Planning Commission - 03/09/1992 EDEA PRAIRIE PLAAA Ll kx U0iVLV1 6oIVA
Monday, March 9, 1992
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James
Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Mary Jane Wissner and
Kenneth E. Clinton
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Scott Kipp, Planner;
Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
• A. SOUTHGATE 2ND by Stephen Rowland for Zoning District Change from R1-22
to R1-13.5 on 4.1 acres, Preliminary Plat 4.1 acres into 9 single family lots and
road right-of-way to be known as Southgate 2nd Addition. Location: west of
Baker Road, north of St. Andrew Drive and east of Vervoort Lane.
B. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church
on 6.6 acres; Zoning District Change from RI-22 to Public, and Site Plan Review
on 6.6 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the R1-22 District on 3.4 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into 5 lots for construction of a 7,600 square foot
church and 4 new single family lots to be known as Victory Lutheran Church.
Location: East of Eden Prairie Road, west of Red Oak Drive and north of
Bergen Drive. A continuted public hearing.
C. FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY by Independent School District 272 for Site
Plan Review within the Public Zoning District on approximately 58 acres for
construction of an 18,350 square foot addition with parking and circulation
improvements to the Forest Hills Elementary School. Location: 13708 Holly
Road.
Agenda
Planning Commission
March 9, 1992
Page 2
D. CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL by Independent School District 272 for Site
Plan Review within the Public, I-2 and R1-22 Zoning Districts on approximately
60 acres for construction of a 60,000 square foot addition and parking circulation
improvements to the Central Middle School. Location: 8025 School Road.
E. PRAIRIE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL by Independent School District
272 for Site Plan Review within the Public Zoning District on 9.9 acres for
construction of a 15,800 square foot addition to the Prairie View Elementary
School. Location: 17255 Peterborg Road.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Recommendation from Planning Commission for one member to be appointed by City
Council to serve on Minnesota River Bluffs AdHoc Committee.
VH. ADJOURNMENT
AGN39.BS
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
Ob APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMIVIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton,James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane
Wissner.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director, Scott A. Kipp, Planner; Deb
Edlund, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Planning Department Director, Chris Enger, preformed the swearing in ceremonies for new
commissioners Mary Jane Wissner and Ken Clinton.
M. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the minutes for the February 24, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2. Wissner & Clinton abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SOUTHGATE 2ND by Stephen Rowland for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5
on 4.1 acres, Preliminary Plat 4.1 acres into 9 single family lots and road right-of-way to be
known as Southgate 2nd Addition. Location: West of Baker Road, north of St. Andrew Drive
and East of Vervoort Lane. A public hearing.
Scott Kipp reported that the proponent had requested a two week continuance.
MOTION:
• 1
Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to continue to the March 23, 1992, Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church on 6.6 acres; Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to Public, and Site Plan Review on 6.6 acres; Zoning District Amendment
within the R1-22 District on 3.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into 5 lots for construction
of a 7,600 square foot church and 4 new single family lots to be known as Victory Lutheran
Church. Location: East of Eden Prairie Road, West of Red Oak Drive and north of Bergen
Drive. A continued public hearing.
Kipp reported that this item had been continued from the January 13, 1992 meeting to address
issues raised by area residents and Commission members, including; a cul-de-sac versus a
private driveway for existing home owner, access to County Road 4 at Berger Drive, screening
of parking area, and storm water N.U.R.P. pond standards.
Pastor Mundahl, representing the Church, stated that all of the issues raised by the residents at
the January 13, 1992 meeting had been addressed. He added that the Church concurred with
the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report.
Kipp reported that a cul-de-sac plan was now being proposed which appeared to meet everyone's
needs. He also said that the County would be shifting the full median cut from Lake Shore
Drive (to be abandoned) to proposed Berger Drive. Kipp stated that adequate screening of the
parking area was proposed and that a N.U.R.P. pond would be developed according to current
standards. Kipp reported that Staff recommended approval of the revised plan as proposed.
