11-14-1995 SpecialCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL
_ MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14,1995
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Russ Susag; and Don Priebe.
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS NOT
PRESENT: Michael Sandahl, Susan Rosenberg.
HRA MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Joan Helmberger and
Russ Susag.
HRA MEMBERS
NOT PRESENT: Michael Sandahl, Vern Luettinger.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: David
Gepner, Kristal Stokes, Pam Dmytrenko, Tim Erlander,
Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Paul Wasko and Dawn
Postudensek.
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Julie Urban, Zoning
Administrator; Thomas Ferber, City Clerk; and Tom
Foley, Transportation Engineer.
The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan at
7:00 p.m.
Item #I DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA FROM WEST 77TH TO 74TH STREETS AND
RESULTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. C.L. N0.306. HRA LETTER
N0.68
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., outlined the following alternative
concept plans for the Lyndale Avenue Commercial area:
• Street, sidewalk and parking improvements within existing zoning district
• Redevelopment within existing zoning district
• Redevelopment within existing zoning district/parking on Lyndale
• Redevelopment/expand district/parking on Lyndale
Special Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 14, 1995
• Redevelopment/expand district/parking internalized
• Expand existing buildings within the existing zoning district
• Facade improvement only
• Do nothing
Mr. Hoisington then reviewed the geographic breakdown of the tables of small
groups from corridor meeting #1. He presented the tabulation of results of the ranking of
the importance of the criteria used in evaluating the alternatives. Mr. Hoisington
presented the tabulation by table number of the indication of support for the concept
alternatives.
Mr. Hoisington discussed the following conclusions from Corridor Meeting #1:
1. Criteria felt to be most important in evaluating alternatives:
• Appearance
• Parking
• Residential Compatibility
• Residentiallmpact
2. Quantitatively, t~a supportable alternatives are:
• Alternative `
• Alternative 6 .
3. Qualitatively, the case can be made that there is also support for Attematives 3,
4, and 5.
4. There is a willingness to look at alternatives which relocate businesses.
5. There is a strong sense that something physical needs to change but there is
also concern for impacts on people (residents and business people)
6. There is relatively little support for doing nothing.
Mr. Hoisington stated the results should be evaluated both quantitatively and
qualitatively taking into consideration geographic factors.
Mr. Hoisington discussed a summary of the pros and cons of each of the concept
alternatives in relation to the criteria.
Planning Commission members discussed their observations from both the
individual meetings and the corridor meeting.
Mr. Hoisington discussed and answered questions regarding issues related to the
economic feasibility of the various concepts. He indicated the greater the level of
development, the more economically feasible the altemative becomes while less requires
more subsidy and creates less in tax base. Mr. Hoisington stated that further market and
economic research is underway to assist in developing a strategy for the area. He asked
for direction regarding which concept should be examined more closely, given a higher
level of detail, and presented as a possible alternative for further discussion and reaction
by residents and businesses. He indicated that it would be preferable to look at the
highest level that appears acceptable, such as a 3 concept, so as not to preclude that
level from consideration.
Special Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 14, 1995
After discussion, it was the general consensus that Mr. Hoisington proceed to
develop the greater level of detail and issues related to a "3" concept to present as a
potential alternative. The concept will be used as a framework for discussion to get
feedback, determine impacts and options.
Mr. Hoisington indicated there is the opportunity to °mix and match" some of the
concepts for different geographic areas.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:10 p.m.
Date Approved: 11/20/95
~"
y ~, T
Thomas P. Ferber a s D. Prosser
City Clerk Ex cutive Director
~~
I~
Thomas E.,hiarrr~ Chair