Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/14/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 14, 1986 •30 p.m. COMMISSION 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. STARING PINES ADDITION, by Jerry Krebsbach. Request for Preliminary Plat of .63 acres with right-of-way into three, R1-22 single family lots. Location: West of East Staring Lane. A public hearing. (7:50) B. MEADOWPARK 2ND ADDITION, by Spuds, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Fire Station on 3.28 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.84 acres and from Rural to Public on 3.28 acres with Preliminary Plat of 9.12 acres into 8 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of 7 single family lots and Fire Station. Location: East of Homeward Hills Road, south of Sunnybrook Road. A public hearing. (8:15) ' C. PRIMETECH PHASE III, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to Office with variances on 5.86 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.86 acres into one lot for construction of a five-story office building. Location: West of Highway #169, east of City West Parkway. A public hearing. (8:45) D. MINNETONKA STATE BANK, by Robert R. Copeland and Raymond 0. Mithun. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on 3.458 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.458 acres into one lot for construction of a bank building. Location: Northeast corner of Highway #5 and County Road #4. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code. VI . NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT W. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 14, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck Ruebling MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. 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 Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the agenda, as printed. . Motion carried--6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of the June 23, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Gartner abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. STARING PINES ADDITION, by Jerry Krebsbach. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.63 acres with right-of-way into three, R1-22 single family lots. Location: West of East Staring Lane. A public hearing. Mr. Frank Cardarelle, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed plat with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of July 11, 1986. Gartner asked if homes could be constructed without sewer or water to this • property. Planner Uram explained that the R1-22 District " was the only zoning district in which this was allowed, other than the Rural District. He added that little grading would be necessary in order for homes to be built. Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 14, 1986 Mr. Douglas Olsen, 9030 West Staring Lane, stated that all of the lots within this area were approximately one acre in size, or greater. He stated that he would prefer to see two lots developed on this property, instead of three. He added that he would also like to see a height restriction on the homes to be built for no more than one and one-half stories. Planner Uram stated that the maximum structure height allowed in the R1-22 District was 30 ft. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jerry Krebsbach for Preliminary Plat of 1.63 acres for three lots to be known as the Staring Pines Addition, based on plans dated June 17, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986. MMotion carried--6-0-0 B. MEADOWPARK 2ND ADDITION, by Spuds, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Fire Station on 3.28 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.84 acres and from Rural to Public on 3.28 acres with Preliminary Plat of 9.12 acres into 8 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of 7 single family lots and Fire Station. Location: East of Homeward Hills Road, north of Sunnybrook Road. A public hearing. Mr. Harold Peterson, representing proponents, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He pointed out that the plat was needed in order to clear up property boundaries, to deed back excess right-of-way, and to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for Homeward Hills Road. He explained that utilities were available to the proposed lots, including the lot in the south portion of the proposed development which had been designated for the fire station. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of July 11, 1986. He noted that some filling on the property would be required in order to correct poor drainage conditions for some of the lots in the north portion of the proposed development. Anderson asked about any restrictions that may exist due to the close proximity of the lots to the electric power lines along the west side of Homeward Hills Road. It was pointed out that no permanent structures were allowed within 62.5 feet of the power lines. Mr. Peterson stated that the only site impacted by this requirement would be the site designated for the fire station. He added that it would be possible for landscaping, or a parking lot, to be located within the 62.5 feet. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 14, 1986 Gartner asked if the site designated for the fire station was large enough to accommodate the facility, given the easement for the power line. Planner Franzen explained that it was large enough. He added that it would be possible to locate a structure within the 62.5 foot easement, if the structure were constructed with a two-hour fire rating, which was the intention of the City. Ruebling asked if the square footage requirements for the fire station were known. Planner Franzen responded that the proposal was for two, or three, bays, plus necessary office and storage areas. Gartner asked what the proponent would be able to build on the site if it were zoned for a fire station and the fire station was not built in this location. Mr. Peterson responded that the City currently owned that piece of property. Mrs. Lovene Russell , 12101 Sunnybrook Road, stated that a portion of the creek crossed Sunnybrook Road and that it backed up on occasion, causing flooding of the area. She asked if this would be dealt with during construction of this development. Mr. Peterson responded that the single family lots would be graded to drain to a culvert in Homeward Hills Road. Planner Franzen added that the water then drained toward Sunnybrook Road. He stated that it would be possible to mitigate this matter with the • Engineering Department, prior to City Council review. Mr. Adam Lewis, 9031 Larkspur Lane, stated that he was concerned about the safety of children walking to school if a fire station were located in this area. He asked why the fire station was being located within a residential area. