Planning Commission - 03/22/2021APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr,
Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette,
William Gooding
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of
Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of March 8,
2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOBLE HILL (2021-02)
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51
acres
Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres
Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres
Dean Lotter, manager of Land Planning and Entitlement for Pulte Homes
presented a PowerPoint and gave some background on the company, presented
the plan, and summarized the homes to be built. The previous 2030 City
Comprehensive Plan had this site slated for three different uses, low density
residential, medium density residential, and office. Historically it had been a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 2
private residence and a tree farm, and it was currently zoned as Rural. Future
guidance as to zoning was low density residential. The Standal Property was
divided into parcels one, two and three, none of which included the Fredrick
Miller Spring, its source, or the watershed of which the spring was a part. Sand
Prairie habitat would also be protected as part of the development.
Lotter showed where Riley Creek was on parcel three and stated this would be
protected. The Pulte Plan would preserve over a third (31 percent) of the site as
open space, which protected all the sensitive areas mentioned. Gonyea had
previously proposed a very similar development. The present proposal would
have 50 instead of 59 units; it would preserve 14 percent more trees; and the
impervious surface would be reduced by 5 percent. There would also be more
trees planted (250) than Gonyea planned (215). No trees would be removed from
Hennepin Village Property. Phase One was plantings on the perimeter of the
property.
Lotter displayed the Noble Hill home design. The houses would be between 3,100
and 6,000 square feet not including the basements and would have three
bedrooms and three-car garages.
Lotter gave the preliminary timeline: The PUD preliminary plat would be
approved March/May. The final plat was to be approved in June. Site
development work would begin in summer or fall of 2021, homes would be sold
beginning fall/winter of 2021, and the full build of the neighborhood would be
completed by the end of 2024. Lotter explained the waivers being requested were
consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Fredrick Miller Spring would
not be impacted. It would protect sensitive areas, with 31 percent of that land
being open space. A PUD typically included only 10-15 percent.
Farr asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Lotter replied he did hold one in
February. 15 or 16 people attended virtually. Lotter had run through a similar
presentation as the one given tonight. Questions were predominantly about saving
trees, including a stand of pine trees in block two which would be removed. June
Grass Lane was renamed from the Lark Sparrow Lane cul-de-sac. He also
presented how the view sheds would appear to neighbors. A row of 10-foot trees
would be planted above a retaining wall. A lot of views from existing homes
would be effectively screened.
Mette asked for and received clarification that nothing would change the Fredrick
Miller Spring or how it operated either during construction or after the
development was complete. Lotter explained the source of the spring was on the
west side of the road. The pipe was brought under the road to the east.
DeSanctis asked if the possible impact on pollinators, flowering plants, and
insects had been studied. There was a unique combination of pine and deciduous
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 3
trees on the property. Lotter replied he recognized Outlot D, which would be
preserved. The site would be walked; it had previously been walked with Alliant
Engineering that worked with the previous applicant. A survey would be done this
spring that would look at all the sensitive vegetation particularly the Kittentail
vegetation, which might not exist where the homes were to be built. This was one
of the conditions of approval in the staff report.
Higgins asked Lotter to give some indication of what the reasons were for the
various retaining walls in the development. There was a substantial number of
them, and the homeowners would presumably have the responsibility for
maintenance. Lotter responded the site itself had 100 feet of topographic relief
from east to west. The grade changes were substantial and posed a challenge for
appropriate draining and basins. The goal was to not have the streets at a sharp
grade. The retaining walls would allow different grades and elevations to be
maintained over time. The number of retaining walls in the present application
was a 30 percent decrease over the original plan.
Klima presented the staff report. This included a rezoning request from Rural to
R1-9.5. A project very similar to this one had been reviewed and recommended
for approved by the Planning Commission, but that had eventually been
withdrawn before City Council review. This plan included the design of outlots to
handle water treatment and the connection to a trail. Outlots A and C were
proposed to be owned by the applicant and included stormwater management
facilities. Outlot B, which included a trail connection, would be deeded to the
City. Outlot D with its stormwater management facilities and environmental
features would also be deeded to the City for preservation.
