Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/12/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 12, 1986 30 p.m. OMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Roads intersection. A continued is public hearing. (7:50) B. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. (8:05) C. TOWNHOMES OF LINDEN POND, by Schell Builders, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.36 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.87 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.36 acres into five lots and one outlot for construction of 44 condominium units. Location: South and east of Edenvale Boulevard and west of Woodland Drive. A public hearing. (9:05) D. PRAIRIE COURTS, by Ronald A. Christenson. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into one lot for construction of a 32,000 square foot commercial center. Location: East of County Road #4, north and west of Wagner Way. A public hearing. (9:50) E. EMMA COVE ADDITION, by Robert R. Gersbach. Request for Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Baywood Lane, West of County Road #4, north and east of Duck Lake. A public hearing. Agenda Monday, May 12, 1986 page Two V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 12, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (7:40 p.m.) , Virginia Gartner (7:35 p.m.), Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 • II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. (Gartner arrived at 7:35 p.m.) III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Hallett abstained) (Dodge arrived at 7:40 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 12, 1986 Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Road intersection. A continued public hearing. P1'anner Enger reviewed the revisions made to the plans since the previous meeting of April 28, 1986. He noted that the proponents were requesting that the side yard setbacks for the development, normally set as a minimum of 10 ft. on one side with a total of 25 ft. for both sides, be changed to a minimum of 5 ft. on one side with a total of 25 ft. for both sides. The purpose for this requested variance to the side yard setback requirements was to make the greatest effort at saving trees on the property. Planner Enger stated that Staff felt the requested variance was warranted considering the number of trees on the property. In addition, proponents were requesting a variance to allow for 25 ft. front yard setbacks, instead of 30 ft. front yard setbacks, in order to keep the structures and building areas farther away from the steep -slope at the 'back of the lots. Staff was also recommending in favor of this requested variance. Ruebling asked if the lots along Purgatory Creek still required variances from the Shoreland Management provisions of the City Code. Planner Enger explained that revisions had been made to the plat design whereby the previously requested Shoreland Management variances were . no longer necessary. Mr. Bob Millier, 8900 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern regarding the impact of the development on wildlife and trees in the area. He asked about the proposed price of the homes. Mr. Boyce responded that the homes would cost between $150-200,000. Mr. Millier asked how many of the existing trees would be removed. Mr. Dennis Marhula, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed grading plan with Mr. Millier, pointing out the areas of trees which would be preserved. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres, for Westover Woods, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 12, 1986 Development Concept Amendment on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 11.9 acres, for Westover Woods, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 39 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A • continued public hearing. Planner Uram reviewed the revisions to the plans which had taken place since the meeting of April 28, 1986. Mr. Dan O'Brien, architect for proponents, reviewed the changes to the architecture of the plans, indicating the types of materials to be used on the structures, and explaining the screening features. He also reviewed the proposed signage for the structures in detail. It was noted that one of the materials for use on the exterior of the structure would be epoxy paint. Bye asked if each business would be using similar lettering in their signs. Mr. O'Brien responded that the type of materials and amount of area for signs used by the individual businesses would be similar; however, each business would be allowed to use its own logo according to their current signage plan. Bye stated that she did not feel this was the most appropriate way to handle the signage based on view of this method of signage shown on the elevations by the architects. She suggested that the signage area would be easier to read, less congested, if the businesses were required to use similar lettering, or more uniform lettering styles. Mr. O'Brien stated that this was something that the owners could consider. Gartner asked if traffic to the fast-food restaurant could be controlled in the future in the event that a drive-through window was requested to be added back into the plans in the future. Planner Enger stated that this was a matter of concern to the Staff during initial review of the project. He that the resolution to the problem for this revision to the plan was to eliminate the drive-through. However, if a request for a drive-through was presented in the future, the same traffic problems would be present. Gartner asked if the proponents would be required to return to the Planning Commission and City Council if a request for the addition of a drive-through Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 12, 1986 for the fast-food restaurant was made in the future. Planner Enger responded that this would be the case. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anderson Lakes Center Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a commercial center, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anderson Lakes Center Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into three lots and two outlots for construction of a commercial center, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 C. TOWNHOMES OF LINDEN POND, by Schell Builders, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.36 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.87 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.36 acres into five lots and one outlot for construction of 44 condominium units. Location: South and east of Edenvale Boulevard and west of Woodland Drive. A public hearing. Mr. K. E. Schumacher, representing Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, owners of the property, reviewed the background of development in this area of the Edenvale Planned Unit Development since the early 1970's. He indicated that only 59% of the property was being used for construction of the proposed development. He stated that there was a precedence for multiple family development- along Edenvale Boulevard, but pointed out that the developments were generally lower in density than the densities originally approved by the Edenvale Planned Unit Development years ago. Mr. Bob Roscoe, architect for proponents, reviewed the proposed units for Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 12, 1986 i the property. He explained how the units would fit into the topography of the site and discussed access to the property. He added that the majority of the trees lost with grading would be replaced in the landscape plan. Mr. Roscoe pointed out that 18 of the units would be visible from Woodland Drive. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986, with the Commission. He stated that Staff did not feel that the proponents had offered a compelling reason for amendment of the Comprehensive Guide Plan for this property. He noted that was possible that multiple family structures may be the best type of structures for the site, given the pond, trees, and slopes on the property. However, the plan, as proposed, indicated the loss of 480 of the 600 caliper inches of trees in the southeast portion of the property. Planner Franzen also discussed transition to adjacent properties, additional plantings needed on the site to meet landscape code requirements, and access to the site from public roads. Dodge asked if the traffic report done for the project indicated whether the projected 80% of the traffic for Edenvale Boulevard would be heading north, or south. Planner Franzen stated that the report did not indicate which direction on Edenvale Boulevard would be most used, but that it was assumed that the majority of the trips would be northbound for employment centers. a Hallett asked when the Comprehensive Guide Plan had been altered to indicate the property for Low Density Residential use, versus Medium Density Residential use. Planner Enger responded that this was done in 1980, during the updating of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Hallett asked how long the existing homes had been in the area. Planner Enger stated that the majority of the homes had been built at least five years ago, or more. He noted one exception on the east side of Woodland Drive, which was approximately two years old. He added that the majority of the homes were built with the understanding that this property would be developed as Low Density Residential in density, based on the Comprehensive Guide, Plan. Gartner stated that she felt it was important that the residents be able to rely on the integrity of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Mark Theno, 6833 Woodland Drive, expressed concern about the proposed access to the property from Woodland Drive. He stated that he was concerned about the amount of traffic which would be added to Woodland Drive as a result of this development. He also expressed concern about the potential for lowering of the property values by allowance of a multiple family development in a single family neighborhood. Mr. Gary D. Johnson, 15020 Ironwood Court, stated that he felt the land use designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan should not be changed from Low Density Residential to Multiple Family Residential . He also expressed concern that the proposed plan would result in the elimination of too many of the trees on the property, and agreed with the previous speaker regarding traffic concerns. Mr. Henry Fischer, 15100 Ironwood Court, stated that he concurred with the concerns of the previous speakers, adding that he was also concerned about Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 12, 1986 the wild life in the area and the loss of this area for their food and shelter. Mr. Fischer indicated concern for the volume of surface drainage which would result from this multiple residential plan that may interfere with the quality of water in the ponding area shown on the property. He concluded by stating that he felt the property should be constructed as a single family development. Mr. Jerry Peters, 15060 Ironwood Court, stated that he concurred with the concerns of the previous speakers and that he felt strongly that the property should be developed as a Low Density Residential use. Mr. Glenn Kertel, 14960 Ironwood Court, expressed concern about what he considered to be a significant