: I'll withdraw my motion. Boyle: Well Todd I have to rely on your' Judgment and past experience and I believe if you say that $73,000.00 is a fair, equitable appraisal and Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 8 cost estimate for this project, I would go along with that. Robbins: Todd, you had mentioned before when I first asked the question about getting an RFP. That the proposal... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Clayton Johnson: .... and then the third part of the project is the rennovatton of the Frontier, the front portion of the Frontier Building, part of which has already happened. You've seen Team Sports is located in a portion of it and Maytag will be occupying the balance of that space. So what I'd like to do at this time, Herb of course has been very instrumental in this whole design and his partner in this project is Truman Howell from Truman Howell .Architect and I would like Tim to run through the project with you and then I'll come back and talk about the specific action that we're going to ask you to take. Truman Howell: Good evening. I'm Truman Howell... What we're seeing here is basically the expansion of the motel and the restaurant remodeling. The Frontier Building is this building over here and as you've probably seen, the building, the actual retail portion of it will be pulled forward... continue on down to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre...So that portion of the upgrading of the retail space will include addressing such things as the signage...continuity through that area so that...Then when we get down to this portion, this is the Animal Fair building. Now I've changed it around a lot so that you may not recognize it. This is one side with the dock here and turn in and it actually goes into here...Nhat we're doing is basically blowing out this corner and also this side over here, into which then we will put glass and then put in...provided we have some'outside deck here...and then the kitchen will be in the back here and the meeting rooms here... This would be the entry...This would be an outside wall. Just beyond that would be a courtyard that would be heavily landscaped and beyond that then you'-d see the beginning of the motel expansion which is a 36 room expansion and it is connected to the existing motel, which is over here...and that will be sitting next to...arcade here that actually connects the motel and the restaurant. Ne would have space here for some small retail shops and...and then opening up into what would be sort of a second lobby. A lobby for.these 36 rooms which is really certainly not going to be on the scale...but it would have a stairway .going up to the second floor and then we would have the...which would then be connected also to the restaurant. The space that is now a driveway...Now to give you an idea of what it might look like outside. This is the motel here. We're connecting everything along the front is the arcade as I showed you before. This arcade is the brick...That would bring us over then to the entry into the restaurant which...area here. This would be... Boyle: What's the seating capacity of the restaurant? Truman Howell: It's going to be in the 100 range. Boyle: How about parking? Audience: There will be parking. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page g Boyle: What about on the side where the alleyway is now? Is that going to be parking also? Truman Howell: We've got, we've shown some here and... Boyle: In your opinion is there sufficient parking? Truman Howell: Oh I believe so. ~s a matter of fact, it's my understanding that... Robbins: How about the streets, the way they're laid out right now. Do we need to make an additional curb cut into the south side to allow entrance? No, of 78th. To allow access to your parking now. Truman Howell: Well quite honestly, I Just received last week these drawings from the DOT...Obviously you're putting in a semifore if I'm not mistaken along 7$th...I would have to look at how many...and obviously coordinate that with the DOT. Bohn: That Laredo crossing is almost directly in front of the restaurant. Truman Howell: Yes. Which is good for the restaurant. Chmiel: With the expansion of the motel, with the other design that you had before. Truman Howell: This one? Chmiel: Yeah. With the existing entrance into the motel as you have it now. We have that blank open space which is in and adjacent to that... The one in the center, is that into the addition to the motel in itself? Truman Howell: That is correct. Chmiel: Why is the roofline not continuous from that? Truman Howell: Well because we have a courtyard and we need space...This is a pool over here and then we have a courtyard and then the guest rooms here and then there are guest rooms over here. $o we have courtyards on both sides. Robbins: 8ut back to the drawing that I think what Don is just wondering, and I guess when I saw it now, no the upper roofline. Is it you could put a roofline in there and just leave it open air. Chmiel: Yeah, the pitch in comparison with what's existing to what you're proposing. ~nd I realize this is purely... Robbins: That could stay exactly what, the windows and everything, but Just leave it open air and just have it kind of an open-air roofline so to speak. Truman Howell: I'm going to have to ask... Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 10 Clayton Johnson: What they're talking about is build a false facade. Robbins: Sust basically a facade, yeah. Clayton 3ohnson: I think they're trying to break it up. I don't know if they wanted... Chmiel: I'm just trying to look at it from an aesthetic aspects is what I 'm doing. Bohn: That part of the motel where the pool is, that's going to be only a one story building. That part where the pool is is really only one story. Well actually 2 stories high and the addition is 3 stories. Chmiel: Yeah, I think what's existing I like. And I'm not sure whether that design going into it just sort of breaks it open and gives it something else and it just doesn't look right to me. Truman Howell: I think one of the criticisms... Chmiel: I've had nothing but compliments on that building. Truman Howell: That doesn't mean it isn't a great building. It's massive. Chmiel: Yep. Massiveness to me, with the soft lines that you have on it, and the way it's broken up, it doesn't look that massive. At least in my opinion. Truman Howell: The final design is not finished on this but I do think a false facade...unexpected. And I don't have a problem with, at this point for example you could literally see back into the courtyard. Now, I don't know if I'm terribly thrilled... Gerhardt: Is that pitched or is that mansard? Audience: No...unusual massive, interesting structure... Truman Howell: I think we can make it more homey looking because what is this...what we're trying to do is bring things into the wood. Something that's consistent and to throw another, I mean this is a nice anchor and if we continue to I think increase the size of this at some point... Robbins: Just...looking at it, seeing the one on the right obviously existing versus the proposed which is a nice building. It looks good. One looks like a downscaled version of the other, just by the way it's constructed and maybe that's what I was basically eluding to was that there's a way to keep a comparable with the exterior design. $o it fits into the scheme of things. Bohn: Bringing the roof down and maybe having dormers where the windows are. Truman Howell: Well I was mentioning that earlier... Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 11 Bohn: The connection between the present hotel and the new addition, that comes to where that breakfast area is? Chmiel: What type of restaurant is that going to be, Clayton? Is it an addition to Frankie's or? Clayton 3ohnson: ...restaurant but it will have a small bar area. Chmiel: Will it also have breakfast available? Robbins: Will the restaurant be run by the organization or will it be, whatever it's called, catered out or? Clayton Johnson: Totally separate. They'll be connected physically but. Robbins: No other connection, okay. Boyle: Is that one meeting room or did you say meeting rooms? Is there one meeting room there? Truman Howell: They'll have a couple meeting rooms. Boyle: The one in the rear, that looks like a pretty good size. 3ust approximately the square footage of the larger one? Truman Howell: The larger one I think is 15,000. No, I'm sorry... Bohn: Will the present hotel be connected to the new addition in the back besides being connected in the front? Truman Howell: No. 8ohn: But it will be connected in the back to the restaurant though? Truman Howell: This will be connected and this will be connected... Gerhardt: I think what he's talking about is the corridor. Truman Howell: This back here? Gerhardt: Yeah. Truman Howell: This won't go. Gerhardt: Will that be dead ended somehow, or whatever the inspectors. It will be on the west end? Bohn: They'll still have to go outside to get to the Dinner Theatre then? Truman Howell: Yes. Gerhardt: Truman, are you looking for any other feedback from the group on this? Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 12 Truman Howell: No... Chmiel: We can't take any action on this tonight because it's not been on the agenda per se. Conceptually as to what you're basically pulling together, I think it looks pretty good. Mason: Yeah, good start. - Clayton 3ohnson: Well then we've got a problem on our time table. I mean we've been marching to this time table now for 3 months and I spoke to Don Ashworth to be on the agenda. I don't know why we're not there but that's not my problem. Chmiel: I don't know why you're not either Clayton but it's not on here. Clayton Johnson: Well here are the 3 resolutions that I wanted consideration to be given to and I'd like to discuss them. I guess, you know I've been at this for about $ years. I don't know how the process works anymore. Chmiel: It's a rather simple process. Clayton Johnson: Well it is a very simple process but I guess it's one that we're struggling with. I don't know, somehow we lost our ability to communicate I guess. Very simply we, you know in order to meet this time table, we need a development agreement. And that development agreement we're asking for in resolution one. We really need two different development agreements. We need one between the HRA and Country Hospitality Suites, which is pledging to the project of the equivalent of 3 years of increment to be generated by the 36 room addition to the hotel. That's basically the standard development agreement that we've entered into on every other project. The only thing that's unique here is the method of payment may not be the same because portions of this project were subject to previous condemnation action and some of the costs that normally would have been assessed have already been assessed and paid, But basically that's what we're seeking. The second agreement would be between the Bloomberg Companies and the HRA and it would deal with the rennovation of the restaurant, The addition to that restaurant and the rennovation of the Frontier Building. And basically there