Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/08/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONaMSION Monday, April 8, 1991 7:30 p.m. CONE IISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers III. NMVUTES i IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EATON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION(91-8-P)by The Eaton Corporation. Request for preliminary plat of approximately 47 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals to be known as Eaton Industrial Addition. Location: 15151 Highway #5. B. HIWAY 494 RACQUET CLUB (91-9-Z-P-SPR) by Northwest Racquet Swim and Health Club. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Com on 2.7 acres, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 19.53 acres into 1 lot and 3 outlots for construction of a parking lot and tennis court structures on the south side of the property to be known as Hiway 494/Crosstown Racquet, Swim and Health Club. Location: east of Baker Road, north of Holasek Lane. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT EDEN.PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 89 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer,Robert Hallett,Karen Norman,Charles Ruebling,Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell. STAFF MEMBERS: Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: James Hawkins, Karen Norman Absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published with the removal of Item II.A. Motion carried 5-0-0. •H. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers This item was removed from the Agenda by the previous motion. M. MINUTES MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Minutes of the March 11, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting as published. Motion carried 4-1-0. Ruebling abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EATON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION (91-8-P) by The Eaton Corporation. Request for preliminary plat of approximately 47 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals to be known as Eaton Industrial Addition. Location: 15151 Highway #5. Peter Knable, representing the proponent, stated that the request before the Planning Commission for the subdivision of the lot with a vacant building would allow for the sale . of the property. Both lots would meet all zoning requirements. Utilities for the second Planning Commission Opril 8, 1991 Page Two lot would come from existing lines; both buildings would be served by City sewer and water. Knable stated that the proponent concurred with the Staff Report recommendations with the exception of the extension of Technology Drive. The proponent does not agree with dedication of right-of-way"at this time and would prefer that the dedication be made when the actual extension of Technology Drive is made. Knable added that the property dedication would require a variance for the vacant building which would not meet the setback requirements. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based .on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. Bauer asked if the reason for Platting was simply for the sale of the property and if the proponent sold the property, how would the land dedication be handled. Brian Boren, representing Eaton, replied that a portion of property along the southern property line had been dedicated in 1982 and he believed that this should be adequate for Eaton Industrial. Uram replied that wording would be placed in the Developer's Agreement to assure right- of-way dedication by a new owner. • Sandstad recommended that the Planning Commission follow the Staff recommendations and guarantee the 75-foot right-of-way. Ruebling asked why MnDot would decided where Technology Drive would be located. Uram replied that Technology Drive-was part of the Highway 212 upgrade. Knable noted that MnDot's plans did not show the building being located on this lot. Hallett asked if the nesting areas would be protected in the pond area. He believed that the Park & Recreation Commission should look at this when construction would take place in areas where nesting areas had been developed. Knable replied that MnDot would be required to expand the pond or relocate the nesting area. Hallett believed that it was not only important for this project, but also for developments in the future where nesting areas are disturbed. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the . request of Eaton Corporation for preliminary plat of approximately 47 acres into two lots, Planning Commission epril 8; 1991 Page Three with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated April 3, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1991. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. HIWAY 494 RACQUET CLUB (91-9-Z-P-SPR) by Northwest Racquet Swim and Health Club. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Com on 2.7 acres, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 19.53 acres into 1 lot and 3 outlots for construction of a parking lot and tennis court structures on the south side of the property to be known as Hiway 494/Crosstown Racquet, Swim and Health Club. Location: east of Baker Road, north of Holasek Lane. Alan Kimpel, representing the proponent, reported that the parking situation required an expansion of the parking facilities. In 1989 the property to the south of the existing facility was purchased. The acquisition of this property altered the original plan for construction a parking ramp. Kimpel noted that further expansion of the building was not planned. Kimpel added that the property with the tennis courts would be dedicated to the City. The lighting and landscaping design would be the same as the parking lot to the north of the building. The existing temporary access to County Road 62 would be • closed as per a request from Hennepin County. Kardell asked if the surface of the parking lot would be blacktop. Kimpel replied the parking lot surface would be blacktop with full curb and gutters. Uram reported that the proponent would dedicate approximately 4 acres of property to the City. The City would deed the 30-foot access to the water tower and a portion of the old Baker Road right of way in exchange. Uram noted that the revised plan for surface parking to the south would accomplish the City's requirements based on the Traffic Study conducted. Uram also noted that.Hennepin County did have the authority to close the access drive when an alternative access was being provided. Darl Tellefsen, 6365 St. John's Drive, stated that there was already an existing problem with traffic and headlights shining into his dining room. Tellefsen asked how the children in the neighborhood would be able to access the park being dedicated because of the traffic. He did not believe that street was safe for children to cross. Tellefsen asked why the parking ramp could not be constructed as originally proposed. He emphasized that headlights would be a problem. Tellefsen recommended that a screening wall of some type be constructed to address the headlight issue. Tellefsen also believed that his property would be devalued. 