Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 12-03 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PIANNING COMMISSION HM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1969 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Necmbers present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman; Cliff Johnson, Sam Hughes, Robert Huelster, David Griswold and A. H. Hiatt. St:a'Qf present: Fred Hoisington and Karen Sorensen I. ApEr oval of November 5. 1969 Commission Minutes. 11r. Hughes moved that the November 5, 1969 Commission Minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. Motion Carried. T.I. LOT DIVISIONS 1.. B. E. Johnsrud. Lot 28, Block 3. Normandale 2nd Addition. Mr. Hoisington reported that this property is located along Tingdale Avenue between W. 63rd and W. 64th Streets. This division of Lots 27 and 28 occurred some time ago and the proponent needs Village approval to convey the North 30 feet of Lot 27 and the South 40 feet of Lot 28 as a separate parcel. Mr. Huelster moved that the Commission recommend approval of the lot division. Mr. H--ighes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 2. Frank_ B1u&er>z. Lot 9 � Block 22, Fairfax Addition. Mr. Hoisington reported that the Board of Appeals had granted a variance for the construction of ani garage on Lot 10, Block 22, Fairfax Addition with the condition that a one foot lot division of Lot 9 be made to place the garage all on one parcel. This request represents the satisfaction of that condition. The staff recommends approval of the division. Mr, Hiatt moved that the Coxmfssion recommend approval of the lot division. Mr. Huelst€.r seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. SUBDIVISIONS Sp -69 -?O ScuLhdaale A.;a res )2.L.S. Mr. Hoisington reported that this was a meplatting of Lot 1 and 2, Block 2, Southda.le Acres. Traa.ct. B is the site of the R.-5 zoning which was approved several years ago. Our attorneys indicated that it is adequate to replat with a registered laud survey and the 3taaff recon ends aapproval of the plat. 14r. Johnson moved that the Commission recommend approval of the uInt. Mr. Hugheo aecor.dee1 the motion. All Voted ,Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission -2-- December 3, 1969 SP -69-21 ,Harold Woods Third Addition. This one lot plat. is located on the west side of Schaefer Road, south of Interlachen Blvd. The plat meets ordinance requirements and the staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Hughes moved that the Commission recommend preliminary approval of the plat. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. SP -69-22 Warden Acres Austin Reolat. This seven lot plat is located south of Grove Street, north of Benton Avenue and west of Hansen Road. The staff recommends approval of the plat subject to Engineering Department approval of street grades. Mr. Huelater Moved that the Commission recommend approval of the plait subject to the condition imposed by the staff. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. SP -69-16 Kesler -Lilts Addition._ This three lot pkat is located on the south side of Valley 'view Road just east of Dakota Trail. A simple lot division of the property was approved by Council in November, 1967. The two lots on the easterly end of the property nre to be platted in an east/west manner with 40 feet on the easterly side to be dedicated for road purposes. The staff recommends approval of the. plat. Mr. Hiatt moved that the Covoissiou recommend approval of the plat. Mr. Auelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Iva WESTURN EDINA PLAN - Mr. Hoisington informed the audience that there were several critical issues to be discuoied, not just the Chen proposal, the PCH pro- posal or Interlaachen Blvd. He indicated that the Planning Commission had not been shorn this plan, and is not ready to make a recommendation at this point. For the past month, a series of neighborhood meetings have been held and they have beeu beneficial to the staff and hopefully to those residenLo who have been in attendance as well. The first phase in the planning process was t- a neighs,orhood meetiugs .and this meeting is the second base of the: pv _ess. '11.e no-ist s'cep �;ill be the public hearing after the Flannirg Ccr iosiou has reo af_ed, if necessary, tkiis plan. We intend to have a formal