Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regularo r F W n A MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990, AT 7:30 A.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 31, 1990 II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-90-1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc., R-1, Single Dwelling Unit & District to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Rd. S-90-1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition. Ron Clark Construction, Inc. Generally located south of - West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road (Cahill School Site) III. NEW BUSINESS: Tax Increment Financing Districts 44th and France Valley View and Wooddale Cahill Road & 70th Street IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 28, 1990 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990, 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Nan Faust, Helen McClelland, Robert Hale, Lee Johnson, Geof Workinger, David Runyan, Charles Ingwalson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Bailey, John Palmer, Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the January 31, 1990 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. Commissioner McClelland asked to have the minutes revised for Agenda Item, Z-90-1, correct the spelling of Mr. Everson's name from Iverson to Everson and to add after her statement "she will not support development of a neck lot " nor a building pad cut into a hill and a substandard lot. Regarding the townhouse proposal Commissioner McClelland wants added," Doubles or a four plex maximum". Commissioner Hale asked to have the minutes revised for Z-90-1 to add his comments; they are as follows: 1) Commissioner Hale asked if the driveway easement for Lot 13 couldn't run easterly to the driveway for the townhouses. Mr. Larsen said this was being considered. 2) Commissioner Hale asked about the "emergency overflow" on lot 9 as shown on sheet 6 of 8, and wouldn't this cause problems with the steep slope and with the townhouses below. 3) Commissioner Hale asked if there were any restrictions on the driveway width which would apply to the 25 foot wide neck lot. Mr. Larsen said no. Z-90-2 4) Commissioner Hale noted that there is residential directly across the pond and very expensive residential across the pond to the north. 5) Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen if Section 11(b) of Ordinance No. 804 as it applies to property adjoining a pond and calling for a 100 foot setback would apply. Mr. Larsen said no. With the above mentioned requested revisions the Commission all voted aye to approve the minutes for January 31, 1990. II. OLD BUSINESS Z-90-1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc., R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. S-90-1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential 1 Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their last meeting suggestions were made to the Developer, Mr. Clark and a number of those suggestions are presented this evening in a revised plan. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note the changes as follows: Mr. Larsen pointed out the preliminary plat continues to illustrate 13 lots. Minor lot line adjustments are made on lots 7,8,9,10 and 13. As a result the number of variances on lot 7 are reduced from 3 to 2. Lot 7 now has the required 30 feet on frontage on a public street. Lot width and lot depth to perimeter ratio variances are still required. Also, portions of lots 9 and 10 have been added to lot 13 to allow more flexibility in siting a new home. However, Lot 13 still requires a lot depth variance. Mr. Larsen explained the previous proposal contained 25 units in one 7 unit building and 3 six unit buildings. The revised proposal illustrates 21 units with no building larger than 4 units. The result is that the development now meets our definition for Low Density Attached Residential. Low Density Attached Residential allows up to six units per acre and up to 4 units per building. The revised plan also allows for a PRD -2 zoning compared to the previous PRD -3 zoning. The proposed plan complies with all requirements of the PRD -2 district, including lot coverage and number of units per building. Mr. Larsen said the proposed site plan also reduces to 2 the number of curb cuts serving the townhouse development. One is at the far west side of the property near the crest of the hill. The second lines up with Limerick Lane. Mr. Larsen told the Commission that although the Commission previously voted to amend the Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential, it may want to consider Low Density Residential for the townhouse site. The Plan defines Low Density as follows: LOW DENSITY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL (0-6 DU/acre). This designation is intended to include two family dwellings, townhouses, and other multi -family developments containing a maximum of four dwelling units per building or structure. Single family dwellings may also be a compatible use in such areas. It is intended that this designation will provide a variety of housing types in relatively close proximity to single family residential areas and will represent a transitional use between single family areas on high volume roadways or more intense uses. Although a maximum of 6 DU/acre is noted, maximum densities will be influenced by surrounding single family densities. Mr. Larsen noted the Commission has previously taken action on repeal of the Heritage Preservation Overlay District and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Actions remaining are: 1. Amend recommendation on Comprehensive Plan to change townhouse portion of the plan to Low Density Attached Residential. 2. Preliminary rezoning from R-1 to PRD -2 for townhouse portion of the site. 3. Preliminary Plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots and one outlot (townhouse common areas). 2 Staff Recommended Conditions: 1. Final Rezoning 2. Final Plat Approval 3. Parkland Dedication. 