04-03-06 Worksession
CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY/ PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent Worksession of City
Council/HRAlPlanning Commission
April 3, 2006
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirsch at 7:05 p.m.
Council Members
Present: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Fred Wroge; and Sue Sandahl.
Council Members
Not Present: Bill Kilian.
HRA Members
Present: Sue Sandahl, Chair; Martin Kirsch; Donna Drummond; and Joan Heimberger.
HRA Members
Not Present: David Gepner.
Planning Commission
Members Present: Gordon Hanson; David Schneider; Eric Mayo; and Kyle Hartnett.
Planning Commission
Members Not Present: Jeffrey Karr; Maureen Scaglia; Jeffrey Walz; and Greg Van Sickle.
Staff Present:
Steve Devich, City ManagerlExecutive Director; Patrick Smith, Community
Development Manager; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
Item #1
Christian Rummelhoff, University of Minnesota Capstone Workshop, reviewed the core
guiding principles for the Penn Avenue vision derived from input received at the February 21 City
Council/HRAlPlanning Commission Worksession, March 9 open house, City policies and sound
development.
Special Worksession Minutes
-2-
April 3, 2006
Elizabeth Steranko, University of Minnesota Capstone Workshop, reviewed the general
improvements on a shorter term.
Jason Schmidt, University of Minnesota Capstone Workshop, reviewed Vision 1 & 2 of
possible long term Penn Avenue concepts and layouts, including the differences between each one.
Stephanie Erickson, University of Minnesota Capstone Workshop, reviewed Vision 3 of the
long term Penn Avenue concept and layout.
Ms. Erickson said the April 6 open house will include the comments on the visions and a visual
preference survey.
Discussion included use of single-family residential as a transition to other uses, greenway
options between the street and sidewalk due to weather extremes, and the economically feasibility of
the visions.
Ms. Erickson responded that after feedback is received, the next step will be to work with a
consultant regarding implementation options. .
Discussion included the open space indicated as use for public purposes. Suggestions were
made to show the current uses and proposed use because there may not be as much change as the
community may think. Definition of use changes was also suggested. A definition of mixed use was
requested.
The students explained the public will be asked to define the mixed use. There could be
mixed use within one structure.
Council Member Wroge said the businesses he's talked with don't want to be landlords.
Discussion included the Baptist Church expressing interest in being involved in the
development.
Council Member Rosenberg stated she liked the vision with more residential use. The public
space is intriguing with the Community Center and City Hall needs changing. She said she did not
see light manufacturing in this area. There should be affordable complexes with neighborhood
businesses, not big box businesses. The Crosstown Reconstruction will affect the 66th Street/Penn
area.
Council Member Rosenberg suggested the housing not increase for seniors but more for
families.
Discussion included having the area complement and enhance the neighborhood with life-
cycle housing, not more senior housing, with the close proximity to amenities and easy access.
Discussion included making an attractive gateway to Richfield with signage and landscaping.
Planning Commissioner Mayo stated the public has eminent domain concerns and fears,
especially for the public use site, and this needs to be handled properly and sensitively.
The students responded that the visions are not to create fear but to indicate what the area
could look like in the future. Hoisington Koegler is reviewing possible zoning changes. There is
current zoning that does not meet current uses.
The group suggested a land use and zoning map be provided in future presentations.
Discussion included trying to determine the number of owner operated businesses versus
leases in the area.
Council Member Wroge stated if the redevelopment takes 20-30 years, the lives of the
businesses are affected. Current business improvements may have implications. A ghost town could
be created if businesses think they need to tear down to improve. He discussed how Culver's may
not be able to come to Richfield because of the changes to the 1-494 zoning.
Special Worksession Minutes
-3-
April 3, 2006
The students referenced the guiding principles and the challenge to make Richfield
businesses unique, fit within the vision, and welcoming to all. Working with a consultant will help with
creativity and viability.
Mayor Kirsch stated a way should be figured out to subsidize some businesses and that no
franchises or large chain businesses should be in the area.
Discussion included possible widening of the sidewalks and gaining current business support
to retain them in Richfield but yet improve the area and make it better. However, turnover will be
inevitable.
The students said any improvements will have impacts and the proposed changes to Penn
need to make sense to Richfield in 40 years.
Council Member Wroge spoke about issues he is aware of at the Kensington Park site. He
said it looks better than what it was but he thought it could have been done better. He said
townhomes have been bought and rented out so its become a golden parachute. The City needs to
learn lessons from each redevelopment.
Council Member Wroge suggested not making zoning limitations that could make it impossible
for current and future businesses.
The students asked each City Council/HRAlPlanning Commission member to indicate their
vision preference at this time and reasons selected.
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p.m.
Date Approved: Aoril 25. 2006
chtJ1t:;tfi{~
Recording Secretary