Loading...
1985 05 22 e MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Members Present Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Howard Noziska staff Present Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Bill Monk, City Engineer, Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator and Vicki Churchill, secretary. OLD BUSINESS e Minnewashta Gate - Southwest Corner of Hwy. 41 and 7, Tomac Development, Todd Thompson, applicant a. Land Use Plan Amendment Request #85-2 to change Low Density Residential land use to Commercial. Public Present e Peter Thompson Bob Reutiman Todd B. Thompson Rick Sathre Jim Christenson Tom Kely Bob Scholer Pete & Kathy Throdahl Barb Wegner Linda Conner Louise Lehner Hud Hollenbach Richard Wing Kenneth W. Ziegler Roger & Kelly Ellsworth Sandra Lehner Bruce T. Mackedanz Agnes Anderson Don & Fayadel Dudycha Bill & Delores Ziegler Ralph & Kay Hegman 215 Barry Ave., Wayzata 5915 Galpin Lake Road 19050 Stratford Road 15311 Knob Hill Curve, Minnetonka 4444 IDS 7491 Saratoga Drive 7212 Frontier Trail 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive 2511 Orchard Lane 2521 Orchard Lane 6331 Fir Tree, Excelsior 6330 Elm Tree Ave. 3481 Shore Drive 6441 Oriole Ave. 6480 Oriole Ave. 6461 Oriole Ave. 2840 Washta Bay Road 6470 Oriole Ave. 6451 Oriole Ave. 6441 Oriole Ave. 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 2 Public Present (continued) George R. Thomas Allen Putnam Pat & Ginny Hanily James C. Majeres Rick Bateson Betty Lang Pat Huttner Dick & Yvonne Braun 8029 Cheyenne Ave. 6285 Chaska Road 2660 Orchard Lane 6450 Or iole Ave. 6440 Oriole Ave. 2631 Forest Ave. 6340 Forest Circle 2630 Orchard Lane Barbara Dacy: This item was tabled from the last meeting for primarily three issues. The first was the traffic issue wanting written information from MnDOT. Secondly, was some type of buf- fering plan and thirdly was some type of land use analysis for the adjacent properties. First, I would like to address the traffic issue. You have your packet a letter from Evan Green, the District Engineer from MnDOT, who has basically stated that the proposed plan has been considered and represented on this transparency meets the requirements of MnDOT; however, this plan that was reviewed by MnDOT is based on two very important con- ditions. One, that the developer made median improvements here and right turn improvements here. MnDOT will not bear the expense of these improvements. I want to back up a little bit and review some of the thought processes that went into the traf- fic design of this proposed plat. The City Engineer identified two important parameters that has been used to develop this plat. One is the separation of the new commercial area from the existing residential sector while maintaining all existing traf- fic patterns. Secondly, upgrading the T.H. 7 access situation to an acceptable safety level while not significantly impacting through traffic. I think it is general knowledge that the Oriole access for a left turning movement is not particularly safe. In trying to maintain access to 7 and 41, it was started out as a "T" shape intersection where Oriole would be closed, the access onto 7 and connecting into the proposed subdivision. However, this caused a concern because it would require the removal of this house and this would be located quite close to the ziegler home. Other options have been suggested by surrounding property owners. One is to completely separate the proposed commercial area from the residential area by keeping Oriole and, as one alternative, creating a cul-de-sac into the property. Staff has severe reservations about this proposed plan because there will be a certain amount of traffic leaving the commercial area that will want to go west on 7 and there will be commercial traffic going through the neighborhood, out onto Oriole and out onto 7. It has also been suggested that access be completely located from Hwy. 41. MnDOT, in your letter, has stated that first of all it would have to be located at least 600 feet from the intersection and secondly, 64th Street would have to be closed from the west. - e - Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 page 3 This option would also entail keeping Oriole Lane open. The reservation of the negative aspect of this option is that it does close off a secondary access into and out of the neighborhood and prevents access to 41 from the residential area over in here. Another option would be to eliminate the frontage road between Oriole and the proposed access, keep it on 7 as proposed by the applicants. However, for the neighborhood, they would have to use this route to get to 41. It has to be remembered, as pointed out by the City Engineer, that by closing Oriole and moving the intersection toward the east and by the requirement that the developer has to improve and make a right turn movement and make median improvements here, it would allow for a safer access from 7 into the area. There would be more area for a by pass lane. The next issue that I wanted to discuss was the buffering plan. The applicant is proposing that planting 60 six foot spruce along the lot line as well as accent plantings along the entrance to the proposed commercial area. As everyone will note there is a grade here, a hill at the rear of Ziegler's property, that hill will be maintained and retaining wall constructed to maintain this slope. The elevation of the property gradually drops as you proceed south. What is shown on this graphic is a conceptual sight line as seen from this house and this house down at the intersection of Oriole and 64th. If you were to stand at the rear of this house and look in this direction, the sight line would reveal