The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981/10/26 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Joint a MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL - HRA MEETING ST . LOUIS PARK , MINNESOTA S October 26 , 1981 1 . Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Phyllis McQuaid at 9 : 10 p . m . 2 . Roll Call The following Councilmeinbers were present at roll call : Ronald Backes Jerrold Martin Martha Elstrom Keith Meland Lyle Hanks John Ralles Phyllis McQuaid The following HRA members were present at roll call : . Len Thiel Tom Duffy Jane Tschida Joel Glotter Dudley Moylan Also present were the City Manager and the HRA Executive Director . 3 . Excelsior Blvd . ARedevelopment . ` . HRA Chairman Dudley Moylan explained that the Authority had not yet taken a position with respect to the Target proposal inasmuch as the Authority was interviewing developers interested in the remaining parcels available in the Excelsior Blvd . redevelopment district . As requested by the HRA chairman , the Executive Director offered an explanation . ' of the purposes and functions of an urban renewal plan . He discussed the need to have an integrated development plan that would guide land use in the aredevelopment area . He stressed that implementation should occur only when .. .177 development meets the requirements of the plan . He explained some of the specific details of the Excelsior Blvd . redevelopment plan . .,, Mayor McQuaid told the Authority that Council had deferred action on Targe ..., s request for a special permit at its October 19 meeting . ter: She observed that development in the Excelsior Blvd . redevelopment area required joint action A. ... by the Authority and the City Council . ir f� ,. ii s � � Commissioner Thiel said that he believed there were twopprob erchangfronting a 1 , the HRA . lie said that the first problem was the proposed 36th Street . He said that this construction • Y; , struction at Highway 100 and W . •:` some developers . He said that a second problem was program was discouraging ; . land ownership . He said that the area was not big enough that of multiple l a '..: •AI and that small and medium developers encountered for a Larne developerincreasing the `•-• problems which could only be overcome by :;I had adopted a '' that the Target project should be 14 Chairman Moylan advised the City Council tht the Authority stating �. , notion at its October 14 meeting � s choice with the understanding presented to the developer of the Authority , , ` , •. 11%-........._ • - 349 - . City Council - HRA meeting • October 26 , 1981 that the Authority did not object to Target per se but wanted develop - ment on that site to be compatible with tphe mIerermiplhadithenh ?4ee % the Commissioner Moylan said that Targets spe p Planning Commission and on to the City Council . He said that the Authority should have considered this project before it reached the Council but that the Planning Commission ' s consideration of the special permit changed the progression in which development plans are considered . Councilman Hanks said that he had some problems with changes that had been made in the redevelopment plan for this area . He said it was his per- sonal opinion that housing should not be built in that area . He also re - quested an explanation of the motion offered by Commissioner Glotter which was adopted at the October 14 meeting of the Authority . Commissioner Glotter said that the motion adopted by the Authority reflected its desire to defer the Target proposal ' until it could be considered within the context of proposals made by other developers . He emphasized that the Authority was not necessarily opposed to the plans submitted by Target . Commissioner Glotter explained that historically the Authority had desired development of the district to take place on an overall basis . He said that interest from developers had recently been renewed so that the Authority could get away from fragmented sdevelopment of the area , He said that if development occurs on a piecemeal basis , the purpose of the overall -develop - ment plan would be defeated . Commissioner Glotter emphasized that the intent of the Authority is to concern itself with the best planning for the the land that remains . He said that this kind of planning could be achieved through overall development of the area . Councilman Elstrom asked what was offered by an overall development plan . She said that work had previously been done on a piecemeal basis . Commissioner Glotter replied that the development had been done on a piecemeal basis because it had been impossible to find developers willing to look at over- all development proposals . For this reason , fragmentation had occurred . He said that things had changed because developers are now interested in the area . Commissioner Tschida said that if development occurs without an overall plan , there may not be a need for the Authority . She said that the Target plan did not conform to the plan because it was not a sufficiently intense development . In response to a question about the kinds of overall development beingpro - posed , Chairman Moylan said that one developer had discussed a project in - volving 400 units of housing . He said that another develo er wasp discussing plans for office buildings . He commented that some dove P i s - cussing their proposals pending a decision on the Target not d 9 P Councilman Martin said that the real question before the Cit Council and the Authority was whether or not to go ahead with y the Target proposal or take a - 350 - -- - - _ _.-------.r City Council - HRA study session October 26 , 1981 chance that a developer more attuned to the overall redevelopment would develop the area . He said that he preferred togo withtplanr development proposal . the current Commissioner Duffy concurred with Councilman Martin . He saiTarget could attract better development on the remaining land . that Commissioner Thiel said that intensive developient would be difficult to achieve unless the City and the Authority could offer a parking facility . He said that the only way to insure development was to acquire the area to be developed . Councilman Backes asked the Authority when a decision would be made with respect to the Target proposal . Chairman Moylan said that a special meeting could be held to decide this question . + Councilman Backes said that the Authority needed to do more work on the question of overall developers before Council could make its decision . Councilman Elstrom observed that because the Target issue had been tabled , the Authority might experience some problems in learning the plans pro - nosed by the various developers . Councilman Hanks agreed that developers might not come forth until some action had been taken on the Target proposal . *. \ -4!,.- Commissioner Thiel suggested that the Authority meet within ten days Nto make a decision on the Target proposal . He also pointed out that other : developers might lose interest if the Target proposal dragged on without resolution . 4 • Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . ... Respectfully submitted , • • • OA 67/1 , I, moi ♦ 4�� Sharon G . Klumpp 1, .- ti% + i ri , I . • ; ;: 4- ' . ••• • . , 4 i - 35 1 ' `� -