4. Developers Agreement 5. Landscaping Plan and Bond 6. Investigation of Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill Mr. Larsen told the Commission he became aware today, relative to the Historical Designation and Historical Park that there is some confusion and that it may be his fault. Mr. Larsen said the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) which considered this request recommended that the building could be removed, but the site where the foundation is, or the use of some of the foundation materials on the site, should be designated as historically significant. Mr. Larsen said on a staff level this recommendation was taken a step further to include the possibility of expanding the historical area to other corners of the Cahill settlement. Mr. Larsen said the reason this approach was investigated was due to the proposed residential character of the development on the west, and the renovation taking place on the commercial side of Cahill where the Old Cahill School and the store were located. Mr. Larsen said staff never meant to take away from the HPB's recommendation, but more to expand the area of search for historical significance. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that investigation of a Historical Park is one of the points that needs to be addressed and a solution found for final approval. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen what the lot depth is for Lot 13. Mr. Larsen said at its shallowest point Lot 13 is 120 feet deep. This depth complies with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance but not with the lot depth of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood as defined in Subdivision Ordinance No. 804. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the slopping concerns would be addressed at this level or could they be part of the Developer's Agreement. Mr. Larsen said it could be made part of the Developer's Agreement if the Commission so requested, but those concerns, regardless would be addressed by the Engineering Department before final approval. Mr. Ron Clark, proponent, Nancy Horn, and Mike Gair Mr. Clark's representatives, Gary Nyberg, Heritage Preservation Board, and interested residents were present. Mr Gary Nyberg, representative from the Heritage Preservation Board addressed the Commission informing them that the Board felt the church was architecturally insignificant, however, the site has historic significance. The Board recommended that a pocket be developed similar to the one near the Edina Mills site and that it be developed on the west side of Cahill Road. It was also recommended that some of the foundation from the church should be incorporated into the development of a pocket park. Mr. Nyberg said that was their recommendation to the Edina City Council. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB considered locating the pocket park on the east side of Cahill Road. Mr. Nyberg said at the time this item was considered that was not mentioned as a possibility. Mr. Nyberg added that he feels since this is the last remaining piece still intact, the pocket 3 park should be located on or near the original site of the church. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB had any specific recommendations for a pocket park, and did they look at the possibility of a commemorative marker. Mr. Nyberg said the most logical suggestion from their meeting was to incorporate and/or use the footings to create a commemorative marker, and have the pocket park constructed similar to the Edina Mills Park. Mr. Nyberg said the Board found this solution to make the most sense due to the size of the church and the high cost of upkeep and the removal of the church from the site. Chairman Johnson asked how much space does the Board think will be needed for the park. Mr. Nyberg responded that he has no idea, but probably the size of the Edina Mills Park. Commissioner Runyan asked if the Board wants the whole foundation incorporated into the park. Mr. Nyberg replied that the Board would like to see some of the stones from the foundation used to commemorate the site, and have some parking nearby if possible. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that since the land is privately owned, who would fund the purchase of the land for the park and what funds would be used to maintain it? Mr. Larsen answered that that is difficult to access because at this level the Planning Commission and the Heritage Preservation Board do not have the power to allocate funds for a park. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained the City Council is the body that will study this aspect of the proposed development and will make their decision. Mr Larsen said that is why staff has expanded it's search for a park and proposed an alternative to the -park being located on the site. Staff looked at the original Cahill settlement which included all corners of 70th and Cahill Road. Commissioner Faust said in a way that puts the cart before the horse. She added how can the developer design a project if they do not know what the Council wants to do about the historical aspect of the site. Mr. Larsen said that is true, but it is a factor the developer is aware of, and if final approval is granted the development will have to reflect what the Council has ordered. Mr. Mike Gair presented to the Commission the revisions that have taken place as a result of their recommendations. Mr. Gair pointed out the site is 12.8 acres. The revised proposal depicts 21 townhouses and 13 single family homes. The price of the single family homes will be between $350 thousand - $700 thousand. The price of the townhouses will be between $250 thousand - $300 thousand. Mr. Gair pointed out Mr. Clark is a quality builder and has constructed many quality houses and townhouses in the City. Continuing, Mr. Gair said the townhouses would be stucco, brick, and cedar shakes. Mr. Gair pointed out that the project would create an excellent tax base for the City and the single family homes would add children to the Edina school system. With graphics Mr. Gair pointed out the proposed development site and how it relates to the surrounding area. Mr. Gair added that the change in the number of townhouses from 25 to 21 give the townhouse site zoning potential for Low Density Attached versus the previous request for Medium Density Attached. He added there are no attached units more than four, and the rest are two and three unit buildings. Mr. Gair noted that the previous plan had three accesses and the revised plan indicates two. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission informing them he has worked hard on this project to decrease the density. He told the Commission he is willing to work with the Council and City to come to an agreement on the park. Continuing, Mr. Clark said he will construct a quality development and will work hard to provide adequate screening and buffering and perimeter landscaping that everyone would find acceptable. Mr. Clark said he will cooperate in any way possible to make this development blend into the community and to address any individual concerns. 4 Commissioner Faust said she doesn't understand how there can be 188 less townhouses and only 3 1/28 less land coverage. She asked if the size of the townhouses have been increased. Mr. Gair said the townhouses have not been increased in size. Commissioner Faust asked the size of the townhouses. Mr. Gair said the townhouses are 30 feet X 83 feet. They will have 1600 square feet on the main level, with a total of 2000 square feet for the footprint, which includes the garage. Commissioner L. Johnson explained that the 188 decrease in townhouses is taken from the original townhouse total of 25 minus the 4, which is an 188 decrease. The 3 1/28 decrease in land coverage is taken from the whole development. Commissioner Hale asked why the driveway access for Lot 13 doesn't access via the drive from the townhouse development rather that West 70th Street. Mr. Gair said the reason for that is because of the grade. It is too steep. Commissioner Runyan agreed adding that the slope for that driveway access would be around 108. Commissioner Workinger said he doesn't like the idea of any type of easements on properties. He added he wants to make sure a driveway easement isn't added to Lot 13 after final approval. Commissioner Workinger said he wants Lot 13 to remain as presented. Chairman G. Johnson said from a legal standpoint if the future property owners agree an easement can be created. Commissioner L. Johnson said that maybe to prevent that from happening it could become part of the Developer's Agreement. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned Mr. Gair on where the slope easement would be located. Mr. Gair said their slope easement would not extend to the erosion control line. He added this would leave flexibility for structure placement. Mr. Gair asked Commissioner L. Johnson if his idea was to have the slope easement and erosion control line be coincidental. Commissioner L. Johnson said that he would feel more comfortable if the slope easement extended to the erosion control line. Commissioner McClelland commented that she has concerns about substandard lots within a new development. Commissioner McClelland said she would like to have one lot removed from the single family subdivision. She added if one lot is removed variances would not be required and the proposed neck lot would be removed. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said that as a result of the new Subdivision Ordinance the Commission should look very carefully at developments that require variances. Mr. Larsen explained that the new subdivision ordinance is a guideline to aide in their review process. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she walked the site for a second time and was appalled by the condition, size, and state of repair of the retaining walls on the back side of the property. She noted that there is erosion present and agrees with Commissioner L. Johnson that the slope easement should be coincidental with the erosion line. Commissioner McClelland submitted to the Commission a graphic that shows 12 lots instead of the proposed 13 and reduced the number of townhouses from the proposed 21 to 16. Commissioner McClelland said she has a grave concern regarding Lot 7 which would create a neck lot if approved. She pointed out the steepness in topography in the northwest corner and the steep retaining walls. Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street told the Commission the neighborhood is not interested in multi family housing on the site. She said the poll taken 5 indicates the neighborhood wants the site to remain single family. She pointed out low density is to be influenced by the density of the single family neighborhood. Ms. Smithson added she wants the density decreased in the middle section. She pointed out the twin homes on the northwest corner have the appearance of single family residences, adding that type of low density development is the type of guidance she would like to see in this development if there is to be multiple housing at all. Continuing, Ms. Smithson said if there is to be a park, the townhouse development would appear tighter than what has been presented. Ms. Smithson said the view of the roof lines would be detrimental to the value of the homes across the street. Mr. Miles Hersey, property owner at Highpointe, told the Commission when he purchased his property he was told the site would remain as is, due to the historical significance of the land. He added he does not want to look at roof lines and would prefer to look at a pocket park. Mr. Hersey said he would like to see a pocket park developed on the site. Mr. Hersey asked Mr. Clark what the height of the buildings would be on the portion of the historical site. Mr. Gair answered that the buildings located on the historical site are one story buildings. Mrs. Darlene McDonnel, resident of Highpointe, told the Commission Mr. Clark made no promise to her regarding