HRA MINUTES 03111981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY KENZIE TERRACE TASK FORCE MINUTES March 11, 1981 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Haugen at 7:05 P.M. Task Force members present at the meeting: Jim Haugen, George Marks, Al Plaisted, William Zawislak, Roman Hentges, Clarence Ranallo, Hobie Swan, Rosemary Franzese, Jerry Kelly, Jim Gahagen, John Madden, Dr. Charles.Kirk, John DuRand, Dick Enrooth. Also present: Jim Fornell, City Manager; Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant; Richard Krier, Consultant, Westwood Planning. Absent: Judy Makowske, Art Kuross, Marland Johnson, Mikki Gottwalt, Mary Cotroneo. Motion by Mr. Gahagen and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to approve the minutes of February 25, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. Dick Krier outlined the anticipated evenings discussion. He stated he would be reviewing the interviews he had conducted with the Kenzie Terrace merchants, the assessment and problems they perceived,- reviewing erceived;reviewing other data of physical inventory which had been gathered; • and finally, reviewing the draft goals and objectives he had pre- pared. In summary, the tenants saw some problems with the parking, traffic access, general aesthetics, and, without an anchor tenant, somewhat of a center identity problem. However, many of these problems were not perceived to be major and most felt these could be solved. Mr. Krier then reviewed the inventory of existing physical condi- tions which included a land use inventory, transportation and parking inventory, utilities inventory, soils (geological) inven- tory and a property ownership and tenant inventory. On the basis of this inventory, a problem assessment was made and the issues identified. These issues and questions deal with economic develop- ment and feasibility, underutilized and conflicting land use issues, traffic and parking questions and physical appearance and layout issues. Mr. Krier next reviewed and discussed at length the economic potential feasibility. During this discussion, he reviewed the redevelopment options, their respective minimum threshold (the assessed value of new development required to redevelop the specific area) and its subsequent feasibility. Of the options, it was concluded the redevelopment of the south shopping area is only feasible if there is cooperation with the private sector; redevelopment of the single family area is not feasible; redevelop- ment of the south shopping area and single family housing area is • not feasible; redevelopment of the area north of the study area (across Kenzie Terrace) is.feasible; redevelopment of the north shopping area is not feasible although some rehabilitation is.