heap:_ nc,7 bef�zry the Cc:LUc Sinn on January 7, 1970 at 7:30 11.41. Ecsinn Planniag Covarais3ion -3- December 3, 1969 Mr. Hoisington then gent on to explain the different land use patterns which exist in Western Edina and those that are suggested. He then cm=ented on street functions and standards and explained the difference between local, collector, major and minor arterials, freeways and scenic roads. Ile indicated that diamond interchanges were proposed at 7th Street, Fabri Tek and Valley View Road on County Road 18 and that there would be no extension of Interlachen Blvd. beyond Mirror Lake. It could be extended as a local residential street, but not to County Road 18 and not as a major street. He indicated that there were 4,000 acres in the total plan area and that by 1978 there would be 16,400 persons residing in single family dwellings on 2,057 acres; 1,600 persons in low density multiples on 150 acres; 2,500 persons in medium density multiples on 100 acres and 2,500 persons in high density multiples on 60 acres with comsmercial occupying 8 acres; industrial erd office on 75 acres; recreation and open apace on 750 acres and streets occupying 800 acres. He also discussee, Maloney Avenue connection with the 7th Street interchange, two creek crossings and a possible pedestrian way to Country- side Park, as well as a proposed fire station at Tracy Avenue and the Crosstown Highway. tie a;1so discussed the proposed commercial development on the northeast corner of County Road 18 and Vernon Avenue. A raoident of the Walnut Drive -Tamarac Avenue area asked if there was a need for the proposed shopping center as his area people live four miwutes from .Jerry's, six minutes from Cahill, four minutes from Super Value and five minutes from Southdale. The commercial project has no merit and should be rejected. We object also to the fact that you are plannin; to upgrade Vernor. Avenue from two lanes to four lanes. We were going to €s.ssk that: the speed limit be lowered to 30 MPH. Vernon Avenue was adequate as two lanes before the Crosstown and now you want to increase it to four lanes. Mr. Robert F. Hensen, attorney representing the NW Edina Com"ittee, stated that all of the members are seriously interested in these meetings. A number of changes have been made in the proposal and many things are different than what was talked about at the earlier meetings. Some of the ob jectit rt s of the committee have been alleviated because of the changes in the plan. We aask for additional time to give the new proposal some thought. Mr. Alf Bergerud stated that the staff contemplated a street that rent naihere (Interlachsa). There will be 300 homes in the area, 1200 people, about 700 additional cars on Interlachen Blvd. and we are fearful of what the traffic ci tua,tion gill be. I have aao alternative, but I do know that the people do not want Interlachen Blvd. extended at all. One gentleman asked -f recent traffic counts had been taken on Veruon Avenue vi -ace the Croustn.:°n was opened, if the police department had nnY taccid e. increases on. Interlachen Blvd., and if the Fabri Tek employees were Edina re,i.denta. .Edina. Plsnaning Commission -A- December 3, 1969 Mr. John Waters, representing Dr. and Mrs. Schuman, stated that the amain objection of his client was that they didn't want Interlachen Blvd. to become more than a minor arterial and anything that could be done to reduce the traffic on Interlachen Blvd. would be appreciated. Mr. Toss Olson, Hennepin County Commissioner noted that there are no plans at the present tine to do anything to Interlachen Blvd. through 1975 and felt confident that the County would be agreeable to what Village staff and residents wanted. Mr. Hoisington indicated that there would be no state aid funds m*tailable until around 1975, so any upgrading of any estate aid street would not be done until after that date. Mr. McDonald, Tyler Court, stated that there was a great deal of shuttle traffic from T.H. 100 to County Road 18 and wondered if thera shouldn't be an origin/destination study made for that area. After considerable discussion, Chairman Lewis thanked the people for attending and giving their views to the Coy dssion. He stated that there woi.ld be a public: hearing before the Commission on January 7, 1970, and at that time the Corxkission would take action and awake