Jane Murphy, 16072 Berger Drive, stated concern about the lighting and screening of the
parking lot. Murphy questioned if the lights would be left on all night. Kipp replied that the
lighting would be 20-foot downcast lighting which was standard for projects which abutted
residential areas. Pastor Mundahl replied that the latest the lights in the parking lot should be
left on would be approximately 10:00 PM. Kipp replied that a site line was drawn from the
Murphy property to the parking lot demonstrating screening of the parking.
Bill Gilk, 8485 Red Oak Drive, questioned if evergreens would be planted to screen the parking
lot on the north side. Kipp replied that evergreens would be planted along the back of the
building and additional berming would be provided. Kipp added that earth berming would be
located along County Road 4.
Norman asked the Nicklay's to comment on their satisfaction with the proposal of a cul-de-sac.
Alan Nicklay replied that they were comfortable with the plan as proposed and added that their
concerns had been addressed satisfactorily.
Bauer commented that while he was comfortable with the changes in the plans, it would have
been helpful to have had the minutes of the January 13, 1992 meeting included in the packet.
2
Norman concurred that seeing the minutes from the previous meeting would have been helpful.
Kipp replied that items 1 thru 4 in the Staff Report were a condensed version of the issues raised
at the January 13, 1992 meeting.
Clinton asked if the DNR Shoreline Ordinance issue had been resolved. Kipp replied yes, that
both the Shoreline Ordinance and N.U.R.P. issues had been resolved.
Kardell stated that she was pleased with the resolutions presented to address the issues raised at
the last meeting.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Victory Lutheran Church for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Church on 6.6 acres, based on plans dated March 4, 1992, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and March 6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-
0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Victory Lutheran Church for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Public and Site Plan
Review on 6.6 acres for construction of a 7,600 sq. ft. church, and Zoning District Amendment
within the R1-22 District on 3.4 acres for four (4) new single family lots, based on plans dated
March 4, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and March
6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Victory Lutheran Church for Preliminary Plat of ten (10) acres into five (5) lots for
construction of a 7,600 sq. ft. church and four (4) new single family lots, based on plans dated
March 4, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and March
6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY by Independent School District 272 for Site Plan Review
within the Public Zoning District on approximately 58 acres for construction of an 18,350 square
foot addition with parking and circulation improvements to the Forest Hills Elementary School.
Location: 13708 Holly Road.
3
Enger reported that Staff had just received a memorandum from the Fire Marshall regarding this
project and presented copies to the Planning Commission.
Steve Thompson, representing the proponent, presented the plans for an 18,000 square foot
addition to the existing school. He said that the school's main concern with regard to the site
plan was the safety of the children in the bus zone. Thompson pointed out that the parent drop
off was on the outside of the bus zone which caused the children to cross in front of the buses.
A new curb cut from Holly Road was proposed to allow bus only access into the bus zone area.
The car traffic would enter at a separate entrance and the children would be dropped off opposite
the bus zone.
Sandstad asked if there would be an increase in parking spaces. Thompson replied that some
parking spaces would be lost on the south end of the school as a part of eliminating the
temporary drop-off and short term parking.
Norman asked if the existing main parking lot would be torn out. Thompson replied that the
subgrade for the existing lot would be disturbed as little as possible and as much of the original
curb as possible would be kept in place as much as possible.
Wissner asked if there would be signs to indicate the bus zone was for buses only. Thompson
replied that the sign would probably say "Do Not Enter" refering to autos.
Clinton asked if it was safe for the buses to back out. Thompson replied that the buses pull out
in a forward manor and did not back up. Enger added that the buses only pull up to within
approximately 6-to-8 feet of the curb to allow them to turn and pull out in a forward direction.
Thompson reported that the new entrance had been positioned to provide a lotline alignment
between the two existing homes across the street and still provide adequate site lines from both
directions.
Five classrooms would be added to the southside of the building. The architecture would match
the existing building. Thompson noted that some interior remodeling would be done, a gym
added on the northside, and an elevator would be provided to make the gym handicap accessible.
A 4 foot loading dock would be added.
Norman asked if a classroom was being added on the northside of the building and if so at what
level would it be added. Thompson replied that a music room would be added on the northside
of the building.
Bauer noted that at any of the schools when special events take place parking is a problem and
questioned what the City did to take care of this problem. Enger replied that the City Code only
partially addressed parking requirements and in many instances it was a judgement call. Enger
stated that the recommendation was based on average parking needs on an average day. He
added that the City did not require special event parking provisions for schools. Thompson
• 4
replied that during special events the bus zone would be used for car parking.
Thompson reported that the School District would be meeting with the DNR and the Watershed
District. Thompson believed that it was premature to say that a N.U.R.P. pond was necessary.
Enger replied that the City had been under pressure from several government agencies to address
storm water runoff issues and the City was currently operating under a mandate to require
N.U.R.P. ponds. Enger noted that the City might not be able to defer to the DNR or the
Watershed District to make a decision related to the requirement for a N.U.R.P. pond. John
Hamilton, representing the proponent, stated that this was a playground area and questioned the
safety of requiring a pond on school grounds. Enger replied that it could be possible that
another technique could be used to provide the same results as a pond. Enger noted that Nine
Mile Creek and a marsh area were close to the school and that ponding in that area should not
cause a problem. Enger added that this was not a discretionary issue and Staff would work
further with the proponent.
Hamilton stated that he had not had a chance to absorb the memorandum from the Fire Marshall.
He added that he was not sure at this time of the location of the fire hydrant.
Enger questioned if the parking lot improvements were part of the proposal. Enger added that
he had understood that there was to be a two stage bidding process and the parking lot
improvements might not be done. Thompson replied that the school had recently given full
committment to the site improvements and intended to proceed.
Enger stated that he had attended the neighborhood meetings where an extra entrance to Holly
Road had been discussed. The main concern was going up and down the hill when it was
slippery. The redeeming factor for the entrance as proposed was the good site lines in both
directions. The Engineering Department did not recommend a midblock stop sign. Enger
pointed out Attachment A in the Staff Report which provided an alternative site plan with a
single point of access.
Thompson stated that while the school shared the City's concerns, approximately a dozen
possible layouts had been considered and the school would take issue with Attachment A.
Thompson said that while the layout did separate traffic it would not meet the school's
requirements for diagonal parking for the buses. He added that this layout would require a fully
monitored bus situation for safety. Thompson stated that the diagonal parking allowed for a
smaller amount of space to accomplish the same affect. Thompson noted that visitor parking
would not be provided with Attachment A. He further noted that the closer to Holly Road the
poorer the soil conditions. Thompson reported that the proponent plan provided for separate
areas for staff and visitor parking. Enger replied that Staff had spent a considerable amount of
time looking at this situation. Enger noted that the dimensions for the bus loop parking in
Attachment A were the same as proposed by the architects for the Central Middle School, which
provided for diagonal parking. Enger stated that visitor parking was provided in Attachment A.
Enger pointed out that in the architect's proposal all those who parked in the staff lot would need
to cross the bus lot. Enger believed a 7-to-8 foot berm could be built close to Holly Road for
• 5
• screening of parking for the Staff alternate plan. He questioned whether there was difficulty in
regrading the parking lot. Enger believed that Attachment A had merit. He pointed out that the
proponent's plan would also work and that either plan would greatly improve the existing
situation. Enger stated that the City owned all of the land involved in this proposal; the School
District had only purchased the footprint of the building. Enger added that the School District
had conceptual approval only for this proposal from the City. Enger noted that a concrete
exterior loading dock would not be allowed under City Code and this item would require further
discussion between the proponent and Staff.
Enger asked the proponent what the exterior brick color would be. Thompson replied that the
proponent would attempt to match the exterior brick as best as possible, but would like some
leave way in the color. Enger asked if the proponent was proposing a contrasting brick color.
Thompson replied no.
Enger outlined the Staff recommendations. He noted that the comments from the Fire Marshall
were normally addressed further along in the process. Enger stated that Staff and the proponent
would need to address further the issues of storm water runoff.
Bauer stated that if this were a private contractor the Planning Commission would request to see
brick samples and questioned why the School District should be given special treatment.
Wissner believed that brick color was a very sensitive issue because of the results at the High
School. Thompson replied that the High School was a special problem because the,intent was
to reduce the scale of the building mass.
Bauer was concerned that the School District was being given special treatment which would not
be afforded to others. Hamilton replied that schools were on a shorter time line because of
referendum issues. Hamilton added that the City had worked with fast-track development from
private contractors also. Bauer stated that he would have difficulty passing this proposal along
to the City Council because of the issues yet to be resolved. Bauer believed the item should be
continued.
Norman believed that the main issues were the site plan and the loading dock.
Kardell stated that she was not comfortable approving plans which were not complete. The
issues left to be resolved were the brick color, storm water runoff, and the loading dock.
Sandstad asked the proponent to address the issue of the design in Attachment A matching that
at the Central Middle School. Thompson replied that at the Middle School diagonal parking was
only used along the straight curb portion. He added that the school did not support fanning out
parking along the curb. Thompson believed that the parking should be either all diagonal or all
parallel along the curb. Thompson emphasized that the main issues was the life safety issues
for the children.
6
Enger did not believe that the brick color was an issue if the developer said that they would
• match the existing. Enger added that the loading dock item still needed to be dealt with further.
Thompson replied that this was the first time this had been mentioned and he was unaware this
was not allowed by City Code. Enger stated that the Planning Commission could approve the
plan without the loading dock. Hamilton noted that a loading dock had existed on the premises
for over 20 years.
George Stewart, resident, questioned if a sidewalk was proposed. Enger replied that the
recommendation did not include a sidewalk on the south side of Holly Road. Stewart believed
that it would be difficult for the buses to get up the hill from a dead start with the proposed
entrance. Stewart questioned where the National Urban Runoff Policy (N.U.R.P.)pond would
be located. Thompson replied the pond would be located on the north side of the building if it
was needed. Thompson noted that the school would be meeting with Staff and the Watershed
District to discuss the need for a pond further.
Susan Banal, 6805 Rosemary Road, believed that it was paramount to have the children's safety
foremost. She also wanted the trees to be left in place as much as possible for aesthetic
purposes.
Bauer asked if Staff had a strong preference between the proponents proposal for the parking
lot and Attachment A from Staff; assuming that the road conditions could be met. Enger replied
that if Attachment A could not provide diagonal parking-it would not work. Enger added that
Staff had believed that diagonal parking would work because the dimensions were the same as
Sused at the Central Middle School which provides for diagonal parking. Enger said that if
Attachment A bus parking would work as well as the proponent's plan Staff would prefer
Attachment A.
Norman questioned when Staff would know if Attachment A would work or not. Thompson
replied that the Central Middle School design was different from Attachment A in that the
diagonal parking was not along the curb. Thompson believed that the proponent had the
expertise in this area after designing many of the local schools. Thompson further noted that
Attachment A would not be acceptable to the School District from a financial standpoint and did
not meet the District's goals.
Clinton asked if the proponent's plant would create problems in the winter. Thompson replied
that their engineers believed the plan as proposed would work well due to the visibility from
both directions. Thompson added that only 1 out of 17 buses would go up the hill; the majority
of the buses went in the opposite direction.
Norman asked if both the cars and buses would use the same driveway. Thompson replied yes.
Sandstad asked if it would be possible for the proponent to work out the remaining issues and
return to the Planning Commission in two weeks. Thompson replied that he believed that the
plan as proposed was the best possible solution.
