Loading...
1991 02 21CHANHASSEN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1991 (A joint meeting between the HRA and the City Council was held just prior to this portion of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to discuss the 1990/91 Goals and Objectives.) Chairman Horn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Clark Horn, Don Chmiel, Tom Workman, and Jim Bohn MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Robbins STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Executive Director; Todd Gerhardt, Asst. Executive Director; Roger Knutson, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bohn moved, Workman seconded to approve the Minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting dated January 17, 1991 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATION: None. CLARIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHAS~ AGREEMENT ~E,T~-EN THE HRA AND THE CROSSROAD NRTIONAk B~NK. Horn: I think informally we've clarified what our intent was. We want to take issue item by item and vote on this? Ashworth: Roger, what would you suggest? Roger Knutson: I think Don's memo goes through everything. I think only the real issue before you is, is my draft of the amendment 2 to the purchase agreement reflect the intent of the HRA and is that the one you want signed. If that's the case, you simply have a motion stating that the draft presented reflects your intent and what you want authorizing the Chair and Executive Director to execute this. Forward it to TCNB and inform them to sign it and return it to us within lO days or we'll cancel it. Horn: Are you comfortable with that Jim? That wasn't quite how I planned to approach it but. Roger Knutson: Any other way is fin~ too. ! just summed things up quickly. Horn: As I said, it was not terribly clear to me what the differences were in the two drafts. There seemed to be some vague differences. We can clarify what our intent was and if we can get each of the specific items to do that, I think it would be much clearer for us. For instance, the first item that we need clarification on is what the August 8th date really meant. In our minds I believe it meant the day that we had to close or the agreement was terminated. Bohn: Yeah, closing date. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 2 Horn: Can we get a motion to that effect? Bohn: I'll make the motion. Horn: Is there a second to the motion? Chmiel: I'll second it. Horn: Further discussion on the motion. For clarification Dave, since you joined us late, we're clarifying what our position was in our last meeting on the agreement extension. Charlie has already told us what his was. He was not able to be here but the HRA was unanimous in our feeling that our motion was that we would extend this to August 8th. If we did not move forward with the program on August 8th, the agreement was terminated and that was our intent in the motion. We would not have an agreement at this point and we're clarifying that. That's what our motion is at this point. Further discussion? If not, I'll call for the question. Bohn moved, Chmlel seconded to clarify the Housing and Redevelopment Ruthority's motion that the agreement between the HR~ and TCNB will be extended until Rugust 8, 1991. If no action has been taken by that date, the agreement will be terminated. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mike Margulies: My name is Mike Margulies...the bank so I didn't understand what the motion was and I really think we should get a chance to make a comment... Horn: Okay the motion was that what the intent of the HRA was in our last meeting in extending the contract. Our intent was that we would have until August 8th to proceed with the project or we would terminate the agreement. We would not have an agreement after that point. That was our intent. If it wasn't clearly specified last time, that was what at least all of our understandings were. From Charlie who made the motion and also Jim.and myself who voted to support the motion and also Tom's understanding even though he voted against the motion. Mike Margulies: Can I ask another question then? Just 'ask the attorneys. The problem the attorneys ran into in attempting.to memoralize the intent of the contract, or of the action last time, was not that we misunderstood that direction. I think we reiterated that concern. We simply had a problem in a drafting context of whether our contract closing date has been extended but have our contingencies been extended too. We have several contingencies in this contract that allow us to terminate the agreement prior to the closing date. And to receive our $10,000.00 refund back, although that's not the primary focus here but we need to know that, the question that we had was, to make sure that our contingencies were extended as well as the closing date. I think it became clear by our conversations with Roger that that issue was not discussed at the last meeting. But for that confusion, we wouldn't have had to bring this up and take your time again tonight so we just need some direction to help sign that document this time. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 3 Horn: Well we've decided to do, the recommendation was that we decide which draft represented our intent. I wasn't comfortable with that. Several other members weren't. What we've decided to do is to take it issue by issue and clarify what our intent was. Then the draft will be clarified at that point to reflect what our intent was. Mike Margulies: So you have additional issues that you're going to consider? Horn: Well the issue was, what does August 8th mean? That's one of the issues we identified. You've brought up another issue that we can provide clarification on. We have one or two more that we think need to be clarified that are questions, at least in our attorney's mind and we will take those issue by issue rather than dealing with this draft or this draft. Yes Roger. Roger Knutson: I was just going to say in response. The draft which I put together puts what I call a drop dead date of August 8th. If you close by then... Horn: That was the intent that we've Just expressed. Roger Knutson: Their contingencies insofar as they can be exercised and get out before that date, the get out clause before that date, they are not affected. If you come in and say the soils are bad. Mike Margulies: Or the federal government says no more charters ever, we want that right. Roger Knutson: You get your $10,000.00 back. Mike Margulies: And I'm hoping to sort of make this less of an issue than we may be making it. What Roger just sort of went through, we have no disagreement that if we don't close by the closing date or whatever date you establish here, you have the right to exercise your rights to terminate the agreement. There has to be the usual cancellation proceeding but that's our understanding as well. Horn: Well that was the frustration in going through this. We had two legal opinions from two different attorneys that we all agreed on what our intents were and everybody said yes. That's my intent and this one said, yes that's my intent but for some reason there seemed to be a disagreement. So that's why we decided to take it out and sort out what the issues were so we knew. Mike Margulies: Alright. So we don't, I want to make sure that we're not trying to raise more problems than really exist. All we really just wanted to know was that as long as we tell you yes or no before the closing date, we can exercise our contingencies and get our money back. That's really the only clarification. I think if Roger and I could have, that's really the only issue that came up between us. Roger Knutson: That's the only issue and my concern is, I think my draft accomplishes that and that's the intent of the draft. As long as, I don't , Housing and Redevelopment AuthoQity ~eeting February 21, 1991 - Page 4 want any contingencies or anything in this agreement to make it go past August 8th. As long as August 8th is the drop dead date. Mike Margulies: And we don't want that. I guess if we had asked the