The developer has had conversations with Hennepin Village and would continue
to do so regarding a trail connection between that project and Noble Hill. The
Homeowners’ Association was set to meet with the developer on April 1. An
endangered species review had been conducted and a few species could be
impacted. Therefore, a field assessment would be conducted this spring. The
development agreement would include language that addressed how the
endangered species would be addressed and a timeline for specialized treatment if
any were found to be present in the field assessment.
Pulte Homes sustainable features included: home energy rating system (HERS)
score, an archeological review was prepared as a part of the Gonyea project, and
staff asked the State Archeologist to review this. The State Archeologist
concluded this report was still relevant. Hennepin County, the airport, and the
Watershed District were also contacted, and the Airport did comment, asking the
City to reconsider single-family residences on this property, or notify future
residents of the Flying Cloud Airport and that noise attenuation be extended to
these homes. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, 35 written comments were
received from both Eden Prairie residents and those outside of Eden Prairie. Staff
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 4
also fielded two phone calls. In addition, a number of residents had signed up to
speak tonight. The majority of comments were regarding the spring, which was
designated as a local heritage site and is not part of this development but on a
parcel of land owned to the City. Staff recommended approval of the applications
as proposed.
Kirk requested additional City staff from City Engineering and the Parks and
Recreation Department to comment on the spring. Matt Bourne reiterated that
there were no changes proposed for the spring. The water under question was on
the west side of Spring Road and development on the east side and the other side
of the creek would have no impact. Rue added an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) was done approximately 10 years ago. Back then there had
been a proposal to make road connections in this area and various alternative had
been discussed. Language in the EAW showing no impact from the proposed road
extensions was provided in the current staff report.
Gooding asked if this project was approved, what would be the costs for
maintenance, which would lie on the private homeowners’ association, and what
the liability for them (likely significant) if something happened to the proposed
multiple retaining walls. Klima replied the development agreement would include
language stating the multiple retaining walls would be maintained by the HOA
rather than by the City. How those HOA documents were drafted to specifically
assign financial responsibility would not be included in the development
agreement. This would be a private matter between the HOA and the property
owners, and the City would not maintain those retaining walls long term.
Farr asked for and received clarification the street connection to the east of June
Grass Lane was a right of way but connected to a private street. He asked if this
was why the City could not force a connection at this time. Rue replied the public
right of way went up to the property line of Hennepin Village to an outlot owned
by the association. Best case scenario had the developer working with the HOA
on a connection, where there were drainage and utilities easements. The easement
was maintained by the City but the street was not. Farr asked for and received
confirmation the City intended to reduce cul-de-sac lanes by having this
connection. Farr asked for and received confirmation the walking path with the
pedestrian bridge leading up the hill over Riley Creek to a bluff overlook on the
south side of Hennepin Village was a City trail and would remain open to the
public. Rue added the only change would be a trail going from this proposed
development to the existing asphalt path along the existing trail corridor. Farr
asked if there had been a discussion regarding boulder retaining wall material
matching the previous proposal. Klima replied City staff would continue to work
with the developer on the materials detail.
Farr then stated he sensed skepticism regarding government and applicant’s
comments the protection of the spring and stormwater management on the part of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 5
the public present tonight and asked for staff to speak to the rigor of the watershed
district review process. Rue replied staff had had conversations with the
developer, the engineer, and the watershed district. Any application to the
watershed district would likely be concurrent with this one. The requirements
from the watershed and the City were rigorous. There were four ponds on this site
in series, meaning one treated pond would drain into the next before the water
discharged into the creek. There would be a number of best management practices
(BMPs) in place.