we're asking for the same thing. We're asking for the pledge of 3 years worth of increment. The only thing is that we're asking for the increment that is goi~ to exist at the time the development is complete. Third resolution deals with the balance of this project. We've been proceeding with the front half of the project on the assumption that there were several decisions that had to be made by the city in regard to whether or not there was going to be a recreation facility to the rear. Evidentally that's been resolved so we would, the third resolution really deals with where do we go from here? And we feel that we need some direction from the staff and from the HRA as to whether or not they're interested in a private redevelopment. And I want to put it on a time schedule. Ne are not going to venture any more time and effort into this project to the rear unless there's a commitment on everybody's part that we're going to meet a schedule. And this resolution really addresses that. It says that between now 'and October we're going to address these issues and we're going to make a decision and there are going Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 13 to be certain things that are going to be on the agenda each meeting. And if there is an expression of interest on the part of the HRA, then we don't intend to take it any further. Because we've spent enough time, the last 3 years while these other issues have been debated. But I don't know how you want to handle the development agreement in regard to these two projects. It's not news to anybody. It's been in front of you every meeting for the last 2 years. And we know are in the process, we are going to, we've incurred a tremendous amount of cost to get this project to this point. We are going to be at the whole process through the Plannin~ Commission starts with a submission on August 2nd. I'm not going to spend any more money with our architects or our development costs unless I have some action from this group that says you're going to back the project. And I don't know if a special meeting. You can't take action tonight. I don't know. That's a problem you're going to have to deal with. Chmiel: Clayton, can I interject in this? Clayton Johnson: Sure. Chmiel: I think this is the first time that we've seen something down on print. Knowing what it is. You've said an awful lot over the years of what you're proposing to do and how you plan on doing it. If it's not on our agenda tonight, we can't move on it. On any of the things that you're asking. Clayton Johnson: Well I mean, look to the staff. We made a request to be on this agenda. Ne were requested to be on this agenda 3 months ago. Ne specifically had a schedule as to how we're going to proceed. I don't know how we didn't get there. Chmtel: I don't like your attitude right now. Just the way you're trying to come across. I think what you have to do is work with us. Tell us what you want and go through that process. We can go through that process. Clayton Johnson: I'd be interested in hearing from some of the other commission members. Chmtel: I'd be more than happy to have someone else talk. Mason: This is the first time I've seen anything down. A blueprint, a sketch or whatever of what kind of plans you had Clayton and I understand clearly you're frustrated and that, you're not the only one. But I don't think, I felt like I just got hurranged for a few minutes and I don't think that accomplishes anything. This concept looks really good to me. I mean it's great to see this happening. But you know as well as I do, it's got to go before Planning Commission and this, that and the other thing. And we can't, this is the first I've seen of this resolution and I can't believe you seriously think the HRA will take any action on this tonight. Clayton Johnson: Why wasn't it on the agen'da and why wasn't it a part of the staff report? Well that's not my fault. Mason: I don't believe anyone said it was your fault. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22. 1993 - Page 14 Clayton Johnson: Well I guess that's the inference I'm getting. Why would you have any drawings. Mason: I don't think that anyone here said it's your fault that you're not on the agenda tonight. Clayton Johnson: Well. Why would you expect to see drawings prior to this? . Mason: I don't understand. What do you mean? Clayton Johnson: I mean we're coming in tonight to submit our plan and ask for the endorsement of the HRA and normally it would have been included in the packet. But there was no packet and we're not even on the agenda. 8ut I don't know why we would have been submitting plans previous to this. Boyle: Was the resolution given to the staff prior to this? Clayton Johnson: Exactly. Boyle: These three resolutions? Clayton Johnson: Discussed it with Don, ail three of them. Right. Mason: Were they in writing? Clayton Johnson: No, they were not given to him in writing. We've been talking to him. Mason: Well how do you expect us to act on them if they weren't in the packet or anything Clayton? Clayton Johnson: They aren't in the packet because we're not On the agenda. I would have expected a staff report to contain these resolutions. Mason: I guess I'm confused, and I apologize for my confusion but if this is the first, I mean were these resolutions given to anyone on staff prior to tonight? Clayton Johnson: They've been discussed with the staff over the last 3 and 4 months. Mason: But Clayton, you know as well I do discussed is different than having something in print. Clayton Johnson: Yeah, but the resolutions would have come in the