Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/09/1976 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL { TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976 7:30 P.M. , VO-TECH AUDITORIUM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Billy Bye Joan Meyers f Tim Pierce Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad p City Attorney Keith Simons r City Engineer Carl Jullie Director of Community Services Marty Jessen Planning Director Dick Putnam Recording Secretary Joyce Provo INVOCATION - Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services ROLL CALL: Penzel, Bye, Meyers and Pierce present; Pauly absent. ,( (Bye was excused from the meeting at 9:50 PM) # 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were requested to be added to the New Business category: A. Discussion of a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on Guide Plan Proposal. B. Report on Hennepin County Transportation Plan meeting of March 4 , 1976 C. Consideration of the Suburban Municipal organization request made by Mayor Jim Kra utkremer of Brooklyn Park. D. Request from Pemtom to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda of March 22, 1976 , for public hearing on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell ? Lake PU D. E. Report from Planning Director Putnam on Community Development application. t MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the agenda with the inclusion of the five afore mentioned items under New Business category. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 2 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 II. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Taint Council/Planning Commission Meeting held Monday, February 23, 1976 . MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the minutes of the February 23, 1976 joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting as s published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held*Thursday, February 26 , 1976. Pg. 4 , para. 6 , lines 5 and 6 , strike "Staff for further consideration on the Pemtom Island" and insert in lieu thereof "Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for further recommendations on the Mitchell Lake- park areas" . Pg. 5 , 1st para . , line 2 , strike "proposals" and insert "proposal review" . 1' 12nd para . , 5th line, strike "of the land" . " ,in subheading "B", strike "proponent's" and insert "proponents" . is 01,4th para . , strike "written" and insert "submitted by applicant". i -. Pg. 6, 2nd para . ,lst line, strike "Penzel" and insert "Meyers" . Pg- 7, 2nd para . , 3rd line , strike "decision" and insert "recommendation"", in the same para . , 4th line, strike "be moved accordingly" and insert "will be continued" . MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes the City Council meeting held February 26, 1976 as published and corrected. Motion carried unanimously. III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 321 regulating fees and charges for business licenses, permits and municipal services and amending Ordinance No. 280. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 321 . Motion carried unanimously. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 320 licensing and regulating the use and sale of intoxicating liquor and amending Ordinance No. 202 . • t MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye , to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 320. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 3 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 3 7 t IV.PUBLIC HEAPING X k A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study ' The following members of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board of Managers participated in discussion during the Purgatory a Creek Open Space Corridor Study Public Hearing: Howard L. Peterson, President Conrad B. Fiskness Donald F. Pennie Howard Merriman William Sault Al Gebhard, Engineer for the Watershed District Don Brauer, Brauer & Associates, consultant for the Study, gave a slide presentation illustrating the various sectors involved. Director of Community Services jessen explained that the Study has been In the process for a couple of years. A Steering Committee composed of the staff, City, Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and Watershed District was put together to see what direction should be taken. The recommendation of the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission is to accept the idea that it represents as a guide and to use it as a definition of what kind of open space and how the open space should be used. Does not necessarily mean land acquisition at this time. Howard Peterson, President of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District, made a statement on behalf of the Watershed District. (See attached statement from Howard Peterson dated March 9, 1976) . Dick Anderson, representing the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, restated the Commission's support for the study report. a (Complete statement made by Mr. Anderson, dated March 9, 1976, attached) . s Dick Putnam , City Planner, noted that the Planning Commission has been considering this study for about 4 months and did take action to utilize the Purgatory Creek study as a guide to further policy development. Consultant Brauer, City Attorney Simons,and Watershed District representatives answered questions of Council mambers . Council Minutes - 4 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Mayor Penzel opened the meeting to the audience for their participation. Mr. Teas, Box 1156 , Hopkins, a.sked the definition of open space. Brauer responded that open space means something that is not developed with urban things. Mr. Teas further stated that Purgatory Creek should be left as it is. Gretchen Salyards , 15824 Park Terrace Drive , expressed her opposition to the study explaining that the Purgatory Creek Corridor would not be good for bicycle paths . Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, felt the Purgatory Creek Study was too big a program for the small amount of people tax-wise . If implementing < the plan is undertaken, he feels the costs would be much more F prohibitive than what has been indicated. Diestler further questioned if anything definite was going to be done by the City, or if this is merely a proposal. Mayor Penzel responded that we are not proposing any land t acquisition at this time. Ray Welter, Jr. , 10844 Blossom Road, felt the costs are way higher than can be imagined. (Mr.Welter also submitted a written statement ' to the Council dated March 9, 1976, which is attached) . He further felt that what the study says and what Brauer has indicated do not coincide. James Cullen, 15381 Creekside Court, representing 10 homeowners, read their signed statement. (Statement attached dated March 9, 1976) . Mr. Cullen further stated that the matter of financing is not discussed in the report. Ernest Booth, 6781 Tartan Curve, expressed concern that the Creek goes i through his property about 75' from his home . Brauer responded that there Is nothing that says the path should be right next to the Creek. There isn't any set pattern, there are alternatives . Calvin Anderson, 7214 Topview Road, stated it appears we are going overboard on open space in expense of our neighborhood parks. Michael J. Pohlen, expressed his concern indicated in attached letter dated February 3, 1976. a Sally Brown, 10080 Bennett Place, asked how many acres were in the con- servancy zone and transistional zone. Jessen responded approximately 1,200 acres altogether in the conservancy zone , transistional zone and flood plain zone. Brauer added that the study proposes private use of the transistion zone. "H a Council Minutes - 5 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Cecil Martin, 6585 Eden Prairie Road, suggested that the City evaluate their capability of a purchase of this size. Questioned if not the City, who would contribute to these purchases. E Don Hess , The Preserve , stated the Preserve is pro open space but they do have some reservations. Questioned what is the total impact of this plan plus all other open space plans ? The Preserve thinks there 41 is a benefit of having more, but how much more? What happens to the development in the floodplain in Eden Prairie until a plan replaces this study? Concerned how this would affect The Preserve who are in a position where they have a committed plan with a good deal of open space in it. The Preserve would like to be involved in future meetings on this study. f Dan Hamilton, 11995 Sunnybrook Road, explained that when he attended a Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting the questions of priorities for acquisition were discussed and tentative financing for the acquisition. jessen responded that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission did not take any action on these two items, however would be prepared to discuss these pending the outcome of the Public Hearing. Tess-en further stated that we have preliminarily explored but do not have any answers on funding that will be available . We know that some may be available , we do not know for certain that we would qualify. The plan is not an implementation program. We are not actively soliciting funding. No specific financing plan or implementation program has been developed . i Don Pennie , Watershed District, noted that one of the things the Watershed District is trying to achieve is some master guide plan to look at, Bye expressed his opinion that there are a great number of concerns which have been expressed and thought there is some misunderstanding as to exactly what the situation is as far as this study is concerned. MOMN: Bye moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study to March 23 and allow the community to acquaint themselves further with the study, and to allow staff and Council to take into account some of the opinions expressed. Motion died for lack of a second. Jerry Catt, 18600 Duck Lake Trail, stated he appreciated the study and thinks we need a plan, whether this is .the plan we need he does not know. It is hard to support a plan unless we know the specifics of how we're going to implement it. Council Minutes - 6 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 4 1� ` A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Elizabeth Bryant, former Eden Prairie homeowner, stated she approves of the study that has been prepared. It is not a binding document, it is a good plan, it is a beginning, and hopes that due consideration and thought be given to what we do with our natural resources . Bob Kruell, 6780 Tartan Curve, explained that he thoroughly under- stands the Purgatory Creek Study and urged the adoption and implementation of same. (Other information received but not read at Council meeting attached to minutes) . MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the Public Hearing on the Purgatory Creek Open Space Study to April 13, 1976 and give an opportunity for any rebuttal to the questions that have arisen here and also any new concerns the people might have to bring before the Council at that time. Bye and Penzel voted "aye" , Pierce and Meyers voted "nay" . Motion failed. A five minute recess was called by Mayor Penzel at this time. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to close the Public Hearing and to say it is the intent of the City of Eden Prairie to preserve, q protect, rehabilitate and manage the Purgatory Creek resource; the Purgatory Creek Study is accepted as a guide to achieve this intent; the Council direct the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to prioritize the critical areas, prioritize areas of acquisition and/or recreational development; to explore funding availability; to develop a general long range implementation program, and further to initiate action on measures possibly legally, physically and financially for 1976 with the Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources relating to cleanup, planting, erosion control and rough fish control; direct the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop land use control methods for the conservancy and transistional zones and report to the Council when recommendations are ready, and direct the Council to call another Public Hearing for these proposals and implementation strategies . 1V4eyers and Pierce voted "aye" , Bye and Penzel voted "nay". Motion failed. j MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the Public Hearing until April 13 , 1976 and take into consideration the questions that have arisen from the citizens here tonight, ask response from staff and different advisory commissions , and also allow citizens a ten-day period to bring in written statements of their objections to the Study. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - -7 - Tuesday; _March 9, 1976 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council Members Mayor Penzel observed the fact that the Eden Prairie Center had opened on March 3 as scheduled. B. Report of Finance Director 1 . Payment of Claims Nos . 8863 - 8963 • k MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Claims Nos . 8863 - 8963. Meyers, Pierce and Penzel voted "aye" . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Clerk's License List MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the Clerk's License List dated March 9, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of a Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on Guide Plan Plan Proposal. fi MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce , to set a special meeting of the Council and Planning Commission for Monday, March 15 at 7:00 PM, City Hall, for the purposes of discussing the Guide Plan Consultant proposal. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report on Hennepin County Transportation Plan meeting of March 4, 1976 . City Planner Putnam explained that a representative from the Planning Commission did attend this meeting , however he is ill an+3 Mr. Putnam has been unable to receive a report from him. It was the consensus of the Council that this item be continued to the March 23rd Council meeting. C. Consideration of the Suburban Municipal Organization request made by Mayor Tim Krautkremer of Brooklyn Park. Meyers explained that the idea behind the resolution from Mayor Krautkremer is that the Suburban Hennepin County municipalities would organize to fund lubbying efforts at the Legislature regarding legislation and its impact on suburban Hennepin County only. This organization would lobby mainly on fiscal issues and their purpose would be to protect the suburbs. It was the general consus of the Council that this item be continued to the March 23rd Council meeting. Council Minutes - 8 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 VI. NEW BUSINESS (continued) from Pemtom to be laced on the Planning Commission's D. Request p q agenda of March 22, 1976, for public hearing on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell Lake PUD. The Council received letter from James R. Hill, P.E. , Senior Vice President of Pemtom, dated March 4, 1976. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to set a public hearing for Pemtom on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell Lake PUD for April 27, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report from Planning Director Putnam on Community Development application. Planning Director Putnam explained that the City of Eden Prairie will be submitting the application to Hennepin County for Community Development funds. He further stated that the City is requesting of the Metropolitan Council that Eden Prairie does not desire to build any assisted housing within the next two years, but maybe will in the 3rd year, as we have more than met our share for the next two years. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 1.0:25 PM. Motion carried unanimously. R f kbward Pe+ea 1 A primary function of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District is to review i proposed land developments in the Purgatory Creek Watershed to insure that any I1 ! detrimental impact by laud development on this water resource system is minimized. j As the Manager g's Waim-e reviewed the many land developments proposed along Purgatory Creek individually, they came to realize that options for preserving the natural { beauty and asthetic value of the Creek Valley would be lost without an overall study leading to guidelines and a specific plan to preserve much, if not all, _the natural features of this Valley. In order to fit define the important fea5Tures of the Purgatory Creek Valley, the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the city of Eden Prairie, cooperatively funded a study to define the natural features of the Creek Valley and to define the development boundaries of an open 1 space corridor along the Creek to preserve that area worthy of saving. The result � of that study is the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Report that is the subject ` of this public hearing. As developments along the Creek are proposed, the Watershed District and the city of Eden Prairie will use the 'study to insure that resources of the Creek Valley are preserved as open space areas for future generations and that the ' scenic vistas of the Creek Valley are developed carefully so as not to detract from the scenic value of the Creek Valley as a cov mnunity resource. ' a D►'ck RndeMM\) 31g11G DRAFT POSITION STATEMENT FOR PURGATORY HEARING . i TO: The Eden Prairie City Council and Board of Managers for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District FROM: The Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission DATE: March 9, 1976 SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been involved throughout the planning process which resulted in the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study report which is being considered this evening . Brauer and Associates, the consultant on this project , has presented information on several occasions to the Commission and solicited input as to the 1 direction and thrust of the study. As a result of this input and study, we feel that the report should be approved and adopted as a City policy for the future of the Purgatory Creek Corridor. We all understand that the study calls for the acquisition of the conservancy zone by the City to serve as a recreational resource for the community , a wildlife habitat area , a flood water storage spare and as a visual amenity. We on the Commission s upport this concept wholeheartedly. We feel that some of the final decisions as to specific recreational land uses within the conservancy zone can best be made "down the road a bit" rather than trying to define every minute detail at this point and time . As a result , we urge adoption of the study as a guideline for all of the land use decisions that need to be made along Purgatory Creek. i The management of the transition zone is something that we feel will take f place within the private sector through City review of development proposals, We've discussed this with some representatives of the private sector who own land along the creek and they are generally supportive of this role . The Commission has discussed in a preliminary way some of the implementation programs which might be used to carry out all of the recommendations of the report . We feel that it is feasible to implement the study both from the standpoint of public land acquisition of the conservancy zone and private land management of the transition zone . Upon the approval of the study we will work further on these programs and make specific recommendations to the Council as to a c3urse of action . In summary, I would just like to restate the Commission's support for the study report. We are of the opinion that Purgatory Creek is one of the most significant r sources in the community and as such deserves the priority which the report suggests for it. T. March 9, 1976 r" ( Eden Prairie City Council 8950 County Road. 4 Eden Praire, Minn 55343 y ,3 gentlemen, Re: Purgatory Creek Study: Our opinion of the area we know—(169 to Cty #1). f The reason f or the letter is to add many f acts that were missed by the people doing the study. There was ne one on steering Comm to represent Y. owners of land along the crook & only 1 person to represent the people of Eden Praire, (Mr.. Anderson of park board) This is proved by the excessive amount of Green area in Eden Prairs. There is no way the people will ever be able to pay the tax on all that greets. In 1973 a meeting of the owners was held to get their input. I see in this report everything we requested was rejected, We believe in nice parks that are reasonable and we love to protect the wild life in the area, however, this study has proved there is not much wild life in the area that won' t adopt to housing being in the area (Study the list of animals found in the area), amount The cost of buying the tremendousAof land over and above the flood plain is going to be much morn than stated in the re- ports I have seen. The cost of upkeep, and the policing is also not f igured. 'When you figure all this, and then compare it to the ma ber of people who use it in a years time, I think it would change many people minds. The f lood plain should be the most you should think about controlling. 