DeSanctis asked if there had been planning regarding the possibility of a 100-year
flood and creating a buffer against a 5/6/7-inch rain accumulation. Rue replied
part of the analysis going into these developments, particularly with a creek,
included an inundation model which was more than a 100-year event; it actually
modeled and planned for protection against a 500-1,000-year event with 10 inches
of rain.
Rebecca Prochaska, 15781 Porchlight Lane, Eden Prairie, distributed and
displayed a PowerPoint and explained her request for the commission to deny the
rezoning on the strength of 1,087 signatures on a petition, and the area’s uniquely
significant ecological area which only occurred in one-quarter of Eden Prairie and
which was designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of international
significance. She stated the building of 50 new homes would remove 456 trees
and significantly impact the environment, safety, and community. She explained
the impacts on the Fredrick-Miller Spring, which while not directly affected
would be placed at high risk, and on the Riley Creek Watershed, which was in a
denigrated state. Trees and natural heritage species, both plant and animal, would
also be adversely affected, and there were at least two plants that were 1) a special
concern species, Evening Primrose, and 2) a threatened species, Kittentail. By
definition a heritage tree was irreplaceable. Facts were from the USGS
Agricultural website. Another concern was potentially unsafe traffic patterns due
to inadequate sight-distance. There was extensive metrowide and statewide
support for the commission to deny this rezoning. She urged the commission to
retain the site’s Rural zoning.
Glenn Elo, 9755 Cupole Lane, Eden Prairie, and treasurer of the Board of
Directors of Hennepin Village Master Association, spoke on the proposed
pedestrian/biking trail connecting Hennepin Village to this development via June
Grass Lane. The trail as currently proposed would provide emergency vehicle
access to this development via June Grass Lane at Hennepin Village. The trail
would be 10-12 feet wide and would prohibit nonemergency vehicular traffic. He
expressed concern the width of the trail would encroach on sub-association owned
property on both sides of the trail and would affect the Hennepin Village
development where it crosses. He concluded an easement should be purchased by
the developer, or June Grass Lane be made a full, City-maintained street.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 6
Hennepin Village was not willing to assume any costs or responsibilities for this
trail.
Chesney Enquist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, who traveled regularly
to the spring for her physical and mental health, stated every body of water was
connected, including the body of water that was human beings. She urged the
commission to adopt an attitude of gratitude toward the important bodies of water
in Eden Prairie, including the spring. She expressed concern for the health of the
spring, the environment, the community, and the animals. She thanked the
commission for its stewardship thus far and looked forward to future
conversations.
Russ Enquist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, founder of Bee Safe
Minnesota, stated road salts, pesticide and herbicides runoff would adversely
affect the spring. He and his wife educated children on the importance of
pollinators and the current mass extinction. He asked the commission to be a hero
and not to rob the children’s future.
Ronald A Seeley, 609 Market Street South, Shakopee, stated there were five
topics in question: the rezoning, effect on the endangered flora, the loss of 450
trees, the water movement vulnerable to intrusive houses, and the effect of this
development on antlered animals.
Maggie Schmitz, 15605 Lund Road North, Eden Prairie, stated she and her
partner chose to build lives in Eden Prairie in part due to the spring. She asked the
commission review the EAW conducted in 2007, because the commission did not
have all the information. This development was not the road development
proposed in 2007. She stated also a wildlife study needed to be done in spring. An
EIS was not required because there were less than 1,000 houses to be built, but
she urged that one be done in this special situation.
Patricia Oen, 7926 South Bay Curve, Eden Prairie, stated she and her husband
Dan were 32-year residents of Eden Prairie. She urged the Planning Commission
to retain the current Rural zoning. The bottom line was the possible risk to this
unique treasure that was a part of the community. She displayed a book by Marie
Wirtenburg stating the spring was known about for hundreds of years before
Europeans arrived. It was visited by people from all over the Metro Area, even
from Northfield. Damage to the spring would be an incalculable loss and while
there was no direct threat, there was also no guarantee it would not be affected.