0 Planning Commission jWpril 8, 1991 Page Four Kimpel stated that there was an existing cast wall to the south. He added that the cars would be lower than the wall. Kimpel stated that the proponent would.be willing to work with the neighbors to develop a screening plan and further believed that the new location of the access would help with the.headlight issue. Ruebling noted that the City did require parking areas to be screened. Tellefsen asked why the ramp could not be constructed as planned. Kimpel replied that when the additional property was purchased it was decided that the proposal as presented tonight would be a better solution to the problem. Kimpel noted that the new lot would have approximately 297 stalls. Jan Londgren, 6333 St. John's Drive, believed that for every foot the road moved further to the south the more dangerous the access would be due to the curve. Londgren questioned why they needed a bigger parking lot when many members were quitting because the facility itself was too crowded. Kimpel replied that the proponent was trying to keep the parking within parking lots and not on the streets. June Ruttger, 6431 Pinnacle Drive, asked if the tennis courts would be open to the public and if parking would be allowed on Pinnacle Drive. Kimpel replied that the tennis courts would be public and that parking would not be allowed on Pinnacle Drive. Sandstad asked if there would be adequate parking for the public parking. Kimpel believed that the parking would be adequate. Sandstad asked if there would be a sidewalk to the south of the new access. Uram replied that the Parks & Recreation Department had not mentioned any additional requirements for sidewalks. Sandstad believed that access to the courts from the south should be provided. Hallett asked if all of the headlights from traffic would be blocked off. Uram believed that the closing off of the temporary access would help with the headlight issue. Hallett asked how far down Baker Road the townhouses went. Tellefsen replied that the townhouses went past Pinnacle Drive. Hallett believed that Northwest should be required to screen with tall enough evergreens to stop the headlight problem. Ruebling stated that the neighbors were also concerned about the headlights which would now be coming from Pinnacle Drive, which was a public street. Planning Commission Okpril 8, 1991 Page Five Bauer asked if the proponent would be willing to meet with the Homeowner's Association and Staff to resolve the headlight issue. Bauer added that he liked to see development grow; however, from 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM Baker Road at this location is very busy. Bauer stated that he was concerned about the curve area. Hallett stated that the neighborhood was present before Northwest Racquet Club and there had never been any discussion about additional parking in the area to the south. Uram stated that this was a unique situation. The City does not require screening from a public street; however, in this situation it makes sense to review the headlight issue. Gerald Wright, President of the Homeowner's Association, asked why the parking could not be developed to the east of the building rather than on Baker Road. Kimpel replied that the City Engineering Department was concerned about the hill area. Hallett believed that it was important to have the proponent meet with the residents and Staff to work on the headlight issue to see if shrubs could be used. • Wright believed that approximately another 300 cars in this area would be obnoxious. Londgren asked if safety had been considered for the area to the south. Uram replied that it was Hennepin County that was requiring the second access to be closed. Bauer believed that the residents had raised valid issues which needed to be addressed. Kardell asked if MnDot had received this plan. Uram replied that plans had been sent to MnDot and the only response was to coordinate with Hennepin County. Sandstad asked if there would be a pedestrian crosswalk proposed because of the location of the park. Uram replied that this plan would go to the Parks &Recreation Commission and he added that he would bring the issue to the appropriate department heads. Kardell asked if the original expansion plans had been shelved indefinitely. Kimpel replied yes. Ruebling asked if the tennis courts would be lighted. Uram replied no. Planning Commission April 8, 1991 Page Six MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health Club for Zoning Change from Rural to C-Com on 2.7 acres for construction of a parking lot and tennis court structures, based on plans dated March 15 and 20, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated Aprils, 1991 with the following additions: Item I.D; Prior to City Council review, the proponent to meet with Staff and neighborhood representatives to reduce the headlight impact. Item I.E; A pedestrian entrance be provided to the tennis courts from the south. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the • request of Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health Club for Site Plan Review on 2.7 acres for construction of a parking lot and tennis court structures, based on plans dated March 15 and 20, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1991 with the following additions: Item I.D; Prior to City Council review, the proponent to meet with Staff and neighborhood representatives to reduce the headlight impact. Item I.E; A pedestrian entrance be provided to the tennis courts from the south. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 4: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health Club for Preliminary Plat of 19.53 acres into one lot and three outlots for construction of a parking lot and tennis structures, based on plans dated March 15 and 20, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated"April 5, 1991 with the following additions: Item I.D; Prior to City Council review, the proponent to meet with Staff and neighborhood representatives to reduce the headlight impact. Item I.E; A pedestrian entrance be provided to the tennis courts from the south. Motion carried 5-0-0. Planning Commission Opril 8, 1991 Page Seven V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VIE. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.