250 ft or more is much more than is needed, The idea of keeping housing ect from the view of the pathways is stupid, This is good hoeing area and produces much needed tax base which should also be projected into the future costs per person wing this area as I have stated above, On our lend we have done a study, and figuring 1/2 acre lots along the top of the creek rim there would be 51 taxable lots. The way they figure the transition zone on our property you can more than double that figure to around 120 taxable lots. People on walks thru this area would not be against looking at housing. You can look at the records and see that over the years we have fought to keep this a Wild area let vita the state over the data, second wits the sewer to get its route cuanged (this costs us manly thousands of dollars ),, with the power Co. and their lines, and lately tee drainage system from the shopping canter. Tuxs proves we and tas otner people want to preserve this area, but we are resonable enough to know when things are going too far and costing more than the people can afford, s b I Page 2 The main reason for this letter is to let you know that (1) the study though long and expensive was poorly done and no costs were taken into consideration. (2) The will of the people along the creek was complete A totally disreguarded ( Pages 1-6 to i 1-11 will prove this). (3) Me tax base loss to the village would '~ be unbareable. (4) The idea of a transition zone beyond the flood plain is the largest and most expensive of the problems the study has created. (5) The amount of park we now have, along with the park area along the river and the county park in west Bloom- ington are more than adaquate for the of ordabili,ty of the tax payers of Eden Fraire. (6) The Council has the responsibility to stop the excessive controls and costs thm land aquisi,tions that they are placing on development. It' s nice to have everything we waist, but I know of no family in EAen praire that has every- thing they want so why should the council f eel they can vote In everything they went with no consideration to costs. The costs spiral thru government regulations and spending must be stoppod so the American dreary of a home of your own will not be lost. Fiscal responsibility is necessary. Very truly yours, Ra N. Molter, Jr. 1 s�W C -77 �ecO 319y� b STATUIL.iT REGtIRDI,�G PURGATORY CRL•'L•'K OPL-N SPACC CORRIDOR STUDY a G Presented on behalf of the residents of Creekside Court at the meeting of r toe Eden Prairie City Council on Marcii 9 , 1976 at the Vo-Tech School Auditorium. { f F S We, the undersigned residents of Creeksidu Court in Ldenvale, submit the following as a written expression of our very real and serious concerns regarding the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study report. First, we will address the corridor plan generally and then we will address it as it affects the Fdenvale Sector located southwest of the Milwaukee railroad line and northeast of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. We feel strongly that much of what is proposed under the guise of preserving Purgatory Creek and the natural habitat surrounding it , is really i directed to the goal of developing the creel: for recreational uses. In this respect , and with limited exception, the report fails to adequately distinguish which land areas will be acquired f or the purpose of conservation and which land areas will be acquired for development of recreational uses, such as snowmobiles , bicycling, picnicing, etc. Although it would seem obvious that such a beautiful natural resource as Purgatory Creek should be preserved through various forms of municipal control such as land use planning and i zoning ordinances and regulations as well as water shed district controls, it is clear to the Creekside Court residents that conservation is not what this report is .about - For to preserve nature it is not necessary to acquire }treat bodies of land or to construct floating docks or snowmobile and bicycle trails:. Indeed , we are of the collective opinion that the Purgatory Creek corridor Cplan is essentially a recreational plan which is poorly thought out in terms of its environmental impact , its placement and location, and its repented engagement in certain assumptions. That this is the case seems to be i • Page 2 borne out by the language of Ove plan itselr which, on at least one A occasion, refers to Purgatory Creek as a "recreational spine." (I-16) . We ask you why this must be so. Do we lack sufficient open space in Eden Prairie every bit as capable of being converted to recreational use? We don't think so. Ile take exception to the idealistic notion that it is necessary to link all sectors of Purgatory Creek by some form of common medium, such as a trail. There are several obstacles to such an approach and these include a sensitive consideration of the privacy rights of Eden Prairie residents who a; have built homes on property d jacent to the creek, a recognition that certain natural areas are better left untouched by human hands, and the avoidance of artificial barriers such as rights of way, railroad trestles and golf courses. There is really no need to place this ?lan on an all or nothing concept of . a trail or corridor link. To do so is disturbing to say the least. We have been asked as Eden Prairie residents to actively comment on this Purgatory Creek Corridor study . Undoubtedly this is for the benefit of the City Council as well as Lhe individuals responsible for preparation of this plan and report . Although we willingly choose to participate in the discussion of this study, council members should note that the matter of financing the plan is not described in the report. Where land acquisition and development moneys will come from is apparently an open question. If there is to be federal participation in this project we ask you what percentage of the cost this will be and what portion or residual cost will we, as Eden Prairie home owners , be required Co hear in the form of special assessments or taxes. We ask this with respect to the start up costs for the plan as { well as the maintenance expense of the future. Whether we are willing to financially support this project depends a great