Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/13/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 13, 1989 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *NOTE: THE TIME LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. (7:35) A. WOODLAND PONDS, by Michael Halley Homes, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 20 acres, Preliminary Plat of 20 acres into 49 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of- way. Location: East of Juniper Lane extension, north of County Road G. A public hearing. (8:05) B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION . APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Doug Fell STAFF MEMBERS : Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Doug Sandstad and Charles Ruebling were sworn in by Director of Planning Chris Enger. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION• Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried 4-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS III . MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. WOODLAND PONDS, by Michael Halley Homes, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 20 acres, Preliminary Plat of 20 acres into 49 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: East of Juniper Lane extension, north of County Road # 1 . A public hearing. John Uban, representing the proponent, stated that the property had several constraints, which had not been originally anticipated. Uban noted that the proponent had met with the County Department of Transportation related to road alignment, the neighbors, the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and Wallace Hustad related to the co-ordination of development, and with the cities engineering department related to the drainage ponds on • the property. Additional right-of-way was dedicated for Pioneer Trail, with only one access point being proposed due to the curve of the road and sight distances. Uban Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 13, 1989 stated that the holding pond to the south would be enlarged to increase the storage capacity. The grading plan had been changed to save the trees for the park . He said that variances may be required for lots on the cul- de-sac. The road system would connect to Juniper Lane and a cul-de-sac would be constructed on the southern portion of the development. Retaining walls would be constructed along the right-of-way to help absorb the grade and 2 walls against the ponding area. Sidewalks would be installed throughout the subdivision. Uban noted that all of the lots met or exceeded the zoning requirements . He added that the lot front footages would be 70 to 75 feet. An architectural diversity plan was available with over a dozen styles to choose from. The homes would range in price from $120, 000 to $180,000. Sandstad asked why the proponent would be storing more water . Uban replied that a larger volume of water would be coming from the pond to the north. Sandstad asked Uban how much consideration had been given to retaining the larger trees. Uban replied that the proponent would save the trees along Pioneer Trail . He added that some trees would be lost because of the road system and the need to move the existing home . Uban said the pine trees would be transplanted and that additional • trees would be planted on each lot. He added that the significant stands of trees would be saved. Enger reported that Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning and the Preliminary Plat based on the Plans dated March 8, 1989 and Staff recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report of March 10, 1989 . Enger stated three retaining walls would be required and added that it would be very important to keep the drainage from running over the top of the retaining walls . A by-pass lane would be needed at the access to County Road #1. Variances would be required for two lots on the cul-de-sac related to street front footage requirements. Alan Gray, City Engineer, stated that the sanitary sewer needed to be extended from the intersection of County Road #18 and County Road #1 westerly along County Road #1, which would be done in conjunction with the Hustad Development. Staff was satisfied with the traffic circulation pattern and added that the project could proceed without the upgrade of County Road #1. Gray stated that the radius of the curve would need to be increased to a 30 MPH curve or reconfigured to a T intersection. Uban stated that the curve had a 150-foot radius. • Hallett arrived at 8: 05 PM. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 13, 1989 Gray stated that a study was being commissioned by the City Council to re-evaluate the original study for this watershed district. The drainage system for the proposed development consisted of a natural holding pond to the northeast, which overflowed via culverts to the second pond along County Road #1 and ultimately discharged into Bloomington. The entire 300 acre watershed district would consist of 8 to 9 ponds . Additional audience comments were asked for by the Chairperson. There was a pause while additional address slips were being filled out by persons wishing to speak . Anderson suggested that a minute be taken to swear in Planning Commission member Hallett before proceeding further. MOTION• Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to close the Public Hearing on Woodland Ponds . Motion carried 5-0-0 . Robert Hallett was sworn in by Director of Planning Chris Enger. MOTION• . Dodge moved, seconded by Ruebling to re-open the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. Thomas Jennings, 10125 Buckingham, stated that the pond was filled with silt and asked if the pond would be dredged out. Jennings believed that the pond could be made into a nice pond for the park . Gray replied that Staff had looked at this pond extensively. Gray added that a proposed plan was to develop a different outlet and raise the dike . Jennings believed that dredging the pond would increase the holding capacity. Gray replied that Staff was looking at two alternatives; 1) to expand the northern pond, 2 ) to expand the pond in the park area . Gray noted that the pond in the park was man-made. Gray added that some type of improvement would be made to the drainage system. Ruebling asked if the pine trees were going to be saved in addition to the 540 caliper inches of trees referred to in the Staff Report. Uban replied that trees would be planted along the berm and on each lot . Ruebling understood the proponent to be saying that the transplanted trees were being included in the 540 caliper inches . Enger stated that the City's Tree Replacement Policy would not allow 100% credit for the transplanted • trees because of the higher mortality rate and; therefore, only partial credit would be allowed. Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 13, 1989 • Ruebling asked at what height a fence was required on a retaining wall and if a requirement for a fence be added to the Staff Recommendations . Enger replied that the request would be appropriate. MOTION 1• Dodge moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 3-0-2 . Hallett and Anderson abstained. Hallett abstained because he had not heard the entire presentation. Anderson abstained because business associations with the proponent. MOTION 2• Dodge moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Michael Halley Homes, Inc. , for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 20 acres for a single family residential development to be known as Woodland Ponds, based on plans dated March 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 10, 1989 with the addition of recommendation No . 7 to read : Fencing be included on the top of the retaining walls . Motion carried 3-0-2 . Hallett and Anderson abstained. • MOTION 3• Dodge moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Michael Halley Homes, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat of 20 acres into 49 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way, to be know as Woodland Ponds, based on plans dated March 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 10, 1989 with the addition of recommendation No. 7 to read: Fencing be included on the top of the retaining walls . Motion carried 3-0-2 . Hallett and Anderson abstained. A general discussion took place regarding R1-9 . 5 and Rl- 13. 5 zoning. Enger suggested a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the issue . B. CABRIOLE CENTER,, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc . Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10 . 3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10 . 3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes . . Joe Ryan, representing the Lexington Company, stated that the company had purchased the Cabriole Center Phase I in 1985 from the original developer of the project. Ryan Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 13, 1989 • noted that the request was for a Preliminary Plat and Site Plan approval per the direction from City Staff. Ryan believed that the Site Plan for Phase II would be in compliance with the original Developer 's Agreement of 1978 established between the City and Sutherland Corporation. Ryan stated that the goals of the proponent were to be sensitive to the concerns of the Bloomington residents and to keep within the Developer 's Agreement guidelines . The four-story building which reduced to two-stories on the east side was designed to best fit the contours of the land. In the development of the building design and location the proponent had taken into consideration the existing vegetation in the front of the building, materials which would compliment the existing building and the introduction of an open atrium, which contained three levels on the lake side of the building. The exterior material to be used would be an exposed granite aggregate . Ryan noted that Staff had expressed a concern regarding the layout of the building; however, he believed the building layout was sensitive to the topography of the land, the trees, and the lake. Ryan stated that the project is preliminary in design. He added that a start date had not been determined; however, • based on discussions with prospective tenants, construction could begin within 12 to 18 months . Enger reported that the proponent desired to split the parcel in order to be able to market the Phase II parcel, and to obtain a Site Plan approval based on the plans presented tonight; however, if the final plans changed substantially the proponent was aware that a return to the Planning Commission would be required . Enger added that if the Planning Commission was not comfortable approving the Phase II Site Plan, the proponent would desire the subdivision request to be considered. Enger stated that Staff was concerned with the present Site Plan because the building was being moved 80 ' closer to the Bloomington residents and the lake . Staff would suggest that if the Planning Commission approved the Site Plan that the proponent work further with Staff and the neighbors. Enger stated that if the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat the following conditions were recommended : 1. Developer shall move immediately to bring the existing plan into conformance with Developer 's Agreement to the degree possible . 2 . Developer shall begin discussions immediately with the residents in Bloomington to mitigate their • concerns regarding this proposed development . 3. Developer shall agree to site plan review according to City Code requirements prior to any Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 13, 1989 • building permit issuance for Phase II of the Cabriole Center. 4. Developer shall draft all necessary cross parking and cross access easements prior to final plat review by the City Council . 5 . Developer shall agree to a restriction on the vacant lot created to provide for all necessary permanent parking for the existing Phase I building and to provide all necessary parking for Phase II in a parking structure. 