PL MINUTES 12021985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- • 1 square feet of commercial where it would have to compete with other commercial in 2 the same area. He also mentioned the fact that the competing shopping center had 3 not been very successful . He asked whether a market study had been done for the 4 project, and whether Arkell would be handling the commercial themselves. 5 Mr. Yurick responded that the matter had not been addressed in relation to sales 6 volume or the details Commissioner Bowerman was suggesting, but was only a concept 7 at this time. However, in talking -to other people, especially in the area of 8 specialty type shops which would service this type of building, there appeared to 9 be enough evidence that there should be sufficient demand to fill that space. One 10 of the projects the developers would be exploring, the developer indicated, would 11 be a dining facility of the caliber people had told the developers they perceived 12 was lacking in St. Anthony, which would meet the needs of the community as well 13 as those of the residents in the immediate area. 14 15 Commissioner Bowerman indicated he perceived the original concept for these build- 16 ings had been that they would be servicing the "empty nesters" of the. same type and 17 income as would be moving from Hilldale, Townview, etc. , to which Mr. Yurick 18 responded that that might apply to some of the people who had been targeted for 19 this area but the other side of the coin would be the families moving into the 20 homes vacated by the "empty nesters", who the developers perceive, would be more 21 apt to add to the growth of the community, as opposed to just creating stability. 22 Mr. Childs commented that a medical facility and/or a library would use up a good 23 portion of the available space and would not require the type of commercial market- 24 ing Commissioner Bowerman was talking about. Mr. Yurick added, that he wanted to 25 correct any impression that the developers would be shooting for only a retail 26 market for that space. He also. indicated that Arkell ' s other project, Woodlake 27 Point, did not have commercial in the project itself but was within 200 feet of a 28 major retail/restaurant area. 29 30 The developer then told the. Commissioners the same type of major management firm 31 would be sought to provide maintenance for this project as had been planned for 32 the condominium project with, in all probability, either Walker Management or 33 Health Central providing that service. When the Manager was asked what controls 34 the City would have in this regard, he indicated the same as with other multi- 35 family developments in the City, basic maintenance related to the codes would be 36 enforced. 37 38 Bill Barnhardt, 325 Minneapolis City Hall , indicated he was representing Minneapolis' 39 interests that evening and the perception was that the project the developers were 40 proposing might also offer a nice option for senior home owners from Minneapolis, 41 which is in the target area for this project, who might not want to invest in more 42 real estate after they have disposed of their family homes. Mr. Barhardt asked -43 what type of long term assurances would be built into the agreement with the 44 developers that the use would not later be converted -to open market, rather than 45 senior rental , because the Minneapolis spokesman indicated, it would be fair to 46 say the impact on the adjoining residential between the- two could be very different. 47 48 Mr. Yurick told him there was probably nothing. written down per se, but he was 49 certain under housing revenue financing, the FHA would make certain the project 50 remained senior for at least ten or fifteen years. Mr. Childs added that the pro- 51 ject would have to' be returned for Commission and Council- approval if the 52 occupancy -changed. Even though most studies considered the terms "senior" and • 53 "elderly" for persons over 65 years of age, Mr. Yurick conf firmed that Arkell would 54 be seeking persons 55 and over for this project. 55