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that there was a sidewalk along the entire length of Homeward Hills Road from Sunnybrook Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. He added that the fire station location was chosen by the Site Selection Committee as being the best available location to service the most people. Mr. Chuck Peterson, 9036 Larkspur Lane, stated that he was concerned about existing assessments on the property proposed to be added to his lot, potential future assessments for Homeward Hills Road, and the drainage of the west side of his lot. Planner Franzen stated that it was City policy to assess a residential user for only one street frontage, regardless of the number of street frontages on the lot. He stated that he was unaware of any future assessments for Homeward Hills Road, and pointed out that any future assessments would be prefaced by public hearings. Planner Franzen stated that the drainage problem at the west side of the lot would be mitigated by the fill proposed to be added in that area, which would be reviewed with the final grading plans submitted by the proponent. Mr. Peterson asked if it would be possible to contact him before the final plans were drawn in order that he would be aware of what was proposed for his property. Planner Franzen stated that he expected that the contractor for the grading work would contact the Petersons directly. Mr. Jeff Lentsch, 9017 Larkspur Lane, asked what considerations had been given to minimization of the noise from the fire station. Commissioner Bye stated that she lived on a street similar to Homeward Hills Road and was Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 14, 1986 aware that the policy for operation of emergency vehicles in that residential area was that the vehicles use lights, instead of sirens, when passing through the neighborhood. Planner Franzen stated that this would be the case in this neighborhood as well, based on conversations he had with the Fire Marshall. He stated that the emergency vehicles would also take into consideration the amount of traffic at any particular time of day in deciding whether sirens were necessary, or not. Mr. Peterson expressed concern for the amount of speeding which currently occurred on Homeward Hills Road. He stated that he would like to see more enforcement of the speed limit in this neighborhood. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: . Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend approval of the request of Spuds, Inc., for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Fire Station for 3.28 acres, based on plans dated June 23, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the added provision that the fire station be built outside of the electrical powerline easement. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Spuds, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 5.84 acres and from Rural to Public for 3.28 acres, for construction of seven single family lots and a fire station, to be known as Meadow Park 2nd Addition, based on plans dated June 23, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the added provision that the fire station be built outside of the electric powerline easement. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Spuds, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 9.12 • acres into eight lots and one outlot for construction of seven single family lots and a fire station, to be known as Meadow Park 2nd Addition, based on plans dated June 23, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the added provision that the fire station be built outside of the electric powerline easement. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 14, 1986 i C. PRIMETECH PHASE III, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to Office with variances on 5.86 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.86 acres into one lot for construction of a five-story office building. Location: West of Highway #169, east of City West Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Ron Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed site plan, architecture, and landscaping for the development. He also explained how the project related to the other existing uses within Primetech Park. Referring to the Staff Report of July 11, 1986, Mr. Erickson stated that he felt the recommended changes of Staff could be worked out prior to Council review. He stated that proponents would prefer to work out the landscaping details with the Staff, instead of making the exact changes referred to in the Staff Report. Planner Uram stated that this would be acceptable to the Staff upon recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Erickson stated that he felt the recommendations regarding the retaining wall were also matters which could be worked out with the Staff. Planner Uram concurred. Mr. Erickson asked about the requirement for the details of materials to be . used for screening of mechanical equipment. Planner Franzen stated that the plans submitted by proponent did not reflect the location of the mechanical equipment as being inside the building, outside of the building, ground mounted, or roof mounted. He stated that at least that much detail would be necessary and that the proponents could propose a type of screening material to be compatible with the materials used on the exterior of the structure. Mr. Erickson stated that this would be submitted prior to Council review of the project. Planner Franzen pointed out that there were two purposes for the use of landscaping as required by the City Code: One was for the purpose of aesthetic quality for development in the City; the second was for screening purposes. He pointed out that the chart in the Code, which was often referred to by proponents of various projects, was a chart used to set aesthetic quality for developments. However, meeting this requirement of the Code did not necessarily assure that the screening requirement would be met. Planner Franzen stated that this was the case with the proposed development. Bye stated that she supported the Staff recommendations regarding screening for the proposed development. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or 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--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 14, 1986 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, with variances, for Primetech Phase III for construction of a five-story office building, based on plans dated June 27, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the modification that landscaping for the development be worked out with the Staff prior to Council review. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Preliminary Plat of 5.86 acres into one lot for Primetech Phase III for construction of a five-story office building, based on plans dated June 27, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the modification that landscaping for the development be worked out with the Staff prior to Council review. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. MINNETONKA STATE BANK, by Robert R. Copeland and. Raymond 0. Mithun. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on 3.458 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.458 acres into one lot for construction of a bank building. Location: Northeast corner of Highway #5 and County Road #4. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, stated that the recommendations of the Staff Report of July 11, 1986, were acceptable to the proponents. He asked for clarification of item #4 with respect to the traffic improvements necessary prior to construction. He asked whether the "interim improvements," or the "permanent improvements" were to be required prior to construction. Mr. Brauer stated that he felt the City would find it beneficial to request the interim improvements to the State and County officials on this matter, instead of the developers making such a request. Mr. Nick Ruehl, architect for proponents, reviewed the site plan for the proposed bank/office facility, explained the phasing of the construction, and presented the landscaping and exterior materials proposed for the development. He noted that, while the second phase of the structure would . be three stories in height, the highest elevation of the structure would be that of the two-story first phase. The third floor of the second phase would actually be at a lower elevation than the lowest floor of the first phase due to the topography of the site. Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 14, 1986 Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of July 11, 1986. He noted that Staff was concerned about perimeter screening of the property to meet the screening requirements of City Code. With respect to the landscaping on the property for purposes of provision of green space, the proposal met, or exceeded, Code requirements. Planner Franzen pointed out that the elevation of the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 was higher than the site, itself; therefore, Staff recommended additional plant materials to screen the parking from the road per Code requirements. With respect to clarification of the need for traffic improvements prior to construction, Planner Franzen stated that the traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates indicated that there could be sufficient improvement to the traffic situation to allow for the first phase of this use and the proposed Prairie Courts commercial use with interim improvements. He stated that Staff was looking to the Commission for recommendation on this prior to action by the Council . Planner Franzen added that it would be beneficial for the City to initiate contact with the necessary agencies for the proposed split phasing of the signals at the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 in order to improve the traffic situation. Gartner asked if the split phasing of the signal could be accomplished immediately, instead of waiting for the development of this property. Planner Franzen stated that this would have to be discussed with the agencies involved. Currently, the State of Minnesota controlled the signal at the Highway County Road #4 intersection. He added that the State would have to decide how much stacking of traffic they would be willing to allow for Highway #5. Gartner asked what uses were proposed for the second phase of construction of the building proposed. Mr. Ruehl responded that the structure would be used for leased office space. Ruebling asked about the difference between the recommendation made on previous proposals in the Gonyea 4th Addition Planned Unit Development, which were made subject to full improvements taking place at the intersection, and this proposal, which suggested that interim improvements would provide an adequate solution to the traffic problems at the intersection. Planner Franzen stated that the difference was that the City had received the information from the traffic study, which had not been available during review of previous proposals. He added that Staff had recommended that such a traffic study be conducted previously; however, the developers for the property had not provided the information until this time. Dodge asked what uses had been considered in preparation of the traffic study. Planner Franzen stated that the traffic consultants had considered • full development of the commercial Prairie Courts development, the first phase of the bank proposal, and full development of all other uses within the Gonyea 4th Addition Planned Unit Development, which included the 112 apartment units and the single family development in the north half of the property. Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 14, 1986 Dodge asked if there would be a significant difference in the traffic situation if the signals were changed to a split phasing timing and no further development was allowed at this time. Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and Associates, stated that the traffic study did not consider this as an alternative. He stated that he felt it may improve the situation by one level of service. Mr. Wonson explained that the study assumed that State of Minnesota would approve the proposed split phasing of the signal at the intersection. There was a question remaining as to whether the electronics existed within the current signal to handle split phasing at this time. If not, there may be additional cost involved in order to upgrade the signal to provide for split phasing. Gartner stated that she felt the process for split phasing of the signal should be started immediately, regardless of development within the Gonyea 4th Addition Planned Unit Development. Dodge concurred, stating that the City had been informed that the full improvements to the intersection would not take place until 1988, and the traffic situation was already difficult in this area. Bye stated that she concurred that the interim improvements to the intersection should be started immediately. Mr. Doug Chesney, 16272 Sheldon Avenue, stated that he was concerned about traffic in his neighborhood. He stated that it was difficult, currently, to make a left turn from Wagner Way. He noted that it was equally difficult to do so from the existing shopping center to the west. Mr. Chesney stated that he felt this made the use of Sheldon Avenue, a single family residential street, very attractive. Mr. Chesney indicated that his biggest concern was the safety of children in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Walt Lusian, 16275 Sheldon Avenue, stated that he shared the concerns of Mr. Chesney. He asked about the results of the traffic study as affected Sheldon Avenue. Mr. Wonson stated that the study of Sheldon Avenue was based on certain assumptions: 1) that there would be a free right-turn lane at Wagner Way for northbound traffic out of the commercial area; and, 2) that the interim improvements to the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 would be accomplished. He stated that, based on those assumptions, and other information from the traffic study, approximately 30% of the traffic generated by the shopping center/bank development would be headed northbound out of the area. Mr. Wonson stated that the traffic study reviewed the access points to County Road #4 from this development and found that the access at Wagner Way was clearly a shorter access to County Road #4 than Sheldon Avenue for traffic from the bank. For traffic from the shopping center, Prairie Courts, the Wagner Way route was also shorter than using Sheldon Avenue, although Sheldon Avenue was more accessible from the • shopping center, than the bank. Mr. Wonson stated that the greatest use of Sheldon Avenue would be from the apartment complexes proposed just north of Highway #5. It was determined that approximately 10%, or 75 trips, would be generated on Sheldon Avenue Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 14, 1986 during the peak hour, with approximately half of these trips generated by people living in the Sheldon Avenue neighborhood. Approximately 750 trips were expected on Sheldon Avenue on a daily basis. Mr. Lusian asked if Sheldon Avenue was wide enough to handle this amount of traffic. Mr. Wonsan responded that the average residential street was designed to handle 1,000 trips per day; therefore, Sheldon Avenue, as built, should be able to handle this volume of traffic. Dodge asked why the connection of Sheldon Avenue to Wagner Way was allowed in the original Planned Unit Development for this property. Planner Franzen explained that the subdivisions to the east of the property had not ever provided for extension of public roads into this property, which hindered the ability to provide for circulation of traffic in this neighborhood. He also explained that the City Council had adopted a policy of providing for circulation within neighborhoods for safety purposes, as well, to allow for at least two access points into a neighborhood for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the connection of the streets was deemed necessary in this situation. Dodge asked if it would be possible to close the intersection of Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way at this time. Planner Franzen stated that the Commission may wish to make such a recommendation to the City Council . He . stated that the use of temporary, or knock-down, barriers had been studied in the City. It was found that these barriers were ineffective and often ignored by drivers. One-way signs had also been suggested as a means of controlling traffic. Planner Franzen stated that the use of any of these alternatives would alter the results of the traffic study. Gartner stated that she felt people would use Sheldon Avenue as an exit from the commercial area if it meant avoiding the blocked traffic situation which currently existed at Wagner Way/Main Street and County Road #4. Ruebling stated that he felt the traffic study pointed out the difficulty of making a left-turn onto County Road #4 during the peak hour. He expressed concern that the traffic situation in this area was already difficult and that the construction of additional projects in this area would appear to worsen the situation. Gartner asked if it would be feasible to require that the Prairie Village Mall shopping center traffic (the development west of the proposed development) not be allowed to make left-turns north onto County Road #4 from the access across from Wagner Way. Planner Franzen responded that this was a possibility, but that it may create a difficult situation for the truck loading area between this access point and the access point further to the north for the Prairie Village Mall . Ruebling expressed concern that the interim improvements would only provide relief for the current situation, without the additional development in the . area. He also questioned whether the interim improvements would forestall permanent improvements to the intersection. Mr. Wonson stated that the construction of right-turn lanes would alleviate the stacking of traffic in this vicinity. He noted that the traffic seemed Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 14, 1986 to arrive at the intersection in groups of cars, that there was not a steady, constant stream of cars through this intersection. He stated that he would anticipate that traffic would be backed up past the intersection at Wagner Way only once per hour after interim improvements were made. Ruebling stated that he concurred with the concerns of other commissioners with respect to the impact of traffic on Sheldon Avenue residents. Mr. Wonson stated that the City could consider the fact that the numbers indicated in the traffic study for the amount of traffic that would be using this intersection during the peak hour were based on full development. He pointed out that the permanent improvements to the intersection were planned in 1988 and that the construction of the developments proposed would likely not take place until mid-1987. In addition, it would likely take some time for the commercial uses to become known and used to the capacities shown in the traffic study. Therefore, the worst-case situation represented by the traffic study would probably not take place until the State and County were ready to install the permanent improvements to this intersection. Dodge stated that she was also