HRA to do anything it would be simply to ask Roger to include in his draft that the contingencies are extended until that date as well. With that we don't have a problem and this is really, I mean this is not a substantative issue as much as it's just sort of clarifying what we know is going on. We have no other issues we're asking you to raise or clarify or deal with. That's the only one. Horn: I don't think there's any disagreement that you can terminate the contract earlier. Does anyone have a problem with that? Chmiel: No. (Someone asked a question from the audience that was not audible on the tape. ) Horn: I think so. In following where we started, do we need a motion on that issue also? Ashworth: I would look to Roger i My only concern is, some of the contingencies can be read in different fashions. If for example pushing this to the August 8th date, hypothetically...then as triggering another 90 day waiting period if they would want to after the August 8th date. They may say that's not their intent. Horn: Well that's what the intent we said was not our intent when we made the motion. Ashworth: Right. It may be helpful if the only purpose is to insure that they can receive their money back prior to the August 8th date, to have specific wordage in there that would allow that rather than just saying all contingencies in the contract will be extended through August 8th. You don't know what you're buying into. Mike Margulies: Maybe it's one in the same but I guess, I mean the fact of the matter is, we want to close on August 8th assuming, or before, whenever we get our operating permits from the Federal Government and that's really the primary contingency. We want to know that that contingency is still alive. Probably doesn't make much different if you say, you can terminate and we'll give you your money back whenever you ask for it. It seems to me that's just a businesslike way to do it. But we don't want and we're not asking for any additional rights after what you set as the outside date. We asked for an extension of time to get our deal put together and that's all we're asking for. I don't think there's anything in the contingencies, I mean I realize that they're really kind of circular in some respects but there's nothing there that let's us build on any more time and I'm happy to clarify that in any draft we made. Roger Knutson: If we add it ~o my purchase agreement, I would be. comfortable. Just Addendum No. 2. We added a sentence that said substantially, at any time prior to August 8, 1991 the buyer may cancel the ,, Housing and Redeveiopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 5 purchase agreement and his earnest money will be refunded. Mike Margulies: That certainly accomplishes what we wanted. Roger Knutson: And that's our intent. Horn: That would shorten our process here this evening. Dave Weir: Given that we've all worked...for the last 30 days... Mike Margulies: We've spent the last 30 days, and this is...legal profession and not the development field, going back and forth trying, to clarify a couple of sentences and not really doing the work that we're supposed to be doing. Horn: That was my impression and that's why I didn't want to deal with who's contact are we dealing with. Let's stick with the issues. Mike Margulies: If there would not be significant objection, I t.hink we'd like to ask that we start, that we don't count the 30 days that's just passed and extend it out until September Sth. Horn: I'll poll the HRA on that. Bohn: No. Chmiel: I would say. Horn: Any other issues remain on this? Roger Knutson: So there's no doubt, so this is subject to execution if that's the wish of the commission. I'll add the following sentence at the end of my draft dated 2-8-91. At any time prior to August 8, ~991, the buyer may cancel the purchase agreement and the seller will refund their earnest money. Ashworth: Chairman, just so it is part of the record, staff in sending over the attorney's draft also sent over what was the document yc,J had referred to Roger. A consent to construct. Roger Knutson: Right. For the entry permits. Ashworth: And as far as we're aware, I mean that should be fully within the perview of what everyone knew we were doing, etc. but in my letter to Mr. Weir, I put that as a condition. So in other words, that he would have to sign that consent form along with the extension. Dave Weir: I think you could certainly propose that Don but at this point we...architectural design that's only...that is in effect almost diminishes the architectural significance of how it's been proposed with the entry drive in and I've got architectural people looking at it but to make that a condition, I suspect that our board would probably find that a difficult pill to swallow...architectural evaluation of it...but our architectural people are going to have to look at it and pass judgment on it. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 2l, 199! - Page 6 Mike. Margulies: If I can add one more thing to that. Not only does there have to be a review of that, but it also relates to the property as platted. One of the concerns I discussed with Roger was, by signing off on that, we are approving the plat. Now I don't believe that we have received the plat or a chance to approve it and we want to sit down and look at it just to make sure that it conforms to that which we negotiated at the time the purchase agreement was executed. So having the two linked at this point would only cause more delay. I think that I guess I'd suggest that we get the purchase agreement locked up and extended and get it the way you want it and then talk about the monumentation and do that on an orderly basis within some time table that you'd established. Dave Weir: I think it says that it's supposed to be...the money we've spent on site plans and the model and everything else...pass judgment without having our architectural people look at it. Literally, we spent 30 days in...really wasted 30 days with...30 days past and we now have 120 days or 150 days left to focus on the issue of getting a banking organization up and running and to deal with that...I don't know whether it will or it won't. That again sets us off with another set of chain reactions again to focus on issues... Horn: Let me ask a question Don. When would we start that project? Ashworth: The project is two fold. One, ~art of the actual element itself would be a separate cgntract that we would go through and I'm assuming, well actually Barton-Aschmann does not do the actual building so we'll be bringing back another architect to actually show the building plans. But things such as the wall and the grading adjacent to it, that's all part of really the State contract and they're in the bidding process right now. As far as I know, that work is already literally been contracted to, by us is in those State bids. We're hypothetically going to be in a real jeopardy position if Mr. Weir has the right to deny the construction and we similarly have let a contract to do the construction. My point, sending those documents over to his office nearly 30 days ago, was to insure that he could sign off on that and so we would know we didn't have a problem. Horn: But that doesn't include the tower right? You're just talking about. Dave Weir: He's asking for approval on a tall tower. Ashworth: That's correct. Horn: But is that part of the State bidding process? That's a separate contract. Ashworth: That's correct. Horn: That can wait until after August to proceed right? Ashworth: Yes because the, I mean the construction of that section of roadway we would hope that it is going to be, I mean that's part of the March letting. That's where the contractor will not be allowed in on the Sinclair property. He has the right to construct anywhere else along that Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 7 project area. That will go through 1991 and restoration clean-up into 1992. The first time that we would be ready to let a contract for the actual tower construction, you could start that work immediately with the idea that it would