Impervious surfaces would impact the entire watershed including the spring. The
development would benefit only a few people, meaning this would privatize the
benefits but socialize the losses, which was a risk she did not think the
commission should take. She added today was World Water Day with the theme
of “The Value of Water.”
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 7
Ted Hanners, 6 Crestview Terrace, Chaska, stated the bottom line for him was
that the term “develop” was a politically correct way of saying “mass killer.” He
stated the spring was also “developed.”
Sophia, 8800 Tretbaugh Drive, Bloomington stated the world was losing 137
species of plant, animals and insects every day due to deforestation, which in
Minnesota was mostly due to the building of roads, houses and buildings.
Dramatic decrease in forest caused climate change, soil erosion, increased
greenhouse gases, and more adverse effect. She had hope for the future. Pollution
and deforestation were huge problems many people did not look at. She stated
when one took something small it turns into something bigger.
Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated the property in
question was his uncle’s farm. He spoke in favor of this project. He stated he
appreciated the comments and concerns raised tonight from those who visited the
spring and valued it, but he believed in landowner rights, which were what
financed the ability to take care of these treasures. The City needed that tax base.
Commission member Farr had mentioned expertise, and he had confidence in City
staff.
Sanie Seeborn, 5148 42nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, stated she had been
visiting the spring for most of her life, as had her grandparents and parents, and
she now brought her children. This was a big opportunity to lead by example.
Some pollinators had a less than 24-hour lifespan, and a field study in April might
miss them. Pollinators were fed by the spring. People visited the spring even from
out of state. She urged the commission to expand on science, conservation, and
teaching about the environment. The people were looking for change.
Donald Callahan, 414 Ash Street South, Sauk Centre, asked for clarification as
there seemed to be three proposals. He asked for and received confirmation that
the commission members and staff had visited the site of the proposed
development. He asked where the development was in relation to the spring.
Klima pulled up the satellite view of the site and explained the three properties of
the development and that the majority of the construction would take place on
parcels one and two. Mr. Callahan pointed out some empty lots to the northeast
and asked why this was not developed instead of the forested area in the
watershed. He stated it would then destroy the watershed. He also urged low-
income housing be constructed
Theresa Hallonen, 853 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, stated she had
stood outside the spring for three days straight and asked people if they knew
about this development. Only one in twenty did. This was her sole source of
water. She displayed a list of names she had collected against this proposal. All
bodies of water are connected, and this development would contribute salt and
chemicals to the spring and the environment. She asked why a huge sign was not
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 8
displayed at the spring about this development or why a greater effort to inform
the public was not done.
Bruce Ferris, 6931 Autumn Terrace, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 25-year
resident of Eden Prairie, having left Florida. He did not notice an improvement in
the city despite all the developments. He displayed an August 2010 copy of
Money Magazine which listed Eden Prairie as number one and displayed a
photograph of the prairie bluff area and noted the irony. He acknowledged the
importance of property rights but spoke against another misplaced, copycat
development on a beautiful piece of land.
Deborah Ramos, 520 2nd Street Southeast #414, Minneapolis, introduced herself
as an indigenous Latinx person who also visited the spring. She stated she saw the
spring, the creek, and the hill as a system of life. She asked if the developers had
heard of Line Three, the pipeline proposed to be built through the Mississippi
River headwaters, wetlands, and creek tributary, and of the Standing Rock
Community that protested in 2016 against the pipeline. She stated this elitist
housing development would impact much more than the people who would live in
it, contributing to climate change and effecting native lands and plants and
animals. She stated no one had the right to own land and do with it as they saw fit,
as the earth was a living entity. She urged the commission to live in harmony with
the earth.
Matthew Mueller, an Eden Prairie resident at 8673 Grier Lane, Eden Prairie,
stated he was a 29-year resident. He shared two quotes about the spring, one from
City Manager Scott Neal and another from the Minnesota Department of Health
on the recharge area of springs possibly being affected. He asked if the
commission had researched the possible effect on the recharge area of this spring.
