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.
•