form of the staff report. Gerhardt: I was on vacation last week so, I mean the whole packet was done 3 weeks ago before I left and Don has the authority to change the agenda anytime he wanted last week and I wasn't privy to any meetings that Clayton and Don may have had. Don, I'm sure told Clayton that he could be on the agenda but I don't know if Don said that we'll take formal action or not but we would sit and discuss this. To take formal action tonight on this Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 1S Clayton would be difficult because I'm trying to figure out, usually when we take action I at least telI them some estimates of what this thing's going to produce in taxes and we usually put an assessment agreement or some kind of redevelopment agreement together and I think we did get some direction from the group tonight as to that they're happy with the design. and the layout of it. And I think this is something they want to see us pursue along West 78th Street. As to the city owned building, as you call it and the bowling center, I think that's the next thing that we want to talk about tonight is prioritizing some of our objectives in the downtown. And until we have a project for that area or look at trying what kind of things that the HRA would want to see back there besides the community center, or potentially a community center down the line, if monies are there. I think we've got some good direction from the HRA tonight that they want us to see us move ahead with this and they may be willing to participate, is the way I'm hearing about this. If I'm hearing the HRA correctly. Clayton Johnson: We have two very specific projects Todd. You know the whole discussion of what's going to happen on the back side is going to go on for a long period of time but we have two very specific projects that we worked very hard. Gone out and secured-the financing for. Secured the leases for. We've been on this development schedule for x number of months and if it hasn't been communicated, then I guess it's our fault. But there's been no question that we were coming to the Planning Commission and starting that process on August 2nd and in order for us to have your support and continue this project, we needed the approval at tonight's meeting. Now we're in the custom to communicating that with the staff in a very informal way. And we've done it through the whole development of the whole downtown. Now I don't know what has happened on this project but we can't get off the dime on anything. Gerhardt: The procedures right now Clayton. Doug Hanson was in here tonight. He first he came to the HRA. Showed a concept of his building. Then he went to the Planning Commission and got his approvals there. Then he went to the City Council and got his approvals there. Somewhere inbetween there I think there was even some concepts that went to the Planning Commission and he went to them twice. And this is the process you're going to have to go through too. Clayton Johnson: Well the concepts on this plan, the plan has changed but the concept's have been presented time and time again over 2 1/2 years. I don't know, I have a whole drawer full of drawings of various concepts but this is the project that is ready to be built. Gerhardt: But I mean the HRA over the years and Matt will sit here and say that the Planning Commission wants to review these things and the City Council wants to review these thtngSlbefore the HRA gives it their rubber stamp because they feel as if they had absolutely no say in how the thing may lay out and that they felt railroaded that they had absolutely no say. HRA's approved this. I don't have any say in it. Why is it even in front of me? So the process has changed in the last couple of years that this group has looked to the Planning Commission and the City Council for direction on how their thoughts of how this thing may lay out. Housing and Redevelopment Authority July 22, 1993 - Page 16 CIayton 3ohnson: WeI1 Todd, we had a meeting, we requested a meeting of the city staff. I was not at that meeting. PauI Krauss did not show up for that meeting. I think you came in and pinch hit for him. The whole purpose of that meeting and I think that meeting was conducted with $ohn Rice, our Attorney and Tim Howell, our architect, and the purpose of that meeting, which was now weII over a month and a hail ago, was to Iay out the process. And we are here tonight as a part of that process. We have a submittal to August 2nd to the Planning Commission so If that didn't get communicated, I don't know why. There was certainly an opportunity. That was the whole purpose of the meeting. Gerhardt: We're on that schedule. Clayton Johnson: Okay, here we are. Gerhardt: Aren't we Truman? And he's going to. Clayton Johnson: You're asking me to proceed with the development without the support of the HRA and without the assistance of the HRA. You're saying go all the way through the Planning Commission. Go all the way. through that process before you come back and ask for assistance. Gerhardt: That's correct. Clayton 3ohnson: Well, that was never brought up at that meeting and we were here a month ago and we were on this schedule. So as long as we can meet our schedule, we're going to submit on August 2nd. We need some affirmation from this group that this project is going to be supported in the fashion that we've outlined. How you're going to do it, 'I ~on't know. (Taping of the meeting ended at this point.) Robbins moved, Boyle seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Asst. Executive Director Prepared by Nann Opheim