David Smith, 9500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was not opposed
to landowners’ right to sell, but to the rezoning of this site. He asked if there were
other sites in Eden Prairie to develop instead of this one. As a public-school
teacher at all five public schools, he was concerned about the quality of life and
green natural areas in this site. He encouraged denial of the application.
Mitch Michaelson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 39-
year resident. He voiced support for this proposed project citing three areas:
landowner rights, the process of decision, and the City of Eden Prairie. He stated
the Standel family wonderful neighbors, stewards of the land, and wonderful
citizens of the community. He strongly supported their ability and wish to sell
their land. He commended the decision-making process of staff, government
agencies and commission members. He supported the guidance of the City in
infrastructure and planning.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 9
Paige Carlson, 5320 Washburn, Minneapolis, stated the completed EAW had not
been done for this housing development but for a road extension in 2007, and the
two developments were not comparable. She added Bourne’s statement that it
should not impact the spring did not mean it would not impact it, and Rue did not
address real steps for protection. She asked if the spring and wildlife were
affected, who would be held accountable, and what the City was leaving its
children.
Matt Quinnell, 412 East 1st Street, Chaska, stated the City water piped into his
house in Chaska was undrinkable. His disclosed his parents owned the retaining
wall company that has built the retaining walls for this developer, and he was
taking a risk in speaking tonight. He understood the handling of water flow. His
point of contention with Pulte, based on his previous work with them, was in the
handling of runoff. He added this appeared to be “political theatre” and he hoped
Pulte will make a more serious and concise effort to deal with runoff in this and
all other future developments. He offered to answer any questions regarding the
retaining walls, and quoted, “Our ability to measure has exceeded our ability to
understand.”
Michel Maske, 5820 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, spoke in opposition to the
development. He asked if there were any provisions or verbiage to address
unintended effects, and what the community could do to offset the potential tax
revenue if this development was not approved.
Jessica Schultz, 8056 Rose Street, Victoria, asked what could be done to prevent
pesticides and herbicides runoff from this development.
Sheree Bermel, 24 Bayview Circle, Chaska stated she was previously a resident of
Eden Prairie and had just learned about this development. She stated the
community needed more notice. She wondered about cash compensation for this
development and if the City received cash compensation for an approval. This
development was within 20 miles of 20 golf courses that could be developed
instead. She suspected the motive behind this proposal was the tax incentive it
brought with it and did not believe this development would not adversely affect
the spring or contribute to the deterioration of Riley Creek. She thanked the
speakers for coming and urged the commission members to deny the application.
Justin D’Angelo, a Chaska resident, asked the rigorous metrics mentioned by Rue
be made public, or an independent study be done. There were 1,037 signatures for
this and counting. He added Eden Prairie should change its nature-based logo on
its signage if this development was approved.
Scott Haddamann, 10002 Indigo Drive in Eden Prairie, stated he was a 31-year
resident, and his wife was a 34-year resident. Woods and bluffs had been lost in
previous developments. He stated Beth Novak-Krebs received a letter from him
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 10
and five of his neighbors. He passed around his cell phone with a photograph off
his back deck showing 51-year-old heritage trees. He agreed with property owner
rights but they did not have to affect his property owner rights. He stated he had
researched the area before he bought the home, and this site had been slated for
development for a long time. A similar crowd to the crowd tonight showed up in
opposition for the last developer. The neighborhood meeting held was not well
publicized if there were only 15 people that showed up, and the proposal one year
later was the same except for nine fewer houses. Now he would get to look at
shingles, siding, and chimneys. He saw all the animals on the first speaker’s slide
plus a few she had not included from his back deck every day. He expected to
lose one-fifth of his retirement money. The landowner didn’t have a right to make
a profit on what he wished because he needed it rezoned, while affecting other
landowners’ property values. He saw this as a tax grab that would have a domino
effect. Any tax benefit would be erased with the neighborhood loss of value. The
houses on either side of him went up for sale last year due to this fear. He
concluded by saying he hoped the previous speaker was wrong about “political
theatre.”