that you would be able to see a roof of a one story building; however, down at the corner because the elevation drops the house down at the corner would be able to see a two story or one story building. It should be remembered that through the individual site plan process for these lots, that the city would have control as to place the location of the parking area and the building areas on site as well as additional screening and landscaping. The third issue that I wanted to address was the adjacent uses and land uses. This is the subject parcel right here. All of the area west of the intersection to the Chanhassen border is designated as Low Density. The Minnewashta Park is over here, the school site is over here. We have one non- conforming use, an office use, at the intersection of Orchard Lane and Hwy. 7. One of the former Planning Commission members brought to my attention that in 1974 the Planning Commission at that time did a land use study of this area. It was their recom- mendation at that time that this area be maintained as Low Density. This particular intersection was looked at previously before the 1974 study it was designated as service commercial. That particular study recommended that because of unknown impro- vements or when they would take place on Highway 7 and 41, that that area be medium density. Another important recommendation of that study done in 1974 was that low density designation should be maintained so that the city would have the additional control, so that there would be an additional step in the process, a guide plan amendment which we are considering tonight, that would e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 4 require additional review and that a new proposal would have to justify by its submission, applications and so on why that new use would be compatible with the adjacent properties. Of par- ticular concern and for some folks that have called me, is the notion or idea of creeping commercialism and I have distributed tonight a letter from Mr. Wagner who has reviewed the history of the old Baltic building that is now occupied by a travel agency. That is a non-conforming use, it zoned R-l and staff is not recommending that be commercial nor are we recommending that it have a commercial land use designation. Mr. Wagner does bring up that the landscaping that supposedly should have been installed last fall has not and I will be contacting the property owner and seeing to it that something is done as to what was supposed to be done and not completed. It is a non-conforming use as an office use. The city does have the right, if it is having an adverse impact on the adjacent property owners, we have a right to revoke the permit. Also looked at in the analysis was the property to the south of 64th street. It has been mentioned as part of these meetings that the site be used potentially for townhomes or some type of attached housing. Again, this mayor may not be compatible; however, we are not recommending a change in this designation to afford the city additional control through the land use plan amendment. Finally, this piece across the street which is formed by Hwy. 7 to the north, Chaska Road and Hwy. 41. There is two or three property owners and part of it is in the City of Shorewood and part of it is zoned R-3 which will allow two family homes. It has been suggested that if this parcel go commercial then this parcel should go to. However, staff is feeling that the parcel under question now offers more oppor- tunity for separation of commercial traffic than this does on its space. Traffic going east would undoubtedly have to use Chaska Road and that would be directing commercial traffic through the neighborhood, where as in this proposal you have an "s" type design connecting 7 to 41. There are also some topographical concerns that staff has. There are undulating low land areas in and around the intersection. The right turn lane for Hwy. 41 also borders the western lot line and I can't speak for MnDOT but I cannot imagine they would allow access onto a right turn lane. To summarize, we have three requests here tonight, a land use plan amendment request, a rezoning request, and a preliminary plat request. I just want to make clear that we are recommending designation of this site to commercial; however, we are not recommending the site here as commercial. We are recommending it remain as R-l. Bill Ryan: The issue has been before us before, it was tabled for three specific reasons, primarily we were waiting for a report from MnDOT. I will ask the applicant if he wants to add anything else. When we get to the public discussion, I would ask that if you have something that you wish to comment on that per- tains to the new information that has been delivered tonight, we e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 5 will certainly allow that presentation. Again, we have been through this a number of times, the issue was tabled and those three reasons have just been discussed again and I would like to limit it. to those if possible unless you have something specifi- cally viewed to be important and critical to this issue. Todd Thompson: I am the President of Tomac Development and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here again tonight. We have been over this many different times and I hope everybody is informed as to what we are doing. What we have actually done here again is come up with what we think is the best usage of this particular land at this time. I know everyone does not agree with that. I don't think its best use is single family residential. I think once we get beyond that point, we have to look at the real best use for the property is. Bill Ryan: Have you reviewed