Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/27/1987 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 27, 1987 7: 30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , 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. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 15 .2 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1 .42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex. Location: Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane. A continued public hearing. (7: 55) B. FAITH CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church on 5 .87 acres with a variance for building height, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public, and Preliminary Platting of 5.87 acres into one lot for construction of a church. Location: South of County Road #1, east of Blossom Road. A public hearing. (8:15) C. RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH, by Centex Homes Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101 acres, Zoning District change from R1-13.5 to RM-6.5 on 8.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 60 lots and 10 outlots for construction of 55 townhouse units. Location: North and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A public hearing. (8:45) D. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS II AND III, by LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 District on 7.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 1.2 acres, from Rural to R1-22 on 2 acres, and from I-2 to R1-22 on 1.3 acres for construction of 95,100 square feet of industrial space within. two buildings together with 3 single family lots. Location : East of Chicago Northwestern Railroad, north of Stratford Road and west of Leesborough Avenue. A public• meeting. Agenda April 27, 1987 Page Two V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER 'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 27, 1987 City Hall Council Chambers 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell, Robert Hallett, Chuck Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--7-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Hallett abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 15.2 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex. Location: Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane. A continued public hearing. Planner Franzen reported that this item had been continued from the April 13, 1987, meeting by the Commission for purposes of review of the parking deck to be added to the site. • Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 27, 1987 Mr. Norman Brody, proponent, reviewed the details of the proposed parking deck, materials to be used, parking circulation for the property with the addition of the deck, and landscaping and screening for the added structure. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24, 1987. He discussed the need for sidewalks in this vicinity, stating that it was the plan of the City to review the needs for sidewalks in this area at a future date; construct the sidewalks as a City project, and then assess the costs back to the adjacent properties. He noted that the City was considering the need for sidewalks along both sides of the streets in this area. Fell asked about the requested setback variance. Planner Franzen explained that the variance would allow for the preservation of several significant oak trees on the property and that Staff believed it was a reasonable variance request. Fell asked about the access from the parking deck to the restaurant. Mr. Brody explained that circulation via the stairways from the parking deck. Fell stated that his main concern was the safety of pedestrians crossing in front of traffic. With respect to the parking deck structure, Fell asked what materials would be used for the structural safety and strength and what long term inspection plans there may be for such a structure. Planner Franzen stated that the materials and inspection of them were likely controlled by the State Building Code, or Uniform Building Code, requirements, adopted by the City. Hallett asked that the procedure be checked prior to Council review of the item. Fell stated that he believed the City would be looking at more and more parking decks in the future as land became higher in price. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brody Associates, Inc. , for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Eden Glen PUD for theater/restaurant complex known as Eden Prairie Entertainment Center, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 10 and 24, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 27, 1987 approval of the request of Brody Associates, Inc., for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, for 15.2 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Regional-Service District for 5.0 acres, for construction of a theater/restaurant complex known as Eden Prairie Entertainment Center, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 10 and 24, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brody Associates, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex known as Eden Prairie Entertainment Center, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 10 and 24, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. FAITH CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church on 5.87 acres with a variance for building height, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public, and Preliminary Platting of 5.87 acres into one lot for construction of a church. Location: South of County Road #1, east of Blossom Road. A public hearing. Mr. David Frisbee, pastor for the church, stated that they had attempted to comply with all City requirements regarding the design of the use. He pointed out that there would be approximately 4.5 acres of the property which would remain undeveloped, with only 1.3 acres subject to construction for the church and parking area. Planner Franzen stated that one of the major considerations for the proposed development was the requested change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan for amendment from Low Density Residential to Church. In this regard, he stated that- the Commission would need to evaluate the proposal in terms of its impact on the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Planner Franzen stated that the Staff review of the project included consideration of what the residents in the existing neighborhood would be viewing from their properties. He stated that some of the recommendations focused on downplaying views of the parking lot from the adjacent properties in order to provide adequate transition between the differing uses. He stated that the homes on Jackson Drive would be approximately 400 ft. away from the parking lot for the church as proposed. It was recommended in the Staff Report, for example, that the berm between the south side of the parking lot and the residential neighborhood to the south be increased by seven feet in height in order to better screen the residents from views of vehicles in the parking lot. Mr. Bob Newsome, 10830 Spoon Ridge, stated that he was concerned about the addition of a church to this neighborhood. He said that the addition of Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 27, 1987 this church would mean that there were three churches within one mile of each other along County Road #1, all in the vicinity of his neighborhood, which would mean major traffic congestion on County Road #1 on Sunday mornings. Mr. Newsome stated that it appeared that the churches in the area would only be growing, not maintaining, in membership as time passed, based on his experience with his own church. He added that he felt this could only mean an increase in the traffic already on the road. Mr. Newsome stated that he believed that the large volume of traffic would negatively impact the quality of life in his neighborhood. He presented the City with a petition signed by owners of 22 of the 26 homes on Spoon Ridge expressing their concerns about the traffic. Mr. Doug Moran, 10788 Jackson Drive, stated that there was a large amount of construction taking place on the south side of County Road #1 at this time, that it was one of the bigger growth areas in Eden Prairie. He expressed concern about the impact of traffic on County Road #1 from this entire area just from residential construction and added that he shared the concerns of Mr. Newsome regarding traffic for one more church. Mr. Moran stated that he was also concerned about the weeds growing on this property. He asked if the developers would be responsible for upkeep of the property, including removal of weeds, if the development was allowed. Planner Franzen responded that all areas that wre proposed to be graded would be required to be sodded, or seeded, after grading. In addition, he stated that the City Code provided for weed control and that the property owner would be responsible for weed control . Mr. Moran asked if it would be possible to lower the speed limit on County Road #1 considering the amount of development in the area, or if it would be possible to have stop lights installed at County Road #1 and Franlo Road. Planner Franzen indicated that the County did not have plans within their five-year improvement program to upgrade County Road #1. However, their long-range thinking was that the road may be expanded to four lanes with signals at major intersections. Planner Franzen added that the traffic study by BRW prepared for the Bluff Country Planned Unit Development in this area indicated that the Franlo Road intersection with County Road #1 should be signalized by 1990 because of traffic projected for that area by that time. Planner Franzen also referred to improvements planned by the City which would help to improve the traffic movements in this area. He stated that right and left turn lanes at Bennett Place and a cul-de-sac at Blossom Road were currently being reviewed via a feasibility study, the results of which would be reported to the Council in the near future. Mr. Moran stated that he had one other major concern, that being the parking of vehicles on County Road #1 during Sunday services at the churches. He stated that this was already a problem at Pax Christi Church and that he believed it could be a potential problem with the Prairie Lutheran Church currently under construction, and this church proposed. Mr. Moran added that his concerns regarding the previous proposal for multiple family residential use on this property was with respect to parking and the problems it appeared to cause in the locations proposed. Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 27, 1987 Mr. Steve Byro, 10760 Jackson Drive, stated that he concurred with the concerns of the previous speakers. He asked what considerations had been given to buffering the residential neighorhood to the south from the parking area. Planner Franzen explained that Staff had taken sight lines in the field and, based upon those sight lines, had made a recommendation to increase the berm height between the property owners to the south and the parking area for the church.. Mr. Byro asked if the parking lot could be relocated to be close to County Road #1, instead of the church structure being closer to County Road #1, or to "flip-flop" the parking and the structure in order to have the parking be even further away from the residents. Planner Franzen explained that the residents south of the proposed development would not be able to see the parking lot if the recommendations for additional berm height were followed. Further, if the church structure were to be located closer to the residents, instead, the structure would be much more visible to the residents than it would be by the plan as proposed. Mr. Mike Levi, 10943 Spoon Ridge, stated that on Sunday mornings, Pax Christi usually had one, or two, officers directing traffic in order for it to be managable between services. He questioned how many more officers would be necessary in order for traffic to be tolerable on County Road #1 on Sundays. Mr. Levi also asked about the speed limit allowed on County Road #1. He pointed out that, in Bloomington, County Road #1 traffic was allowed only at 30 miles per hour, whereas it was 50 miles per hour in Eden Prairie. He suggested that the ,speed limit be reduced in Eden Prairie, as well. Mr. Newsome pointed out that the volume of traffic on County Road #1 on Sunday mornings was similar to rush hour traffic during the week. He stated that he did not feel that this was what the City should be allowing to