Planning Commission - 12/14/1987 VAG ENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, December 14, 1987
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye,
Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. CREEKVIEW, by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 78.22 acres, Planned Unit Development
10 District Review on 78.22 acres with variances, Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.15 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-44 on 4.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 78.22
acres into 93 single family lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of
Bluffs East 4th Addition, north of River View Road. A continued
public hearing.
(8:35) B. BERGMAN ADDITION, by Richard Bergman. Request for Preliminary
Platting of 2.16 acres into 3 single family lots, with variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: Northwest of
Rosemary Road and south of Holly road. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, December 14, 1987
City Council Chambers
7: 30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Robert
Hallett, Julianna Bye, Douglas Fell, Richard
Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Ruebling
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Asst.
Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary.
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Schuck requested, in light of the resident
participation for Item IV. A, that a motion be made to
reverse Item A and B on the agenda.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Dodge to approve
agenda as presented and changed.
Motion carried 6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
Chairman Schuck stated the next meeting of the Planning
Commission would be January 11, 1988.
III. MINUTES
Chairman Schuck requested a change in the minutes on page 1,
Item III. , line 1 to read, "Chairman Schuck requested. . . "
Schuck then requested a motion for approval of the minutes
of the November 23 , 1987 meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Anderson to approve
the minutes of November 23, 1987 Planning Commission
meeting as presented and changed. Dodge abstained.
Motion carried 5-1-0
It was requested by resident Ed Sisam to correct the
minutes of the November 19, 1987 meeting on page 6,
9 paragraph 3 to read: Ed Sisam, Attorney for Creek Knoll 's
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 2
Homeowner's Association and resident, 10109 Wild Duck Pass,
stated he could not talk to all the issues but is concerned
that residents in the Creek Knoll were not notified of this
public hearing and were offended. Mr. Sisam did not state
that the Association did not have any objection to the
development as reported. Mr. Sisam stated that since the
complete report was not in they could not address the plan
in its entirety. He stated that the Association was
concerned about the creek bottom and had formalized their
concerns in writing which had been received by the
Commission.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BERGMAN ADDITION, by Richard Bergman. Request for
Preliminary Platting of 2 . 16 acres into 3 single family
lots, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Location: Northwest of Rosemary Road and
south of Holly Road. A public hearing.
Uram pointed out proponent was subdividing a 2 . 1 acre tract
into 3 single family lots. Two of the lots would have
existing single family homes on them. One additional lot
was being platted. The proposed lot meets all the
requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. There was an
overhead power line which runs through the middle of the
proposed lot and proponent would be required to vacate that
easement and have the power lines relocated.
Uram reported that a soil test was required on the property.
According to City Engineering Department, water has been
seen seeping from the hillside and the source was unknown at
this time. To safeguard against future construction
problems on this lot, the proponent shall provide a soil
test prior to final plat.
Uram added proponent would be required to apply for and
receive a variance for frontage on a public street prior to
final plat approval.
Frank Cardarella, representing proponent, stated the
proponent has agreed to all the conditions in the Staff
Report.
Dodge inquired what was the cause of the water seepage.
Uram replied the Water Department did investigate to see if
a waterline was broke, but this tested negative as water
seepage was untreated water.
Fell asked if there was a danger of flooding. Uram added
that the water seepage was only evident in the winter
because it melts the snow.
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 3
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Bye to close
the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-0
MOTION 2 :
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Bye to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
Richard Bergman for Preliminary Plat of 2 . 16 acres into
three lots for single family development to the known as
the Bergman Addition, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, based on plans dated November 11, 1987,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
December 11, 1987.
Motion carried 6-0-0
B. CREEKVIEW, by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 78.22 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 78 .22 acres with
variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 .5
on 60.15 acres, Preliminary Plat of 78 .22 acres into 93
single family lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of
Bluffs East 4th Addition, north of Riverview Road. A
continued public hearing.
. Chairman Schuck spoke to Commission, Staff and Guests in
reference to the November 9, 1987 meeting whereby several
items were discussed in reference to the Creekview
proposal. The purpose of the meeting on this date was to
bring new information specifically to this project and he
would appreciate the cooperation of all who wish to shed
new light on the proposal.
Items discussed at the November 9th meeting would not be
addressed again in order to bring forth new data and any
additional concerns. The Commission assured residents that
Commission would weigh all the material in their decision.
Items previously addressed were: 1) lots in conservancy
area 2) tree preservation 3) Riverview Road 4) sewer and
water implementation 5) storm water runoff 6) traffic 7)
Phillippi grading, and 8) trails and easements.