the letter from MnDOt? Rick Sathre: I am the engineer for this project and we have reviewed it and I don't think the people have and maybe I can summarize it a little more. They are saying either or as far as the access on Oriole or the new access, but not both. So in regards to whatever is developed on this site, if it is truely going to be a different land use than single family low density residential, it's probably better to move the access to the east so the uses can be separated because they won't allow two access points. They did say that if an access to the site was going to be created farther north than 64th, they wanted 64th to be closed. I think that the circulation that would be afforded to this site as well as to the neighborhood itself would be better suited by the through street pattern than having a cul-de-sac serve just this area. The sections that we did, we are trying to represent what would truely be the condition upon development of the property. What we found is that in this critical area in the corner of the frontage road and the access road that the existing topography plus the berming and landscaping that could be done in this corner would sufficiently screen the ziegler house. As you move south along the property line from them, then the land mass is so much similar in elevation in the homes to this land, there is no natural barrier anymore, it has to be artificially created. What Tomac is willing to do, upon zoning of the property, but well before, perhaps years before the office buildings are built, they will provide the buffer planting that we suggested so that those trees could start to mature. Because if you are really going to try to plant something that going to do a good job in years to come, you have got to give it a little time to grow. As to the character of the buildings, when we designed what we placed on the board, yes it is a suggestion at this point, we are not asking for a building permit now and we can't say absolutely that somebody else someday might not propose something different, e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 6 but the concept, what we are asking for there, or what we think is appropriate in the neighborhood is not a three or four story brick and mortar office building. What I think is appropriate, what we have discussed and what we have presented to you is a lower slung more residential in character office building. I am suggesting wood frame construction with a pitched roof so it doesn't look out of character with the neighborhood. There are many examples in the the Twin City area of buildings that are built on a smaller scale, probably for one or two users per building. The thought is that the buildings would be down sized and more residential in character, it might well be con- dominiumized, to professional offices or something of that type. But we are talking a smaller scale building and a residential character for construction. Pat Huttner: What has been the city's experience with private developer's assuming highway or street cost and or development responsibilities. I am not familiar with that. -- Barbara Dacy: The developer will enter into what is known as a "Development Contract" where they have to submit a letter of cre- dit which is an amount of money or financial security equal to the amount of improvements on site and if there are any necessary off site improvements like intersection improvements so that the city is always assured that we have the money to complete the improvements and that the improvements are never left incomplete. Pat Huttner: So the city makes the improvements on the state highway ground. Barbara Dacy: No there are two options. The developer can pri- vately install the street improvements and make the drainage improvements or they can petition the city to do that but the money is coming from the developer to submit the financial security. We have a development contract that will insure that the improvements will be put in place. Bill Ryan: On the state highway, the letter from MnDOT was spe- cific that the developer would bear the costs. - Barbara Dacy: I will read directly from the letter. "MnDOT will not provide any improvements for a revised access. The cost of any changes would have to be born by others. II We have as a con- dition of approval of the plat, if that is to be approved, recom- mendation #6. The new access onto Trunk Highway 7 will be fully developed to allow for all turning movements including a right turn lane for eastbound highway traffic and a separate west turn lane for westbound highway traffic. These requirements will be in addition to any MnDOT conditions required as a part of their access permit procedure. So we are recommending that it be a condition of plat approval. e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 7 Rick Bateson: Has there been any traffic counts done on the 64th or Oriole? Barbara Dacy: No, not to my knowledge. Rick Bateson: I would like to request one. One particular reason, is that is a very narrow street and if we start getting additional traffic through there, I want to know who is going to be picking up the special assessments to improve the road. Bill Ryan: One of the proposals that you had shown, Barbara, was access onto 7 and I would assume you would want to clarify that. Point out that it is not up to through street standards and you would not route commercial traffic around on that street. Barbara Dacy: That is the intent of the proposed design. There is direct access to 7 and 41 and therefore there should be no reason why the commercial traffic would go onto 64th and to Oriole unless it is a member of the neighborhood. e Allen Putnam: If you come out 64th and cross 41 