happen in this residential neighborhood. Anderson stated that he shared the concerns of the residents regarding traffic. He stated that he felt the problem was significant at the time Prairie Lutheran Church was reviewed, as well . He added that he did not feel this was an acceptable condition for this residential area. Hallett asked if the traffic resulting from Pax Christi would be alleviated by the completion of Homeward Hills Road. Planner Franzen stated that this would provide a significant change for the better in traffic patterns for this area. Hallett stated that it was important to realize that road improvements followed development, and that development should not be stopped, especially if it was known that the improvements were underway, such as Homeward Hills Road. He added that he believed that County Road #1 was an appropriate location for a church and that, with the recommendations for changes in landscaping and screening, this proposal could provide a good transition to the residential area to the south. Hallett pointed out that there were four churches within less one mile of the County Road #4 and Highway #5 intersection. Fell asked if the parking provided on the property was adequate for the church's use, or whether there would be "spill over" onto County Road #1 Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 27, 1987 from this parking lot, as well . Planner Franzen stated that the church had provided the number of parking spaces required by City Code on the property. Fell asked if the other churches on County Road #1 had been designed at the same formula. Planner Franzen stated that they had used the same formula. He noted that the plans approved for Pax Christi included expansion of parking onto other portions of the property. These expansion areas had not yet been constructed. Anderson stated that he was concerned that the parking needs for the church not be underestimated. Fell asked if it may be necessary to re-evaluate the formula used for determining the amount of parking for churches. He stated that he did not believe it was appropriate to continue using the formula if it was proving itself to be inadequate. Planner Franzen stated that Staff could do this and he suggested that it may be appropriate to request a "proof of parking" area on the property should the need arise for accommodation of overflow parking in the future. Fell stated that he concurred with Hallett, that the City should not stop development since it was known that the road system would be improved. However, he added that he felt it was also important to control potential future hazards and to protect the residents. Ruebling asked what the size of the congregation was currently. Pastor Frisbee responded that there were currently 75 families that were members. He added that the philosophy of the church was more intimate, that they liked being small because everyone knew each other and that they intended to stay small in the future. Expansion, of any kind, would be at a different location, not at this site. Hallett stated that it appeared that the other churches approved along County Road #1 were more regional in service, as opposed to small like this church. He stated that he was aware that it was the philosophy of some congregations to remain small, but that this was clearly not the intent of the two other churches on County Road #1. Bye stated that she shared the concerns of the residents and the other Commissioners regarding traffic. She stated that she felt it was unfortunate that the road improvements did not happen at the time of development, but that the City was not in control of the improvement schedules for the County, or State and had to abide by their timing on matters such as this. Bye added that she felt the Staff Report recommendations regarding the transition to the south were important, also, and that the residents should be protected by the recommended changes. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 27, 1987 Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, esconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Faith Church of the Nazarene for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church for 5.87 acres with variances for building height, based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Anderson against) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Faith Church of the Nazarene for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public for 5.87 acres for construction of a church, based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987, with the addition of the following: a) Prior to Council review, proponents design a "proof of parking" area on the site for overflow parking in the future; and b) No parking shall be allowed on County Road R. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Anderson against) MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Faith Church of the Nazarene for Preliminary Plat of 5.87 acres into one lot for construction of a church, based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987, with the addition of the following: a) Prior to Council review, proponents design a "proof of parking" area on the site.for overflow parking in the future; and b) No parking shall be allowed on County Road K. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Anderson against) Anderson stated that he voted against due to concerns regarding the traffic congestion on County Road #1. C. RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH, by Centex Homes Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101 acres, Zoning District change from R1-13.5 to RM-6.5 on 8.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 60 lots and 10 outlots for construction of 55 townhouse units. Location: North and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A public hearing. Planner Uram reported that this development had been before the City previously in a different form. At that time, the complex background of this project was discussed. Planner Uram reviewed the facts in this regard with the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 27, 1987 • Mr. Tom Boyce, representing Centex Homes, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and project design with the Commission. He explained that the buildings were now down-scaled to be 4-, 5-, and 6-unit structures. The density of the development proposal had been reduced from the originally approved 11.8, to 9.4 as recently seen by the Commission, and now to 6.7 units per acre as currently proposed. He added that proponents were willing to comply with all recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24, 1987, regarding the proposal . Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24, 1987. Other than standard recommendations regarding grading, utilities, park dedication, and streets, the report contained recommendations regarding sidewalk connections, interior lighting and signage details, and screening from the existing residential developments in the vicinity. Mr. Steve Doms, 13949 Wellington Drive, stated that he believed there was inconsistency between the zoning and approved Planned Unit Development on the property. He stated that the property was not surrounded by single family homes at the time the PUD was approved and, therefore, he felt that the PUD was no longer valid because these conditions had changed. Mr. John Ginn, 8961 Knollwood, stated that he was concerned about the proposed density of the development. He stated that the development was 50% more dense than the existing cluster homes neighborhood adjacent to the property. He added that he believed that the units proposed were out of character with the existing single family neighborhood. Mr. Ginn also stated that he did not feel the information was readily available regarding the fact that the property would be developed as multiple family residential at the time people purchased their homes. Mr. Ned Devine, 8811 Hawthorne Drive, stated that this development would be located across the street from large-lot single family homes and would not be consistent with those homes. He stated that he did not believe that anyone would object to the property being developed as cluster lots, but that he did not feel that the multiple family residential - units would look right in this location. Ruebling asked why multiple structures were being proposed in this location instead of cluster homes, or some other form of single family residential unit. He stated that, based on the surrounding existing uses, it appeared logical that this property be developed as single family, as well. Mr. Boyce responded that the proponents had made certain economic decisions based upon the fact that there was an approved Planned Unit Development on the property for Medium Density Residential development. He noted that the property to the north had also been guided for Medium Density Residential, but that the proponents for that property were not able to demonstrate that screening could take place which would provide for adequate transition to the single family uses. Mr. Boyce pointed out that the property located on the other side of Anderson Lakes Parkway was guided for High Density Residential Development, and had been developed as apartment units. He added that Anderson Lakes Parkway directly impacted their site, making it less desirable for single family residential use. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 27, 1987 Mr. Boyce stated that the density on the property had been reduced from 96 units originally to 55 units with the current proposal . Planner Uram explained the proponents were within the limits of the Medium Density Residential guiding for the property with their proposal . He compared this to the 5+ units per acre approved for the cluster lot areas and the 11.8 units approved for this particular parcel with the Planned Unit Development. Ruebling asked the proponents if they had considered constructing cluster homes on this property. Mr. Boyce stated that they had prepared a design for cluster units on this property, but that it came to only 34 units on the entire property. Anderson stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate for the City to renig on its previous approval for this property. He stated that the City would not tell any other business that it would not be allowed to occupy a portion of its structure, once it was approved and that by taking back the approval for medium density, the City would be asking this business of home construction not to occupy a portion of what had already been approved for this property. Mr. Ginn reiterated his concerns about the approved Planned Unit Development, stating that he did not believe that it was relevant anymore. Mr. Robert Adomaitis, 8771 Knollwood Drive, stated that he did not believe that this residential neighborhood could be compared to a business in the manner Commissioner Anderson had discussed. He expressed concern that there would be no transition between the existing single family homes and the proposed multiple residential of this proposal. Anderson stated that he did not feel that any level of government should be changing the rules on any business. Dodge stated that at the meeting held on the previous proposal on this site, she had asked if anyone in the audience had contacted the City about the plans for the property and that no one had done so. Anderson stated that he had retained an attorney for review of his property purchase. Mr. Devine stated that he had contacted an attorney at the time of purchase of his lot and had been told that everything was just fine. He said it seemed necessary to know what questions to ask. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101 acres for Ridgewood West Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 27, 1987 6th Addition for 55 townhouse units, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Ruebling against) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes Corporation for Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-6.5 on 8.1 acres for Ridgewood West 6th Addition for construction of 55 townhouse units, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Ruebling against) MOTION 4• Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 60 lots and 10 outlots for construction of 55 townhouse units for Ridgewood West 6th Addition, based on revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report • dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Ruebling against) Ruebling stated that he was not convinced that the property should not be more appropriately developed as single family cluster lots, or some other form of single family residential . D. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS II AND III, by LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 District on 7.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 1.2 acres, from Rural to R1-22 on 2.0 acres, and from I-2 to R1-22 on 1.3 acres for construction of 95,100 square feet of industrial space within two buildings together with 3 single family lots. Location: East of Chicago Northwestern Railroad, north of Stratford Road and west of Leesborough Avenue. A public meeting. Mr. Jim Noreen, representing proponent, reviewed the plans with the Commission. He pointed out that the property had received approval for I-2 zoning previously, but that the developer's agreement on the property required that the City review the site plan for the property prior to issuance of any building permits. Mr. Noreen pointed out that a small portion of the property was being zoned from I-2 to R1-22 for single family lots to abut the adjacent single family neighborhood. • Mr. Noreen then reviewed the architectural details of both buildings proposed for the development, as well as- the landscaping and screening planned for the properties. Planner Kipp reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 27, 1987 • of April 24, 1987, regarding the development proposal . He reviewed the history of the zoning on the property. Planner Kipp stated that Staff was recommending that the easterly access to the LaVonne Industrial Park II property be closed, and that berming be continued across the access area in order to prevent mixing of the residential traffic in the Tanager Creek neighborhood with the industrial traffic of this development. He added that one other major concern was that there be a perpetual cross access easement provided between this development and proposed LaVonne Industrial Park III, with proof of filing provided to the City. Regarding LaVonne Industrial Park III, Planner Kipp explained that the majority of the property had already been zoned I-2 by previous City action; however, there was a small triangle of property currently zoned Rural for which the proponents were requesting rezoning to I-2. He noted that there were also recommendations for the following changes in the Staff Report for phase three: revisions to the parking setbacks, grading plan, screening of the overhead door and rooftop mechanical equipment, and revisions to the landscaping and screening plan for the site. With respect to the proposed residential portion of the development, Planner Kipp stated that the three lots proposed would all have access to Manchester Lane, south of the property. He pointed out that it may be necessary for the lots to share a driveway access in the future, due to the narrow frontages of the parcels. Planner Kipp explained that the property had been platted previously, but that frontage requirements had been increased by Code changes since that time. Of major concern for the residential lots was the grading of the sites. Planner Kipp stated that it would be necessary that the lots be graded and restored to prevent erosion on the properties. Hallett asked if tenants had been identified for the industrial buildings. Mr. Loren Brueggemann, representing proponent, stated that the buildings were approximately 30% leased at this time. Fell asked about the texture of the wall panels to be used on the exterior of the industrial buildings. Mr. Noreen explained that they would be board and batten with random texture to look like wood. Fell asked if these were tip-up panels. Mr. Noreen responded that they were. Fell asked about the intentions of the proponents for screening of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Noreen explained that a wood structure would be used to screen the rooftop mechanical units and that the it would be stained to match the overall building color scheme. Fell asked what type of soils existed on the property. Mr. Brueggemann responded that the majority of the property was gravel, a very solid base. Mr. Robert McGovern, 6519 Leesborough Avenue, stated that he was curious about the driveways planned for the single family residential lots. Mr. Brueggemann stated that they had wanted to leave options open to the person who would purchase the lots. He stated that they were not residential developers and would be selling the lots. Planner Kipp explained that the Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 27, 1987 lots had approximately 40-50 ft. of frontage each on the Manchester Lane cul-de-sac. He pointed out that one of the recommendations of the Staff Report was that the driveway design be reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of any building permits. He stated that this could be done prior to Council review, if the Commission desired to make such a recommendation. Mr. Brueggemann stated that he had no objection to preparing this prior to Council action. Ruebling asked whether the frontage for proposed Lot 2 of the residential portion of the proposal was adequate. Planner Kipp explained that the frontage met City Code requirements at the time it was platted in 1982. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was necessary that the driveway access situation be resolved prior to City Council review. Hallett concurred. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership for site plan review within the I-2 District on 7.84 acres, for LaVonne Industrial Park II based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 1.2 acres for LaVonne Industrial Park III based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 24, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2.0 acres, and from I-2 Park to R1-22 on 1.3 acres for three single family lots, based on plans dated April 13, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24, 1987, and subject to the following: a) Plans for driveway access to Manchester Lane be submitted prior to City Council review of the proposal ; and b) Revised grading plans, including erosion control and site restoration information, be submitted to the City for review prior to City Council review. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 27, 1987 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. •