deal on our being satisfied with respect to plan objectives and specifics, which are disturbing where ' Page 3 i f 4. found in the present report , but for tlic most part are noticably absent. Control of the entire Creek project disturbs us. Which individuals will insure us that tue ecology of various areas will not be disturbed by this man-made plan? fdho will guarantee us that the home environment of those Eden Prairie residents who choose to reside adjacent to Purgatory Creek will not be invaded or disturbed, much less abused? In short, what v protection is there for ttie residents, whether animal or human, from en- croachment. by the yet undefined others? { The Edenvale sector of the Creek plan makes the case for creek and habitat preservation. The 60 acre marsh, located off Edenvale Boulevard, should be protected as a water storage basin and as a distinctive piece of open space. It contains , according; to Norman Stone, wildlife consultant, 4 numerous species of wildlife, including Gie great horned owl (4-7) and the # a l only "Liatris" in the entire creek corridor (6-13) . It should be observed drat this marshy area is considerably smaller in Size than the marsh found in Paradise Valley, the lower marsh in section 6 south of Towriline Road, the 1G0 acre Staring Lake area and the marsh found in the Major Center Area sector. Yet the graph at I-58 of the report shows plans for severe use of bicycle paths, severe use of recreation paths and severe use of cross country paths . Mr. Stone also suggests hiking-general use trails and the installation of board walks in the Edenvale marsh. We submit that the marsh area and the hour glass area to the northwest of it are too small to rationally accomodate r all of t110 foregoing. Yc)ti m+iyt keel) in mind that th(I di-VOlopmellL of "c•nviron- i mental educational trails" for the benefit of the future elementary school is k also planned for this area of the Creek. Policy makers insist bear responsibility for the ecological impact and destruction that will occur in the event all of this Is done as proposed. Those of us who do not wish the deer and fox driven away in the name of "recreation" or education intend to hold you responsible should you fail to wisely discharge the public trust placed in you . Page 4 \" The obsession of Eden Prairie planners with trails continues to disturb us. We question the wisdet►t of permitting bicycling in a confined natural area and we have little doubt that snowmobiling has no place in the gdenvale r sector. Bicycling should be banned in the ontire Edenvale sector as is proposed for the Sunnybrook sector. Many of us have experienced trespasses of ,our private property by individuals on bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles. tdho of you will guarantee us that if pedestrian paths are constructed that they will not be the subject of unpermitted or heavy use. What guarantee do the homeowners whose property fronts on Purgatory Creek (in some instances within 40-50 feet of the creek) have that their privacy will be respected by hikers. The situation will be particularly acute in and around the hour glass area where homes built on Hillcrest Court and Creekside Court are very close to the Creek and the land corridor ib narrow. We ask whether a trail. is really necessary for the nature lover. It would seem in the final analysis that such .`t person is quite capable of wending his or her way through the natural habitat without a great deal of difficulty. In forcing us to accept the trail concept are we, as individuals being required to trade our individual rights for the alleged good of the whole . We note that no trails are seriously recommended for the Paradise Valley sector in recognition of the rights of adjacent homeowners. Why are we in Crec:kside Court to be treated any differently? � 1 i It) CUt1C1USiOt1, we ask LhaL YOU con:ildur prebervaL ion of Lhe lsdenva Le sector as the primary concern and object of any Creek acquisition and development plan. We ask that you relegate recreation to a lnrger area of CEden Prairie, such as the Staring Lake area or the area south of Townline Road . We hope you are aware of the threat to privacy which trails can present and this includes the privacy of wildlife as well as Human beings. The Page 5 tpossibility of noise and air pollution and ecological disturbance dictate that any paths or trails which are constructed must be limited in size and length, and patterned after nature, as is proposed for the Riverview area. g Finally , we would point out that many of our concerns are the concerns of other c it lzens in Eden Prairic and were vo ic(-d by them in December 1.973. Their comments are a part of the addenda to the, report . Listen to us and to them and be mindful of the fact that they have changed very little. The Edina City Council's recent refusal to allow a hiking trail around its side of Meadowbrook Lake should not be viewed by you as Council action reflective of a more urban environment — rather it is to be commended as responsible action by an elected governing body. We trust that all policy making with respect to Purgatory Creek will be conducted by you in the same spirit and i ( with the same degree of sensitivity and intelligence. Thank you. �'�f L i S t fir., .r:•-r i February 3, 1976 Eden Prairie City Hall Attn: Mr. Roger Ulstad 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Subj: Proposed Land FEBUse, Parcels: 2580 & 2610 Dear Mr. Ulstad: As you know, I am an owner of the above parcels comprising 20 plus acres located on