Pillsbury Commons Development Proposal Faces Opposition

One long-time area resident joins neighbors and city council members in opposing the project.

Although the Pillsbury Commons development project remains in the early stages of planning, it has already run into vocal opposition from Richfield City Council members and Richfield residents.

The roughly $12.6 million development would see a substantial new multi-unit housing development constructed on a largely undeveloped block of Richfield at the corner of 77th Street and Pillsbury Avenue.

Council Members Fred Wroge and Pat Elliott have both voiced concerns over the project's current design, publicly stating their opposition to the Ron Clark Construction and Design firm plans for the project during the Nov. 14, 2011 regular council meeting. Since that meeting, one of the project's most vocal opponents has been neighborhood resident Joe Hoover, a homeowner who lives on Harriet Avenue, one block west of the proposed development site.

“When I started looking into this further and further, it was really outrageous. It wasn’t good for the neighborhood and it wasn’t good for the tenants living there,” Hoover said. “It seems really shortsighted.”


Ron Clark Construction & Design, the Edina-based site developer, is currently planning for the construction of 70 affordable, workforce housing units on the southern portion of the city block. A Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency project, it will be financed through a tax credit program associated with that agency. One to three bedroom units would be available for individuals whose incomes meet qualifying guidelines, with apartments expected to rent for between $775 and $1,075 per month. Four of the 70 units will be reserved for either homeless veterans and their families or individuals and families experiencing long term homelessness.

Those plans contrast with recommended development guidelines approved by the city council in 2008, which suggested that the site be used to develop “an array of housing types to accommodate different household sizes and incomes (low and moderate income families).”

Written in partnership with the Corridor Housing Initiative, the 2008 guidelines call for development of the property with low- to medium-density housing targeted at mixed-income individuals and families. For development purposes low-density housing is defined as accommodating six or fewer individuals per acre, while medium-density housing accommodates up to 12 individuals per acre.

Director John Stark said that, while the proposal put forward by the developer differs from those guidelines, however, the city is under no obligation to restrict construction because of the earlier recommendations.

“The city council approved the [2008] guidelines, but they’re just that,” Stark said. “They’re an important thing for the city council to consider when they get this land use application.”

Concerns About the Development

Hoover emphasized that his objections to the current plans did not stem from concerns over property values in his neighborhood, which he said had been a concern expressed by some of his neighbors.

Hoover lives in the same single-family home his uncle and mother were raised in, originally purchased by his grandparents in 1947. He said that his objections to the project had more to do with concerns over the neighborhood’s quality of life—and what he felt had been underhanded tactics by the city—than with possible depreciation in home prices. Hoover also remained concerned about building a development entirely comprised of affordable housing units, rather than the mix of market rate and affordable housing units he said were part of the original guidelines.

“It’s really not about property values, it’s really about the breaking of trust and what is good for the neighborhood,” he said. “It doesn’t serve anyone. The tenants in 100 percent affordable or low-income buildings tend to become stigmatized.”

More than any single issue, Hoover is against construction of a high-density housing development comprised entirely of affordable units, and also maintains the development’s design is out of character for the neighborhood.

Stark said concerns about both property values and increases in crime had been expressed during public meetings about the project, but that he’d been unable to track down quantifiable evidence that legitimated either concern. Stark said , director of , said he wasn't concerned about crime increasing as a result of the project.

Stark said that the primary concern with the Pillsbury Commons development from the City of Richfield’s standpoint is an increase in traffic—and the public safety issues that accompany such increases.

Stark pointed out that, regardless of whether certain resident concerns could be backed up with evidence, he saw any and all feedback as a positive for the city.

“Every project that happens in Richfield there’s a lot of impassioned residents. It’s a good thing,” he said. “I’d worry if there weren’t people who were impassioned about these topics.”

Pillsbury Commons Going Forward

The City of Richfield has thus far made no commitments to the development project aside from agreeing to sell city-owned property at the site to Ron Clark Construction & Design at the appraised price of $415,936. Before construction could move forward, the city council would need to rezone the land and give land-use approval.

“I think that there’s a lot left to be determined on this project, and I guess I would just want people to know that there’s this sense that this is a done deal, and that’s far from the truth,” Stark said. “It’s much earlier in the process than people think.”

Financing for the development is still being worked out, although the bulk of the project's financing is expected to come from the sale of federal tax credits to private investors. Mike Roebuck, a spokesperson for Ron Clark Construction & Design, said the company would be working on addressing concerns voiced by city council members and residents as the project moves forward.

Richfield Commoners United May 16, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Given that Ron Clark Construction has received ample time to present their plans to the City Council, HRA and the Planning Commission in meeting after meeting it is very suspect that they would want to meet in round robin format with the HRA and City Council and circumvent Minnesota's Open Meeting Law. Where is the transparency with dealing with Ron Clark? Shouldn't his plans be discussed in the open? What does Ron Clark have to say to them about Pillsbury Commons that cannot be said in a public meeting? While it is unknown if Ron Clark Construction violated any laws, the ethics of this matter is certainly not becoming of a recipient of the Minnesota Business Ethics Award and someone who says, “Honesty, integrity and fair play have always been of utmost importance to us." Please contact members of the City Council and the HRA and let them know that meetings with Ron Clark Construction or their representatives outside of public meetings is not ok.
Richfield Commoners United June 13, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Ghislaine Ball June 13, 2012 at 02:50 PM
I'm super happy to say that the city council did listen to us!! Next steps 1) we need to stay engaged with what's going on before it bubbles over - the process can only give you what you put into it. 2) Catch up on some sleep 3) Figure out how to cram two weeks of weeding into two days.
Richfield Commoners United June 13, 2012 at 08:09 PM
So Ron Clark has a rental Property and he has not paid rental Lic either? Let's see who will call and say why is Ron Clark getting things for free? http://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.jsp Proerty ID#34-028-24-34-0049 Address:7600 PILLSBURY AVE S Taxpayer Name & Address: RICHFIELD PROPERTIES LLC, 7500 78TH ST W, EDINA MN 55439 Page 20 of 26...HUMMM do not see Ron Clark paying rental fee? WHY? http://www.cityofrichfield.org/permits/docs/Richfield___List_of_Rental_Properties.pdf
Richfield Commoners United June 13, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Please call about Ron Clark rental property: Steven L. Devich City Manager City of Richfield 612-861-9702


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »