My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HRA MINUTES 04081981
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
HRA Minutes
>
1981
>
HRA MINUTES 04081981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2016 3:13:29 PM
Creation date
8/16/2016 3:13:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/8/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY <br />KENZIE TERRACE TASK FORCE MINUTES <br />April 8, 1981 <br />The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by J. Fornell, Acting <br />Chairman. <br />Present: Marks, Ranallo, Kuross, Franzese, Kelly, Swan, Gottwalt, <br />Zawislak, Hentges. <br />Absent: Makowske, Enrooth, Plaisted, Kirk, Gahagen, Haugen, John- <br />son, Madden, DURand, Cotroneo. <br />Also present: Fornell of staff and Krier; consultant. <br />Motion by Mr. Marks, seconded.by Mr. Hentges to approve the March <br />25th minutes. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Krier explained the process to date and the next few sessions as: <br />- economic/market potentials <br />- tax increment feasibility <br />• - issues development and clarification <br />- goals/objectives <br />- land use concept plan <br />- redevelopment plan <br />- implementation <br />The purpose of the meeting was stated to reach a group consensus on <br />goals and objectives and a land use concept plan. <br />Plan evaluation rating quides were passed out and members filled <br />them out in evaluating four plan alternates. <br />Dr. Kirk arrived at 7:35 P.M. <br />The Task Force members then discussed their individual plan pre- <br />ferences and why they liked some plans more than others. There was <br />no unanimous consensus but there was most support for plan #4 <br />and opposition to a major anchor. Rehabilitation of the south end <br />commercial ,was also generally thought to be not desirable. <br />J. Makowske arrived at 8:00 P.M. and participated in the discussion <br />on preferences. <br />D. Enrooth arrived at 8:40 P.M. <br />Concerns were raised about feasibility,density and commercial - <br />residential interface. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.