you run up to Chaska Road. What could be done or planned leaving 64th the way it is to prevent people from crossing 41 and entering Chaska Road to go down there. I think that it would be something that many people would use that. Barbara Dacy: There would be nothing to prevent anyone from leaving that site and crossing 41 and going onto Chaska. Allen Putnam: Could you make people take a right or left as they came out without crossing 41? Barbara Dacy: You would have to block the entrance to Chaska Road. Allen Putnam: Could you make or enforce it so that no one could cross 41 by making a left and right turn lane? Barbara Dacy: I don't think that would be a sound practice at that particular location. Allen Putnam: I don't think Chaska Road could handle the traf- fic. Barbara Dacy: I agree the road is in bad condition. - Bill Ryan: I would hesitate in saying that traffic is going to come out of that development and go down Chaska Road rather than a major highway. Peter Throdahl: thing to death. I have been here before. We seem to beat this I do however represent some neighborhood people e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 8 tonight and I am speaking for them, specifically the ziegler's and some of the people along Oriole and the Wegner's. I believe Barb that you got a letter from Bob Wegner dated May 20. Was that included in everyone's packet? Barbara Dacy: Yes they received it. e Peter Throdahl: Are there any questions I might answer in regards to that letter? I think the fourth point that Bob was making is pertinent to what is going on here tonight which deals with the ingress and egress on that property. To summarize that, it says basically that the neighborhood does not want to have Oriole repositioned to connection with Tomac Development. His summarization is that I feel Oriole should be left as is and a new entrance be planned on 41 for the Tomac Development and 64th street entrance onto Highway 41 closed, 64th street traffic way would then become a cul-de-sac along the residential development to the south and traffic would go back then to Highway 7. What is being suggested here is an access off of 41 that would provide a single access. I think that is a reasonable alternative. I am not sure the developer would agree with that, but I think we are all looking for some compromises on this whole project. I think the traffic flow is a very important consideration particularly concerning a new city park that is down there plus a residential development that is going on in that neighborhood. If we don't handle that we are going to have some real problems and I don't want to come back in 6 months or a year and start hashing over the traffic that is going through the neighborhood. I think Barb articulated three or four of those alternatives and I don't know if those get addressed tonight in terms of what gets approved. Do you have the one I am talking about? Barbara Dacy: of 41 and This one I tried to show some type of entrance off ? Jim Majeres: In relation to this chart about how much of actual business the residences backing to the lot would see, I am more curious about the people across Oriole. We are a little bit higher than these residences here and there is actually very little view and what the ratio and height it would be. Sandy Lehmer: I am right behind that property. (Could not hear what she said.) Also I would prefer to have a left turn lane. I will take my chances on keeping Oriole open and getting rear ended. - Richard Wing: I am just curious if the Commission has at anytime met with the City of Shorewood or the Shorewood planners to discuss their comprehensive plan and how the rezoning of this parcel would affect the City of Shorewood and future development. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 9 I have a letter that was part of study done for the Public Safety Commission and I am seeing here, that the Public Safety Commission has met with their city planner. The concern I have is the access on Hwy. 7 and the current traffic problem on Hwy. 7 and 41. The City of Shorewood is obviously commercial to the north of this parcel and is going to be developed commercial; however, they aren't going to allow any access onto Hwy. 7 which is a primary concern. As I look at the various plans here, I guess we have a known problem on Hwy. 7. Serious accident rate, numerous deaths and to complicate it further with additional accesses at this time is perhaps inappropriate. I would oppose the access on Hwy. 7 at this time. Left turns obviously are the biggest problem, the major cause of accidents within this stretch of highway. I guess again my question is have you con- tacted or discussed this with the City of Shorewood and is there any parallel operations going on and how is this effecting their comprehensive plan. Barbara Dacy: I have spoken twice with Brad Nielsen, the planner from Shorewood. We looked over the plat and they were notified as part of our notification process. He represented to me that the City of Shorewood, as far as this particular location is concerned in the southwest corner of the intersection, what he stated to me was whatever Chanhassen wants to do with that parcel that is their business. They are particularly concerned about the parcel across the street where I eluded to earlier that the boundary line splits an owner's property so they are looking at with more interest in the area across the street. As far as Highway 7 is concerned, there is no question that from 101 west that it is becoming a problem and thus the detailed review that we have gone through with MnDOT on this particular plan. The question again has been the left turning movement into Oriole Lane and according to MnDOT'S letter, the proposed plan by moving that intersection east and with median improvements can improve that turning movement. They have reviewed the proposed layout and they feel that what is being proposed is acceptable. Shorewood, MnDOT and the City of Chanhassen were working with the Metropolitan Council, we may begin to look at Hwy. 7 because it is becoming a regional issue now, crossing many municipalities. However, at this particular location, staff feels that we have done our homework as to this proposed street layout. John Warren: I was not at your last hearing on this. Although I understand that many comments were made are certainly comments that I would want to make from the standpoint from someone who does live about a mile and a quarter away from the site itself. My concern is with two areas, that is the spot development con- cept which disturbs me terribly. I am very concerned about that. We have a neat area there between 41, Minnewashta Blvd, 7 and 5. We are on the highway that is really bad and I am very concerned e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 page 10 about what this commercial development might do to increase traf- fic in a very congested area. I appreciate the concern of the developers in trying to make a safer approach for that left turn lane, but I think that I would suspect that the increase in traf- fic due to commercial development will compound the danger despite the minor improvement. I would like to ask Barb, you had made the comment earlier during your presentation that if there would be considerable commercial traffic, you just said a minute ago, that the traffic would be pretty well calculated. My question is do you has there been any official estimates pre- sented to the Commission regarding what will be the anticipated traffic egress and ingress. e Barbara Dacy: In conjunction with our review with MnDOT we did some preliminary figures based on a proposed 4 acre office complex. These are just suggestions for uses, office complex, a quality restaurant, a convenience store with pumps and maybe a drive-in restaurant. We can estimate anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 average daily traffic trips. I know that sounds scary but I think what the major assumption has to be in this analysis is that alot of the existing traffic going through that intersection will be using the services at the new commercial area. It is hard to say exactly what percentage of those average daily trips will be from the existing traffic, people going west and picking up bread and milk and filling the gas tank; however, its location at a major intersection with the proposed traffic improvements that intersection has full traffic improvements as far as stop lights, right turn lanes, etc. except for the subject area that amount of traffic can be accommodated and the traffic generation was taken into account as part of MnDOT's review. I have con- firmed that with them by phone. Mike Thompson: Did they say it would be 3,000 to 5,000 trips? Barbara Dacy: No, this is based on the figures that I have obtained from the Institute of Transportation, Engineering, Trip Generation Guide from Metropolitan Council. Mike Thompson: So what you did is superimposed those. Barbara Dacy: They had a trip generation figure per acre. On the southwest part the street was a 4 acre site and the infor- mation that I got from that book was 240 average daily trips per acre which equals 960. A quality restaurant at 5,400 square feet is 405, a drive-in restaurant is 1,659, a high quality is 986 and a convenience store is 2,250. Depending on what is developed on there it could be as low as 3,000 and as many as 5,000 and it could go higher. It just depends on the uses. ~ Mike Thompson: So 3,000 to 5,000? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I think that is a good average. e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 11 Bill Ryan: We also have a letter from Mr. Conner in the packet this week that indicated an estimate of traffic count on 7 and 41 was something less than the 38,000. Barbara Dacy: Yes he confirmed all of his figures with MnDOT in his letter of May 14th. Mike Thompson: What were the numbers he had? Barbara Dacy: T.H. 41 south of T.H. 7 there was 6,000 average daily trips. T.H. 7 west is 12,100; east on HWy. 7 is 16,200. what he was trying to clarify then was that you add all of those figures together and you divide by 2 and that gives you an average of 17,000 vehicles per day. Supposedly there were figures of 38,000 in the newspaper and so on and I think he was just trying to clarify for the Commission. Bill Ryan: Did he say what year those figures were made? Barbara Dacy: These are 1984, the existing counts. e Louise Lehner: My concern also is the traffic. Does anybody know being that there is construction on Hwy. 12 in full force and will Hwy. 7 be absorbing some of that traffic? If so, is this going to become problem? Bill Ryan: I think it is happening now. All they have to do is close the ferry bridge and every highway gets backed up. Rick Sathre: Relative to the traffic count that Barb had made, we certainly don't have a way to challenge it with specific uses. I think it is probably realistic. A two lane roadway is capable of that kind of volume. We have proposed exits to the area because of the peak hour you would likely have congestion from that development. We don't want to overload one intersection if we can help it. We do also think that the trips in and out of this property, they wouldn't be destination trips. You wouldn't leave home just to go there, the majority of the trips would be stops on the way somewhere, we believe. We don't think the traf- fic counts on the highway would