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.