Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 02/23/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,FEBRUARY 23, 1998 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Kyle Halvorson,Adam Hupp STAFF LIAISON: Mike Franzen, City Planner, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder MEMBERS ABSENT: Beverly Alexander I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of February 9, 1998 as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MAPLE ADDITION by MSS Holdings. Request for Rezoning From R1-22 to Rl- 13.5 on 3.64 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.64 acres into 8 lots. Location: 9060 Staring Lane West(Continued Public Hearing). Steve Kroiss, MSS Holdings, LLC, reviewed the changes made to the proposal which has been reduced to six single family lots from the original eight lots, and he requested approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat. Franzen noted that staff recommended approval of the requests subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report. The Public Hearing was re-opened. No one present wished to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 1998 Page 2 MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MSS Holdings for Preliminary Plat of 3.64 acres into 6 lots within the existing R1-22 zoning district based on plans dated February 13, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 20, 1998. Motion carried 6-0. B. REGAL CINEMA by Ryan Companies of Minnesota. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 17.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.88 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 17.88 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 3 lots. Location: East of Prairie Center Drive between Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive (Continued Public Hearing). Corey Birkeland, Centers Group, discussed the project and the traffic and parking information. He noted they hired the firm of Parsons Brinkerhoff which is a large traffic consultant in Minneapolis. They have looked at the market for large cinematic complexes and feel there are several options available to the Planning Commission. One option is to approve the request as presented. Another option would be to approve the project with a shared parking arrangement that could be implemented if needed. He was opposed to downsizing the project and requested the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed. Paul Bilotta, 10 Second Street NE, Minneapolis, representing Parksons Brinkerhoff Parking Consultants, reviewed the parking analysis that was submitted for the project. He discussed the market and how it would be changing in the next few months as more of these complexes are constructed. They researched both local and national resources to obtain the data which was included in the study. Most places in the country require a parking ratio of 1:5. They used cinema data from other providers to find out what was required in other areas. He showed graphs which illustrated comparisons of parking requirements from various agencies and municipalities. They researched other sites which have a large amount of parking to get some comparisons. Regal parking data comes out at a ratio of about 1:4.55. Sandstad commented the chart showed local parking ratios at 1:3, but he did not see any national ratios like that. Bilotta responded that most of them were higher. The local ordinances which have parking requirements of 1:3 are ones that do not have these issues, but those communities that have these theaters have parking ratios that are higher. Clinton inquired if Bilotta was familiar with the parking requirements of the City of Hopkins as they just built a new theatre. Bilotta responded he did not have any information on the requirements for Hopkins. Foote asked about seating capacities versus parking requirements in Coon Rapids. Bilotta responded they do not use those figures because they were so new and it would need to be supplemented by data from national sources. The figures change so much as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 1998 Page 3 the business stabilizes and things settle down, that any long-term projections are difficult to make. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted staff recommended approval of Alternative #1 in the Staff Report. The Public Hearing was re-opened. No one present wished to speak. Sandstad commented he was ready to support Alternative #1 with two restaurants as he was comfortable with the data provided by the traffic consultant. Habicht concurred with Sandstad. Foote commented he was concerned about safety issues if people should have to cross the streets, and he would prefer to see the number of theaters reduced. He would prefer to see 12-15 theaters instead of the 20 proposed, but he did not want to eliminate the two restaurants. Wissner stated she wanted to be sure they have adequate parking for this facility. She supported the 20 theaters and the two restaurants proposed. Ismail did not want to have parking across the street, and he would prefer to hear a better argument put forth to support the need for twenty theaters. Clinton stated he was comfortable with the twenty theaters after reading the reports and the traffic studies. He was not convinced the parking lot would ever be full given the staging of the movies. They have had proposals for the Eden Prairie Center presented that never came to fruition and he was reluctant to refuse a developer because of something that"may"happen at that location in the future. Sandstad commented that Alternative#1 did not include any off-site parking and thus no safety issues were involved. Off-site parking was also not part of the staff recommendation. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of Alternative #1 for Ryan Companies of Minnesota for Planned Unit Development Amendment review on 17.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.88 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 17.88 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 3 lots based on plans dated February 13, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 20, 1998. Motion carried 5-1. Foote voted"no". C. EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL PHASE 3 EXPANSION by Independent School District 272. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 67 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 67 acres, Zoning District Amendment, within the Public Zoning District on 67 acres and Site Plan Review on 67 acres. Location: 17185 Valley View Road(Continued Public Hearing). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 1998 Page 4 Michael LeVetter representing Eden Prairie High School and Independent School District 272 reviewed the plans for the Activity Center and the turf field which will be covered by a bubble during inclement weather. This field will be available for other uses after regular school hours. The additions will not make parking a large factor in this development. The turf field is about ten feet lower in elevation than the adjacent neighborhood which will provide some screening. He described the additional screening efforts which will be done that will include planting trees and using landscaping to reduce the scale of the building. He showed a photo montage which represented how the bubble would appear from the adjacent residential properties and the buffering that will be done with evergreens. Foote asked how the bubble would be illuminated and LeVetter responded that it will appear to be lit all over because the bubble is made of a translucent material. Habicht asked how large the trees shown on the landscape plan would be, and LeVetter responded they will use 750 caliper inches for the screening from the homes, which the montage does not illustrate as well. The height of the trees shown on the montage will be approximately fourteen feet in height when they are planted and will grow to about double that at maturity(about twenty years). Most of the trees shown on the plan will be between 10-12 feet in height when planted. Ismail inquired if the number of students attending EPHS will peak at 3,600 when will that occur. He also inquired if they would charge fees for use of the buildings at night. Steve Schultz, Activities Director at EPHS responded that enrollment will peak at EPHS within the next five years, and they are only about 1,000 students below that figure at present. Community Education will be developing a fee schedule for use of the Activity Center and Bubble before the construction of these facilities is completed. LeVetter commented that the noise level generated by activities within the bubble will be within the Noise Ordinance requirements. Sandstad inquired if the Stadium would be visible from the upper parking lot after the construction was completed, and LeVetter responded it would be visible from the east entrance,but probably not from the western parking lot area. LeVetter explained that the Activity Center was intended to function in conjunction with both the bubble and the stadium and if the orientation of the building were changed it would be too far away from these other facilities to be useful. Sandstad asked about the ticketing and LeVetter responded they have not yet made final decisions regarding this,but probably the existing ticketing will remain, and an additional ticketing area will be added adjacent to the plaza in front of the Activity Center. Sandstad asked how many parking spaces will be lost by these additions and LeVetter responded they will lose 123 parking spaces. Wissner inquired how long the material used for the bubble would last and Schultz responded it was supposed to last for 20 years. Wissner commented that perhaps in twenty years it may no longer be needed. LeVetter stated that the bubble gave them more flexibility for scheduling the physical education programs, and because the Activity Center is only going to contain six stations, the bubble will give them the additional two stations they need without the additional expense that a building would cost. Wissner stated she was concerned about the loss of the 123 parking spaces at the high school and LeVetter responded they would lose some parking no matter where the buildings were placed. Schultz stated the largest parking PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 1998 Page 5 demand was for football games. They have auxiliary parking with Prairie View Elementary, the church and Immanuel Lutheran Church if needed. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted staff recommended approval subject to the recommendations listed in the Staff Report. The Public Hearing was re-opened. Sharon Beard, 16691 Hillcrest Court North, asked about the sound levels that would emanate from the bubble and what they could be compared to. John Queter, Cunningham Group, responded that a highway would generate a noise level in the range of 70-80 decibels and the levels above 40 decibels were audible to a person inside a building. However, the highway noise was a constant noise level, which tends to be ignored after a while, and is less noticeable than a noise level which has sudden increases and decreases. The noise level from the bubble will be a constant sound which should be less annoying. Beard asked about the exterior lighting on the bubble and LeVetter responded they need to maintain about a 10 Footcandle level and in comparison the stadium is lit at about 50 Footcandles. He noted the lighting will be directed downward and should not impact the adjacent neighborhood. Beard asked about facilities for the bubble and LeVetter responded the permanent structures inside the Activity Center would be used. Beard asked if the plaza outside the Activity Center will impact the existing plaza that was just redone. LeVetter responded there has only been some sod laid in this area to reduce the mud, but nothing will impact the existing plaza. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the trees and the visibility of the buildings from the adjacent properties. Sandstad asked if there were any auxiliary uses for the Activity Center that they should know about. LeVetter responded they hope to hold graduation ceremonies there at some time in the future, but that will not be possible until adequate seating can be added to the Activity Center. The floor in the Activity Center is a composition floor and not suitable for athletic competitions or similar events. Schultz commented the Activity Center will be available for use after school hours but they have not defined these uses. Such things as an antique show, basketball camps, etc. have been discussed as possible other uses for the buildings. The bubble area would be used for band practice or soccer practices and similar types of things. LeVetter stated that the High School is a large Community Center and focal point for the entire community. He described the construction schedule. Wissner commented she was initially opposed to the bubble idea,but had come to realize the need and felt the temporary structure did not have the impact or cost factor of a permanent building, and she supported the project. Sandstad supported the project with the stipulation that the lights outside the bubble reflect downward. Ismail stated he supported the project, and asked about the color of the bubble; LeVetter responded the bubble would be white in color. Habicht stated he had difficulty with the number of waivers associated with the project but supported it because this was what happens when a lot of building is done on a small area. Foote stated he was pleased by the amount of landscaping and screening that was going to be done, and he sincerely hoped the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 1998 Page 6 Community would have an opportunity to utilize these facilities. He supported the project; Clinton concurred. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Independent School District 272 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 67 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 67 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 67 acres, and Site Plan Review on 67 acres based on plans dated February 18, 1998, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 20, 1998 with the inclusion that lighting outside the bubble be directed downwards. Motion carried 6-0. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBER'S REPORTS Ismail stated this would be his last meeting with the Planning Commission as he would be out of town next month, and he wished to express his appreciation for all the learning and opportunities for making friends that he had experienced while serving on the Commission. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ismail moved, seconded by Foote, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.