Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/08/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 8, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--.ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request For Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site Plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169. A continued a public hearing. B. EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH by Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres and Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot and road right-of-way. Location: Pioneer Trail and County Road 4. C. LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS by Lifetouch Inc. Request for PUD Concept Review on 109 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres,Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIL NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW COMMISSIONER Franzen administered the oath of office to BillHabicht whose term of service on the Planning Commission began on April 1, 1996. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Clinton moved, Foote seconded,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Foote noted that on Page 2, third paragraph, he wished to have the word "affordable" included prefacing housing. MOTION: Wissner moved,Ismail seconded,to approve the Minutes of the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Motion carried 6-0. Habicht abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY.. 169. • Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the changes they have made to the development in response to those requested by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that a two-cell NURP pond would remove more phosphorus and will fit into the same area as the single cell NURP pond, and they are not opposed to installing that system. He noted that they would not use phosphorus in their fertilizer mix as long as they were in control of the property. The plantings around the NURP pond will be wetland types of vegetation for enhancement. There will be a 75'setback along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lakes Parkway to provide better buffering from the roadway and adjacent properties, as well as provide better views of the project from outside. Sandstad inquired where the fence between the development and the Park showed on the plans and Stanke responded that they had several discussions with adjacent homeowners and they do not believe that the park will be hurt or damaged by being adjacent to people's back yards. Sandstad stated that he specifically asked for a fence or some means of protection for the park. Stanke asked what type of protection the park needed, and requested further direction from the Commission regarding this. Clinton inquired ifthe issue concerning school traffic had been addressed, and Stanke responded that it had been included in the original figures. The school district does not believe that the potential number of children who may move into this development will adversely impact the school system or facilities. Ismail asked if the change in the setback affected the overall density of the project and Stanke responded it remained the same. Foote inquired if the access onto Staring Lake Parkway would have an adverse impact on traffic or be a safety concern and Starke responded negatively. Habicht inquired about the berm and if it would provide adequate screening. Ron Bastyr described the sight lines based on the berm heights versus the heights of the units. Clinton inquired what the height of the berm along 169 would be and Bastyr responded that the base level of the units along the part of the property was the same elevation as Highway 169, so they had raised the berm and added plantings. Clinton asked for sight lines illustrating the views of the project from the adjacent properties, and noted he did not see how they added berms and increased setbacks without changing the density of the project. Bastyr noted they increased the open space along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway and doubled the plantings which will provide more buffering and screening for adjacent property owners and residents. Franzen stated that the project had proposed more parking than the City required and the additional space for berms and setbacks and open space had been acquired by removing the asphalt and changing the layout somewhat. The number of buildings had not changed. Discussion ensued regarding why the density did not change based on the increased amount of area for buffering and open space and Stanke stated the City has a requirement for a certain percentage of open space based on the number of units proposed in a development and they have more than the Code requires. Sandstad noted he would like to see renderings illustrating the view from 169 which would be very helpful, and he wanted to have a fence put up between the development and the park. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report and noted that staff recommended approval of the project as the developer has made the changes asked for by the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 3 Paul Olson, 8899 Flesher Circle, stated that the residents of the area had formed a citizens group to address their concerns with the proposal, which included environmental, traffic, parks and recreational areas, school impacts, quality of life issues and the integrity of the Planning process itself. They have some goals and objectives they would lice to see achieved. There were six citizens who each intended to address one of these major areas of concern. Ann Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, reviewed the EAW which was submitted by the developer and stated they found numerous inconsistencies throughout the document. There was information that phosphorus distress was already