02-10-1987 CCDC
~ "'4
\
MINUTES OF THE JOINT COUNCIL/CCDC MEETING - 2-10-87
'e
A joint meeting of the City Council and the City Center
Development Corporation was held in the Council Chambers at 7
p.m. on February 10.
Mayor Lavin opened the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the
CCDC organization to describe their reorganization and present
their budget to the City Council.
Mr. Harry smith explained that they have separated the HMP
organization administratively from the CCDC group because of the
great amount of time that was spent by the Board on promotional
projects last year. The Economic Development Committee was split
into two groups (Economic Maintenance & Economic Recruitment.
The Economic Maintenance group was formed to work with, support
and foster existing businesses. The Economic Recruitment,
headed by Don Perkl, was formed to recruit new
businesses/developers into the area.
Mr. Gordon Remmen presented a budget for 1987 of $91,150. He
explained that the Economic Recruitment and Maintenance budgets
of CCDC reflect a resurrection of programs such as, design
support, business people actively meeting with other interested
business people and developers, and direct mailings.
e
Mr. Ed Hanlin, president of HMP explained that funds will be
collected from sponsors of a poster map which is presently being
prepared. There will be a reduction in the costs for HMP because
of more volunteers and more printing being done in house. In
addition, the Farmers Market will not be funded by HMP.
After a review of the budget, Mr. Redepenning moved and Mr.
Anderson seconded the motion to accept the budget as presented.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Mr. Redepenning, Aye; Mr.
Milbert, Aye; Mr. Anderson, Aye; Mr. Shirley, Aye; Mayor Lavin,
Aye. The motion carried unanimously.
The Council determined that there should be (1) quarterly joint
meetings for reviewing the accomplishments of the CCDC
organization (2) Steve Mielke should keep the Council and staff
apprised of CCDC activities.
The CCDC presented Council with a list of development criteria
for discussion onlv, that they believed necessary to ensure
success in revitalizing the business district of Hopkins. The
development criteria as presented by CCDC was as follows:
, .'r ~......
1. Size of project. Could need to be expanded
limitations imposed by looking at the Specialty Block
needs to be minimum of what is economically viable.
beyond
alone;
2. Boundary. Specialty Block need not be an anchor element to
the project; no strict boundary limits.
3. Must have unified management to accomplish desirable business
mix, uniform hours, consistent design.
4. Hopkins needs a market study to determine retail & service
needs and opportuni ties and a psychographic survey to ensure
tenant success.
.
5. Parking requirements must be adequate for present needs and
future requirements, must be convenient. There must be
substantial pUblic support or whatever is necessary to achieve
goal & public ownership.
6. Architectural design. The City's needs must be the first
consideration for design intent. Because there are not building
in Hopkins which are of such architectural or historical value to
warrant unlimited preservation, the developer should not be
limited to remodeling of existing spaces. Design may be
comprised of all new spaces or a combination of new and remodeled
spaces. New construction has the following advantages: It can
be designed to fit the space and perform the intended functions.
It will automatically be designed to conform to all applicable
codes be they building, fire or zoning. New construction can
encompass, adapt to, or replace any existing construction.
Remodeling of existing construction is perfectly acceptable but a
strict requirement to "preserve" should not limit the designer.
The developer/designer should be free to include all parcels in
the "Downtown" Hopkins are in their proposal. While the theme of
"Mainstreet" is desirable, the design should not be limited to a
"Central Spine" concept. A "Mainstreet" leading to a Center of
Activity" from two major directions is acceptable. Vehicular and
pedestrian traffic may be routed around the "Center" and provide
convenient access to peripheral parking areas.
7. City economic consideration. Public subsidies and write down
have to be whatever is necessary to achieve viability of project.
The Specialty Block project need not pay back the City's current
investment.
In the course of discussion, Mayor Lavin disagreed with article #
6. She felt that it should read " Because there are some
buildings in Hopkins which are not of such architectural or
historical value ........."
n -J.-
The City Manager proposed, and there was agreement that a
comprehensive plan should be drawn for the downtown area to aid
the City in responding to developers.
Mr. Mr. Redepenning moved and Mr. Anderson seconded the motion to
adj ourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The
meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
.
Respectfully submitted,
~~.
Jean Kaedin~
Councilmembers:
Attest:
~ ~~)Jt~
~~~~ .~~
Jb1~P ~~
fJM~
d?L
Ellen Lavin, Mayor