6. Developer shall proceed immediately to the Board of Appeals for review of variances for setback to lot line and parking off-site. Enger noted that a height variance had been given in the original request to allow a 45 foot height; however, a small percentage of the existing building was 52 foot in height, which would mean the existing building was in non- compliance with zoning ordinances. Dale Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated that he had lived in his home since 1978 and had been concerned with the Cabriole project from the beginning. Hubred said that the building for Phase I was to be a smaller building than what was constructed . He added that the 50 trees to be transplanted as a buffer between his property and the . Phase I building were not taken care of and consequently the majority of them had died. Hubred believed that the Phase I building was very plain and was concerned that the Phase II building would not blend in well with the existing facility. Hubred suggested the establishment of covenants to provide evergreens to be planted to screen the garage . Hubred said that the Phase II building would not have a view of the lake, but would be looking directing into his yard . Hubred believed that the present berming was not adequate because it was planted at the . bottom of the hill and the majority of the vegetation had died. Hubred was concerned about the City giving the proponent permission to build without any definite commitment to build until a firm tenant was found. Hubred did not want to see the property subdivided. He believed the property had been mismanaged from the beginning. Ryan stated that he appreciated the residents concerns related to Phase I and added that it was the proponents intent to work with the residents and the City regarding the concerns . He said that the model represented what the proponent wished to build and added that the proponents' intent was to be a part of the community on a long term basis . • Enger shared the residents frustration with the original development; however, because of the new tree replacement ordinance and site plan review ordinance the developer Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 13, 1989 would be held accountable to insure that the required amount of trees survived and that if the plan varied substantially or if the project was not constructed within the two year limit it would require additional review by the City. Anderson stated that he was uncomfortable with this proposal because of the controversial history of Phase I and that a neighborhood meeting had not been held recently. Ryan replied that a neighborhood meeting had been held approximately a year ago and the proponent had meet with the City of Bloomington regarding a drainage easement. Ruebling stated that the splitting of the property presented several complicated issues . He believed that the exterior of Phase I was bland but was concerned that the proposed exterior materials for Phase II would be too much of a contrast and recommended the proponent try to obtain consistency rather than contrast . Ruebling believed the curve of the existing building was attractive and recommended smoothing out the angles of Phase II to blend in with Phase I . Ruebling was concerned about the appearance of the building mass if moved 80 feet closer to the Bloomington residents . • Dodge asked if the Planning Commission could request that the landscaping, berming, and screening for Phase I be upgraded as part of the conditions for Phase II . Enger replied that the Planning Commission could recommend that Phase I be brought into conformance with the original Developers Agreement. Enger noted that the issue for the Planning Commission to consider was if it was comfortable approving a site plan with the information presented tonight or if it preferred to wait until the proponent had a definite tenant. Sandstad asked what type of notification had been given to the residents . Enger replied that approximately 60 notices had been mailed out and notice published in the newspaper . Sandstad asked if Staff had received any other comments from residents . Enger replied that a couple of the residents had come into the office to look at the plans; however, no comments were made in writing. Sandstad said he would be comfortable approving the Plat; however, he agreed that Phase I should be brought into compliance with the Developers Agreement. Hubred asked how close the proposed building would come to the Bloomington property. Ryan replied within 35 feet . • Hubred asked how the parking lots would be split if the property was subdivided. Hubred believed the property needed to remain as one parcel . Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 13, 1989 • Anderson asked if 35 feet would be within the City's height setback requirement. Enger replied that the 35 foot setback was in conformance with the existing City Code. An ordinance related to the exact proportion had not been developed at this time . Enger added that it had been suggested to double the setback to the lot line . Anderson believed the Planning Commission should have more information especially regarding the subdivision of the lots and parking lot requirements. Ruebling stated that he would favor the project if it were more consistent with the original plan. Ruebling did not see a rationale for the building being moved 80 feet closer to the Bloomington properties and the lake . Dodge asked if Phase II never came about would the City gain control again if the subdivision were approved. Enger noted that Staff had advised the proponent that in order for the City to consider a subdivision of the property, a rationale would need to be established. Enger said that presenting this speculative plan had placed the proponent in a difficult position. Enger added that he was not sure how strong the City's position would be if the property was subdivided related to requiring the • construction of the parking deck on Phase II to serve Phase I . Anderson stated that he would like to see the proponent work more with Staff and believed the plan should be closer to the original proposal . Hallett suggested that the proponent meet again with the neighbors to try to develop a good faith relationship. Ruebling stated that he would be comfortable with asking the proponent to withdraw the proposal. After a discussion regarding the pros and cons of a continuance versus a withdrawal of the proposal, Ryan requested a 30 day continuance . He added he would prefer to have the architect available for the presentation. MOTION Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting on April 24, 1989 according to the Planning Commission discussions . Motion carried 5-0-0 . V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 13, 1989 • VII . PLANNER' S REPORT Enger commented that April and May would be busy months for the Planning Commission and suggested that if the Agendas became too lengthy or if several of the items had the potential of being controversial that the Planning Commission consider starting at 6 :30 PM. VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to adjourn at 9 : 50 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0. •