probably not start construction until fall and be coordinated with the State or it could go to this next spring when we knew that the State was already in and out of there and we were working solely with that pro3ect ourself. Horn: But what my proposal would be, would be to separate that entrance element into two sections. The one that's critical to the construction of TH 5 we include as contingent to signing this agreement. The one that includes the tower element will be a moot point after August. Ashworth: Well realize with, I think that Dave's sincere desire here is to be able to put a bank onto that property prior to August 8th. Horn: Right. Exactly. Ashworth: Which would involve either his own abilty to do that, which I think he expressed concern that .with the Federal Charter regulations, that be the more difficult route. Or to work with another existing bank to move on to that site. When he would do that work with them and portray to them what it is that they have, I would anticipate that he would tell them that under the contract he has with the HRA, that they can deny any type of entry monument. There's no assurance that he in fact would show them that particular one. And to make the assumption that August 8th would come and that we would then be able to proceed, I don't think that that's a good assumption. I mean he could very easily have sold and now we are trying to deal with whatever bank and they don't want to see that facility go in there. Horn: I think it's reasonable to do an architectural comparison when you've got a new building in there on the tower element. The wall and the ground element to me are not really related to that and our critical to the construction of the highway. I think it's absolutely imperative that we not do anything that's going to 3eopardize that highway. They're 3ust looking for ways to make that schedule slip anyway and I don't want to give any other options out for letting that happen. I think if we separate those two, we can accomplish both objectives because I think it is reasonable to do an architectural comparison of things that are in that close proximity. I think the tower falls in that category but the wall and the rest of it don't. Dave Weir: ...we've got to start with one concept and that is people have been proceeding with this effort with good faith and invested significant sums of money, people are not going to plunking down the kind of money we're talking about in the hopes of doing something foolish. 8y the same token, I think with that amount of money that they do have the r£ght to have some sensitivity of what is constructed there and I think furthermore, the existing agreements specifies that whatever judgment is made, that it be reasonable and hopefully those people that are spending a lot of money, there's some optimism for reasonableness. , , Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 199! - Page 8 Mike Margulies: To add to that. I mean the contract permits the property owner with the reasonable consent, to construct and maintain civic monumentation. The only way we can give our reasonable consent is to sit down and do some architectural comparisons and with all the money that's been expended to date, it doesn't make sense to go ahead and incur yet more architectural fees if we believe this contract is in danger. All I'm suggesting is, let's not link the two. Give us time to reasonably consider what you have put in front of us without the threat of this contract being terminated over our heads. I don't think that's, our obligations under the contract remain. We have to give our reasonable consent. Horn: Speaking for myself, I'm sensitive to issues that aren't going to jeopardize the highway construction. I am not sensitive to issues that could jeopardize the highway construction. Dave Weir: That doesn't sound like it's anything obtrusive. It's just basically... Part of the notion behind paying for an easement over there is to make sure that there is no visual obstruction of any consequence that will minimize the ability of the public to drive by...part of the sensitivity in developing a plan... To create something of distinction that fits in with other architectural treatments in the community and to have a series of 40 foot towers or whatever kind of going in a row, I'm not sure that accomplishes any disti~ction for anybody. It's...more of the same and I'm not saying that a tower in one place or the other is appropriate but I think with the amount of money we invested, getting some architectural input...on all of us. Whoever it may be. 8e it Mystery Party X that collectively merges w~th our o~ration or whoever... Gerhardt: Chairman Horn? Horn: Yes. Gerhardt: I think the HRA spent, remembering of our past meetings, two or three meetings reviewing the architectural styles of those towers. You reviewed pictures of existing buildings in Chanhassen. Other monuments. You deliberated for hours in reviewing that. You came up with a concept of what you wanted to see in that area similar to those areas within downtown, other entry monuments to stay with the consistency of that style. To start giving entry monuments that look to those buildings around you, you're going to have different styles all over the place. You won't have consistency. You're going to have a clock tower that's going to look similar to the Medical Arts Building. You want a tower that's going to look like the bank that Dave would bring in. You need consistency that's going to look like a theme that you've created in the downtown. I think Councilmember Wing brought that up at a meeting sayin~ that he was happy with the styles that we've created in our entry monuments and that we've created a theme throughout the downtown and that we should stay with that. I think you've done that in these drawings in the concepts that you've passed on to other architects to review and construct for you. To design it to what Dave is bringing in I think is inconsistent with what you would be doing throughout the downtown. Horn: Both of us are using what we call the same goals to get to where we are. If the things you described that you're looking for in the ', Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 9 architecture are the same goals that we had when we chose this. I guess my feeIing in separating those two out is that this is a condition that we had iooked at in the iast agreement. In other words, if he had his bank there today, he would have that option. Gerhardt: And that's why we gave him a set of drawings to review those at this point. This is your, this is the option that you have to get agreement from him and he's contesting he doesn't want to look at them until he knows he's got somebody on that property. Mike Margulies: That's incorrect. We're saying we want to get this issue resolved. The extension of the contract and then we want to proceed to do the review. Gerhardt: I can't imagine it taking'that long to review it. Horn: The review process is one we've already completed. If you had the building in place before this contract, you would have been part of the review process, as you could have been this time. Dave Weir: But the other part of it though Clark is that a significant amount of money is paid for an easement and therein lies the reason for... Gerhardt: I can clarify that issue too. The money that Dave is talking about is $25,000.00 and it gives him the right to review the development of monuments on that piece of property. However, it also states that the $25,000.00 raised in the trail dedication fees that may be associated with the development of the property. That means if he comes iD with the building on that lot, he would not have to pay park and trail dedication fees and that $25,000.00 would be in lieu of that... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Horn: ...this is the basic, are we still back on the basic contract now? Roger Knutson: They're tied to~ether. Horn: Okay. Roger Knutson: With the addition of the following language, at anytime prior to August 8, 1991, the buyer may cancel the purchase agreement and the seller will refund the earnest money. The Chair and Executive Director would be authorized to enter into this purchase agreement contingent upon the receipt of the signed Consent to Construction which is also been prepared by the City Attorney and previously furnished to TCN8's representatives. Horn: We've already acted on the first part of that motion right? Roger Knutson: Not really. You talked about the August 8th. You haven't formally adopted this. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, lggl - Page 10 Dave Weir: Can I ask that you put one more thing? Has the final plat been completed on the property? Roger Knutson: It's filed. Horn: We needed that I believe to give to the Highway before they would begin construction. Gerhardt: That's correct. Dave Weir: We've never been formally advised of that...preliminary plans we've not seen the final plat. Horn: Someone approve the motion as recommended? Workman: So moved. Horn: Is there a second to the motion? Chmiel: I'll second it. Horn: Further discussion? If not I'll call for the question. Workman moved, Chmiel seconded to adopt the following language be added in the form of an addendum to the a~ree~ent: "Rt anytime prior to ~ugust 1991, the buyer may cancel the purchase agreement and the seller will refund the earnest money.", plus the buyer must sign a Consent to Construct Agreement for construction of an entry monument. ~ll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Horn: Any other outstanding issues? Ashworth: Not that staff is aware of. Horn: Okay, great. Roger Knutson: I'll get this re-typed and over to you. CONSIDER PURCHASE ~SREEH£NT REG~RDINS RCQUISITION OF THE RRILRO~D DEPOT BUILDING. Horn: The next item that we're going to consider purchase agreement regarding acquisition of the Chanhassen Railroad Depot. Make it part of the City property again? Gerhardt: That's correct. For some time now the HRA has always talked about the railroad depot and where we should put it and how it should be a part of the city and really before you can do that, you've got to own Attached is a purchase agreement that has been signed by Dave Luse, the current owner of the railroad depot and Dave was, I mean my memo it may have come across a little bit that Dave was trying to hold us hostage. didn't want it to sound like that but he was trying to work with the city on the location of his trailer house that sits on the Natural Green site out there. I was successful, with Roger's office's help, of breaking those Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page ll two issues apart and getting him to separately sign a purchase agreement just on the railroad depot. Staff would recommend approval of the railroad depot acquisition, if it's still you~ intent to own that facility. Horn: Where do you plan, where does that plan to reside? Ashworth: I don't know. You know one of the sites was the, as an entry monument on the site we just talked about. After further review we decided that wasn't the best spot. I continue to feel that somewhere around that pond site would be a beautiful spot for it because it's right by the railroad and provide a real opportunity for picnicing. If you do something where you would build a wing out so that it truly conformed to the old railroad type where you had your baggage and would literally put that out on the waiting platform. Only our waiting platform could potentially have a couple of picnic benches. Horn: Will the pond be, will there be ice on it in the winter so kids can skate on the pond? Maybe we could use a warming house as part of this. Ashworth: Use it? Horn: Next to the pond. Chmiel: Down at the pond by the railroad. Ashworth: That's a possibility. Chmiel: The only real concern I would have with that, with children being there, and the railroad adjacent to it, I would be a little relunctant to do that because of the kids closeness and proximity to the tracks and trains going by. Horn: You obviously didn't grow up on the farm. Chmiel: Yeah but there's no sense in raising city kids, not being quite as aware as farm kids. Ashworth: Access continues to be a real problem in terms of how you would potentially access that site. I mean you can't get there off of Market Blvd. so that means that either encouraging people to park on what would be the grocery store/Market Square development and then have a trail that would go from there adjacent to the railroad tracks. I think you'd want to take people back through that existing rail crossing. So if they parked over in one corner and literally walked around, that would be more secure. Or if somehow you could actually get a road access clear on the west side which would be somewhere either off of the Market Square development or on their west side or off of the 8urdick parcels. You know down so, to gain access to the park area, you'd actually take Pica and then continue on across the tracks there. That would involve again some type of, if you tried to take vehicles across, then we'd be back again with our railroad people. That gets to be a real fight. Horn: Where would we keep this until we had a permanent home? , Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 12 Ashworth: Well does the acquisition call for, it doesn't call for an immediate removal. Workman: That one goes for a year if we want. But is the Southwest Metro loop by the tracks done? Have I been following that correctly that they're not, that we're not doing that now? The bus stop? We couldn't make a bus stop out of this? That was my original idea. I think to make something, a useful warming house or a bus stop or something. Gerhardt: I think you're correct that, I think they did change their plans on the routing of that bus. Clayton, do you know if they're still negotiating with you on moving that? Clayton 3ohnson: The bus stop's moving, that's all I know. I don't know where it's going. Gerhardt: Okay. Horn: So is the depot apparently. Ashworth: That idea has a lot of merits but what I'm concerned with is when I talked with our planning people before engineering, they felt that a bus shelter over in that corner wouldn't be a problem because it would be glass and you could see through it. We're under a separate contract. Not contract. Obligation with the State. Part of the State's approval in letting us over the railroad track was that we had to maintain like a 300 foot clear zone so they literally drew 4 triangles on each of the four corners there to insure visibility for cars coming down the roadway. My concern would be a clear bus shelter that you can see through would be different than a railroad depot that has to maintain the boards on it to maintain the integrity of the railroad depot. I don't think they'd approve it .... but I don't think they'll approve it. Horn: Another option would be a depot library. Keep it in the historical section. Workman: You know what we've got? We've got Southwest Metro telling us what we can do. The railroad. Dave Weir's telling us what to do with our property. I tell you what? I'm getting about all I can handle here. Let's make some decisions and tell people to just live with it or go jump in that pond. Horn: Is that a motion to acquire the depot? Workman: Well I guess I've got a concern about where the purchase price we arrived at from the purchase price. Ten thou. Gerhardt: That was a dollar amount that was I think. Ashworth: Goes back years. Gerhardt: Yeah. It was always $10,000.00 as far as I know. I don't know if that's what he purchased it for or how much it cost him to move out to · , Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 13 that site from the downtown plus incentives. It was $10,000.00 from I think when we first brought it up. Workman: Well I think we should secure it for it's historical value and figure out where it put it. Horn: Is that a motion? Workman: Yes. Horn: Is there a second? Bohn: Second. Horn: Further discussion? Workman moved, Bohn seconded to approve the purchase agreement dated January 15, 1991 and direct staff to prepare a check for $10,000.00 to David and Juliann Luse for the acquisition of the Railroad