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.