11-14-95 Special
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November
CITY COUNCIL
Martin Mayor; Russ Susag; and Don Priebe.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS NOT
Michael Sandahl, Susan Rosenberg.
PRESENT:
HRA MEMBERS
Chairperson Thomas Harms; Joan Helmberger and
PRESENT:
HRA MEMBERS
Michael Sandahl, Vern Luettinger.
NOT PRESENT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: David
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gepner, Kristal Stokes, Pam Dmytrenko, Tim Erlander,
Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Paul Wasko and Dawn
Postudensek.
James Prosser, City Manager; Julie Urban, Zoning
STAFF PRESENT:
Administrator; Thomas Ferber, City Clerk; and Tom
Foley, Transportation Engineer.
The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan at
p.m.
Item #IDISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA FROM WEST 77TH TO 74TH STREETS AND
RESULTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. C.L. NO. 306. HRA LETTER
NO. 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
¦
November 14, 1995
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Redevelopment/expand district/parking internalized
¦
Expand existing buildings within the existing zoning district
¦
only
Facade improvement
¦
Do nothing
¦
Mr. Hoisington then reviewed the geographic breakdown of the tables of small
groups from corridor meeting 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. Criteria felt to be most important in evaluating alternatives:
Appearance
¦
Parking
¦
Residential Compatibility
¦
Residential Impact
¦
2. Quantitatively, the supportable alternatives are:
Alternative 1
¦
Alternative 2B
¦
be
Qualitatively, the case can made that there is also support for Alternatives 3,
4, and 5.
There is a willingness to look at alternatives which relocate businesses.
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 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.
He
economic feasibility of the various concepts. indicated the greater the level of
development, the more economically feasible the alternative 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. Heasked
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
highest level that appears acceptable, such as a 3 concept, so as not to preclude that
level from consideration.
Special Council Meeting Minutes
After discussion, it was the general consensus that Mr. Hoisington proceed to
develop the greater level of detail and issues related to a 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 p.m.
Date Approved:
Martin J.
Mayor
James D. Prosser
Thomas P. Ferber
City Manager
City Clerk