Depot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE AGREIiH~NT WITH [.OTUS REALTY SERVICES (HANUS SITES). Horn: Did you get another copy? Gerhardt: You didn't receive a copy in the mail. Horn: Good, I was afraid I lost it. Gerhardt: I met with Brad and Jim Walston from Roger's office on Tuesday to review the purchase agreement. Staff had concerns regarding that property. Regarding some of the incidents that have happened on the Hanus site regarding spills and some other pollution problems that exist out there. We wanted to make the best case for the HRA in acquiring that and that all sureties were made that we weren't liable down the line of correcting those soils. After our meeting on Tuesday, I feel that Jim has done an excellent job in assuring that the HRA will not be liable for a lot of, or any of the clean-up that would occur out there that exists. $o to protect that, we've asked for $20,000.00 earnest money be placed in escrow until he can provide us with a plan for Minnesota Pollution Control on how that process would be dealt with in cleaning up those spills. Horn: So we really can't do anything more on this tonight until we get an agreement? Gerhardt: Well what I would, I have it right here. What I want to do is give it to you. Have you take it home and review it and if you don't have any questions or concerns regarding it, then make a motion that you would approve this agreement based on any changes that HRA members would have in the next 7 days. Horn: So the approval would be a week from today? Housing and RedeveIopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 14 Gerhardt: That's correct. Chmiel: Todd, had we found out as to any of the previous owners or proprietors within that specific building, the kinds of materials that they used on that particular facility? Liquids or whatever? Gerhardt: Nell there was an initial soil borings or a study done by Braun that showed most of them being petroleum products. Other than that. Chmiel: Anything that was hazardous? Roger Knutson: As you all probably know, we're fortunate in this State now in that respect with our Petro Fund and the amount has now been raised to a million dollars where an application, if you get a remedial action plan approved by the PCA, they will pick up 90~ of the first million dollars in cost. Chmiel: I guess my major concern Roger, I know the costs you go through with some of those. Roger Knutson: The cost can be horrendous. Chmiel: And my real concern is that the City not wind up putting the additional dollars into that. That was really one of my major concerns when I had discussion with you before. You can eat up money so fast it's not funny. Horn: We went through that on the old 76 development. Chmiel: That's right. Gerhardt: We went through it, I mean even a step farther. That was covered through the getro Funds. I mean the Hanus facility was the scare where you had the chrome plating company .that just walked away from all the chemicals. Chrome plating, the acids and that was in large vats and had to be moved over into individual 55 gallon barrels. You had 22 barrels in there and they all had to individually be tested and that was a cost to the HRA close to $22,000.00. So I mean, I cannot tell you that Hanus didn't go out there and dig a hole and bury all kinds of barrels. I can't tell you that and from what 8tad knows, that didn't occur. Chmiel: I just want to be extra precautious on that. I really do. Horn: Have we taken all the precautions that we can on this? Roger Knutson: I think we have. The only further precaution you can take is not buy the place. Chmiel: That's right. How many soil borings had we done and what locations did we do them? Gerhardt: There were two done on the property we're buying and I think there were four additional ones done on the Hanus site itself. , Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 15 Ashworth: I think the attorney's concerns, when I sat in on those meetings with Jim, was not really the adequacy of the soil borings from before or questions as to did those findings accurately represent what was occurring. They're biggest concern was that those borings are over 2 years old and we really don't know what's happened in the last 2 year period of time. Chmiel: They may have better percolation happening right now and how deep were those borings taken? What is the soil condition that exists there presently? Do we know? Gerhardt: That's what we've asked for is an updated soil borings be done as a part of the acquisition and that those costs be heated by the seller. Horn: Any other comments? If not, I'm ready for a motion to approve this a week from today pending on no input from HRA in the meantime? Bohn: I'll make a motion. Horn: Is there a second? Wot kman: Second. Bohn moved, Norkman seconded to approve the purchase agreement dated February 20, 1991 in the amount of $230,000.00 between the HRA and Lotus Realty Service to purchase the Hanus building 7 days from today contingent upon review and approval by all HRA members of the revised agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Chmiel: I'd like to see those soil borings. Gerhardt: I'll give you the, we have the original ones done 2 years ago. I'll give you those. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PRIVATE REDEV[~OPMENT A~.REEMENT WITH V~LVOLINE RAPID OIL DEVELOPMENT. Horn: Okay, we have two somewhat similar proposals next. Development of the property next to the new Hanus Building, between the new Hanus building and the Amoco section. We have two proposals here in place. The first one is for Valvoline Instant Oil Change Inc. for a Rapid Oil Change. Gerhardt: Well this is what you're... Ashworth: You sound excited. Workman: Is there some construction going on? Chmiel: Can we get a little drum roll with that? Horn: My thought was, could someone have Hardee's number? Workman: Is there construction going on up there right now? Earth that's been moved back there? Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 16 Gerhardt: There is an existing pile of dirt behind the Hanus and as a part of the purchase agreement, that dirt has to be moved off site before we take possession of it. Chmiel: Wasn't that soil contaminated also? Gerhardt: Not the big pile of dirt but there is a pile of contaminated soil that sits half on our property that you would be acquiring and half on the Hanus. That's covered with plastic and basically they're looking for a site to put that so they can plow it. You've got to turn it over. Workman: Is that pile going to move before we buy the property? Gerhardt: That pile? That is also a part of it. Workman: Is there supposed to be a silt fence around any of that? Gerhardt: MPCA approved the way it is wrapped up out there. Workman: Because it's moving into the ditch. Gerhardt: It's sitting on top of the bituminous... Horn: I guess my comment I'd like to make is, I don't think any of us should be surprised at what's occurring here this evening. This was predicted when we reviewed the last development proposal for this property which was why some of us were hesitant at that time to scratch that. I think this is a result of us doing that and was a predictable result. Workman: $o does that mean we're not going to put money into it? Horn: I don't think we have an option. Workman: Why? Horn: If you recall, the discussions at the time is we looked at a development proposal for the whole parcel which we did not look at favorably because of traffic conditions and density and whatever and the comment was, if we don't do it as a total proposal, we're going to get individual proposals that will meet the requirements that we might not be happy with but we don't have a lot of option with them. That's exactly what's happened. Workman: I'm saying, that doesn't mean we have to put money into it. Horn: I guess I'd like to get the attorney's comment on changing from precedent in this case. What would our, how solid a ground would we be on. Roger Knutson: You have discretionary with you whether you want to enter into this type of an agreement. You can pick and choose who you think is worthy of it. Workman: I mean if we wouldn't put money into the other project, why would we start putting it into piecemeal now? Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting February 21, lgg! - Page 17 Horn: Well I don't think piecemeal is the issue. The issue is the specific proposal. Gerhardt: If I could give a little background on it. It's true that you did look at a Hardee's for this area which was a higher traffic generator and you were also looking to get a Hardee's in this location you had to buy a car wash out which was a substantial amount. Public improvements, I mean you'd almost have to build a brand new roadway the way it was designed with the Hardee's. In this case, you're making public improvements to put in a right turn lane. You're going to dress the area up with street lighting, landscaping and also there will be the installing of storm sewer in this area which is not existing at this point. And it is a less intensified generator of traffic for that intersection which is not a real safe area for cars to be pulling in and out of compared to a Hardee's. Roger Knutson: If I can just maybe amplify on my statement a bit. I mean there can be perception that you have established precedent and that you're treating people unfairly or something along those nature if you turn one down so if you're going to turn this one down, you want to articulate your reasons for not. Just as a reminder in a sense, I don't know whether this building will go with our without this redevelopment contract. ! don't have knowledge of that whatsoever but again you're capturing the taxes and ...the taxes off that building to a complete intrastructure. It's really not, in some sense anyway, dollars out of your general fund or out of your pocket. Just so I'm clear. Horn: The other issue of course is the sooner we develop it, the sooner we start collecting. Roger Knutson: In the long run, when you get these projects built and you've paid off the assessments, that stream of taxes continues and you have that benefit. Gerhardt: And you do have architectural styles over it too. There are some contentions but I don't think in the planning report that the Planning Commissioners did not recommend to put a mansard roof section on the building. And if that's your intent, you could direct that. Horn: This was one of the concerns. Did we get all of their recommendations? Ail I saw was the, where were the Planning Commission notes? Gerhardt: The Minutes haven't been printed yet. This report went out to them last Wednesday is when it was presented. Horn: It would be nice to at least know what the Planning Commission said about it. Gerhardt: They went with all the conditions with the exception of the roof section that were recommended by staff and that additional landscaping being put in. Horn: They recommended accepting the proposal? Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 23, 1991 - Page 18 Gerhardt: The proposal? Yes. Bohn: What was it? Change in the roof? What change was in the roof? Gerhardt: Paul had requested that they put a hipped roof on it or a mansard roof to give it, you know irtstead of the flat roof section. And the Planning Commissioners, from what Paul was telling me, they felt that that didn't add to the aesthetics of the building. Chmiel: I was at that meeting. That's right. And they were specifically pointing out some of the other structures adjacent to it such as Amoco. Horn: Well what other options are there to look better? I guess is that even our, that's probably not even our issue? Roger Knutson: You've got some control though. That's one of the nice things about these contracts. Horn: Over the architectural review, the HRA does? Roger Knutson: Yeah. This is a contract and if they want, presumably if you said it had to be all brick and not have any big doors in it, they wouldn't build it. Gerhardt: I mean you could control it, instead of it having cinder block construction, you could have brick construction. You want a different signage package. You could that that. You don't want the big red tu~e around it you know, you could say nix the big red tube. I wish Brad was here so he could defend why they need the big red Chmiel: Well I think he said the signage from the highway so people could also see it. Horn: All of these people want to have what they have everywhere else so you can recognize what it is. Gerhardt: That's correct. I mean Hardee's has the same. McDonald's. All those have the same aesthetics that you recognize them. It's another marketing ploy. Wherever you see a big red tube, you know... Workman: We'd better get that whole plan back. Is this the one where the car wash is? Chmiel: No. Gerhardt: The car wash and. Workman: Is the car wash in Hanus? Horn: We picked our option. We had a whole plan that we denied and then the option was to go with individual buildings which some of us speculated wouldn't happen and we were told yes, there are people waiting in the wings who are ready to build on this and here they are. I'm not very excited about it. ! , Housing and RedeveIopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 19 Chmiel: I was told last November. I'll take that back. Probably October, going around Red Cedar Point where the General Sales Manager for Rapid Oil lives and said that they were going to put one in town. That was our only discussion. And it's there now. Bohn: It's cinder block? Chmiel: Yeah, basically that's what they are. 6erhardt: Cracked off cinder block. Chmiel: I don't particularly like that myself. Horn: I don't see it compatible at all with our downtown theme'. Chmiel: There's Brad. Roger Knutson: Why do you want that red tube around it? Brad Johnson: It's not downtown. Horn: Thank goodness. Bohn: Don't they want it in Eden Prairie? Brad Johnson: They have one in Eden Prairie. Bohn: They can have two in Eden Prairie. Chmiel: Is that the only building they Construct Brad? Cinder block? Brad Johnson: That's the building that they do. And also the...in that area. Chmiel: You know I went through one just the other day. ! have a sticker just to see what they do. Workman: Do they drain it or do they suck it out? Chmiel: They drain it. In fact. Workman: Some of these places take the top off and they suck it out. It leaves the goop in the bottom. Chmiel: I want to tell you they were so, how can I say that. Horn: Thorough? Chmiel: Well more than thorough. I had a flush with my oil. They drained the oil. They didn't put the cap on. They didn't put the nut back in and they ran the oil. I said okay. The guy said, hold it. And he says, what's the matter? He says you just flushed it through. He says let me go · , Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 20 put that back ln. They did and of course they put 4 1/2 quarts or 5 quarts into it. Horn: Well let's move on this. What's your pleasure? I think the first, the initial reaction was that we have Hardee's telephone number yet. Brad Johnson: Hardee's? Well, you have a designated area that's established by the City...and they have upgraded their landscaping 7 times what they normally would do. I will admit that their landscaping is not much if you go look at it and the project allows us to get rolling on that whole area. I think we'll have a good landscaping plan and end up with an improved 79th Street and then we're going to come back and improve the Hanus building. It's already started .... It's hard to believe that it's actually started over there. Bohn: We could ask for a 15 foot hedge around it. Horn: The Amoco, that building is not really... Chmiel: Brad, one of the questions I still have on that, just for accessibility. For instance if someone comes in and pulis around and sees that there are 4 or 5 cars waiting, they've already made that commitment in going into that driveway. There's no other way for them to get back out then to turn all the way back around if there's enough room. Brad Johnson: Really what happens is that, you have to have gone through the whole planning process to appreciate why these buildings end up designed the way they were. There is no plan at two