present in Staring Lake which was degenerating and a limited recreational resource. The lake is very important to residents, and there is a structure built behind Flagship Athletic Club which will improve the lake quality but it will take a long time to be effective. She discussed the problems that will affect the lake and they need to develop a specific plan of action. She had discussed the project with the DNR and asked them to do what they could to improve the quality and they felt that it was a concern. She noted that the Watershed District also had some concerns about the project, and it had not been determined whether the land in Section 9 was designated as a bluff area, and whether a 30'setback would be needed from that area. This needed to be determined • before the project was approved by the City. She was also concerned about wildlife in the area as there are thousands of animals that will be impacted by the proposed development. She was very concerned about the eco-system becoming out of balance in the area. Mike Quinn, 8900 Flesher Circle, stated he had a video to show the Planning Commission which would illustrate the traffic which presently exists in the area,but since technical difficulties were present, the Commission requested that perhaps he could present his information later on. Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle,read a letter signed by many of the residents in the area which detailed many of their concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on Staring Lake Park and the surrounding area. She described the aesthetic value of Staring Lake and the Park and noted that a brochure distributed by the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce boasted the fact that most developments include large open green spaces and trails and the proposed development does not have either of those features. The residents are concerned about 2,000 additional residents moving into an area which already has traffic problems and where there are inadequate trails and sidewalks to provide for walking, biking, rollerblading, or whatever and a development which provides no place for small children to play. She was concerned if the project were to be approved without the City requiring these amenities from the developer that the taxpayers would be required to provide them later on when problems arose. She also spoke about the possibility of having large numbers of dogs present within the development, and inquired about an exercise area for them, or whether the public park would be used in this manner. She was concerned about cleanup enforcement and how this would be accomplished. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 4 The citizens were concerned about makeshift trails being created through the park to facilitate residents of the development getting to the park because no trails were being provided. The parking lot at Staring Lake Park is already overcrowded as are the playgrounds and sledding hills, and these areas will need to be expanded for safety. The park will become busier and there will be more accidents because there will be more people using it,and they will need to hire a person to deal with this. She noted that funds from the Cash Park Fee should be allocated to Staring Lake Park to cover the costs of these improvements which will be needed. Deb Dow, 14382 Starwood Circle, discussed the school concerns and the potential for overcrowding with more students being in the area than the school can handle. She noted that Cedar Ridge was operating at close to maximum capacity now, without additional residents, and there was already a subsidized housing project planned for this same area. They had presented their concerns to the School Board at their latest meeting and believed the letter received by the Planning Commission reflected some of their concerns, but did not address the full ramifications of what would occur should the project be approved. Regardless of whether Cedar Ridge can handle the additional students, eventually they funnel into the Middle School and then the High School,which are already operating at capacity levels. She believed some type of long range planning was needed which had not been done with this project. Mike Quinn discussed the traffic concerns of the residents and noted that the projected numbers of trips from the proposed development appeared to be quite high. He noted that Anderson Lakes Parkway has been designated as an accident reduction area. There is a day care center being built in the area which will add to the traffic level with parents dropping off and picking up children. The area is already a high density residential area and the numbers of existing units are very high. They believe the intersection of Staring Lake Parkway and the development access would be a very dangerous one. They are also concerned about the addition of traffic from the Hennepin Technical College, which would filter through this way as a means of avoiding Highway 169. The residents also have concerns about safety with the large numbers ofpeople who walk,bike, and play along the roadway. He discussed the t- ball congestion which occurs during baseball season, and noted it creates a large trip generation problem in the area. The Oak Point pool will only add to this congesting. He requested the Planning Commission to look at the present traffic levels before making a decision on the project. Clark Hussey, 8867 Flesher Circle,discussed the quality of life concerns raised by the residents and the potential impacts on nature, wildlife and the overall aesthetic atmosphere of Eden Prairie. He was concerned that the wildlife would be forced out into neighborhoods by the development. Traffic problems in this area exist, particularly in the winter. The Oak Point pool and other development in the area will only exacerbate these difficulties. They are concerned about the safety of children who live and play in the area because of these things. Steve Swanson, 14183 McCoy Court,discussed the integrity of the planning process PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 5 itself, and noted there were many important inconsistencies within the EAW which should be corrected. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan and its relevance to the present and the type of City the residents want to have. The density and traffic figures projected when the plan was written may not be applicable today. He noted that the traffic study was done the day after an ice storm which may have skewed the figures, since freezing rain fell on January 15th and many drivers may have stayed off the roads because of this. He believed that the Oak Point pool will significantly impact the traffic study figures,and believed that should be taken into account. There are numerous specifics wrong in the EAW which should be corrected. There is a potential archeological site contained within this area which is not reflected in the EAW and should be addressed. The DNR expressed concern over these issues, and were in the process of communicating their concerns to the City staff. He noted that there had not been any signage posted on the property to alert residents that a development was proposed for the property, and this was a project which would affect all residents of the area. He requested that a more timely notification of residents be considered, since projects like this one take months to prepare and staff is certainly aware that something is happening. Paul Olson stated the residents would like to be partners with the City and the developer in the resolution of these issues. They had questions regarding where the process falls apart so that these inconsistencies can be found. They have a major concern regarding the size of the proposed development and its impact upon Staring Lake Park. Chet Baker, 8919 Pine Bluff Court, agreed with the issues raised by the citizens group. The visual impact on the residents of the hillside area by the proposed development of the entire 88 acre site would be visible from his property. The EAW finds that there are no adverse visual impacts for any current residents, which he disagreed with. He asked how the City and the developer plan to address this issue as he believes there will be significant adverse impacts on his and the other hillside area residents property. He believed the setback from Staring Lake Parkway should be 300 feet and noted he was opposed to this development as proposed. He believed the density should be reduced and the units redistributed on the property. Maurizio Gramigni, 8940 Hilloway Road, stated he would like to see the project moved to another area of the City as he believed it was too intense for the area in which it was proposed. Jody O'Connor, 8270 Mitchell Road, stated she was supportive of the proposed project because Pulte homes will be built on one level and will be ideal for handicapped people who cannot live in homes with multi-levels. She was concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Eden Prairie and believed the proposed • development was a good compromise between the higher priced homes and affordable housing. She stated that the citizens have to compromise because the new residents will be taxpayers also,and are entitled to live in Eden Prairie. She did not believe this development would cause overcrowding in Eden Prairie schools,and while the traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 6 might increase in the area,it might just as well increase no matter what is built on the property. She noted that a property owner is entitled to develop their property and this proposal will provide affordable housing for people who wish to live in Eden Prairie but heretofore have been unable to do so because of the lack of available housing. Richard Smith, 9087 Palmetto Drive, commented he had never seen or heard of a proposal with so many units in such a small area in all the communities he has lived in from Washington, D.C.to California. He was concerned that overbuilding would cause housing values to drop for existing homes in the vicinity. Jan Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, stated that there are 258 parking slots at Staring Lake Park and he counted the homes in the immediate vicinity of Staring Lake Park and found there were 320 homes immediately adjacent to the park. The proposed development would triple the number of homes located within walking distance of Staring Lake Park. He noted that people will undoubtedly continue to drive to Staring Lake Park as they have been doing, and the parking will be inadequate to accommodate all the people in the vicinity who may wish to use the park. Lora Dockery 8899 Flesher Circle, stated affordability was not the issue, but the density was of great concern to the residents. Steve Bennett, 14631 Queens Trail, stated his daughter was handicapped, and used a wheelchair, and was afraid to cross the street because of the high volume of traffic coming down the hill. He would applaud handicapped-accessible housing in Eden Prairie,but was concerned that there was no provision by the developer for people to use the lakes,trails, etc. Adelaide Foxworth, 8816 Saratoga Lane, stated she would like people to have some type of affordable housing but she was concerned about the impact such a great number of people moving into the community would have on the neighborhoods because Eden Prairie was a place people wanted to live, and she was concerned that it might become a place where they did not. Ken Foxworth, 8816 Saratoga Lane, stated they moved to Eden Prairie to enjoy the wildlife and ambiance of the City as well as the safety. He would like to stay here and another high density development is not necessary for this