Rachel Octonaus, Chanhassen, stated she lived near Riley Creek by Lake Susan
and had been getting water at the spring since young. As a nurse she thought the
water in Chanhassen was not safe to drink. She did not believe that 50 houses
were worth the risk and asked the commission members to consider nature and
what this community was all about.
Jeff Buroviack,Borowiak, Minneapolis, stated he did not believe the EAW was
accurate. He had a degree in biology from Carleton College, and stated the east
side of the valley was part of the whole ecosystem. Damage to one side of a
valley affected the other, and this was seen in Colorado. The Christmas tree farm
was old and hopefully not loaded with pesticides, which would run downhill to
the ground water. There would be a constant flow downhill from roofs from this
new development. The wilderness area next to a housing development would be
profoundly disturbed. He urged the commission members to find a way for the
elders to buy out of that property without developing it; perhaps it could be
augmented by organic farming. This was not an environmentally sustainable
development.
Mapurah Parduh, Shakopee, urged the commission members to consider the long-
term impact of having too much impervious surfaces. She was also concerned
about the possible contamination of the spring. Her culture taught her to take only
what was needed from nature.
Ingrid DeFrien, Bloomington, stated she is a former Eden Prairie resident and
nature was being lessened and this was an opportunity to stop that.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 11
Dave Knotting stated he drove an hour-and-a-half each way to get this water,
which he shared with friends and family. He could not tell his two brothers, who
had health benefits from this water, they could no longer get the spring water due
to this development. He saw a connection between the increase in autism and the
increase of toxins in the environment. He urged the commission to preserve this
body of water that so many people depended on.
John Richardson, a contractor and builder, stated this particular development did
not make sense. He did not believe that adding these homes would not be an
adverse environmental impact. He commended the vibrant impact of the
objections and stated he found the claim of no impact on this spring to be foolish.
He agreed the landowners should be able to sell the land, but rezoning it
endangered the land. He was in favor of building good quality homes but opposed
building homes in this instance.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
Kirk stated there was an assumption people make that commissioners work for the
City. He emphasized commission members actually were volunteers that were not
paid by the City or by any other entity. In addition, the Planning Commission
members did not make the final decision; they could only make recommendations
to the City Council, which did make that decision. He urged the passionate
activists in the public to serve on a commission themselves and channel their
energies toward helping Eden Prairie be a better place.
Mette stated she was a user and advocate of the spring and would never support a
proposal that impacted it. She did read the EAW done for the proposed extensions
of Spring Road. The groundwater flow had not changed since then. She was
taking in the information and attempting to make a decision of fact. The zoned
Rural use allowed for low-density housing and agricultural uses, including a farm
using fertilizer, and stables which could have manure smell and runoff, which
neighbors would not like. This proposal had storm water draining and filtering
that would protect Riley Creek. It was an improvement from the last proposal, and
she saw sufficient evidence it would not affect the spring. Riley Creek could
potentially be impacted but the runoff would be treated and mitigated. The
commission’s job was to review the proposal and make sure it was taking all
required measurements the commission required to protect the site, and therefore
she saw no reason to deny this application.
DeSanctis noted the City’s Aspire Comprehensive Plan called for more affordable
housing but this development was building homes in the upper $600,000.00
range, out of reach of most people. He stated he was impressed by the spirit of the
public coming together to speak to the community’s physical and emotional
wellbeing and agreed there was no guarantee the watershed would not be sullied.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 12
He stated he could not support this development or rezoning plan in its current
form and was opposed to this development plan.