7
Bauer believed that the loading dock would either need to be eliminated, brought up to City
• Code, or a variance requested. Bauer said the proponent had indicated that they would be
matching the existing brick as best as possible. Thompson replied that the proponent would
match the existing brick. Bauer stated that the only remaining issue was if Attachment A or the
proponent's proposal was the best parking lot layout. Enger replied that if diagonal bus parking
would not work Attachment A would not solve the problem.
Thompson stated that the proponent would match the existing brick, would either eliminate the
loading dock or request a variance, and would install a N.U.R.P. pond if it was found
necessary.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of School District #272 for Site Plan Review on approximately 58 acres for construction of an
18,350 sq. ft. addition, with parking and circulation improvements, to the Forest Hills
Elementary School, based on plans dated March 2, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated March 6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• D. CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL by Independent School District 272 for Site Plan Review
within the Public, I-2 and R1-22 Zoning Districts on approximately 60 acres for construction
of a 60,000 square foot addition and parking circulation improvements to the Central Middle
School. Location: 8025 School Road.
Thompson presented plans for a 60,000 square foot addition to include classrooms, a cafeteria,
and gym. The project would be accomplished in phases which would begin in 1993 and
complete in 1996. Thompson stated that the existing entry on School Road was unacceptable
and a new curb cut would be made to move the traffic around the Kindergarten Center and
Administrative Building. The grade would be reduced to approximately 7%. Thompson said
that a one-way loop system would be developed in 1994-1995. Thompson reported that the
proponent was working with MnDot regarding Highway 212 location and drainage issues. The
proposal would include the development of ballfields etc. to the north. Thompson stated that
as many utilities as possible would be buried underground. The demolition of a portion of
Wallace Road would be part of Phase H. Three warehouse structures to the east would also be
demolished. The students would then be brought in to the east end of the school.
Sandstad asked if the buses would use both School Road and Highway 5. Thompson replied that
the buses only would use School Road to the Kindergarten Center.
8
Norman asked if a new access to Technology Drive would be done when Wallace Road was
. closed. She did not believe that it would be good to have all the buses go down to Highway 5.
Thompson replied that all the buses would not use Highway 5.
Kardell asked the proponent to go over the Phasing Plans. Thompson replied that the west side
would be developed first with the realignment of School Road and the west parking area. In
1994-1995 the addition to the north and east would be done with the abandonment of Wallace
Road.
Norman asked if any of the Administration would go into the new proposed facility with the City
offices. Enger replied that the Family Center and Community Education would be located with
the City offices. Norman asked if the Kindergarten Center was adequate. Hamilton replied that
some remodeling of the Kindergarten Center would be done.
Bauer asked what exterior material was proposed. Thompson replied it was the proponent's
intent to match the existing brick, glass and aluminum. Thompson added that some discussion
had been given to the use of exterior panels similar to those used at Oak Point. Bauer asked
Thompson exactly what the Planning Commission was approving tonight. Thompson replied
brick, glass, and aluminum similar to the existing. Bauer asked if these were the final sketches.
Thompson replied no. Bauer was concerned about approving plans without seeing exactly was
being proposed. Enger replied that it would be appropriate if the Commission desired to
approve the site plan and ask the proponent to return with final colors etc..
• Norman asked if the addition of a second story had been considered. Thompson replied that
from a cost perspective it was not a good solution.
Enger reviewed the Staff Report recommendations.
Kardell asked if the Base Area Ratio was after the additions. Enger replied yes.
Norman asked when the proponent would return to present the exterior materials. Enger replied
that it could be any time prior to building. Enger added that if the proponent's philosophy on
the color of the brick were to change the City should be notified immediately.
Scott Mork, 8081 Wallace Road, asked for clarification on the abandonment of Wallace Road.
Thompson replied that a cul-de-sac would be developed and Wallace Road would be abandoned
in front of the school.
MOTION 1:
Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
9
Y
Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
• of School District #272 for Site Plan Review on approximately 60 acres for construction of an
60,000 sq. ft. addition, with parking and circulation improvements, to the Central Middle
School, based on plans dated March 2, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated March 6, 1992 with the addition that Item 1.1) be Changed to 3.B, landscaping
requirements are per the Hosington Study, and the proponent needed to return to the Planning
Commission with exterior material samples. Motion carried 6-0-0.
E. PRAIRIE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL by Independent School District 272 for Site Plan
Review within the Public Zoning District on 9.9 acres for construction of a 15,800 square foot
addition to the Prairie View Elementary School. Location: 17255 Peterborg Road.
Thompson presented plans for the addition of a gym and classrooms. He noted that no change
was proposed for the traffic circulation. Thompson stated that Phase 1 would begin in 1992.
The project would proceed with the addition on the north of the building first and then proceed
to the south and west end. A new public entrance thru the gym would be provided and there
would be upgrading of the existing facility.
Sandstad asked if there was a berm in the west portion of the property. Thompson replied that
the berm would be located on City property.
Thompson reported that the exterior material would match that of the existing facility.
Enger asked the proponent to point out where the 2 tennis courts were located. Thompson
pointed out the location and added that these courts were to be removed and relocated on the
Central Middle School side of the property. Enger asked which court would be removed and
which would remain. Hamilton replied that all of the courts were in rough condition. Enger
questioned if it would be possible to retain at least 1 of the tennis courts and to investigate the
possibility of tennis courts on the High School property. Thompson believed that both courts
would be impacted by the addition.
Jim Touve, 17216 Peterborg Road, believed that the road was being ruined by the bus traffic.
He added that blacktop was not made to hold up to bus traffic. Touve was concerned about cars
parking on both sides of Peterborg Road during special events. Touve believed that the parking
created dangerous situations and further that the parking was not adequate now, what would it
be with the addition classrooms etc.. Enger replied that the road condition would need to be
reviewed by the Engineering Department.
Bauer asked what recommendation could be made for special event parking for schools. Enger
recommended that a team concept be developed for each school with City Staff, School
Officials, and neighbors. Enger did not believe that it was possible to design school parking for
peak use. Enger also noted that City streets were not equal in all areas.
Kardell question what additional parking requirements would be made with an approximate 30%
10
increase in space. Thompson replied that the increase would be approximately 120 students and
. 8 staff members.
Bauer believed that as the City grows the parking at special events would become a bigger issue.
Hamilton noted that there were 154 parking spaces now and only 60 staff members which left
90 extra spaces.
Enger noted that Staff needed to look at the fact that the street could be substandard in this
instance.
Touve stated that Peterborg Road was only 30 feet wide.
Norman believed that the City should get stricter on parking restrictions to one side of the street
only.
Thompson believed that when you placed too much focus on parking you lost open space.
Thompson did not believe that the City had a specific formula in place to calculate the parking.
Enger reviewed the Staff Report recommendations. Enger added that Staff recommended that
the school connect with the neighborhood trail system.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of School District#272 for Site Plan Review on approximately 9.9 acres for construction of an
15,800 sq. ft. addition, with parking and circulation improvements, to the Prairie View
Elementary School, based on plans dated March 2, 1992, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated March 6, 1992 with the addition the Staff review alternate parking
arrangements and road standard and the school explore the possibility of saving at least 1 of the
tennis courts. Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Enger requested that the Planning Commission hold the election of officers at the earliest possible date
when all Commissioners were present.
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Enger reported that a Minnesota River Bluff Ad Hoc Committee was being developed to review
• 11
information already provided. The committee would meet approximately 4 to 5 times during the next
30 to 60 days. Enger asked for a volunteer for the committee.
All commissioners stated that they would be willing to serve.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 PM.
MIN39.BS
12