recommendations to the Council about the Western Edina Plan. No Action Tnk,en . Mr. hoisingtor stated that has would lice to have a work/study maeting with the Commission on December 17, 1969 at 7:30 P.I. The public is invited, btiat the p arposf: is principally a study meeting of the proposals made is the Western Edina area. V. Adjournment nt 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Karen Sorensen, Secretary Name Existing Recommended Street Function Width Recommended Street Width No. Lanes Interlachen Minor Arterial 30' 361* 2` Malonev Collector 30' 30'-36'* 2 Blake South Minor Arterial 30' 36'* 2 Blake. North) Minor Arterial 30' 36'* 2 W. 70th Cahill to Antrim Major Arterial 44' 44' 4 Antrim Road Ma'or Arterial 44' 44' 4 Valley View Ma or Arterial 24'-36' 36'* 2 Tracy Minor Arterial 36' 36'* 2' Gleason Rd. Minor Arterial 36' 36'* 2 Vernon Ave. Ma or Arterial 27-1/2' 48' 4 STREET FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS 1. Local Street: Provides direct access to individual abutting properties; 40' minimum right-of-way width; 22-30' pavement width; 2 moving lanes; 25 MPH, low traffic volumes. 2. Collector Street: Collects traffic from local streets and moves it to and from arterial streets; a minimum of direct driveway access; 50' minimum right-of-way width; 24' pavement width, no state-aid; 36' pavement width, one parking lane, state-aid; 44' pavement width, parking both sides; 30 MPH, medium traffic volumes. 3. Minor Arterial: Moves through or longer distance traffic at moderate speeds and volumes to and from expressways, freeways, and local traffic generators (shopping centers, employment centers, etc.); a minimum of direct driveway access; state-aid 36' minimum pavement width; 60' minimum right-of-way width; 2-4 moving lanes; no parking, 40 MPH. 4.:_ Major Arterial: Moves through or longer distance traffic at moderate speeds and higher volumes to and from expressways, freeways and other major traffic generators.- Arterials serve as the primary Village street system, taking people conveniently from place to place within the community and to some extent into adjoining communities; 44' minimum pavement width;,80' minimum right-of-way width; speeds up to 50 MPH; i" no parking, median preferred; no driveway access to . abutting properties. 5. Scenic Road: Moves non-commercial pleasure oriented traffic through scenic area, 30 MPH; 24-48' pavement width; minimum access to abutting properties. 6. Expressways and Freeways: Moves through, regional or inter-community traffic at high speeds and volumes between " regional traffic generators; controlled access; 200-300' right-of-way width; median required; 60-70 MPH. S, i 1 V! t;,ettia . Cine Block Long Street in Edina School District •- :15 Fiouse3, Value, Children, School :fax 1968 Children Children Market T A¢n ICALQ 11-1- 1969 1969 School Total Tax Ts.. T e..4 nA School Tax Dollars Needed Per House To Break Even @ is71 _ 17 nav nttM 1 Profit Lose Per Per "nsina Hnt1AP_ 2 0 33,900 1,082.31 690.51 -- 690.51 3 2 35,100 1283.67 718.69 1742.24 1,023.55 3 2 32,100 1126.49 648.23 1742.24 1,094.01 3 2 30,300 949.79 605.96 1742.24 1,136.28 3 0 31,200 982.93 627.09 -- 627.09 2 0 30,300 949.78 605.96 - 605.96 3 2 32,400 1027.10 655.28 1742.24 1,086.96 2 5 37,200 1203.81 A-8.01 4355.60 3,587.59 2 2 24,900 751.00 479.13 1742.24 IoM.11 2 2 24,900 751.00 479.13 1742.24 1,263.11 3 2 25,200 762.04 486.17 1742.24 1,256.07 1 2 27,300 839.34 535.50 1742.24 1,206.74 3 2 37,200 1203.80 768.01 1742.24 974.23 2 0 35,100 1126.50 718.69 718.69 1 0 29,700 927.70 591.86 591.8.6 3321 466,800 14,967.?.6 9378.82 2,543.60 2.3,891.65 11,348.05 Net Lose 1963 14 Unit Apartment Mouse built in Edina School District has estimated market value of $214,875 and pays taxes in 1969 of $8,079.59, has no children and never has had any. $5,046.70 _of 'the taxes go to the school, 'therefore the school shows a 'net profit of $5046.70. This apartment house could have 5.8 pupils in the 14 units or .41 pupils and still break even For the school district. The apartment units that have been built in the past 2 or 3 years have an average value of more than $21,000, will pay school tax in Edina District (based on 21,000) of $493.22 or .57 pupil per apartment and still break even. 1970-71 Taxable School Budget 9,631, 970 s 11,057 pupils n $871.12 average tax cost per pupil,