Planning Commission - 02/08/1999 APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,FEBRUARY 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Laurence
Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Rebecca
Lewis, Douglas Sandstad
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Kyle Halvorson
STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Senior
Planner,Ric Rosow, City Attorney,Al Gray, City
Engineer, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL
Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
U. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion
carried 6-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Alexander,to approve the Minutes of the January 25, 1999
Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FLINT RIDGE by Trek Development, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 34.83 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 6 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6 acres, Site Plan Review on 6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 20 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location:
South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive.
Beth Simenstad, Trek Development,representing Wallace Hustad, stated she had worked
with the Hustad's for the past fifteen years. She reviewed the project site plan and
described the location of the proposed units. They are proposing to construct 20 luxury
townhomes on the northern part of the site. At this time the Hustad's are not proposing to
develop the southern portion of the site, as they intend to build a home there for
themselves. She noted that Riverview Road is and always has been a beautiful country
road,but Eden Prairie is no longer a rural community. She discussed the history of the area
and the development which has occurred on the land along Riverview Road. There have
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 2
been approximately fifteen single family subdivisions along the road over the past twenty
years. The road is in dire need of improvement and upgrading. She discussed the history
of the realignment of the roadway and the different stages it has gone through. She
discussed the assessments which would be placed against the directly benefitting properties
if the roadway were to be upgraded and realigned as the City proposed. If this road can be
realigned so the Hustad's can develop their property it will offset these assessment costs
against other homeowners and that portion of the costs for the road which goes through the
subject property would be borne by the Hustads.
The existing roadway is an easement but not dedicated right-of-way. If this easement is
vacated it would be divided in half with the northern 33 feet reverting to the properties to
the north and the southern half to the subject property. This would widen the separation
between the proposed development and the existing homes to the north. She discussed the
landscaping plan and noted the tree loss was minimal with this project. They held a
neighborhood meeting and concern was expressed because these are townhomes which will
be adjacent to single family homes but they are proposing a very nice buffer between their
development and Bell Oaks to the north.
She described the units they are proposing to construct, which will range in price from
$300,000 to $500,000 depending on the unit. Foote asked if the alignment they are
proposing was similar to the one proposed by the neighbors and Simenstad responded it
was not. She showed the elevations between the proposed development and the existing
single family housing to the north. They will be planting trees on top of the berm to
provide buffering between the development and the adjacent properties.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and described three options which staff has presented to the
Planning Commission for their review,noting stipulations contained in Item#4. Staff is
recommending Alternative H which would allow room for additional berming and
landscaping with the stipulations listed in the staff report. This alternative would shift
three units to the southern portion of the site. Foote asked if the Hustads were aware of
this and Kipp responded they had been sent a letter regarding this but staff had not heard
from them regarding this. Habicht asked if they realign the road what would they be saving
in assessments. Gray responded by describing the alignment noting about 20% of the area
would be reconstructed. The costs would go down as the result of this project but the exact
amounts have not been determined. This is an area where the City has to acquire additional
right-of-way, which would be non-existent through the Hustad property.
Alexander asked about the dimensions of the roadway right-of-way which she understood
would be 60 feet wide and Gray responded that was correct. Dorn commented land
acquisition costs and construction costs would be about a trade off, and Gray responded
staff had looked at the entire project which would include right-of-way acquisition from the
Hustad property which is the only place they need it. Then they need to determine how
they would asses these costs back by the number of units along the corridor which would
participate equally in the costs of the project. In this case the proponents are proposing to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 3
construct the segment of roadway that goes through the Hustad property and will provide
the right-of-way. Staff would prefer to work with the project as it is developed so they can
acquire the right-of-way and obtain the alignment they want. Staff is recommending that
the Planning commission look at the project as a whole,but if the project is not done then
the City will have to acquire the right-of-way.
Dorn commented he was concerned about the cost to the City if they have to buy the right-
of-way from the Hustads when they could save an estimated$100,000 if the proponents
construct this segment of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding how the costs would
be assessed or who would have what responsibility for these construction costs for the
roadway. It was noted that if this project moves ahead the roadway would be almost 25%
completed. Gray noted that from an engineering perspective this alignment has more merit
and it is a better road for safety reasons.
Clinton asked which units staff would recommend moving to the south portion of the site
and Kipp responded two units on the triangle should be moved and one other from the
interior of the project.
The Public Hearing was opened.