entrances. One on the right, one on the left. With a drive thru through the middle, it solved all those problems and the Planning Department requested that they only have one entrance. That started this problem of crossing over and repositioning the building because the building is. All those issues would never have arisen. The one just rose, you drive in you see it, you drive out. You wouldn't have to go into the circle. Chmiel: There's no other way of getting in and around those cars. Brad Johnson: There was when we had two entrances and you have to kind of sit through all these decisions and watch them be made and then you come and say now why is that and there really is, the building was designed for, most of these are designed for two entrances but for stacking and all the other questions that they wanted to watch out for on 79th Street. You've got to remember that these handle, if they're really successful, 1 car every 5 to 10 minutes. That's not a lot of cars. They're talking 5 to 6 cars an hour. 20 cars a day they consider to be good. And in their big stores where they have 3 lanes, they're doing 80 cars a day in a 12 hour period. These aren't high volume. Chmiel: I wasn't in there more than 10 minutes, if it was that much. Brad 3ohnson: It's a 10 minute time. Horn: For two oil changes? '! Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 21 Brad Johnson: You've got to realize they. Chmiel: There wasn't anybody in there at the time. Brad Johnson: I was amazed at how... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Chmiel: Cinder block and, go ahead. I'll let you talk. Horn: You have the floor Don. Brad Johnson: They addressed it very well at the Planning Commission meeting. Paul did. Is that we don't have an architectural standard that's set in advance by the City. Chmiel: But we can make it. Brad Johnson: But you can't do it randomly. You can't do it by project. Chmiel: Why can't you? Brad Johnson: Because I think you'll find yourself in just a real conflict because you'd be doing every other project differently. Chmiel: Not if you were consistent. Brad Johnson: ...doesn't want cinder block. They want brick. Then they should pass that rule and establish it prior to the people buying the land and prior to them coming in and spending $25,000.00 on an application. They would not buy it, I mean they have to know that in advance and that's the key element. $o it goes way back. They come into the City. They look around. They come in, don't they come in over here Don periodically and they'll ask the City, what are your standards? Then they pay accordingly for the land. Brick increases the cost of the building 20~ or some number that's larger than we all believe. But it has to be a standard. I don't think anybody has any objections to that but if we had to have brick for example on Market SQuare, we couldn't build Market SQuare because we couldn't get enough rent into this market. See those are the kinds of things you have to deal with. And so you've got the combination of the standard and then, I don't have any objection personally to brick but it's got to be consistent and the people who come in to buy land and do whatever, whether it's a Hardee's or anybody, want to know in advance what those are. And that's the problem. Horn: I think it took Roger, what? How many years to convince the previous Council of that fact. We finally got the message. Workman: So we're going to have that cinder block sitting there? Brad 3ohnson: I think they just raised it to, by the way. I think the City in my lifetime of being in Chanhassen, which is all of 6 years, adopted the cinder block, which was an upgrade from the previous one. Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 22 Wasn't it? I mean if I recall correctly, you could have done metal buildings over on TH 5 maybe as recently as 6 or 7 years ago. Horn: Still can. Chmiel: Not for long. Brad 3ohnson: But I think we upgraded from that not too long ago, and you can't do that. You have to just stick it all out. Horn: Further discussion on the motion and second. Any other comments? Chmiel: You mentioned the fact about the landscaping. It's going to change. Brad 3ohnson: Their standard package has been upgraded 6 times the dollar volume. They responded to everything the Planning Commission has required of them so far except for nobody asked them about cinder block. They responded to this traffic flow thing. They're trying to respond to. I think they've been very responsive of everything that's been asked of them they've come back with. Apparently you'll see this again at the Council meeting on Monday and I believe they trying to move the landscaping around. Landscaping around the north side. Horn: I'd like to make a comment. This one really, I'm torn on because I don't think we can string this property out forever. We've had several proposals on this. I quite frankly believe the last one was better than this one but this is kind of what I expected and I don't think we can keep denying requests for development on this and'as much as I really don't like this at all, I think we're going to have to vote in favor of it. Workman: This is the conclusion I came to. Horn: If not, I'll call for the question. Norkman moved, Horn seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with Valvoline Instant Oil, Inc. on their request for $45,000.00 in special assessment assistance. All voted in favor except Jim Bohn who ol3posed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PRIVATE RED~-V~LOPMENT AC~REEMENT WITH MINISTER LIFE INSURANCE. Horn: I guess we're dealing with a known commodity here for architecture right? Chmiel: Yeah. Horn: Which should be a little easier for us. ready to move on this one? Any comments or is someone Workman: $o moved. Housing and Redevelopmen Authori'ty Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 23 Horn: There's a motion to accept the proposal as presented. Is there a second to that motion? Gerhardt: If I could just explain, I mean most cases you have new construction that comes in and there's specials associated again with the Valvoline construction, West 79th Street is going to be improved and assessments will be against the Hanus facility of about $22,000.00. This is similar to the Chanhassen Inn and the Ted Korzynowski restaurant. They're existing buildings but they do create increment and Minister's is extending their option of capturing some of that increment to help assist in writing down specials. And they will be back I guess within the next year or so for the additional 2 years of increment to help rennovate their existing facility and dressing that up. Horn: Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Further discussion? Norkman moved, Horn seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with Minister Life and Casualty, Inc. on their request for $22,000.00 in special assessment assistance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. 1991 BILLS. Workman: So moved. Horn: Is there a second? Chmiel: Just a couple of questions. On Minnesota Real Estate Journal. Promotional Expense. What does that cover specifically? Gerhardt: HRA yearly takes out an ad in there thanking our business people, developers and investing in Chanhassen. This was one year that we extended on that and also advertising that we still have land available for commercial/industrial development. So basically marketing Chanhassen. Chmiel: Okay. Same thing with the Minneapolis Association? Gerhardt: I was going to include in here and in the next packet I'll make sure I include the ad in there but we. Chmiel: It'd be nice to see those two. Gerhardt: The theme is, that I came up with was that be a part of the Shining Southwest and then you had a maple leaf with sort of a little shining star in it. Horn: Not a smiley face huh? Gerhardt: No. No, smilely ~ace. But we did get a phone call on it so it worked. Horn: I believe we have an approval and a second. Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 24 Chmiel: Yeah. Horn: Yes. You have a question on the bills? You want to pay the bills? Clayton Johnson: No. No. I saw this other agenda item and it wasn't on the agenda. Horn: Could we move on this one first? Any other discussion? Workman moved, Chmiel seconded to approve the January and February, 1991 accounts payable for the HRR. All voted fn favor and the motfon carried unanimously. Horn: Before we adjourn, Clayton. Clayton Johnson: I thought there was an agenda item tonight to talk about the question of the development or the redevelopment of the balance of the Dinner Theatre property. Horn: This is a Visitor Presentation. Clayton Johnson: Yeah. Was that on the agenda or was I. Chmiel: You were sleeping. Clayton Johnson: Was I out in the corridor? Chmiel: No, you were there. Clayton Johnson: Well let me just, I wanted to make some comments. I know everybody's tired and wants to go to bed but I think I want to just give you a little history lesson on the Bloomberg Company's' involvement in the downtown development because I'm not sure everybody understands it. And as we go back 5 or 6 years, we've been out front and invested a significant amount of money in each one of these developments and the HRA's role has been basically a pay as you go basis with the exception of when we'd come to situations like the LaBatta property. They actually did come in and make the acquisition. What I want you to know and I've talked to both the Mayor and Don about this a little bit. There are many reasons for this but you have in the Bloomberg Company a very willing participant in the redevelopment and whatever plans are going to, you have for the south side of the Dinner Theatre property but you're not going to be able to look to us in the same role. We're not going to be out front investing significant amounts of money like we have in the balance of the downtown development and there are many reasons for this but one of them is strictly the development climate. I mean Market Square has been a good test of this. We have just got tremendous amounts of money invested in it and the lending climate today is such that we just cannot be in that business. So I guess as it relates to the redevelopment of the balance of that property, yes. We're a willing landowner and we want to cooperate in any way and we want to do things that are consistent with whatever plans you have for that area but you can't look at is in the same role that you have before where we're out front investing the kinds of money that we have on these other projects Housing and Redevelopmen Authori'ty Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 25 because it's just simply too risky. And maybe the economic climate will change and maybe all of the property, you know I'd like to point out too that the properties that we have developed contribute a significant amount of increment. We just completed a schedule the other day and with Market Square up somewhere around $600,000.00 of annual increment is coming from these projects that we've developed .starting with the Town Square on the corner and moving up the street to the medical building and to the housing project and the redevelopment of the Dinner Theatre and the hotel and so on. But I think, I just want the HRA to know that that's maybe a change in our role and we'd be happy to discuss it with the staff and with you directly in terms of what that role should be in the future. Okay? Horn: If you get Market Square up and we won't ask you to do a lot. Clayton 3ohnson: Well it's going to go. We know that. Bohn: I have a question. Horn: Yes. Bohn: Does our trail system go along the railroad tracks? Where they're going to build the new bridge. Across TH 5. Ashworth: Well part of the construction plans with the State is to have a trail going adjacent to TH 5 all the way from Eden Prairie all the way through to TH 41. When it gets into the bridge sections, it becomes a question as to...I guess I haven't seen the plans. There's supposed to be continuity but quite frankly I haven't seen anything. Have you seen anything Clark on the... Gerhardt: I know it crosses Market Boulevard and then goes again across so it either goes across on top of the highway or it dips down to the railroad tracks. I'll get copies of those segments and put them in. Bohn: It seems logical to put it along the railroad tracks to cross TH 5 so that it would, like somebody on a bicycle wouldn't have to cross the traffic. They'd take... I know they're putting a tunnel under TH 5 in Eden Prairie by Mitchell Lake. $o you're on the south side of TH 5 and you get to Mitchell Lake, you cross TH $ underneath the highway and you come out by the old Kerber property where the farm was and you go up the hill there to where the farm was. Gerhardt: I've got to believe that they're going to put it up on top of it. On top of the highway. Ashworth: I think so as well but I haven't seen anything designed... We have those here. Maybe one of these days you can stop and talk to either Charles Folch or Dave Hempel. Bohn: The City never made a request to run it underneath the railroad bridge? Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 26 Gerhardt: I think the problem with that, you get in with the railroad company in allowing that to occur. If you have an alternative to go on top of the highway it's, I mean we've worked with the railroad long enough to know how difficult it is to get a crossing. To provide a pedestrian crossing across the railraod tracks when you don't have an at grade crossing. It's kind of difficult. Bohn: Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be under their property ...bridge. I know the railroad's paying, doesn't the railroad pay for the bridge? I thought the railroad paid for the bridge and the State paid for the approaches. Ashworth: The State's going to pay the full cost there. Gerhardt: The railroad was there before the. Bohn: You could have gotten a request to have the trail... Ashworth: As Todd states, if we were to do that, I think we'd have to buy land from the adjacent owners on either side. You know 10 feet so for example Bloomberg who owns all of the lands adjacent to the railroad all the way up to Great Plains down to the bowllng center. You'd have to continue buying 10 feet all the way... I doubt very much the railroad would give it to you nor would they let you use that. Their mentality is always one that they're going to fight any type of public purpose because they're so worried about liability so they're not going to give you the right to cross over their railroad tracks. They're going to force you to go into condemnation. They're going to try to show. Bohn: I wasn't talking about crossing the railroad tracks. I was talking about crossing TH 5 by using the railroad bridge. Ashworth: Yeah, by having a trail adjacent to the. Bohn: The highway. Adjacent to the highway and then when it gets to the bridge, it would cross under the bridge. Horn: Cross under. We've talked about that before. Ashworth: I'm not sure. I thought you originally stated something about for a person to be able to ride their bike from the downtown over to let's say to Lake Susan Park. That if we had a trail adjacent to the railroad tracks. Bohn: Yeah, go underneath the bridge. Gerhardt: Are you saying a cage over the top of TH 5? Bohn: No, under TH 5 where the railroad tracks go. To cross from one side of TH 5 to the other side of TH 5. Gerhardt: You've got the bridge and the road goes up and you've got the bridge. He's saying that you've got your trail that you cross underneath somehow and then you come up over on. You want to come, if you're on the Housing and Redevelopmen Authority Meeting February 21, 1991 - Page 27 right hand side, do you want to come back over on the left hand side of the road? TH 5? Somehow get over to there. Bohn: Come out by, what is it? Between the automotive place...and Empak I suppose. Ashworth= I don't know if Todd and I are fully following you. Maybe we should adjourn and then. Workman: So moved. Chmiel: Second. Ashworth: And then we can figure this out later. Workman moved, Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Don Ashworth Executive Director Prepared by Nann Opheim