Planning Commission - 11/24/1980 f`
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, November 24, 1980
7: 30 W., City Hall
PLANNING LOMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman , Liz
Retterath , George Bentley,
Virginia Gartner, Matthew Levitt,
Haken Torjesen , Grant Sutliff
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning ;
Jean Johnson, Assistant Pla6ner;
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II . APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 109 1980 MINUTES
III . MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. MENARD ADDITION REPI.AT, by Menard , Inc. Request to
rep at utlots D. E, & F, Menard Addition. A continued
public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNE-R' S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
{
r�
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMIKATS.ZiUN
ahnrnorl
2Y , 11OU 7: 30 PM, City Hall
k MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner,
Grant Sutliff, George Bentley, Liz Retterath ,
Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Levitt
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson , Assistant Planner; Sue Schulz,
P1 ann;ng Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted- Retterath seconded.
motion carried 6-0.
II . APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 109 1980 MINUTES
P. 39 Item VI , last line, delete 'seemed to indicate that we did
not have adequate safe guards ' and insert , ' did not contain
r information they were not already aware of, and then requested
Staff to ask the City Attorney what, other safe guards could be
incorporated to Tore effectively insure compliance, i .e. ,
penalties , etc. It was suggested by the Commission that a
meeting with the City Attorney would be he ifu l . '
Bentley moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 5-0-1. Torjesen abstained.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
Gartner stated that the 212 mapping Task Force would like the Me r-o -
Council and Cities to approve an official U.S. 212 map and also
stated that the Task Force is having a special meeting, December 10,
1980, for the new Council Members and stated that anyone can attend.
Bentley stated that he will not be able to attend because of another
meeting. Oentley suggested the meeting regarr'--a 1912 be rescheduled
as it conflicts with.. apsg.ther meeting some Counci I people Kill be
attending.
._ .,rn.�'• - ..... /l RN •LC — .`.�.<._�., ,..,.: .• .- -•_ •_ + . .... _�.•wr. -__�—... .. �.�.�.._—_yt•MIq�\yx...^.. ttip'^-• �n R:.. .v .. -.....-1...- �_ •.a.ly�►•• �.+q::x.+.rf«.et�w. ..
1t"
lfE�.�MENT P��SAl.S
A. MENARD ADDITION REPLAT, by Menard, Inc. Request to replat Outlots
b F, Menard Addition. A continued public hearing.
The Assistant Planner stated that this proposal has been continued many times and
also stated that there is a staff report dated 11/21/80 regarding the plans dated
11/17/aD. She also stated that Mr. Mary Prochaska, representing Menard'.% w- s present
and Mr. Dan Johnson, of Suburban Engineerin% was alee, present:
Den Johnson reviewed the plan and staked that the proponent wants to reilion
Plaza Drive to intersect with Sctooner Boulevard. He also reviewed tM replat,
the plan, the sight lines, the s&ijaa f:, "-also �'Oe�` t�"t _ . . .._�......_.
Outlot r will raemin residential
T_....,rr.,. ._nyrMiwi¢7F1n"»'i.Rr�•.s�..aTer.+'••�.f...:: r..tn�s...1►u....-awa.•...-.�.,e.e1 -. -.�..q,a.—+.-_.....�r.... ..r.....•x.-.+...mac•�-•'• Yi.+,}!+li'..'�.�'64r
L
t
I
approved
Pianning Commission Minutes -2- November 24 , 1980
The Assistant Planner reviewed the staff report dated 11/21/80.
icetteratn askew when it is anticipated that Schooner Blvd. will be connected to
Plaza Drive and Valley View Road terminated. The assistant Planner replied that
construction could begin next year and be finished in 2 years .
Beaman asked if the proponent has discussed with the County the plans for Valley
View Road' s termination. Johnson replied that they believed that the City was going
to take over the road. He also stated that the plan is bases+ upon the termination
of Valley View Road as located on the plan.
Beaman asked what the height of the buildings would be. Johnson replied 40 ft.
Beaman then asked if the buildings can be made higher than 40 ft. The Assistant
Planner replied yes.
Beaiiman asked if the proponent has any plans fcr Outlots D b E. Prochaska replied
no.
Torjesen asked if any grading has been done assuming this proposal is approved.
Prochaska replied no.
Bentley asked if there will be significant grade changes. Johnson replied yes.
Retterath asked how much of a grade change. Johnsa, replied 7 ft.
Bentley asked if there was screening planned at the time of the original proposal .
Dan Johnson replied that the buildings were to be used as screening . Bearnan stated
that he did not recall from the original proposal that the buildings would be used
as screening.
Bentley felt: that Outlet f will have w) be screened to screen the residents to
the north of the site from the property.
Bearman asked zf commercial buildings have mechanical equipment on the top.
The Assistant Planner replied yes.
Torjesen asked if the eaba nkwent is stable. Johnson replied yes.
Sutliff asked if sewer interceptor is a •probiem. Prochaska stated with the
areal i gned Plaza Drive there is no problem.
Jim Dugan, 12771 Vina Lane, stated that he does not feel that his view of the
top of the Menard's building can be screened.
John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive stated that he was concerned with -the vacation;! -of Valley
View Road ;ecause some driveways descend onto that road.
Bentley stated that as he understood it. Schooner Blvd. has to meet grade require-
ments and there is a grade problem to complete Valley View Road. He further stated
that there would also be an intersection problem. Prochaska stated that at the time
of the original proposal , it was agreed to cul-de-sac Valley View Road and tthze residents
warted it to be terminated because of traffic problems. Bearman stated that he recalls
that point.
"he Assistant Planner stated tMt the City E sneer's office agrees with Uw
sd location of terminating Valley View �
1
.approved
Planning Cocwission Minutes -3- November 24, 1980
i
Reedy stated that he felt that it would be wrong for the Co�mission to assume that
Valley View Road would be terminated.
Bill Verkuilen, 12650 Valley View Road stated that ►fe approves of the termination Y
of Valley View Road and believed the revised plan screens his viers of the site.
Reedy stated that he was concerned with the intersection of Plaza Drive and
Schooner Blvd.
MOTION 1:
Bentley moved to close the public hearing on Menard Addition Replat. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
NOTION 2:
nt ey moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the replat based upon
the ammos dated 11/21/80 and 8/5/80 and the material dated 11/17/80 and 8/20/80
with the fo i l owi ng recomneradati ons :
1. That a citizen's group be forted to work with the developer to insure
screening that meets the rrauirements of the neighborhood.
2. That a performance bond, a cash escrow, or a let.-ter of credit be posted
for at least 150% cf the estimated improvement cost.
3. That the developer present a workable screening plan on Ntlot C to
screen existing housing to the north from development on this site.
4. That mature 1 andscap i i.g plant material be used.
5. That final grading plant for Outlots C, Ds E, b F. be approved to the
City prior to site alteration.
6. Further mass grating of building sites, for Outlots C, D, E, 6 F, without
rezoning and platting approval will not be permitted.
7. That approval to this plan be contingent upon agreement with Hennepin
County concerning the vacation of existing Valley View Road east of
Topview Road.
8. Reaffirm re=idenial uses on Outlot C.
Gartner seconded,, motion carried 5-1. Retterith vottd no.
V1 . NEW BUSINESS
Vt! . S QfPORT
The
Assistant anner stated that Fairway Woods ., MTS/MCC. Sentec Office Re-
zwi"g s.td Edenvaie Apartments will be coming up at the next meeting.
fill
W
or ems+► fflo to adjourn the mting at 9: 10 PM. Gartner seconded., motion
cmrr i ed 6-0.
.?''•s-