the historical aspect of the site next to Highpointe. She pointed out he did not own the site and therefore had no control over the site. Continuing, she said when she first purchased her condo she was concerned about the dumpster situation at the school because it was kept very messy. Since that time garbage containment has improved. She added the only change that has taken place for her is that instead of a second set of condominiums being developed Mr. Clark chose to develop townhouses because the market became soft for condo's. Mrs. McDonnel said she is very happy at Highpointe and Mr. Clark builds a quality project. Donna Ebert, 7004 Lee Valley Circle, said she does not know many facts but asked when Mr. Everson bought the property was there anything that said you have to keep the site historical. Mr. Everson said when he purchased the property that was not considered, he added he knew the church was historical but he did not know that he couldn't in the future develop his property. Ms. Ebert added she is in favor of the project and believes that it will not deteriorate the value of nearby properties and said it has to be better than looking at the school across the street. She added it is a great tax base and will improve the property around it and enhance the value. Mr. Lowell Swanson, owner of a unit at Highpointe, asked if emergency vehicles can get into and out of the site as proposed. Mr. Swanson also questioned if the water runoff on the project will change if the site is developed. Mr. Hoffman said emergency vehicles usually fight fires from the perimeter of townhouse projects. He added the drainage plan presented is adequate. Mr. Hoffman said no developer designs for a 100 year flood, as occurred in 1987. Mr. Hoffman said if the property did not flood during that time they were very lucky because many places received damage. He concluded that this development should not have a negative impact regarding drainage. Mr. Swanson asked where snow would be stored. Mr. Hoffman said on a townhouse site the snow issue is "their issue". They can haul the snow away, store the snow on the grass or do whatever. The City has no requirement for snow removal. 6 Ms. Nancy Askoy, 5600 West 70th Street asked since more children are being born, etc. and more school space is being needed is it wise to sell the school building to a private developer if it may be needed as a school. Commissioner Faust told Ms. Askoy that she spoke with Sara Jones and was told that the City cannot afford to moth -ball a building for 20 years and put in on line. Commissioner Faust told the Commission Sara Jones indicated that the Community Center and Highlands.School will take care of City needs. Commissioner Faust pointed out the school is already privately owned. Lyle Sellors, 5547 Village Drive, told the Commission he believes Mr. Clark has done a good job with the plan and agrees there needs to be a transition between the single family homes and the commercial area. Mr. Clark's low density townhouses meets that need. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she is still concerned about the density of the townhouse proposal. She said Cahill has alot of traffic on it and she cannot support housing so close to that intersection. Commissioner McClelland added that she supports development of a pocket park on the site where the church is located. Commissioner McClelland referred to her plan and pointed out that in her plan curb cuts would be eliminated and the density would be decreased to 16 units. She pointed out her plan would leave enough room to incorporate the pocket park. Commissioner McClelland also added this plan would greatly increase green space and an open feeling. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland said she wants to see 1 lot out of the single family proposal bringing that proposal to 12 lots, reduction in townhouse units from the proposed 21 to 16 and a pocket park placed on site. Mrs. Lindvell, resident of the area, told the Commission she feels the proposal is too dense. Commissioner Runyan commented that he felt the price of the units being developed should add to and increase neighborhood property values. Residents asked Commissioner Runyan if he would like to live across from the proposal. Commissioner Runyan said in his opinion this development is good for the City of Edina as a whole. He said there is adequate open space and added that single family homes all the way to Cahill Road does not make good sense. Ms. Ebert, of Lee Valley Circle, said again that she is in favor of the project. She said this is the first time she, as a resident in the area, has ever been given information before hand on what is going to be developed within her neighborhood. She added the proposal makes good planning sense. She said in her opinion what is there now is undesirable, and what is presented will look better than the school and the church which isn't even clearly identified as historically significant. Commissioner Hale said he is a bit confused on where the one and two story townhouses are located. With graphics, Mr. Gair pointed out the locations of the one and two story townhouses on the site. The one story townhouses are located on the east end and the two story units are in the middle. Chairman G. Johnson questioned if that townhouse situation should be flip-flopped. Commissioner Faust said she has a real concern between the transition of the proposed townhouses and the proposed single family homes. She expressed concern that the transition area is not large enough. 7 Commissioner Ingwalson told the Commission he believes the plan is sound and the low density transition between the commercial and the single family units is appropriate. Commissioner Ingwalson expressed concern over the pocket park and said it is unfortunate that this issue wasn't resolved before this meeting. Mr. Larsen explained that a parkland dedication of cash could occur, or the pocket park could be located on the site. Mr. Larsen commented he agrees that the situation regarding the park is fuzzy. Commissioner Ingwalson asked if after the Council makes their decision regarding the park would the proposal come back to the Commission for review. Mr. Larsen said the townhouse portion would come back to the Commission for final approval. The park aspect will be part of the townhouse plan. Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Larsen what is the requirement for parkland dedication. Mr. Larsen said when the City does not want land for parkland dedication they require cash. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Clark if he considered single family homes where the westerly 9 townhouse units are located. Mr. Clark said putting single family homes farther to the east did not work well. Continuing, Mr. Clark explained the natural place to break the transition between single family homes and townhouses is where the terrain changes. Mr. Clark said that seemed to be the logical place to make that transition. Commissioner Hale asked if they located houses in that area how many would there be. Mr. Clark said at a guess around 4 single family houses. Mr. Clark noted that they toyed with the idea of zero lot line dwellings in that area. Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the single family proposal. Commissioner McClelland said she cannot support the single family proposal as presented with a substandard lot and a neck lot. It's a new development that requires variances. Commissioner Workinger said he has no objection to the single family proposal but still feels uncomfortable with the density of the townhouse development. Commissioner Faust told the Commission she agrees with Commissioner McClellands observations and indicated she is favorable to Commissioner McClellands redesign. Commissioner L. Johnson told the Commission he likes the single family portion of the development. He added the best use of the topographical features is the way it has been developed. He added the intent in using the land for housing is to be creative and with the neck lot the land is not abused at all. Commissioner L. Johnson said if he has a concern it is with Lot 5 because it may be built down the hill. Continuing, he added the way this has been laid out is good and he added Lot 7 is an ideal lot. He reiterated that he wants the slope easement to be coincidental with the erosion control line. He noted that maybe the slope easement could be relaxed for Lot 4 but not the others. He added he has a concern that does not include the numbers or shape of the lots, but is the waterflow that goes over the rotted timber walls next door. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out Mr. Clark does not have control over that, adding it is his understanding that Mr. Hoffman will carefully review waterflow questions and concerns. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would also like to see Lot 13 orientated to the east, the way it is shown, Lots 9 10, 13 all relate very well to the townhouses. Commissioner Runyan said he agrees with Commissioner L. Johnsons points. He added he could also see the slope easement relaxed a bit for Lot 5, but snug for Lots 9, 10. Commissioner Ingwalson said he concurs with the plan presented. Commissioner Hale added he agrees. Dorothy Omen, Lanham Lane, said she feels Commissioner McClellands plan is good. Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the townhouse project. Commissioner L. Johnson said he is in favor of the townhouse proposal. He added the two, three, and four unit buildings are an appropriate transition from the commercial to single family. He pointed out if this project would be developed with single family houses the number of houses that could be developed within this area are around 10. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that massing and sizing in his opinion is not a stumbling block. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to see a little more park like atmosphere but added he feels an attempt has been made. Commissioner L. Johnson said in his opinion the development is appropriate and will be good for Edina. Commissioner Ingwalson concurred with Commissioner L. Johnson and said it is a good use of the site. He added single family houses on this corner does not make sense. Continuing, he said the park is still an issue, but if Mr. Clark is willing to take the consequences on where the Council locates the park, he has no problem. Commissioner Workinger said the density on the westerly portion of the site is still a concern for him. It appears too dense. The transition between Lot 13 and Lot 9 and the townhouse development is still a little to tight. Commissioner Runyan said he likes the project, and Mr. Clark has made every effort to respond to the concerns of the Commission. He added this plan is superior to what was previously proposed. Commissioner Runyan said given the land the proponent has to work with, this project has been designed very well. Commissioner McClelland said the plan is too dense, an allowance must be made for the pocket park at this time, and added it is not necessary to develop every parcel in Edina to its maximum. Commissioner McClelland said she want to see less density and sides with the residents. Commissioner Hale said the driveway is still a problem. Commissioner Faust said she believes this part of Edina has been "dumped" on and it is important to respond to these neighbors. She added Mr. Clark's doubles on crosstown are fabulous and suggested that he develops doubles. Commissioner Faust said she cannot vote for this because the pocket park has not been addressed to her satisfaction. 