site. Dale Gardner, 8967 Victoria Drive, commented that the property was going to be developed by someone into something but he believed this project was too large for the site and should be reduced because if approved as proposed it will adversely impact the City. Wissner commented that she believed the Commission needed some time to get some of the questions raised by the residents answered. She questioned whether there was a compromise that could be reached between the developer and the residents. Paul PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 7 • Olson stated that their goal was not to stop the project but to work with the developer to achieve a project that was something that would not be so great an impact on the area and to reduce the density. Clinton stated it appeared that the questions must be answered before any recommendation could be made to the City Council. He inquired if the citizen would be willing to work with the developer to achieve a plan that would be acceptable to both. He thought affordable housing was a significant issue in the entire western portion of the metro area. He did not support the density as proposed,but would support some single family housing on a single level if that was proposed. He commented anything that is built on this site will have a visual impact on adjacent property,and he lives in this neighborhood,but he cannot support or deny a project because of that. He believed a proposal of cluster hoes or cottage homes would be acceptable. Kardell stated that if the project was sent back to the developer and the neighborhood, there should be focus on alternative multi-family plans,not office or industrial. Foote stated he felt the density should be reduced and some affordable single family housing included. Discussion ensued regarding the type of compromise that would be acceptable. Wissner thought perhaps a workshop or two between the developer, staff,representatives of the citizens group, and perhaps a representative from the Planning Commission and City Council should be included could arrive at some compromises which would make the project acceptable. Paul Olson stated this was what they had in mind, and they were more than willing to do this. Sandstad commented the project had potential but it needed a lot of work and more time should be given to reaching a compromise. He stated he would not support any project with unknown future phasing, and would require seeing the entire proposal at the front end. He believed that the density should be reduced from that proposed initially and the park should be buffered from the development. He believed the errors in the EAW should be corrected and the issues of pedestrian safety at the school should be addressed. Sight lines and building renderings should be presented so that the Commission and citizens can get an idea of what will be constructed on the property,particularly those views from Highway 169 and both Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Habicht stated he believed that the project was a nice one as far as that type of project went, but there were alternatives available to the developer. Land is expensive and factors into the design of projects, which can require higher densities to make developments financially feasible. He was concerned about the negative reaction from the citizens apparently regarding any development on the property. He did not feel that the density per acre was too high,but thought the housing should be reconfigured on the site to provide the least amount of impact on the surrounding areas. He did not believe he could support the project as it was today, but he encouraged a compromise be reached,noting something worse could be proposed in the future. Ismail agreed with the other Commissioners. Not much that was presented was acceptable to the citizens, and he thought the project should be continued to see if a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 8 • compromise could be worked out between them and the developer. He asked that the points raised by the citizens be submitted to the City in writing, and Olson responded they intend to do this. Kardell asked if the proponent was agreeable to working with the citizens to determine if a compromise could be worked out, and Stanke responded they would welcome that opportunity. He noted that they had notified beyond the City's 500' notification requirement for their neighborhood meeting held in March,and only nine people were there. They welcome the opportunity to address the concerns of the citizens and will work hard to do so, and hope to be before the Planning Commission in two weeks. Kardell commented she believed the density needed to be reduced but realized that it still had to be an economically viable project. She thought possible combinations of other types of housing could be included which would lower the density but still provide for affordable housing on the property. It could be reconfigured to provide for a better variation. She concurred with the workshop idea as long as a sincere effort was made by everyone concerned to reach a compromise. Franzen stated that there were two points of view regarding this development; one • was a community impact and one was a localized impact. If everything was built as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan without this project there would only be 1,500 less people in Eden Prairie using the parks, schools and facilities. The City will still grow by 18,000 more people. The Guide Plan takes this into account and schools, parks and roads are planned based on population. This project by itself will not overcrowd schools, parks and roads. There can be a lot of things done to fix the project and one of those is the slope which could be used to buffer the visual impact. Also,mining housing types could be used to reduce impacts and still create a viable project economically. He believed the process of negotiation needed to be structured more than it is. If the density has to be reduced in half in order to get approval for the project the developer will most likely not proceed with the project. If a compromise is going to be reached then a decision needs to be made regarding what density would be acceptable,perhaps some percentage. Sandstad commented he would like to see a 10% reduction in density along the periphery of the project,particularly along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lake Parkway. Perhaps an area near the intersection could be left for an office or commercial use which would also make the project more economically viable. Foote stated he would like to see more 4-plex or 6-plex units incorporated into the plan, as the 12-plexes were too large. He thought the density should be reduced by 12-15%. Wissner stated she did not know what percentage the density should be reduced,but she would like to see more affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage versus cost and the price ranges which would result from lowering PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 9 densities. Ismail commented he thought that 600 units would be a reasonable level but he did not have the figures but it was a starting point. Habicht stated he liked the mix of building types but the area on the west end of the project was the most sensitive as well as the center. He thought perhaps the density needed to be reduced throughout the project. Clinton commented that 30%reduction in density came to 548 units which was close to the 600 figure proposed earlier. Kardell stated that she felt the density should be reduced in the range of 15%with the units along Staring Lake Parkway which have the greatest impact. She liked the mix ofhousing types and felt the density should be in the range of 650-700 units overall . which would keep affordability and some green space possible. MOTION: Clinton moved, Ismail seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Clinton moved, Ismail seconded, to continue the Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review for two weeks until the April 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0. B. EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH by Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres and Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot and road right-of-way. Location: Pioneer Trail and County Road 4. Becky Linnen, Chair of the Building Committee for the Church stated that they were a small neighborhood church and wished to remain located within a neighborhood if possible. After looking for a suitable site throughout Eden Prairie,they chose this site because it offered them the greatest number of features they were looking for. They concurred with the staff report and had no concerns that needed to be addressed at this time. Gary Tushie, Tushie-Montgomery Architects, reviewed the site plans and building plans. He described the screening around the parking lot and briefly described the possibility of two future additions which were allowed for,but not definitely proposed for any specific time in the future. He showed building renderings and discussed the sight lines from adjacent properties. Linn.en stated they intend to request a waiver from the park dedication fee requirement when the project is reviewed by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 10 Wissner commented she supported the proposal, and it was very attractive in appearance. Ismail inquired about the distance from the church to the nearest single family residence and Franzen responded it was approximately 440 feet. Tushie stated they had no objections to the staff report. Kardell inquired how many members belonged to the church and Linnen responded they presently have 193 members. Wissner inquired when the single family homes would be constructed and Linnen responded that they don't know when or if they will be built. It depends on the growth of the congregation. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the requests. Foote asked if the Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans regarding the one access to the property and Franzen responded that he had approved,noting that if necessary the fire trucks would go cross-country to get to hydrants or whatever necessary in the event of an emergency. Sandstad commented the Fire Marshal had requested more hydrants. The Public Hearing was opened. Richard Smith, 9087 Palmetto Drive, stated he had no issues with the proposal and supported and welcomed the church into the community. Larry Lemon, 8947 Eden Prairie Road, inquired where his driveway would gain access since when County Road 4 was upgraded his driveway would no longer have access. Plans show his driveway connecting to Azalea Drive. They will have to work out a cross-access easement with the church or something but it will need resolution so he has access to his home. Franzen responded he would have the Engineering Department contact him to resolve this issue. Linnen stated the Church was very willing for him to access their driveway if he so desired. Al Krause, President of the Eden Hills Property Association, stated they have some concerns about the undeveloped part of the lot and wish to receive ample notice of any development plans. Kardell responded that they would receive any notices for development within 500'of their property,which is the standard notification area for the City of Eden Prairie when projects are submitted for development review and approval. Franzen noted that there will be a Development Agreement drawn between the City and the Church which will be signed by the Mayor and Church members which gives approval only to this part of the project. They will have to get another approval for any further development proposed on the