John Meiners, 10520 Grant Drive,representing a title company, stated he had received a
letter from City Attorney Ric Rosow regarding a special assessment agreement for Bell
Oaks. He asked if this development would result in special assessments against other lots
in Bell Oaks abutting Riverview Road. Rosow responded that without a feasibility study
he could not tell him if they would be assessed or not but there is an assessment agreement
where the property owner agreed to an assessment and waived their right to object. It is a
potential and it is not determined if one would be levied by the City Council.
Richard Schultek, 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard,Arden Hills, representing Wooddale
Realty which is a subsidy of Wooddale Builders. He has been involved in selling
townhomes in Eden Prairie and this project will be one of the best. He noted the price
range would be between$425,000 and$500,000 and the people who will be purchasing
these units will be excellent citizens. He showed photos of townhomes they have built in
Bearpath, Bluffs East, and Shelter Grove which illustrate the type of units they are
proposing.
Joe Floyd, 10569 Purdey Road in the Bell Oaks Subdivision,noted that people want to
preserve the road as much as possible. He discussed the use of density transfer to
developing properties. He asked the Planning Commission to consider having a portion of
this development face existing Riverview Road by flipping it upside down.
Pete Cesare, 10599 Parker Drive,noted his home is on the corner of Riverview Road and
Parker Drive, and when he purchased his home he expected the road to stay in its present
location. If the roadway is realigned,he will no longer have the separation of the roadway
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 4
between his home and the new development. His view will become the rear of the
townhome units, and he felt this was unfair and he asked the Planning Commission not to
realign the road. He believed the roadway should be maintained in its present location to
keep the character of the area intact as much as possible.
Jerry Brill 4827 Queen Avenue South, stated he was an attorney representing Anita and
Tony Philipi who live across the street from this proposed development. The
Comprehensive Guide Plan calls for a density of 2.5 units per acre and to construct this
project it will call for a change to the zoning ordinance. If they change the zoning it will be
inconsistent with the Guide Plan which does not make sense. It would be "spot zoning"
which is not something that is wanted. There is no agreement on the part of the Hustads to
build a single family home on the southern portion of the site. On bluff areas the City has
had a policy of maintaining two units per acre and this development would be inconsistent
with City policy.
Franzen noted the question was what guarantee there is for how the property to the south
might develop in the future. He described a project which was done in 1986 and noted the
City had a Developers Agreement which put stipulations on that development of the
remaining area and set design standards for the rest of the area. He explained how the
density transfer works and how it has helped out other developments and staff was not
concerned about the land to the south and how it might develop in the future because it will
have to adhere to the zoning ordinance requirements.
Chris Dietzin, an attorney with Larkin Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, stated he
represented Michael Clark. His client opposes this development because it is inconsistent
with the Guide Plan, and is opposed to the roadway realignment and the economics are
more important to the City than the concerns of the residents. The Comprehensive Plan
supports compatible development between adjacent developments and this parcel should
be developed as low density. It would be inconsistent with the development in the
surrounding area if it is developed as proposed. He was concerned about losing the
character of the roadway which has existed since the 1930s. They believe there could be
less density in the development without changing the alignment of the roadway. Lack of
buffering between this development and the adjacent residential properties could create
problems such as erosion along the bluffs and impact the archeological study,which has
yet to be completed. He requested the City to require an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet to address these concerns prior to approving the project.
Nick Kemp, 9451 Riverview Road, stated he bought his home there because the entire area
was unique and he was concerned that the roadway realignment would ruin the aesthetics
of the area. There were alternatives which could include the wishes of the residents as well
as those of the developer. He described the view from the roadway and noted there may be
another solution which would give them an improved which met safety standards and
preserves the aesthetics of the area. Sandstad noted he appreciated the view down the
Purgatory Creek corridor and asked if there could be an overlook on the northeast corner to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 5
preserve this view. Simestead responded the proponents propose to gift 14 acres to the
City but they have not thought about creating an overlook because this area is heavily
wooded and the trees leaf out in the summer obscuring that view.
Mark Ebel, 10903 Purdey Road, stated they saw the road about 2.5 years ago and moved
from California to live here and plan to stay for the next 35 years. He believed the plan
was focused on maximizing the value of the land being considered while reducing the
value of adjacent properties. He felt this was being done to the benefit of a small group of
people but not the entire area as a whole. He asked the Planning Commission to continue
the project to allow a better plan to be presented.