9 Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to the change in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Attached Residential to Low Density Attached Residential, to recommend preliminary rezoning approval from R-1 to PRD -2, and to recommend preliminary plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots, and one outlot, approval subject to staff recommendations and that the staff recommendations include a recommendation for a slope easement closer to the 910 line for lots 6, 7 and 8 and at the 900 line for lots 4 and 5. Staff recommendations include: Final Rezoning, Final Plat Approval, Parkland Dedication, Developers Agreement, Landscaping Plan and Bond and Investigation of a Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill. Commissioner L. Johnson said the Council should not be prejudiced in any way as they consider the pocket park as recommended in #6 of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. Marsh Everson pointed out Cahill Road is the buffer between the commercial area and residential neighborhood. Upon roll call vote: Mrs. Faust, Nay; Mr. Hale, Nay; Mr. L. Johnson, Aye; Mrs. McClelland, Nay; Mr. Rynyan, Aye; Mr. Workinger, Nay; Mr. Ingwalson, Aye; Mr. G. Johnson, Aye. Motion failed on a 4-4 vote. Chairman G. Johnson said the proposal is to be forwarded to the Council with no recommendation. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Tax Increment Districts Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission City Staff is looking into the possibility of creating tax increment districts in three areas within the City. Due to the time constraints regulated by the County the City of Edina has to establish these districts before April 30, 1990 to take advantage of tax increment. Mr. Fred Hoisington was present to explain the three areas the City has earmarked as being potential tax increment districts. Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the City of Edina has indicated three areas where they feel development of a tax increment district, would be beneficial to the City. These areas are: 1) France Avenue and 44th Street, 2) Wooddale and Valley View Road, and 3) Cahill Road and West 70th Street. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that these are areas where there seems to be deterioration and/or where the buildings are aged and traffic and parking circulation and safety are problems. Mr. Hoisington noted that this plan, does not include any property within Minneapolis. * 44th and France Avenue Mr. Hoisington explained that the plan for the area of France Avenue and 44th Street would involve West 44th Street to the rear of the properties along Eton Avenue and follow a line to West 46th Street. This proposal would call for the 10 removal of seven single family houses, possibly nine total. Removal of the dry cleaners in indicated, which at the present time is an illegal use. The redevelopment plan would include low density to medium density multi -family housing, retail and office improvements, parking lot improvements, landscaping improvements, and relocating the utility lines underground. A discussion ensued with Members of the Commission indicating they do not want to see multi -family housing in that area. Commission, Members also noted that in the past it has been very hard to work with the owners of the dry cleaners and if they choose not to be involved with this project the redevelopment plan would not work as presented. Commission - Members also pointed out the topography of the area would create some steep parking areas. The Commission also wanted noted that this area of Edina is very unique and fun and they do not in any way want that destroyed. Mr. Larsen agreed that this area of Edina is unique and the purpose' and the goal of it's redevelopment is not to destroy it's character. * Wooddale and Valley View Mr. Hoisington told the Board the improvement area includes Valley View Center, west to Kellogg Avenue and the area between Kellogg and Oaklawn. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that within the commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station are inappropriate and do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission that this commercial area in Edina is in decay and has some very serious circulation problems and hazardous parking areas. This area also has poor signage, too many driveways, lack of commercial district identity and limited expansion potential. The goal for this area is to solve these problems and retain a lucrative commercial area. Commission Members agreed that this area has some problems and suggested that maybe the commercial aspect could be relocated all in one area in the Valley View Shopping Center. The Valley View Shopping Center has adequate parking and if Baskins Robbins and the bike shop were to move into that area some of the problems could be solved. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this area alone at the present time. 70th Street and Cahill Road Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the area for consideration is bounded by 70th Street to the north, the railroad right -of way to the east, the northern boundary (east to west) of the Gabberts building, Village Drive extended and the City of Edina park open space property to the south, and the rear lot lines of the single family homes fronting on Lanham Lane and Lee Valley Circle to the east. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that the commercial area is having a real struggle and does not seem to hit the market. Mr. Hoisington said that it is believed that the retail area could take off if it is marketed and presented in the right way. Mr. Hoisington said the residential project for the area is to encourage development consistent with land use designations. Residential development may include 13 single family homes and as many as 21 doubles or attached units. 11 Members of the Commission suggested that a market study be implemented for this area. They agreed that this area in Edina does need some "cleaning up". Commissioner L. Johnson commented that he feels the gas station should be left in the area because neighborhood gas stations are important to the residents of the area. Mr. Larsen said this proposal will be before the City Council on March 19, 1990 and will come back to you for further comments on March 28, 1990. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 4 Fa I- f ',,I - W- -MR "Hoogernakker, Se etary 12