property. Sandstad inquired what the Church intended to do with the part of the site that has always been a pumpkin patch and Linnen responded that they were talking about planting pumpkins there and having a fall festival of some sort, but they had not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 11 definitely decided. Bob Walton, Coral Lane, stated he welcomed the project but requested clarification regarding Azalea Drive and the residential development. Tushie reviewed the plans and described the lighting which will be installed in the parking lot of the new church. Linnen noted that the lights are on timers and do not remain on all night long,which is what they have done at their present facility and intend to continue the practice with this building as well. Foote commented that it was a well thought-out floor plan. Habicht stated it appeared to be an excellent project and he inquired if there was a precedent regarding waiving the park dedication fee for churches. Franzen responded that it was often done, and the City would collect a park dedication fee per unit on the residential property when and if it is constructed. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres,Zoning District Change fromRural to Public on 12.18 acres,Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot, and Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres based on plans dated April 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. C. LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS by Lifetouch, Inc. Request for PUD Concept Review on 109 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres, Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Ted Koenicke representing Lifetouch reviewed the history of the business which is taking school pictures. He stated they also do church directories have a retail side of their operation through J.C. Penny Corporation. They are an international corporation. They are an employee-owned company with annual sales over $5 million. The proposed site is ideal because eleven percent of their employees live in Eden Prairie and it is located close to their present location in Bloomington, which they intend to retain. Marshall Levin,Pope Associates, Architect,reviewed Phase I of the plans and gave a general overview of possible proposals which might incur Phases II and III of the development. He noted that additional phases will be resubmitted for approval at a later time. The proposed Corporate Headquarters building will be located in the northwest comer of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 12 Habicht inquired about the depth of the site from Smetana Lane and Evan responded that it was between 350400 feet deep, but it was not all buildable area. The area which is buildable is very narrow. He reviewed the site plans and showed building renderings and sight lines. He discussed the exterior finish which will be used on the building and showed samples of the brick and glass. Kardell inquired if the walkout dock area was screened from the lake and Levin responded it was screened from both sides. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the project. He briefly reviewed the plans for the proposed parking deck. The Public Hearing was opened. Connie Wetmore, 8049 Ensign Road,Bloomington, stated she was concerned about the setback from Smetana Lake and inquired how far it was. Even responded that the setback from the lake was 100 feet, and the setback from Smetana Drive was 200 feet. Wetmore noted that there was an overabundance of parking spaces in the area and cautioned that the parking not be overdone on this site. . Wissner commented that the building height, hardsurface coverage and setback waivers were addressed,and she supported the project. Ismail inquired that since the building was designated for office use would there be any production done in the building. Koenicke responded that the product development work would be done at the facility in Bloomington and this building would be primarily offices with some research possibly being done on the premises. He noted that they had held a neighborhood meeting and the people seemed to be comfortable with the project after touring their facility and hearing about their plans. Habicht commented he believed the project was a good one and he was comfortable with Phase I but nothing more than that. He injured if the other phases of development would require City review and Franzen responded that was correct, noting that the Phase I segment was for the 9.6 acre parcel only, and that was all the Development Agreement would cover. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded,to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Lifetouch for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated April 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 13 VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VIII. NEW BUSINESS None. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted there were several items scheduled for the next agenda,which were Flint Ridge on Riverview Road which involves a realignment of the road,the Staring Lake Townhome proposal and possibly a report on the Tree Ordinance. Also the packet included a letter from Connie Wetmore regarding the Lakeview Office project. Wetmore stated she wanted the Commission to be aware that the previous plan was • not approved in 1989. Franzen noted the City Council will review this proposal at their April 16, 1996 meeting. X. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Kardell nominated Ken Clinton as Chair,Randy Foote as Vice-Chair and Mary Jane Wissner as Secretary. Sandstad seconded those nominations. Habicht moved nominations be closed. Kardell called for a vote. Motion carried 7-0. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved,Ismail seconded,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.