increase very much just due to this development. Todd Thompson: I just wanted to point out that the figures 35,800 and the reason that got misconstrued in the newspaper was because we were talking total through the intersection and they take into consideration people going to work and coming home. e ? I know there is building going on in the area, east on Galpin and some other areas where they have residential buildings that increase traffic flow. Three years ago I bought e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 12 my home in that area and checked the zoning with the city. I am very concerned that we keep changing the zoning after some of us purchased our homes thinking that we were buying in a resi- dential area that would not be developed commercial. Hud Hollenbach: I think we should also remember that the regional park is going to attract something like 7,500 people a day. The problem with that is these are people from outside the neighborhood who are not familiar with the road systems. These are the people that are strange in the area and don't know where the residential section is, that plus convenience store type businesses which also attract people, to me poses a danger far greater than neighborhood type traffic. So in addition to just the traffic count, I think we should consider the type of traffic we are talking about. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mike Thompson: This area is now guide planned what? Barbara Dacy: Residential Low Density. e Mike Thompson: What's the zoning? Is there anything in there that is commercial? Barbara Dacy: R-l. No just in the City of Shorewood side. Mike Thompson: The plans that we are looking at as far as the proposed access and the present access, I am a little confused as to what we are asked to approve and look because the traffic is a major problem. When we take a look at the traffic counts and if you're talking 3,000 to 5,000 trips a day so you are talking 3,000 in and 3,000 out which is 6,000. Barbara Dacy: The 3,000 to 5,000 is trips in and out. e Mike Thompson: O.K. so we are taking an area that is now guide planned R-l and we are introducing into it, where we have an established residential neighborhood, a commercial use and if we gone with it, then we take on the obligation of solving all of the traffic problems and the consequences of that neighborhood. I think at that point the neighborhood has a right to oppose this thing based on traffic. I don't think the letter from MnDOt means anything because I think maybe this is not a big issue for them and I think that they will just assume that the issue will go away and I can't see that they necessarily have any answer to this, it doesn't resolve anything. I think that if we can't resolve the traffic and that we have opposition from the neigh- borhood, there is no reason we should consider introducing a com- mercial area into an established residential development. We are e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 13 not obligated to change the land use, we are not obligated to rezone it. If we consider a commercial, then we should consider a very low, low use such as a C-l use. We should not consider a C-2 which introduces the commercial retail, which I would not be for. I know that turn off. Another issue that was brought up is that is a good one is the regional park. The park at this point not reached its capacity as far as usage. That area if it starts generating the traffic that you are talking about, Hwy. 41 is going to have problems too. Ladd Conrad: One thing that MnDOT did not do in their study, I noticed is traffic backing up from 7 to 41, backing up into the high speed lane. A question, that if we increase, I think some- body's got to pick up the expense of extending that particular lane. Barbara Dacy; But that this a condition of approval for the plat. We are recommending that the city impose the condition that all necessary traffic improvements be made. Jim Thompson: He is talking about the left turn lane east of the intersection. e Ladd Conrad: It backs up into the high speed lane of HWy. 7 going west. Barbara Dacy: That is on the Shorewood side, I don't know when that shopping center went in, what type of recommendations were made, if MnDOT did those improvements or the developer for the shopping center. I can't answer that question. Ladd Conrad: Who is responsible for improving that? Barbara Dacy: That area has not been identified as a point of concern. MnDOT has just made the recommendation that the intersection onto 7 be improved. Ladd Conrad: As a condition of anything we do there, we could potentially have somebody look at that right? e Barbara Dacy: We could look at that yes. Ladd Conrad: At the last meeting I was concerned with traffic. I think the proposal that I see, even though the traffic count seems large, I think the extra turn lane improves the situation to my knowledge. I have a problem with the new road that goes in there. As I looked at it and driven through the area. I do have a problem with the commercial area backing up to the commercial area regardless of the trees that are put in there. I don't think I would want to live there, those people have lived there e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 14 and I don't know that it is a good buffer and it concerns me a great deal. I don't have a problem with the commercial use to the eastside of the new road. I think to the east of the road commercial is an appropriate use of the property; however, I think C-l should be in that area. I do have some real concerns with commercial office buildings, even though they are really good neighbors. They might be better neighbors than residential multiple family dwellings