the north side of Valley View Road just west of Purgatory Creek. In reading the Purgatory Creek corridor . study, I note with concern that this area has been placed entirely in the conservancy zone. I'm not sure what this means in terms of my ability to develop this land to its highest use in an orderly rnanner, mutually agreeable to all concerned, and with an opportunity for profit to me as an owner. Judging from the study, flood plain areas appear to be prime candidates for conservancy status. I recognize that a modest portion of the property may lie within the definition of flood plain. However, I'm confident that any such area P could be filled economically to make all, or most all, of the property suitable and desirable for building purposes. I hope that in your reply you will advise that orderly development of the property for residential purposes is not in conflict with the corridor study, or any other studies underway of which I may not be aware. If so, I shall commence at once to prepare a Preliminary Residential Plan for review and discussion. Many thanks for your assistance. Yours very truly, Michael J. Pohlen MJ P fl�j( I Werner W. Schulze ma NORTH HtLLCREST COURT . £DEN PRAIRM NONNESOTA 5M ' March 4, 1976 Mr. Marty Jessen 416 City of Eden Prairie - 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Jessen: Once again I would like to address myself to the natter of , the .Purgatory Open Space Corridor Study. I have read the ' summation and find the proposed plan quite good. However, it is my opinion that during future implementation, care must be taken the concept of "open-space" is followed as much as possible . I understand this to mean that whenever a decision is to be made to alter any of the terrain, no j �•,, efforts should be spared to do this with the least possible effect of change on the surrounding natural environment . If such a philosophy could prevail , the city of Eden Prairie would be sure to gain beautiful parkways all of us could enjoy. Sincerely y j { i i Ire 4" �rj"V *7664' rG. WHOLESALERS OF MFXICAN FURN1TiJRE & ARTCRAr'TS Showroom - Warehouse: 2852-54 Boca Chlca Blvd. f� U 6-2I6291 # // RR©WNSVII. X. TEXAS 78520 .. 4C May 21 , 1975 City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie , Minn. 55343 - Gentlemen; Will you kindly advise us if you wish to purchase the land we now own along Sunnybrook Road. We / a wish to make a disposition of approximately t_5�O acres. Thankyou. ' Yours truly, ti J Paul De Lecour 'Ryce C. De Lecour Ra uet Hilda M. g ` - .�, WHOLESALERS OF MMaCAN FURNMURE & AR?CRAF 'S Sbowroom - Warehouse: 2852-54 Boca Chico Blvd. U 6-2162 �- BROWNSVaJ E, TEXAS 785211 .Dec. 19, 1975 • e Mr. Marty Jessen Eden Prairie , Minn. De.jr Mr. Jessen; About two years ago we talked to an engineer. in Eden Prairie , about our land along Purgatory Creek and were informed the city might buy same, and would have an answer for us in two to three months . To date we have not heard anything . We have about 15 or 16 acres of land, Tract F , if this 1 . is to be bought for a park along the --reek, we would naturally wish to sell it all because what would be left would be a narrow strip, worthless to anyone. Kindly advise us if any disposition is made coneering our property at the meeting we heard you were having at this time . Thankyou. Very /truly, Paul J. De lecour 4 • w Werner W. Schulze • ~ ISS41 NORTH HILLCREST COURT • EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA U343 December 10, 1975 �,�. • Mr. Marty Jessen City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Jessen: , In 1972 when we were thinking of moving to the Twin Cities area, we were most favorably impressed by the seemingly well coordinated and foresighted guide plan for the city of Eden Prairie. I am sure this has a lot to do with the fact that we now live here. Our house is located on North Hillerest Court near the Purgatory Creek and we sure like the area as well as being residents of Eden Prairie. Of course , we would. like to see the plans come to fruition, especially with regard to the parklands along the creek. About the flood plain between Valley View Road and the Hillcrest Courts itself, we feel it should be left in a wild state to harbor beavers, pheasants , deer and all the other small animals and birds it attracts. It is an ideal area for wildlife and Eden Prairie should regard herself blessed in having such areas as this , the Anderson Lakes and the Minnesota River valley within its boundaries. These nature Habitats are important assets of this city and should be preserved and protected . These are the important things that this city still has, that other ' communities - have lost long ago, Let' s keep Eden Prairie distinctly different. Our own and the future of our children will be enriched by it for the rest of our lives. Sincerely, . , Q i . � may► do Box 110 Palm Resaca Park Brownsville, Tex. 78520 Mr. Marty Zess en, Eden Prairie, Minn. - Dear Mr. Jessen, I understand there is to be a Council' Meeting on a proposed park. along Purgatory Creek. � If the city is to acquire property along- Purgatory Creek, I hope they will consider buying all of my property on Stmnybrock Road. If the city acquires the land along the creek then I will not be able to sell the rust, of my property as there would not be sufficient land left for five acres to sell with my house and five acres, with the duplex. r Ple4se inform me of any dovelcvrzent in regard to this property. i Sincerely, Mrs. Hilda Raguet Box 110 . Palm Rese.ca Park Brownsville, Texas. 78520 i