number of trees already removed from the property. He also expressed concern about the ability of the trees planned for the perimeter of the site to effectively screen the development from the adjoining neighborhood, considering the topography of the site. Mr. Roscoe reviewed the grading and tree preservation plans for the property. He explained that the plan would require approximately 12,000 more cubic yards of fill than had already been placed on the property. Mr. Roscoe stated that in order to develop the property as single family residential, even more fill would be required. Mr. Kertel stated that he felt it would be difficult to screen the • architecture with the proposed perimeter plantings proposed. He also expressed concern regarding potential traffic problems and the possible loss of wild life in the area. Mr. Jeff Miller, 15915 Ironwood Court, stated that he agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers and that he would prefer the property be developed as single family residential. He added that he felt the access to the property should be only from Edenvale Boulevard. Ms. Marilyn Boeckerman, 14980 Ironwood Court, expressed concern regarding the potential traffic problems in the area. She cited several examples of "near miss" automobile incidents in the area and expressed concern about the younger children in the area and the possibility jeopardizing their safety by adding an access to the property at Woodland Drive. Mr. Bill Fisher, 6709 Vermar Terrace, indicated that he concurred with the previous speakers. He questioned how the pond on the property would be maintained. He also expressed concern for the potential of flooding in the area with the added impervious surface of this development. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt the transition shown between the proposed development and the existing residential developments was poor. Ms. Terry Johnson, 15020 Ironwood Court, stated that the school bus stop was currently located at the corner of Ironwood Court and Woodland Drive, with approximately 40 children using the bus stop in the morning. She stated that she felt the corner was already an unsafe corner in that people did not stop at the corner now, but often went through it, instead. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in this situation. Ms. Johnson also noted that there were no sidewalks in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 12, 1986 Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the wild life using the ondin area and p 9 p 9 treed portions of the property. She stated that there were no erosion control devices used at the time the fill was placed on the property and questioned what type of damage this may cause to the pond and the wild life. Ms. Susan Shannon, 15005 Ironwood Court, stated that she agreed with the concerns of Ms. Boeckerman, regarding the safety of children in the area. She stated that she was concerned about the children reaching play areas, as well , without sidewalks. Ms. Shannon stated that it appeared to her that fill would be required even to install sidewalks on the property proposed for development. Mr. Bill Shannon, 15005 Ironwood Court, stated that development of this property would increase the population of this area by 20-30%. He asked how such things as snow removal would be handled now, since the majority of the snow was placed on this property in the past. Mr. Shannon also statd that he did not feel the proposed use would require screening from the adjacent existing neighborhoods if it were a proper use of the property. Mr. Kurt W. Pegors, 6644 Kara Drive, expressed concern for the amount of through-traffic this would represent through his neighborhood, which was currently used as a short-cut due to existing traffic problems in the City. Mr. Steven Hackett, 6880 Hallmark Drive, stated that he had moved into the area to get away from traffic problems. He noted his concerns for the safety of children in the area due to the potential traffic problems, adding that he felt that there was enough multiple family residential development in this area. Mr. Hackett also expressed concern regarding the loss of trees and the displacement of wild life. Mr. Mike Svobodny, 15045 Ironwood Court, stated that he concurred with previous speakers regarding traffic concerns. Mr. Regan Massee, 15571 Michele Lane, expressed concern about the potential of devaluation of properties in this area if multiple family residential development were allowed. Ms. Susan Hartjes, 14879 Hickory Court, stated that she agreed with previous speakers regarding traffic concerns, safety concerns, and environmental issues. She stated that she, too, was concerned about the potential devaluation of her property if multiple family residential development were allowed. Mr. Jack Burklund, 6823 Woodland Drive, stated that his observation was that multiple family developments had access to major roads in the community, such as Valley View Road, County Road A, etc. He cited several examples of such developments. Mr. Burklund stated that he felt it was inappropriate for this development to be proposing access to Woodland Drive, which was not a major road in the community. He also noted that this would be the only multiple family residential development on the east side of Edenvale Boulevard north of the Cedar Point development, and that every other development was single family up to and beyond that point. Mr. Shannon noted that a portion of Edenvale Boulevard was still gravel and Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 12, 1986 questioned whether it could support additional traffic at this time. Jack McCoskey, an elementary school