Mike Franzen spoke on the new developments of the proposal
stating the project was continued after receiving input
from concerned citizens in the neighborhood and also for
Developer to provide the required information for the
Staff to complete a report. The main concern was the lack
of information regarding a detailed tree inventory
necessary to determine if it was consistent with what the
City has done in the past. After reviewing the tree
inventory, Staff has submitted a detailed Staff Report
which would be reviewed later in the meeting.
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 4
J. E. Brill, Jr. , legal counsel for Brown Land Company and
Creekview, spoke on the issue of Brown Land Company, who
they are and what they are. Mr. Brown has lived on the
property for 15 years, he is involved with many
environmental groups. Tony Phillippi's involvement in the
company is his contribution of land. He further commented
that those who opposed the proposal at the meeting in
November were led by Walter Hustad, who is a competing
Developer who desires the location for himself, and stated
he was not just a disinterested citizen.
Brill continued that the property in question was private
property. The owners have every right to develop it if
they comply with City Ordinances and Statues. Whatever
convenant Hustad entered into with the City was not
enforceable with this property. He added that if the City
wants to prohibit the development of this private property,
it must acquire the property by condemnation.
Mike Gair, of Gair & Associates representing proponent,
presented a number of exhibits showing the conservancy
area, transition area, open space and green space
designated. He demonstrated the grading plan and the
affect of the rim of the ridge. He stated that recently a
bulldozer was brought in to clear undergrowth. This was
reseeded and has been put back in place.
He reported that proponent was seeking a zoning district
change from rural to R1-13 .5 on 60. 15 acres.
He continued that the conservancy corridor would be 12 .3
acres in land, all scenic easement and no encroachment.
The only exception would be the road through the creek
valley which climbs back up to access the one 4.5 acre
section of land.
Lots are large at 150 ' across and depth of 215 ' to 3001 .
The rear portion of the conservancy lots would be
encumbered with a scenic easement, and they meet or exceed
the requirements.
He quoted the Purgatory Creek Study stating for every
linear mile of creek 60 acres of land would be set aside
for conservancy, and approximately 250 ' on either side of
center line of creek there would be a swath of land for
open space. These two rules are abided by in this
proposal.
He summarized that 1) subdivision was in compliance with
the Purgatory Creek Study; 2) 47% of the site unaltered,
with scenic and park dedication; 3) 12 .6 acres would be
dedicated to public use; 4) 93 lots at 1-1/2 units per
acre; 5) proposal exceeds the requirements for City
Ordinances; 6) lots range from 28, 000 sq. ft. to 47 , 000
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 5
sq. ft. , 7) sanitary sewer and water are available; 8)
meets comprehensive plan expectations; 9) minor tree
removal compared to twenty other plans sited in similar
situations; 10) are not devastating the area; 11) 100% tree
replacement policy; 12) setbacks are in excess of 200 ft.
from creek corridor; 13) rim was protected and vegetation
would remain; 14) analysis was a responsible and reasonable
use of the property except for the 1.4 acre encroachment.
Franzen responded that Staff Recommendations at this time
are approval of the project based on the plans submitted for
the 93 lots. A requirement for a tree replacement plan as
to what type of trees would be used in the replacement
program and where the 1700 caliper inches of trees would be
located is to be submitted prior to plat approval.
Franzen stated that in the absence of having a code, if a
person took the five planners in the department they all
would have a different opinion on how the property should
be developed. Since there was an Ordinance and Minnesota
Statues Staff was legally bound to review these projects
under these circumstances. Staff approach to this project
was based on current Ordinances and what was found meets
those Ordinances and that was the reason Staff has
recommended approval at this time.
Bye asked for definition of scenic easement. Franzen
replied that it was a restriction on the property whereby
the owner cannot develop in anyway from this line, which
means no pool, picnic area or storage shed. The land must
be retained in its natural state. A scenic easement goes
one step beyond City Ordinances.
Anderson felt the road up the bluff was the only major
problem in the proposal, and it appeared to him this could
be eliminated and the problem avoided.
Wally Hustad, 10470 Whitetail Crossing, requested to speak
to the enormous amount of misinformation provided for the
Planning Commission members. He felt it was important that
the Commission deal with all information and hopes the
Commission has time to hear the alternative view.
Schuck interceded that the Commission has visited the
proposed development site.
Hustad continued that proponent has attempted to make it
appear that he was a competitor with the present Developer
and what he states would be clouded and biased. Hustad
stated he does not have a large inventory of lots as stated
by proponents legal counsel, he has developed 1500
residential lots and at present has 30 in different areas
of the City for sale. Hustad pointed out that he has been
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 6
competing with other developers and never had a problem and
wanted Commission to understand that was not an issue on
this project.
Hustad commented that the legal questions being raised
should be put aside and consider that the fact was the
responsibility of the City Attorney and not legal counsel
for the Developer. He specifically stated he was not
against the development, that everyone needs sewer and
water on the site, as well as serious changes in Riverview
Road which affects his property along with others. But to
personalize the concerns as a Wally Hustad event was a mis-
service to the community and he requested Planning
Commission to put that attempt aside, it was not
appropriate discussion at this time.
He continued that the property owner has every right and
should develop his property and it would be foolish for him
to suggest otherwise. His concern was not that the
Developer not develop his property only that he develops
according to the same criteria that has been consistent in
that part of town, and feels that should not be a big
impediment for the use of the property.
Another point was that there has not been any homes in the
conservancy for 15 years. Hustad demonstrated on a graphic
display showing cross sections revealing the results of the
grading that was proposed in this project. He continued
that in all the work done in the Bluff Country area, there
had never been a situation where the rim of the bluff was
taken down by nearly 20 feet which was were it would be
when they are done grading.
Speaking to the road in the transition area, he remarked
that the road location was not the critical issue but what
happens to the environment when the road comes in. There
would be an enormous amount of grading taking place.
Hustad, responding to Staff's statement that there was a
23% loss of trees, requested Commission to look very
carefully at the graphic and re-evaluate if this was a 23%
loss. He further commented that the density of the woods
on the site was on the top. If Developer cuts the top off
the rim, it would devastate the environment not just
encroaching - devastating.
Regarding the feature of the plan where Developer goes down
a wooded ravine, what they term as a minor encroachment,
Hustad reminded Commission that in the conservancy no hard
roads have been built, no bridge has been built, no homes
have been built and all three of these have been proposed
in this development.
Hustad stated that going down in the ravine and filling 10
feet of fill from top to bottom they would have to remove
1350 yards of material to fill back in only 1000 yards when
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 7
working with sand. From a grading standpoint, it would be
the worst project Hustad had witnessed in Eden Prairie. He
had never seen a project that suggests this kind of
devastation for such a paupery reward. Why should this
happen - because the Developer has some kind of need to get
to another lot that someone said its not been done before
but they have a right to do it?
Hustad stated that for a couple of lots to destroy the
conservancy, it was not in the best interest of this
community.
Referencing grading Hustad quoted minutes of the April 11,
1987 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Knoll
whereby Mike Franzen and Chris Enger were present. Enger
stated, "extending a public road through this area (that's
the cul-de-sac on top where the knoll was) would completely
alter the land. This area would be better utilized as open
space with a density transfer over the entire 80 acres much
like the Bluff Country PUD. " Hustad added that City has to
rely on these kind of comments from the Staff
representation.
Hustad's final issue was the trail grading. He stated that
when the former owner was interested in selling he was
asked to submit an offer. He walked the property and knew
of the trails already on the property. When he took an
aerial photograph he was shocked that the trails run all
the way through the property and come into the pasture
area, and also came up through his property. Until he had
seen the photograph he had no way of knowing this had
happened. A 1985 aerial photograph shows no trail through
the site.
He continued that the photograph was taken the same day 8
years later. He realizes Commission does not want to speak
to this property because Commission does not feel it was
germane, but he would like to know how the trails got
through this property. Developer would be moving his
pasture and horses if this project was approved and was the
present zone the proper zone for that. He has rural
residence use - can he make an agricultural use out of the
land? Can he log 15 acres of trees off the property and
possibly another acre without the City saying wait there is
a problem, a serious problem?
Getting close to closing, Hustad referred to a couple of
documents of public record. Regarding scenic easement
filed November 20, 1972, he read a portion as follows, "the
easement shall be preserved in a substantially natural
state, (he pointed out that the easement area was the green
line - not the conservancy) no trees or shrubs cut or
removed. . . " He stated this gives the Commission a flavor
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 8
of the restriction placed on the Bluff Country property and
what was going to happen if the Developer was allowed to do
what he was asking.
Another item was the minutes from the April 20, 1986
Planning Commission meeting. Enger stated a study had been
done several years ago on whether the City should purchase
property along the creek. The City designated it a scenic
easement and the City would not locate a trail in the
valley.
Recent as May 16, 1986, Bob Lambert reviewed a proposed
trail system project and noted the proponent had proposed
donating the creek valley property to the City as a gift.
Staff recommended that the City agree to a restrictive
convenant on the creek corridor for 15 years restricting
trail construction along creek valley. Hustad stated they
took that as a commitment by the City that that issue would
be brought up at that time and there would be a public
hearing. He stated he would be happy to review this 15
years from now. He stated to the Commission, "if you are
going to take property from us as gifts with scenic areas
that are magnificent, we have a convenant relationship -
you promise, we'll promise - you break promises, the
precedent that was being set on a project like this was
enormously negative to this community. "
Hustad could not understand the pressure to approve this
project. He further commented he was not against the
project, because there are densities that the Commission
can approve or suggest to Developer, but have them pull the
road back from the rim or at least not grade the rim down.
There was no road in the Bluff Country area where the rim
was graded down. He asked Commission to seriously think
about the consequences. Roads going down ravines that need
10 ' of fill to accomplish 1000 ' long, bridges built across
the creek to achieve something that was decided was not
good for the community in the first place.
Woody Ginkel, 10430 Whitetail Crossing, stated that beyond
the rhetoric of attorneys and extensive planning, he was
against the plat and recommends the Commission reject and
have Developer come in with a new plat reflecting change to
a couple of different areas. He feels the plat was too
aggressive with the road along the ridge and cutting the
trees. He spoke of his letter to the Commission suggesting
taking the road and moving it back. Of course this would
cost the Developer some lots. He then reminded the
Commission their decision was the best use of land not how
many lots the Developer was going to lose or gain by
cutting down trees. He stated the road down the valley and
the road across the creek, in his opinion, have no
redeeming value to the plat nor to the City, just money in
the pocket for the Developer, and the Commissions decision
was not based on money in the pocket for the Developer but
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 9
land use. He added they were talking 27% tree removal at
the meeting he attended.
In closing, Ginkel stated the developers legal counsel
inferred the Developer can do as he chooses. Ginkel
commented he had never found that to be the case when he
was before the Commission. To the Commission he addressed
they had the right to approve and reject the plan and ask
them to replat a new plat that pays attention to the issues
presented.
Kelli Hueler, 11738 Tanglewood Drive, representing the
Preservation of Purgatory Creek Corridor, stated they have
legal counsel present but have chosen to speak for
themselves. First she wanted to clarify a myth that some
people think their biggest concern was dealing with another
lifestyle being too close to their homes. She requested
the record show that myth was absolute rubbish. She stated
they are opposed to the construction of the road, and want
to respond to the statements by the Developer at the last
meeting and the false statements regarding permits.
She continued that Mike Franzen advised Commission at last
meeting that Staff had received calls a year ago from
neighbors stating there was grading in process. He advised
the Commission that he advised the party of the procedures
to follow for permits but because the area was so small a
permit was not required. Hueler stated this was false - a
• permit was issued. The application in her hand stated,
"this was a permit for under one acre. " On the permit it
specifically states, "no grading, fill or removal of soil
or cutting down of trees or other vegetation or other land
alteration other than provided in this permit or the plans
submitted hereof is expressly prohibited and in violation
of City Code. " Hueler continued that Mr. Phillippi wrote a
letter and it stated, "the Watershed District, who has
jurisdiction over the City, requires no permit as long as
the project is less than 1 acre of surface soil, water and
dam included and this too is a condition we will meet. "
Hueler directed Commission to look at the photo containing
28 acres and commented there was no less than 14 acres that
that man violated the permit and City Ordinance which
states 1 acre 1/10 of land.
Schuck reminded Hueler that Phillippi grading was not an
issue before the Commission this evening.
She asked who regulates the grading, the DNR, the City and
the Watershed? On November 3, 1986 the permit was approved
by the Commission and she has over fifty residents who
would come and tell the Commission that grading was already
taking place prior to permit and all the way through 1987.
Schuck again reminded Hueler this was not an issue in this
proposal.
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 10
Hueler responded these facts were not discussed at the last
meeting. She continued that Mr. Phillippi did not apply
for a permit. It was a great concern to her and residents
that the Commission was considering a proposal that the
Staff originally presented to Commission as a one acre
proposal which they were not able to enforce.
She presented a Cease and Desist Order dated March 20,
1987, stating, "Your application stated the land alteration
would be limited to one acre. Upon inspection of your site
reveals the disturbed area exceeds well into 7 acres and a
significant number of trees and brush have been removed
from the site leaving the site bare. "
She asked how Commission could consider approving another
plat by a group of people that have told the city they
would stick to the rules, told the city they stuck to the
rules after they broke the rules. And City Staff has told
the Commission that they did not break an Ordinance and
they told the Commission they were within the City
limitations and they have not been. She continued there
was not truth and the residents who had been calling for a
year had been provided nothing but double talk.
Summarizing her concern, Hueler asks, "Now that a 77 acre
development was before you, we would like to know who was
going to make this Developer stick to the rules?"
