Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/08/1987 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 8, 1987 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebl ing STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Ann Kenyon, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. MAJESTIC OAKS, by All-Land Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 12 single family lots. Location: East of West 168th Avenue, south of Manor Road. A continued public hearing. (8:00) B. TIMBER CREEK NORTH, by Timber Creek North Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 14.9 acres and from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 162 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 89 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.9 acres, and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 44 acres with variances, and Preliminary Plat of 89 acres into 110 lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 89 acres for development of a residential neighborhood. Location: South of County Road #67, west of Creek View Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. (9:00) C. BLUESTEM HILLS 3RD ADDITION, by Brownland Company. Request for Preliminary Platting of 1 .63 acres into three single family lots. Location: South of Bluestem Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. (9: 15) D. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.88 acres into 5 single family residential lots. Location: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Mount Curve Road. A public hearing. Agenda June 8, 1987 Page Two (9:30) E . EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER II, by Equitable Life Assurance Society. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 100 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.5 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 15.5 acres with variances, and Preliminary Plat of 15.5 acres into one lot for construction of 172,900 square feet of industrial uses in three buildings. Location: South of Valley View Road between Equitable Drive and Executive Drive. A public hearing. 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, June 8, 1987 City Council Chambers 7: 30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Julianne Bye, Rich Anderson, Christine Dodge, Douglas Fell, Chuck Ruebl ing MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Ann Kenyon, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of the May • 25, 1987, special Planning Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Anderson abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. MAJESTIC OAKS, by All-Land Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on five acres, Preliminary Plat of five acres into 12 single family lots. Location: East of West 168th Avenue, south of Manor Road. A continued public hearing. Mr. Steve Pellinen, representing proponent, stated that proponents had reviewed the alternatives available as requested by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. He stated that it was their opinion that the original plan with twelve single family lots was the best one. By creating a loop road, it appeared that at least one lot would be lost, perhaps two. Mr. Robert Blunt, owner of the property, stated that, although North Manor Road was originally intended to be extended through his property, it was costly to construct this road extension of approximately 450 ft. in order to create a through street. He stated that the advantages would include that the City would have less road to maintain and that the future residents would have a quieter street to live on, compared to a through street. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 5, 1987. He stated that Staff was recommending approval only with a through street, based on the recommendations from the memorandums Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 8, 1987 from Public Safety, the Fire Marshall and the City Engineering Department. Y> Y 9 9 p Mark Lewis, 16740 North Manor Road, stated that he was a partner in All-Land Company, developers of the property. He pointed out that there was another project on the agenda which was proposing a cul-de-sac 1,200 ft. long. Mr. Lewis stated that his neighborhood supported the use of a cul-de-sac in this location and that they would be willing to trade the cul-de-sac for the few seconds longer it would take any public safety vehicle to enter the neighborhood. Fell asked if there were other alternatives which were to presented at this meeting by the proponent. Planner Franzen stated that Staff had reviewed these alternatives, but that the proponent was reluctant to suggest anything other than the cul-de-sac alternative. Fell asked if the alternatives were different from what had already been reviewed by the Commission. Planner Franzen stated that the other plans were variations of what the Commission had reviewed. Fell asked how many lots would be lost with removal of the cul-de-sac. Planner Franzen responded that there would be one lot lost, at the most, two lots. Fell expressed concern regarding the cul-de-sac. He noted that cul-de-sac, if approved, would be approximately 1,000 ft. long. He added that what concerned him was the fact that City may be setting a precedent for long cul-de-sacs if this one was approved without the presence of any significant • topographic constraints, as was the case for the 1,200 ft. cul-de-sac referred to by Mr. Lewis. Fell stated that it appeared that this was a common request, to extend cul-de-sac length, and questioned whether an ordinance amendment may be in order. Planner Franzen stated that the Council always maintained the option to alter the length of a cul-de-sac. Dodge stated that she concurred with Fell regarding cul-de-sac length. She stated that she was concerned about the statement that the neighborhood "wanted" the cul-de-sac. Dodge stated that, while this may be the case, it was the responsibility of the Commission and the Council to look at an overall picture, not just the desires of a particular neighborhood. She pointed out that the City must be concerned about the long-term impact of its actions, noting that many current residents may not even live in the City after 20 years, but the City would need to deal with what might be left behind. Ruebling stated that he, too, agreed with Fell regarding cul-de-sac length. He stated that he did not feel that it would be appropriate to recommend waiving the policy unless there was a significant topographic reason for doing so. Ruebling asked about the island in the center of the proposed cul-de-sac, which the proponent was requesting the City to maintain. Planner Franzen stated that the were other "center islands" like this in the City, but that they had become maintenance problems, for the most part. He stated that the proponents were also showing this island as being a storm water holding area, which was not considered acceptable by the City Engineer. Anderson stated that he, also, shared the concerns raised by Fell regarding cul-de-sacs. He stated that, while the proponent may not feel that the Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 8, 1987 subdivision was economically feasible at this time, it would be sooner, or later, and the cul-de-sac length should not be altered because of economic reasons. Acting Chairman Bye stated that she would not support a through street which was aligned directly to the south, but that she believed the loop street configuration was safer for the residents on 168th Avenue. She added that she concurred with Anderson, that economic reasons were not a consideration. Fell expressed concern that the loop street alternative would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission, since it had only been discussed, and not seen, if the proponents were moved forward to the Council at this time. He asked if it would be possible to request that any plan which had not been seen by the Planning Commission could be returned to the Planning Commission for review, prior to final Council action. Planner Franzen stated that the Council had, in the past, returned items to the Planning Commission, especially if new information was involved. Mr. Lewis reiterated concern about the need for the loop street, stating again that the cul-de-sac was preferred. Acting Chairman Bye stated that she was still concerned about the safety of the residents on 168th Avenue. MOTION 1: • Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of All-Land Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on five (5) acres for Majestic Oaks, based on plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 22, and June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the reqeust of All Land Corporation for Preliminary Plat of five (5) acres into twelve (12) single fmaily lots for Majestic Oaks, based on plans dated April 24, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 22, and June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. TIMBER CREEK NORTH, by Timber Creek North Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 14.9 acres and from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on three acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 162 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 89 acres, with Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 8, 1987 on 14.9 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 44 acres with variances, and Preliminary Plat of 89 acres into 110 lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road #67, west of Creek View Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. Mr. Terry Schneider, representing the proponent, reviewed the plans for the proposed development in detail . He stated that the proponents had held two neighborhood meetings prior to the Planning Commission meeting on the project in order to try to mitigate neighborhood concerns early in the development review process. Mr. Schneider reviewed the site characteristics, noting the constraints of Purgatory Creek, Crosstown Highway (CSAH #62) , and other natural features on the property. He explained that 68 townhouses and 40 single family units were planned for the development. Mr. Schneider continued with review of the development, noting that the floodplain areas would be dedicated to the City. Also, approixmately 21 acres would be placed in a conservancy zone, along with the wooded knoll on the property. He stated that proponents had reviewed their grading and development plans with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in order to protect the waters in the area as much as possible during, and after, development. The architecture proposed for the development was reviewed with the Commission. It was noted that the single fmaily lots would be sold to individual home builders and were planned to be in the $200-250,000 price range. Mr. Schneider noted that there would be covenants on the property with respect to the grading of the individual lots in order to protect slopes and trees on the property. He also reviewed the landscaping for the property, in particular, the area between the single family and multiple family residential areas. Two neighborhood meetings had been held by the developer, at which time the concerns of the existing neighborhoods were considered. Mr. Robert Miller had expressed concern about his property remaining "wet" and becoming a breeding area for mosquitoes. Mr. Schneider explained that a control structure for the storm water would be installed to prevent this from happening. Another concern raised was that of the views the existing neighborhood would have after the townhouses were built. Mr. Schneider presented sight-lines from the various locations of concern. With respect to the City's Tree Replacement Policy, Mr. Schneider stated that the proponents had tried to work with the site in order to save as many trees as possible. He gave an account of how trees had been saved by the methods proposed in other developments by this proponent. Mr. Schneider stated that the proponents were asking for at least an opportunity to save the trees using their previously successful methods. Regarding staging of the development, Mr. Schneider explained that the townhouses were proposed to be developed immediately, starting on the east side and proceeding westerly. He noted that the proponents would be installing signage at the entrance and at the in the area between the townhouses and single family area which would indicate that there would be Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 8, 1987 • townhouses built in that particular area. Also, a copy of the concept plan showing the location of the townhouses would be provided to each potential owner. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 5, 1987, including previous history on the property. He noted tht the original Planned Unit Development of 1983 had 322 units approved in this area. He explained that the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan was actually not necessary given the density proposed and the fact that the developer was asking for Planned Unit Development approval on the property. The Planned Unit Development, alone, would allow for the development of the property as proposed. However, it was determined by Staff and the proponent that it would be more informative in the future to note that the area proposed for multiple family residential was also guided on the Comprehensive Guide Plan as Medium Density Residential, rather than Low Density Residential . Planner Uram stated that the proposed development was at 1.7 units per acre, which was within the density limits of Low Density Residential development for the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner Uram discussed the three access points for the property. He noted that there was a full access planned at the intersection with the Crosstown Highway and the most easterly road on the property, another at approximately the center of the property, and a third, temporary access at the western end • of the property. He also reviewed grading for the property, particularly adjacent to the flood plain, availability of utilities, Shoreland Management requirements, the proposed pedestrian system through the property, landscaping plans for the property, and tree replacement. Planner Uram noted that the proponent believed that there were more trees that could be saved than Staff had predicted. The proponent was asking for opportunity to prove that the trees could be saved during the development process, thereby reducing the number of trees to be replaced on the property. Mr. Robert Helmer, 6416 Creek View Lane, expressed concern about the drainage to his property, and the potential for overflow onto his lot from the proposed development. He stated that the proponent had been working with him, but that he wanted to be certain that it was not forgotten. Ms. Pat Savage, 15924 North Eden Drive, stated during the review of development on this property two years ago, she had understood that it was agreed that this property would be dedicated to the City. She questioned why this was not done. Planner Uram stated that he would review the previous files and report back to Ms. Savage, and the Commission, as to what had been decided. Ms. Judy Lindblad, 15916 North Eden Drive, stated that she, too, understood that this land would be dedicated to the City. She also expressed concer for increased tr affi c in the area and the impact of development of this property on the wildlife in area. Mr. Duane Helleman, 16780 Whittington Walk, presented a petition to the Commission. He stated that the signers of the petition did not object to the development of this property, but that they did not want to see multiple family residential development on this site. He also expressed concern about the wildlife in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 8, 1987 Mr. Ron Stevens, 6309 Creek View Lane, stated that the felt the developers had done a good job in working with the neighborhood. He stated that his concern was that there not be any concrete sidewalks installed between this development and his existing neighborhood. Acting Chairman Bye stated that these concerns should also be expressed to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, as they would be making a recommendation on these issues to the City Council. Mr. Joe Morin, 15820 South Eden Drive, stated that this neighborhood did not want the natural areas disturbed five years ago, and he did not believe that this sentiment had changed. He stated that he was not in favor of concrete sidewalks into the park area and that the property should be left in a natural state, not developed as an active park. Mr. Scott Jensen, 6527 Taiga Circle, stated that this was a unique area and that he was concerned that it would be spoiled by the addition of townhouses. Mr. Paul Choiniere, 15819 North Eden Drive, stated that the wildlife in this area had been disappearing slowly for the past twenty years. He asked when the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing the development proposal . Acting Chairman Bye responded that it would be Monday, June 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Helleman asked about the history of the 1983 approval. Planner Uram reviewed details of the 1983 approved Planned Unit Development for the property. Ruebling asked about the storm water drainage flow and how it could be regulated. Mr. Schneider stated that there were control structures proposed in the ponds on the east and west sides of the property for that purpose. He noted that he had been working the with City Engineer on the design of these structures for that purpose. Fell stated that he appreciated the comments from the neighborhood, and reiterated the recommendation that they take their comments to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission before a recommendation was made to the City Council on the development. Fell asked about the soils on the property. Mr. Schneider stated that they would be using spread footings in some cases on the property based on the soils, in particular, adjacent to the floodplain. Fell asked about the eventual use for Townline Road, whether it would be used as a road, abandoned, etc. Planner Uram explained that the development of the Crosstown Freeway in this area as it would impact this development. Fell expressed concern about the history of the development on this property. He stated that he believed it was important to review the record and set these issues to rest regarding dedication of the land to the City, especially since there had been so many questions about it at this meeting. Fell expressed concern about the length of the proposed Mallory Lane cul-de- sac, noting that the Code requirement of 500 ft. maximum length for a cul- de-sac seemed to be appropriate. He stated that, even if it became Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 8, 1987 necessary for the proponent to lose lots, he believed the Code requirements should be met. Fell stated that he did not see any reason for allowing this cul-de-sac to be longer than 500 ft. Ruebling concurred. Acting Chairman Bye stated that she would like to see sight lines from the existing homes in the adjacent neighborhood to the townhouse area. She stated that she would also like to see sidewalks included on the property. She stated that she felt children were safer on sidewalks, rather than in the streets. Fell indicated that he was concerned that the most westerly access point to the property seemed to be dependent upon property not owned by the developer. He asked if it would be possible to relocate the access, or to obtain the permission of the land owner to the west for location of the access at this point. Mr. Schneider stated that he would review it. MOTION: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to the June 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, and, further, that Staff be directed to publish the item for review by the City Council at its July 7, 1987, meeting. Motion carried--5-0-0 C. BLUESTEM HILLS 3RD ADDITION, by Brown Land Company. Request for Preliminary Platting of 1.63 acres into three single family lots. Location: South of Bluestem Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. Mr. Brian Olson, Krueger and Associates, representing proponent, indicated that the request involved replatting of four existing lots in the Bluestem Hills development in order to create three lots, thereby making all three lots larger. He added that the proponent was also requesting adjustment to the conservancy area along Purgatory Creek, as well . Planner Franzen reviewed the Staff Report of June 5, 1987, with the Commission. He noted that the Director of Community Services had reviewed the proposal with respect to impact upon Purgatory Creek, also. Staff was recommending approval of the proposed replatting, subject to standard recommendations and tree replacement of 36 caliper inches of trees in accordance with the City's Tree Replacement Policy. Acting Chairman Bye asked for questions, or comments from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Fell , seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 8, 1987 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Fell , seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brown Land Company for Preliminary Plat of 1.63 acres into three single family lots, based on plans dated May 8, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987. D. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.88 acres into five single family residential lots. Location: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Mount Curve Road. A public hearing. Ms. Laurie Johnson, Hansen, Thorpe, Pellinen, Olson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. She explained that the lots would be approximately one-half to three-quarters of an acre in size as proposed, with the most, westerly lot being proposed for the maintenance building for Olympic Hills Golf Course, adjacent to the property. Ms. Johnson noted that the previous plan saved five of the existing mature oak trees on the property, whereas this plan saved six. She added that the previous problem of storm water drainage had also been resolved. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 5, 1987, regarding this development proposal . He stated that Staff was suggesting that proponents make an effort to keep grading away from the drip line of the trees on the property. The grading plan proposed indicated that this may not be the case. He suggested that the proponents try one more time to see if it could be worked out. With respect to the storm water drainage on the property, Planner Franzen noted that the solution to the drainage was one that was shared by another small development to the east of this site and that the feasibility study for the area had recommended a solution that was satisfactory to all parties involved. Regarding the private drive on the property, Planner Franzen indicated that it would be necessary for the proponent to provide for private maintenance agreements for all the parties involved, and that the City would require proof of this through the developer's agreement for the property. Dodge asked why the developer was changing from multiple family to single family. Mr. Don McGlynn, proponent, stated that economics changed, therefore their plan changed. Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to close the public Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 8, 1987 hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mount Curve Developer's for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres for the Mount Curve Addition, based on plans dated May 18, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mount Curve Developers for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for 2.24 acres for the Mount Curve Addition, based on plans dated May 18, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4• Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mount Curve Developers for Preliminary Plat of 2.88 acres into four single fmaily lots and one lot for the maintenance building for the Olympic Hills Golf Course, to be known as the Mount Curve Addition, based on plans dated May 18, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 E. EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER II, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 100 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.5 acres, with variances, and with Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 15.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.5 acres into one lot for construction of 172,900 square feet of industrial uses in three buildings. Location: South of Valley View Road between Equitable Drive and Executive Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Paul Dunn, Welsh Companies, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He noted that the amount of parking shown was for 60% office use in the proposed development. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff Report regarding the proposed development, indicating that Staff was recommending approval of the development subject to recommendations listed in the report. Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 8, 1987 Ruebling asked proponents if they had any difficulties with any of the recommendations of the Staff Report. Mr. Dunn stated that they were willing to comply with all the recommendations. Fell stated that he was concerned about the lighting of the development from the point of view of safety, noting that the building adjacent to the proposed development, in which the City offices were located, appeared dark during evening hours and was poorly lit for people returning to their cars after night meetings. He suggested that the plans be reviewed by the Public Safety Department for this purpose. Planner Franzen responded that the Planning Department had been working toward coordination with the Public Safety Department on such matters early in the review process in order to avoid such problems and to inform developers of such concerns early in the process. Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Edenvale 9th Addition PUD for Edenvale Executive Center II, based on plans dated April 24, and June 3, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.5 acres, with variances, and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 15.5 acres for Edenvale Executive Center II, based on plans dated April 24, and June 3, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5,1987, with the addition of item 1.e., Submit an overall lighting plan for review, in particular with respect to safety of the public using the facilities. Motion carried--5-0-0 . MOTION 4: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for Preliminary Plat of 15.5 acres into one lot for construction of 172,900 sq. ft. of space for industrial uses in three Planning Corrmission Minutes 11 June 8, 1987 buildings for Edenvale Executive Center II, based on plans dated April 24, and June 3, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1987, with the addition of item 1.e. , Submit an overall lighting plan for review, in particular with respect to the safety of the public using the facilities. Motion carried--5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge. Acting Chairman Bye adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m.