student, asked questions about the railroad bridge in the area, the potential for detours of traffic, and the possibility of acid rain from the industrial plant in the area. Planner Enger explained the progress of roads in the area and noted that the industrial plant had been not been considered a pollution source for some time. Chairman Schuck noted that a letter had been received from the Pratt family at 6701 Vermar Terrace and that the City had received a phone call from Gerry McCoy regarding concerns about the development, all of which had been discussed by previous speakers. Gartner asked about the grading permit which had been issued for the property by the City Council . Planner Enger explained the procedure. Dodge stated that she did not feel it was appropriate to recommend in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment without some benefit being received by the City. She stated that she did not see the benefit here and suggested that the proponents should perhaps consider a single family residential plan for the property. Mr. Schumacher responded that a single family residential development would require substantially more tree loss on the property. Dodge asked about the proposed improvements to Valley View Road. Planner Enger stated that the improvement'to Valley View Road had been delayed due to the decisions regarding the railroad, or "graffitti," bridge. He stated that there was considerable cost to the railroad in abandoning the track, but that these costs were being compared to the construction of a new bridge. The road was currently scheduled for improvements to begin in the summer of 1986, with completion approximately one year later. Hallett asked if the granting of a grading permit by the City Council could also allow the importing of fill . Planner Enger responded that this was a possibility. Hallett stated that he was concerned about the potential tree loss with the proposed 44 units. He suggested that multiple family may be the proper unit type for the property, adding that he felt the density must be decreased to make the project work, however. Bye stated that she concurred that clustering of units could be beneficial in terms of saving site features, but that she did not feel this had been shown in the proposed development. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Schell Builders, Inc., for Comprehensive Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 12, 1986 Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Mediu m Density Residential because proponents have not provided a compelling rason for amending the plan, the impact upon the site features such as the trees, pond, and wild life would be significant, and the transition to the existing adjoining uses is not sufficient. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Schell Builders, Inc., for rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 4.87 acres for the Townhomes of Linden Ponds, because of inadequate transition to adjacent existing developments and impact on the natural site features. Motion carried--7-0-0 D. PRAIRIE COURTS, by Ronald A. Christenson. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into one lot for construction of a • 32,000 square foot commercial center. Location: East of County Road #4, north and west of Wagner Way. A public hearing. Mr. John Uban, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the property. He noted that service for the structure would be from the rear portion of the building, out of view, through a corridor along the back of the structure. He stated that the landscaping at the north edge of the property would be increased, per the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. Mr. Gary Vogel, architect for proponent, reviewed the structural design and materials for the proposed development. He indicated how each of the four modules of the building would be coordinated. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. He noted that one of the major concerns of Staff was that of traffic due to the unimproved condition of the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 at the southwest portion of the property. According to Hennepin County Transportation Department, work that was to have been completed this year would not begin until 1988 by current plans. Planner Franzen stated that screening of the property from adjacent uses was also a matter of concern for this development. Hallett expressed concern about the impact of this development upon the traffic at Highway #5 and County Road #4. He stated that he felt the City should perhaps conduct a traffic study of this intersection to determine whether it would be able to handle the traffic from any additional development in this vicinity, before any future developments were approved in this area. Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 12, 1986 Dodge asked if a signalized intersection would be art of the improvements 9 9 p p considered for the intersection of Wagner Way and County Road #4. Planner Enger explained that the County did not have a signalized intersection for Wagner Way and County Road #4 in its designs. He noted that Staff was concerned mostly about the P. M. traffic situation, typically the most congested part of the day. Planner Enger stated that Staff has suggested additional traffic study be made of the intesection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 by the proponent in order to determine the exact impact of this development. Without the traffic study, Staff was inclined to recommend against any further development in this area until the intersection improvements were under construction. Ruebling asked for details of the proposed improvements