The URL can be used to link to this page

PL SUBCOM 08/03/1967 - 31054�,: - AUGUST 3, 1967 pLATS & SUBDIVISIONS - gTREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at PAGE 1 7:30 P.M. ROL— L �ALL' Na el, Albrecht Members present: Schmedeke, Jensen, Myhra, g Members absent: None Assistant Darrel Clark Others present: Engineering 1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SE� OF SECTION 13: Meeting with all the property owners of area. Chairman Jensen announced the first item to be discusuartersofhe public meeting with respect to the area in the southeasCentral Avenue Section 13 with Rice Creek Road as its north boundary, as its west boundary, Stinson Boulevard as its east boundary and generally the south line of Section 13 as its south boundary. Jensen gave a sununary of this committee's actions and results up to date explaining that the proposal we see tonight is what has been revised from several early proposals. Mr. Jensen then explained the proposed layout with respect to the definitions of the different colored lines. Pastor Henderson (Lot 1, Block 3, Moore Lake Hills) explained that the People's Church would not be interested, at least at this time, and pointed out that if they were to develop, they would probably develop by using a cul de sac street in from Central Avenue, therefore not utilizing a road across the rear. Mr. Morley expressed he would be interested in any proposal that would benefit the area. Irene Skog expressed disapproval because a proposed street is shown only 50 feet from her present home. She then was told that it probably could be moved south. The street right of way and surface width were explained. It was pointed out that this committee was not going to plat the land, only adopt a street plan if possible. ' Dorothy Miles asked why an east-west access to the area from Central Avenue was shown at her south property line, especially since she was I' not interested in platting at this time. Also she explained that there was quite an elevation differential, some 20 feet or so. John Carroll, 1450 Rice Creek Road: Asked why Arthur Street was not utilized? Jensen explained that, if this plan were adopted, the existing street would be vacated and revert back to the owner.of the plat it was .� • Pae2 Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Subcommittee Meetin - Au ust 3 1967 originally dedicated from. It was pointed out that the new proposal would better fit his land. Pastor Henderson asked how and who would put in streets and who would pay for the improvement. It was explained by Jensen that they could be built by the developer or the City if petitioned to do so, then assess the improvement costs. Pastor Henderson then asked what would happen if owners on one side wanted to develop and the other did not. Jensen answered by saying there is no one precise answer but that if the City Council felt, for the benefit of others, the City would use the power of conde�a- tion and take land with some compensation. Edw. Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, pointed out that he was not inter- ested in platting at this time, therefore there would be no need in putting the street west of him. Mrs. Skog asked would the City force the road through her property. Chairman Jensen pointed out that he felt that it would not, however, the City does have that power. Mr. Morley explained that the east-west road north of Mr. Scherer's property might be expensive, however, he felt and expressed his com�nendation to the committee for their work done to date. Mr. Carroll asked if the County might have some plan that would con- flict with a City Plan. He was told that the County acts only as a record- ing agency. Theo. B. Theilma.nn, 1540 Rice Creek Road, pointed out that they would have a street in the center and another at the south edge and by developing in this ma.nner would lack some footage to have two lot widths, and did not want to be put in a situation such as this. Albrecht pointed out that now is the time to at least approve a layout so that future platting would fit an overall plan. Myhra explained that if we could agree and adopt a proposed street layout at this time, it would prove very valuable in the future as people want to divide their lands. Schmedeke pointed out that the purpose of this meeting was to hear all the pros and cons from all property owners and that you, the people, should have more time, possibly Z months, to study this problem. Len Cochran pointed out that he did not feel this plan fit his first grid pattern plan and he would rather use his first original plan. It was pointed out by Jensen that it was his feelings Mr. Cochran's ma.jor objec- tions were unwarranted and that he should first study this plan, then decide. It was then explained that individuals should go home, study and make pencil and mental notes, and return with them on August 31, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. Schm�deke asked that out of town people be ma.iled copies of the pro- posai before our next meeting. ..- . '"� Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util.Subco�anittee Meetin - Au ust 3 1967 � Pae3 • Robert Hughes, Chairman of Parks and Recreation Commission, asked that the Subcommittee at least think about the park need for this area. Paul Brown has been asked to express the needs for this area and leave the information with the Engineering Assistant Clark. 2. ACCESS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZOA ��66-16 Harold Schroeder : Ruth Street and East River Road. Mr. Schroeder briefly explained the proposed development of the P.D. district in Fairmont and East River Road area. He introduced Mr. Ed C. Bather, a traffic engineer from St. Paul. Mr. Bather then gave a report on traffic counts and recommendations that he would make. His report indicated that the peak traffic flow would be 240 trips during the hours of 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. Using this figure, he stated that it was his opinion that this amount of traffic would not have any adverse effect on the present traffic flows on East River Road. He stated, that with proper left and right turn lanes, deceleration and acceleration lanes, traffic signals would not be a necessity. There were some questions as to the need for signals and Mr. Dumphy stated he thought the shopping center would participate towards the cost of a signal. The Subcommittee members expressed their approval of the use and aes�hetics of the building plan and felt that all plans and future traffic movement data should be collected and reviewed so that as many of the traffic risks as possible could be eliminated. The Subcommittee continued further action on this subject until August 31, 1967. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Resp ctfu y i ed, _ � Q`��C� Da.rrel Clark � Acting Secretary � �v - c.� �-- �- � � I /U�,� _ _ __ -- ,_. _ ,� _ a O R_� ss __ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ �J_ �Gf9 .. - k -_ �_ S'i („(I f � �� L � �t f �.J � _ _ � � � __ _ � _ ___ _. _ _ _- � r� �.�1 _. _ _ �3 a s - � � __ ,�` _�`l� _ _ _ E�.-- _ __ __ _ _ _ � � �,� Y►n. ti.s. G_�' _ I�r�.ort,�.,c� 1�_ _� z_ �_. C��v�-r�.,a�t-.. ,.�_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ �_ _ , �, � .� _ f� E � � ! Fl � "� �° / ,�-�1� ��-�.� .._,��---��--�,/�� /-� .__ __ . , ,__ __. _ _ _ _ �l __ _ _ _ __ __ . _ -- � �',f 3 7 �.;',��.,�.��.�.�,. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . �. j� ,�� _ a�-�..__ � ��C.,..�.r.� � �� .-e-�-c. �� : �� _ � __� __ _ �- ,, � , .. � � , , 1 3 � �, , J `� ' � � � � ;. _ ' ., _ ._ . _ ; , � S''c� z:;� ;o• :. ��,.., ._.< 1�,. ._ � � �: �,�r'r',;,;� <: t-��-� .. I ..._ _ _ . _ r — — .. _ � _ _ - ` '�`` , � �� _ �;_ _ _ � s� �'� __ __ __ _ . __ __ _ !_ � �,_ _ %� 19 (� c � , � � , , _._ _ ____ _ _ _ --_ __ _ _. _ ,� _„-�.-- , � : _ . _ _ __ _ _ _� 3 U ��-.�-�__ __ __ __ �_ _ _ _ � � ,�.�. � � - �-�� . _ _ . .�.��-� � �� .__..� .� . � _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ . _ ' _ � �--�-�.�•.. - �� `r.� . -- ��.�.�.�� __ ___ _ ____ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ ._ __ , � , _ : _ _ ��ch.�c��n�. 3 ' �.c�. � 222_1��l�c��Y_ ��V� _ _ __ _ - _ �c.,. .,�v_ .. —..—_ _— _ _ _. _ _ _ __ � �� - i�s� _ � �'.�� '� c Z - � _ ___ _ I_ _ ___ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ __