CCP 08-10-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minut~s~f the Regular Council Meeting. August 10, 1987 Page ~ CASE 1/87-25; (Cont'd) Council questioned if the emergency vehicle access is . normally addressed in the site plan review process; Planner advised that it is common to address that issue during the review process and provide for the private drive to be clear for emergency vehicles. Moved by Peck, seconded by Hansen. that the motion be amended to include as a condition. that the applicant maintain internal fire lanes for emergency vehicle access. Second amendment to the motion carried. (4-0) First amendement to the motion carried. (4-0) Original motion as amended carried. (4-0) CASE #87-27; PKING. Council was referred to Planner's report 7-20-87 and LOT EXPANSION; LAND Planning Commission minutes (8-5-87), recommending O'LAKES. LEXINGTON approval of the site plan review for parking lot expansion at Land O'Lakes. Planner advised that the applicant is proposing to increase the parking supply in the existing lot by 76 spaces; this will be accomplished by eliminating a central driveway and several small "islands" in the parking lot and converting the driveway to parking spaces. He noted the expansion within the existing parking lot will be more functional and will have less visual impact than expansion into other large landscaped areas of the site. Miller recommended that the existing trees be relocated in the parking area. . James Strecker, representative of Land O'Lakes. was present to answer any questions and stated the plan would have little impact on the current parking lot situation. He advised that the existing trees are approximately 2 inches in diameter and would be easily relocated in the parking area. Moved by Winiecki, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Case #87-27, Amended Site Plan for Parking Expansion. Land O'Lakes. 4001 Lexington Avenue. contingent upon applicant relocating existing tress in the parking area. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CASE #87-23; REZONING Council was referred to Planner's report dated 7-13-87, R-1 to R-4 AND PUD and Planning Commission minutes of August 5th; relative CONCEPT PLAN, REEVES to the proposed Rezoning from R-l to R-4 and PUD SNELLING AND HWY. 96 Concept Plan for the Reeves property at the southwest quadrant of Snelling and Highway 96. The Planner explained the applicants are proposing to construct a 48-unit. 3 story apartment building on the 4.4-acre site. He advised this would require rezoning the property from R-1 to R-4; since multiple dwelling structures in the R-4 District must be approved under the PUD process, approval of the PUD Concept Plan is also being requested. Miller stated that the plan presented this evening was almost identical to the 1985 plan Council had considered. the \ ../( only exceptiort~~ the access ha$tbeen moved to Highway 96. rather than Snelling . ill\j ly' Avenue. He advised that the Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on August 5th; Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD Concept Plan only. by a split vote. Miller explained that the plan submitted . was not detailed sufficiently to be considered as a General Plan; therefore was only considered as concept plan. When applicant submits the General Plan. with detailed plans for grading. landscaping. all building details; the zoning issue could be considered at that time. Miller stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area, as well as the entire church area adjacent, as an R-3 Density, medium density of 4 units per acre which is normally considered townhouse density. The applicant is requesting R-4 density, which is 12 units per net acre. The applicant moved the access to Highway 96 because it may have less impact on the existing single family development on Snelling; after discussion at the Planning Commission meeting it was recommended that the access be pla,ced, oJ?' . Snelling due to overall traffic impact on the community. c./--l.RQ.~ ,{JLau;:J !~",..J. ~'~."~)..,..:.,,i_ f"'""tr !....;-".;" v'':? {, " . Miller discussed the previous discussion relative to conditional zoning; he noted that if the Council ~ished just to rezonejthis application would be at the maximum density for the property with the pond located on the site. Planning Commission was comfortable with the Concept Plan and attaching the rezoning to the General Plan review; however, they did not favor just a "blanket" rezoning. ----