Gooding stated this was a difficult piece of land for development. The topography
was poor, and he didn’t like the extensive use of retaining walls, which could
become a long-term headache for homeowners. He thought the loss of trees
should not be taken lightly and was concerned about sightlines. He had not yet
read the EAW, but he could not support the application.
Markos stated she had reviewed the Gonyea development and was surprised and
impressed by the input from the community. She did not think a proper EAW had
been done to this site for this development, despite the due diligence by Pulte. She
agreed with Mette the zoning came with its own environmental challenges, but
she could not support making this change to the site at this time. She urged the
commission to do more work before approving this development.
Higgins stated she had deeply considered the public’s opposition, but the
development had pulled back on building on every space that could have been
developed. The public had raised concerns she had not considered, but it was time
for this development to move forward, and she did support it. The area to the east
was the largest housing project in Eden Prairie and she lived closed to it, and it
was 20 years old. She understood the concerns of the public, the adjacent
development, and the need for access of emergency vehicles. She stated she
would support this proposal.
Farr stated he was a 40-year resident of Eden Prairie who went to the spring every
week and drank from its water every day. It was a great source of pride for the
City and the Metropolitan area. Commission members were charged to protect the
City’s resources and were passionate in protecting the spring, and the City had
invested in land preservation as a top priority. Eden Prairie had an extraordinary
percentage of land set aside for parks, streams, lakes, and various natural features
already invested. All development had impacts; the commission members had to
find a tipping point, and to do so he turned to science and technology. Even
preservation could be damaging if not handled properly. Soil conditions were
taken into account by the experts in water runoff. Gravity prevailed and the spring
was upland from this development. He saw no adverse effect on the spring or its
source. The watershed district had significantly more stringent regulations than
those imposed on Riley Creek, which accounts for its deterioration, which was a
fact. He believed in property rights, and it was not in the purview of the
commission to decide land could not be owned. This parcel could be developed
with more units per acre, but it was not going to be. He thought that science
prevailed with the water management plan, and staff would monitor how the
contractor built this project, which he would support.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 13
Kirk stated the commission’s job was balance of many conflicting points of
information. Tax base had nothing to do with his decision; he wanted what was
best for the community. He had been on this commission for 13 years and found
staff to be credible with a high level of expertise. The commission and rules and
codes and laws to follow regarding landowner rights. There were things the
commission could and could not do, because otherwise someone could sue the
City. He also seriously considered community input, and many times it had
changed his perspective. Lastly, he drew upon his own set of values. He had voted
for the Gonyea development and would support this one. There were no
guarantees, but he believed the evidence was strong the stream would be safe. The
public input was important to him and made this a tight call, but the balance was
for him to support this proposal. He added he would like to see what more the
commission can do to educate the community.
Pieper asked staff to review the next steps for the watershed. Rue replied the
watershed would review all of the applicant’s calculations, treatments, removal of
phosphorus, preexisting and subsequent conditions, probably concurrently with
the City’s review. Kirk added he had attended a number of the watershed district
meetings, which had a parallel public hearing process similar to this process in
Eden Prairie. The watershed regulations were strict, and the developer had to
follow them by law. He was confident that in the vast majority of the time the
development could actually improve the water quality. Lotter stated the watershed
permit had been applied for last week and that approval process was running
concurrently with this one. Klima stated it was typical for the City to condition
that the developer to provide a watershed district permit to the City before the
City issued a land alteration permit.
Pieper noted this was a very difficult decision. He found this a better development
than last time, with fewer houses, and low density. He also had memories of
visiting the spring and assured the public he would never do anything detrimental
to it. While he was not an environmental expert, he found it followed Aspire 2040
and was in support of recommending this project to the City Council.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Farr to recommend approval of the Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to R1-
9.5 on 27.51 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on
27.51 acres based on plans stamp dated Feb 19, 2021 and the staff report dated
March 18, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 5-3 (Markos, DeSanctis, Gooding
opposed).
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORTS
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 2021
Page 14
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED
8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.