to this area. Planner Enger explained that there were four lanes in each direction proposed, including turn lanes in all directions. Dodge stated that she concurred with Hallett's concerns about traffic congestion in this area. She stated that she also questioned the need for additional neighborhood commercial development, as proposed by the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, in this area, noting the other commercial services across County Road #4 and at Valley View Road. Mr. Uban explained that this development would be providing some uses which did not exist in either of these two locations at this time. • Hallett stated that he felt the development was an attractive one, but that he was concerned about recommending approval of any uses until the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 was improved. Ruebling asked about the adequacy of the turning radius at the northwest corner of the proposed development for the use by trucks to obtain access to the rear service corridor. Mr. Uban stated that proponents would check to be certain that it was adequate in size. Mr. Doug Chesney, 16272 Sheldon Avenue, expressed concern for the impact of traffic from this development on the already congested intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4. He also expressed concern about the potential for traffic from this development circulating through his single family neighborhood to the north. Mr. Chesney stated that he did not feel the roads through his neighborhood were wide enough to handle any additional traffic. Mr. Walt Lusian, 16275 Sheldon Avenue, stated that he had bought his lot depending on the use of this property being office, as designated by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that he felt the commercial use would encourage a different type of traffic for this neighborhood and that the traffic would tend to have a greater impact on his residential neighborhood. Mr. Lusian stated that there were alerady many small children living in this area, and suggested the use of signs, or knock-down barriers at the road access to the residential neighborhood in order to prevent its use by patrons of the commercial businesses. Planner Enger explained that the City had experienced greater problems with knock-down barriers and that Staff was no longer recommending the use of such barriers due to these problems. Ruebling stated that he concurred with the concerns about traffic and Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 12, 1986 th there a need for additional commercial development in this area whether er was p , considering the status of the existing commercial development on the west side of County Road #4. He also expressed concern for adequate transition to the single family neighborhood to the north. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye,to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planner Enger noted that a traffic study could possibly be available within four-six weeks if the Commission wanted additional information. Regarding the land use, Planner Enger noted that the proposed structure was designed to work for either office, or commercial uses, and likely would attract more office uses, due to its design. Therefore, the uses would not be likely to be the same as those existing in the area at this time. He reiterated that the biggest concern of the Staff was that of traffic. Transition was the other major concern, particularly to the existing single family neighborhood to the north. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to return the item to the proponent, without prejudice, pending resolution of the traffic concerns as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Dodge against) Dodge stated that she voted against as she was concerned about the traffic in this area, but also, she questioned the need for additional commercial development in this vicinity and did not see a compelling reason for amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan from the designated Office use. E. EMMA COVE ADDITION, by Robert R. Gersbach. Request for Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Baywood Lane, West of County Road #4, north and east of Duck Lake. A public hearing. Mr. Bob Smith, engineer for proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and design features of the plan. Planner Uram reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. Mr. David Ziegler, 16729 Baywood Terrace, indicated concern about the storm water drainage for the development and how it might impact his property, which currently had standing water on it and was not draining adequately. Mr. Robert Gersbach, proponent, stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Ziegler to mitigate this situation during the construction process. Mr. Smith noted that one other neighbor was concerned about the setback of one of the homes to an existing home. The building pad had been altered slightly, still meeting City requirements, in order to mitigate that neighbor's concern according to Mr. Smith. Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 12, 1986 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Robert R. Gersbach for Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot, based on plans dated April 21, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS Memorial Day Meeting It was noted that the regular meeting of the fourth Monday in May fell on Memorial Day, a legal holiday. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1986, to handle regular Planning Commission business normally scheduled for the second meeting in May. Motion carried--7-0-0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.