concerned about the impact of traffic on this intersection twenty years from now. She that, with all the development that had already taken place within the past two years in this area, the proposed development at this intersection, and the future development of the western • portion of Eden Prairie, she was concerned that even the permanent improvements to the intersection would be adequate to handle traffic in this area. Planner Franzen stated that level of service C was predicted until the year 2005 with the permanent improvements to this intersection that would be constructed by the State and County. Dodge asked if that took into account full development of this area of the community. Planner Franzen stated that the State used the City's land use information to design such improvements, but, more importantly to them, took into account how much traffic would be routed through the intersection to other areas such as Chanhassen. Ruebling stated that he felt a knock-down barrier may be a reasonable alternative for the intersection of Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way. Dodge stated that she, too, felt this should be considered as an alternative. Gartner stated that she felt the intersection of Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way should be closed until such time as the permanent improvements were made to the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road A. Ruebling, Dodge, and Chairman Schuck concurred. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Copeland and Mithun for Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 14, 1986 Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on 3.45 acres, for the Minnetonka State Bank, based on revised plans dated July 11, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986,with the following additions: Item #4 of the Staff Report be clarified to mean that the interim improvements to the Highway County Road #4 intersection be implemented and include split phasing of the signals at the intersection and a free right-turn lane at Wagner Way for northbound traffic. Further, that the intersection of Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way be closed to traffic until such time as permanent improvements are made to the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4, currently planned for 1988. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Anderson and Dodge against) Anderson stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to ask the residents in the Sheldon Avenue area to shoulder the burden of this volume of traffic, especially considering the safety of children in the neighborhood. He stated that he did not believe the interim improvements would be adequate to mitigate the situation until permanent improvements were made. Dodge stated that she concurred with Anderson, adding that she felt it was important to be consistent with the action recommended for the Prairie Courts development, north of this site. She added that she felt the interim . improvements should be made at this time, without the additional development taking place until permanent improvements were installed at the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was a matter of degree of impact and that the new information provided by the traffic study was adequate to persuade him to vote differently on this proposal than the Prairie Courts proposal . The traffic information was not available for review at the time of the Prairie Courts review by the Commission. Bye stated that the City was in a difficult position, not having an adequate road system in place to handle the proposed development. She pointed out that it was because of the additional development in the community that the City was now able to receive funding that the City was not eligible for previously. Bye added that the state legislature was responsible for allocation of funding and suggested that the City contact legislators, too, regarding this matter. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was important that the Council be aware of the Commission's concerns regarding this area. He stated that it was clear that the development of this area was not recommended for approval by an overwhelming majority of the Commission and that there were reasons for concern about the traffic in this area. Dodge stated that she felt the site plan was sufficient, but that the traffic concerns were of greater concern in this situation. Anderson concurred. Mr. Brauer stated that he felt the development of this area may be the means by which the City could obtain the necessary improvements to the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 and suggested that the City Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 14, 1986 work with the developers of this area to encourage the early installation of the interim and permanent improvements to that intersection. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Copeland and Mithun for Preliminary Plat of 3.45 acres into one lot for construction of the Minnetonka State Bank, based on revised plans dated July 11, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 11, 1986, with the following additions: Item #4 of the Staff Report be clarified to mean that the interim improvements to the Highway County Road #4 intersection be implemented and include split phasing of the signals at the intersection and a free right-turn lane at Wagner Way for northbound traffic. Further, that the intersection of Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way be closed to traffic until such time as permanent improvements are made to the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4, currently planned for 1988. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Anderson and Dodge against) V. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code. • This item was continued from the June 23, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code with the Commission, explaining that the proposed changes were basically "housekeeping" items which the City has been implementing on the majority of the projects in the City. By making the amendments to the Code, the City would be in a position where less variances require processing by the Board of Appeals, and where items currently being implemented would be required of developers by virtue of being in the Code. MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed changes to Chapter 11 as presented. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Gartner abstained) VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.