Jim Snyder, 10437 Purdey Road, stated he lives adjacent to the area where the townhomes
would be located and he shared the concerns of the other residents regarding the
environment and strategic concerns. However, he firmly believed the roadway needs to be
upgraded for safety reasons. He was concerned about the numbers of single family homes
that were being built and felt there may be too many for the future,when residents want to
downsize and live in something other than a single family home.
Dan Patterson, 8680 Great Waters Alcove, a former Bell Oaks resident,noted he had funds
tied up in an escrow account towards the assessment agreement. This area has developed
and he learned that once something is built, it is there to stay, at least for our lifetimes. He
requested this plan be continued to allow other plans to be developed. He asked if this
developer does end up constructing part of the roadway, if that would release him from the
assessment agreement. Rosow responded when the special assessment agreement was
done it was done in the vacuum of a lack of understanding of what would be built on the
adjacent land. He did not know the answer to that question until the City Council received
a feasibility study which determines which properties benefit. The purpose of any special
assessment agreement is to ensure that the assessments will be paid and it runs with the
land,not with the property owner.
Helen Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, asked about the tree loss and noted they have roots
which hold the bluff area. When these trees are gone the bluff will become unstable.
There will be storm sewers but this will not be adequate to handle a large storm event. She
was opposed to the lot size and the density. She stated trees take a long time to grow to a
substantial size, and should be preserved. She asked who would bear the cost of
constructing the road through the Hustad property and Foote responded that they would pay
for the road between both their property lines. Fowler noted her property would not be
developed and it would stay the way it is today. Sandstad commented the project has a
very low tree loss on this site and they are not cutting any trees along the bluff area.
Elliott Cobb, 10509 Purdey Road, stated the proponent had the right to develop their land
but the existing homeowners also have the right to a continuance and continuity to what
already exists in the area. He asked that the plan be continued to allow a better plan to be
devised and requested the City not to rush into anything. The road is a unique road but it is
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 6
not a dangerous road. If the road is changed it will change the neighborhood.
Doug Faust, 10504 Purdey Road, stated he was involved with the neighborhood group to
get information regarding special assessments. He was opposed to the project because the
Guide Plan is not being adhered to and he felt the roadway should not be realigned but left
in its original position. There was a plan put together for the roadway upgrading in 1997.
The road alignment did not change significantly and he understood this would be done as
soon as the upgrading of Pioneer Trail was completed. He did not see the density as
adding any value to the neighborhood.
Wolfgang Schreder, 10584 Boss Circle, showed the roadway plan developed by the
residents of Bell Oaks who worked with the City for over four years to address all the
issues and concerns regarding Riverview Road. They had endeavored to come up with the
best plan possible to make the needed improvements while still maintaining the character
of the area. They dealt with issues such as floodplain,retaining walls,trees, etc. to come
up with this plan. They addressed safety issues and environmental issues. He reviewed the
factors which entered into the designing of the roadway. He had spent more than four
years working on this plan and wanted to be sure the Planning Commission was aware of
the time and effort that went into this plan. They deliberately avoided straightening out the
curves in the roadway to limit the speed, and they wish to keep the speeds reduced on the
road. Their plan allows the vistas to be enjoyed by everyone,not just the developer and
the future owners of the townhomes. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt the
layout of the roadway plan developed by the residents working with the City so everyone
can see what is intended.
Joseph Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated he has the worst case of erosion in his back
yard right now in the Bell Oaks subdivision, and he felt compelled to notify the Planning
Commission that review and approval by the City does not guarantee a buildable lot. They
have lost thousands of feet of their lot because of improper drainage planning by the
developer and the City. The lot was sold without storm sewer provisions after the dam was
removed. The water which drains across his lot comes from the Hustad property. He
urged the Planning Commission to carefully review the drainage of the entire area which
could impact not only this development but other areas in the vicinity. He has been
working with the City to resolve these problems. He wanted assurance from the City that
this development will not exacerbate his situation. If the roadway is moved there will be
no way to access his back yard to allow heavy equipment in to repair his yard.
Lori Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated they have part of their yard in a conservation
easement. She supported the idea of having a scenic overlook on the roadway. This
development was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She was opposed to
moving Riverview Road because it will give definition to the Hustad development. She
was part of the citizens group that worked on the roadway design. She reviewed the
development history of the Hustad property. She believed the density of the proposed
project was too high, and would have negative impacts on the adjacent properties. She
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 7
requested the Planning Commission to deny the project and review the letter from the
Department of Natural Resources.