that would probably go in there. e Jim Thompson: My major concern is the creeping commercialism along that section of the highway. I would not like to see an area spot developed there and the next thing it spot developed at 15 and 7. Pretty soon you have the filling in. I think the improvement with the left turn lane into a residential develop- ment as proposed would be better than the existing Oriole turnoff. I think it would improve the safety in that area. I would rather have this entire portion remain as residential with a turnoff on 64th serving that area and a cul-de-sac type of an arrangement so that the number of trips per day would be modest. I think the entire safety question of increased traffic into the park area over the next couple of years as it increases, it going to be a problem and something has to be done in that respect. Overall I think it should remain residential and if anything the turnoff should be moved to the east to improve the safety for the residents of Oriole and that area. Tom Merz: Someday this property will be developed. It will pro- bably high density residential or a low density commercial. Someday it is going to be developed. If I were a neighbor, as I look at these people, and would have to look across the road and look into a convenience store and its 24 hours of light and the amount of traffic that is generated into this property, to me that would be very objectional. For these people that live there and have another 3,000 to 4,000 cars a day from 7 and 41 without proper semiphores. A 600 foot lane or even a stacking lane from 7 it just doesn't seem adequate. For the developer to come in with the plan for its own cul-de-sac would make sense. If you talk about coming along the back of those pieces of property and talk about earth berms and trees on top of that so that you completely cut it off visually, it might make sense. My position is that I am against. Susan Albee: My feelings have not changed since the last review. I still feel that the most appropriate use of the land is C-l and C-2, Commercial and I think that there are a few minor alterations to get past the preliminary that could be very easily worked. I see it as a very appropriate use of the property. ~ Bill Ryan: The land will at some point be developed. There is going to be traffic. It is just a question that if we look at - Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 15 the adaptabilty of the land to fit a commercial location, our question to ask ourselves is what potential is there for tran- sition from a heavy commercial to a light commercial to a medium density residential to a light density residential, the tran- sition has to be made. Good planning says that there has to be a reasonable transition from some density of commercial to the residential that exists. If we can't see the potential to make a good clean transition, then you start at the low density and move the other way. If you can't get as high density commercial you stop at light commercial. My position on this is that lot, the 8.9 acre will be developed at some point. I feel that it could well suit a commercial application if the total application were light commercial. I can not go along with the C-2. I could accept C-l. Just a comment that if you were to have high density residential in that particular area it will generate alot of traffic. That traffic in turn will spill, there is just as much potential for those people to come back into your neighborhood as there is with commercial. - J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson to deny the Land Use Plan Request #85-2 to change Low Density Residential land use to Commercial. J. Thompson, M. Thompson and Merz voted in favor, Albee, Ryan and Conrad were opposed. Albee moved, seconded by Ryan to recommend the City Council the Land Use Plan Amendment Request #85-2 to change Low Density Residential to commercial use. Mike Thompson: If you change the land use plan to commercial, that means that any commercial use could come in, is that correct? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Albee and Ryan voted in favor. J. Thompson, Merz, Conrad and M. Thompson were opposed. Motion failed. Barbara Dacy: You denied the approval for the land use plan amendment, so you are denying the application. The motion was made to approve the request and it was 4 to 2 against the motion. In order to address the zoning, if you want a C-l or C-2 on that parcel, the land use plan amendment would have to be approved to commercial. Ladd Conrad: What if we don't want it all commercial? - Barbara Dacy: The motion that was just passed states that you don't want commercial. So what you are saying is that you want Low Density Residential to maintain. Ladd Conrad: What if we don't favor all commercial and we don't favor the low density residential? e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 16 Barbara Dacy: Then we would have to advertise for a new hearing. If you are saying that it should be medium or high density or a combination thereof, then we should start the process over because the request all along has been from Low Density to Commercial and if you are saying you want to consider something else, we should conduct a new hearing. Bill Ryan: Is that necessarily true, we as planners have been spending the last year and a half redefining a lot of property. Barbara Dacy: I anticipated this question and I consulted with the city attorney and he advised me that it is always best that if you are going to recommend a change to something else that has not been advertised for, then it would be best to go back through the hearing process. If you are recommending medium density on this piece instead. Bill Ryan: Here we are with low density on this because somebody in 1974 in a study said because we can't make a good decision, lets put it at the lightest possible utilization of land use plan and insist that if anyone wants to use it for anything they come in and request the change. That is how it e wound up with the classification it has now. Barbara Dacy: I am not disputing that, all I am saying is that if you are going to consider some other type of land use at that site that we start a new process. Bill Ryan: We are in a position where we have denied the underlying application for land use modification, so that cancels parts b. and c. Susan Albee: It would be my recommendation to send it to Council as a split vote. I don't think another motion could be made that we could agree upon. Tom Merz: I think we are really talking about that C-2. Ladd Conrad: No I don't think so, the issue is commercial. It doesn't matter how high, just commercial. Susan Albee: Does anyone have an objection of sending this to Council with a split vote? e Mike Thompson: Whether we do or not it is still in the minutes. Barbara Dacy: Is it the Commission's feeling that they only want a part of the 8 acre parcel or is it they don't want any of it commercial? e Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 Page 17 Ladd Conrad: One Commissioner's opinion is that it has got to be split. Bill Ryan: I think you would get a split vote on that. Tom Merz: What about voting on the C-2 only? Mike Thompson: I would consider talking about that. Then we could talk about how we feel about it, like is anyone opposed to the C-2 zoning, it is for me. I think just talking about buf- fering this thing other than with commercial makes sense too and I don't think they resolved the traffic problems. Jim Thompson: I guess my feeling is that the traffic problem is still much the pinpoint of the whole thing. It is not resolved and I don't know if there is any way to put in a good traffic flow. I think you would have alot of people coming from the west and using the new street as a thoroughfare to get from 7 to 41 even though it is not the best way. I think you would have fast traffic going through an area that is not reasonable to use it. e Ladd Conrad: Lets go back to my concerns. I am not comfortable yet with the buffering of the lower houses. That is my biggest concern. I am comfortable that traffic can be resolved in a C-l and I am not comfortable that we buffered to the southwest, therefore, that is why I didn't vote for making the whole area as commercial. I feel part of it is appropriate for commercial, not all of it. Barbara Dacy: Are you trying to say that you would like to make a motion to redesignate a part of it as commercial and see how that flies? Ladd Conrad: Potentially that would be a motion. I don't know how I could do that and make it definite because there are no boundaries. Barbara Dacy: If you are going to be considering part of it as commercial, then that would say you would then go on to the next request and rezone it to something. You would act on some type of zoning on that recommended commercial piece. Then you would go on the preliminary plat, I would think that the traffic design would then be considered on the plat discussion and you're com- fortable with the traffic situation as proposed. Some other com- missioners may not, but if you are going to act on a portion of the property, you are going to go through the other two requests. You could refer to the plat. e Ladd Conrad: I think it is wise that we send it on and state our reasons. r" e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1985 page 18 Susan Albee: If I might ask Mr. Thompson and Mr. Sathre, would you both be comfortable sending it as a split vote decision and taking it to council from this point, as opposed to trying to figure out some other type of a different classification. Rick Sathre: I think you have given it alot of discussion and if there is no clear decision in your minds, I think it is probably very logical. Todd Thompson: If you want to send it as a tie vote, that is fine. I would be willing to open another public hearing tonight to talk about zoning the whole thing C-l or a combination of C-l and high density. Mike Thompson: We can't open it tonight we have to republish. Barbara Dacy: The original motion was to deny the land use request from low density residential to commercial. Bill Ryan: We recommend that we could not recommend changing it. Barbara Dacy: There were two motions made and acted on that the minutes reflect those two motions and if you want to add anything else as far as your concerns we will make that part of the record. Ladd Conrad: For those who voted against the original motion, I would like to have the reasons stated. Susan Albee: Against the denial? I feel the most appropriate use of the property is as it is being presented as C-l and C-2. Ladd Conrad: My comments are that the appropriate use is commer- cial on part of the parcel and higher density residential on the other part. Bill Ryan: My comments echo the other two. The property has some commercial application with proper buffering, berming and sight protections it could be used as C-l commercial but not C-2. On the second motion the reasons were that they did not feel it should be commercial and because of the traffic control in the intersection. Our decision I guess was a tie vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Conrad moved, seconded by Albee to approve the April 24, 1985 minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE The Commissioners decided to meet on June 5, 1985 for a special meeting on the proposed zoning Ordinance. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.