Chris Dahlquist, 10859 Purdey Road, stated they purchased their home in Eden Prairie
because of the road and the beauty of the area. He was opposed to having multi-family
housing across from his home. He likes his neighborhood the way it is.
Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverview Drive, stated she lives about a half mile from this
development and she is concerned about this project. She reviewed the variety of housing
types that exist along the river bluff and noted she believed the density was too high for
bluff property. They believe the road should be improved but maintained in its existing
location. She appreciated the efforts of the citizens to develop the plan to improve the
roadway. The beautiful road would be changed forever and natural scenery would be lost
if the roadway is realigned. The trail would be good to have if its possible to construct it.
She would object to any realignment which would transfer the assessments to another
property or increase the footage on which the assessments are based. She described the
traffic, and suggested that a shoulder be made on which to park where people could see the
view without endangering traffic on the roadway.
Beth Simenstad clarified that the assessment agreement discussed by the residents of the
Bell Oaks Subdivision had nothing to do with their project. They are only offering to
construct the portion of the roadway which would go through their development site,which
is about 25%. They are within the low density requirements of 2.5 units per acre in the
Guide Plan. The roadway is dangerous now because there are 500 to 600 homes in this
area and the traffic has increased significantly. They have gone through the process and
have done what is required of them by City Ordinance. The additional access points have
been added by other developments. They could leave the road where it is and they would
still get the same density in their development. She noted they have paid for all the
roadways in their developments, and not passed those costs on to the buyers.
Wolf Schreder commented they were not objecting to the development but it has to be
done with care and needs a second look to ensure it will not cause damage to adjacent
properties.
Clinton commented if the roadway committee's plans are the plan the residents want why
was it not brought up from the beginning.
Lewis commented that property will always be developed,but she felt the density in the
proposed plan was too high, and did not enhance the pristine nature of the area. She felt
moving the roadway was not in the best interest of the community. However,the road does
need to be repaired and the City should take the recommendations of the citizens
committee to heart. The scenic overlook has some merit, and care needs to be taken to
preserve the character of this area. The developer needs to lower the density and
redistribute it to make it more in keeping with the surrounding area. She noted that any
bluff lots should have the lowest density.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 8
Habicht did not think the housing units would detract from the area. He had a problem
with the density transfer and realized it was to favor the bluffs. He did not feel that the
road should be moved because it would make the density a bigger issue. He believed the
highest density should be located in the center of the site with lower density surrounding it.
He was not inclined to move the road.
Sandstad felt the density transfer was reasonable from his point of view. We have a poor
transition and buffer to the north which needs to be addressed. He asked if the proponent
would consider a continuance to reevaluate keeping the roadway in place. He appreciated
their generosity in offering to pay for the portion of the roadway which would be on their
property.
Dorn stated he has been on the site and was not sure that these units were right for this area
even though they were beautiful homes. He did not feel the roadway alignment should be
changed. He was concerned bout what would happen to the southern portion of the land
when this area was sold and developed. He was concerned that the density transfer may
not be adhered to in the future when most of the buildable land in Eden Prairie was gone.
Alexander did not support the density as proposed and was not in favor of moving the road.
She felt the character of the area should be preserved, and noted that no affordable housing
was being built in Eden Prairie and these homes were too expensive. She noted erosion
exists in the vicinity of this project and this issue should be addressed. She felt the plans
should be revised.
Clinton felt the roadway should be improved but not moved. He did not have a problem
with the density as these townhomes will be used by people who no longer want to live in
big single family houses. He believed this property was being developed with this in mind.
Foote appreciated the comments from the residents, and concurred the road should be
upgraded but left in its original location,with possible minor modifications for safety. If
single family homes are constructed they will destroy a lot of the bluff area. He supported
density transfer but would like to see the density spread out more. He noted townhomes
are needed in Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to continue Flint Ridge to the March 8,
1999 agenda with direction to the developer to improve transition and buffering to the
north, leave Riverview Road in its original location but improve it,preserve the bluff area,
and retain the density transfer to give incentive to keep the land to the north left over from
the roadway as open space. Motion carried 7-0.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999
Page 9
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen noted that eight projects have been submitted and there will be fourteen more coming in
within the next 30 to 60 days, so the agendas will be heavy ones for the next few meetings.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.