Roy Stromme, attorney for T. Michael Clarke of Riverview
Road, stated his client was concerned about what was going
on in his immediate neighborhood and the general
development of southeast Eden Prairie. In reviewing the
material, he looked at it as it would interrelate with the
bridge across County Road 18 in the future, and looked at
the future of Riverview Road. He distributed booklets
depicting what the development would look like when the
bridge was done. He compared it with the bridge crossing
35W and Cedar Avenue and the zoning surrounding that
property and the density of business with very little
residential area existing at this time.
He made a suggestion that Bluff Road between Riverview
become a cul-de-sac at what was now the Purgatory Creek. He
felt the City should preserve the environment and stop
traffic at the top of the bluff. He also commented that
the City should take into consideration the impact of the
housing density, the lack of shielding along Riverview
Road, and upgrade to four lanes should be given further
consideration.
Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, was concerned about
the open space and trail being a fire hazard as a result of
the construction of the bridge and access by more
individuals, whereby creating more opportunities for
carelessness when there was a tinder dry summer. She
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 11
stated she spoke with Eden Prairie Fire Chief and he stated
that fires along the bluff terrify him as they are
difficult to reach. She stated if the Fire Chief is
terrified, what about the residents who live there.
Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated from an
investment standpoint, allowing access to the conservancy
area, they in Creek Knoll with scenic easements have some
beautiful knolls that could be developed into millions of
dollars worth of lots. If they get the same consideration
as the Developer presenting this evening, he might be happy
about this situation.
Chip Hutton, 10339 Bluff Road, commented that he wanted to
build a deck but because of a scenic easement he could not
build it where he wanted and had to relocate it. His
concern was that everyone who develops should be treated
the same way.
Marlys Lund, 10164 Trotters Path, related her concern with
the intrusion into the creek valley. She hoped long term
plans and guide plans were looked at, as that was what drew
them to the area.
Robert Griswold, Bluff Road, a new resident stated after
reading the Purgatory Creek Study, they took it in good
faith as this was a fact they considered. He continued
that this Developer was encroaching on the conservancy and
• already violated the property. He asked the Commission to
return the proposal and ask them to replat so as not to
ruin the area.
Deirdre Griswold, Bluff Road, felt the road across the
creek should be eliminated as it would not serve the
community.
Kelly Garis, 11191 Burr Ridge, was concerned about who was
responsible for the follow up of a Cease and Desist Order.
Also why was there no follow up on the order issued to
Phillippi.
She was left to question the ability of a City Staff that
was unable or unwilling to enforce these rules when there
was a total disregard to City Codes.
Jim Brown, 11551 Riverview Road, stated he did not oppose
the development but did have a complaint about the
changing of the rules. For years everyone has followed
certain rules, he for one has had surplus land but could
not fill it. He stated the City said no trails in the
creek valley, but these people can do it.
He agreed with Mr. Luke that if things are changing he
would have to come back with his request. He was not going
to get into an argument with the attorney on whether the
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 12
constitution states they can or cannot do this - if they
do, we do.
Ruth Hustad, 10470 Whitetail Crossing, read from the May
20, 1986 City Council minutes as follows: " . .City will
have no trails in the creek valley for 15 years. " She read
further in reference to when the Wilkie family attorney
asked about access to the knoll on the other side of the
creek, Mr. Bentley stated, "it could be used as a density
transfer for development of the land across the creek. "
Mr. Peterson stated, "the concept of density transfer
seemed to make more sense for the property. " Again Mr.
Bentley stated, "in his opinion it would not be in the best
interest of the City to put a public road there because of
the potential damage to the entire scenic area that would
result from the possible development once there was access
to that property. "
She continued that the knoll was definitely outside of the
rim and how was the Commission going to tell the people
that live on the other side that now the City has a new
rule and would allow someone else to develop the slope when
they told them to stay back on the rim.
She concluded that the Planning Commission are appointed
citizens and entrusted with the responsibility of honestly
and carefully reviewing projects that come before them.
She pleaded with them not to irresponsibly set aside the
present policy which has for years governed the lower
Purgatory Creek area.
Hustad continued to conclude that residents in good faith
believed the City when they were told this would be a very
carefully protected natural wildlife habitat area, a
conservancy trust area that neither the City nor the
Developer was allowed to go down into to cut tress, cut
brush, to build roads or construction of any type. Where
no trails would even be discussed for 15 years and when
discussed would be brought before the people. It was very
difficult for her to believe that the Staff can work at the
wishes of the Developer, and the Commission, our elected
representatives, can so boldly approve this project which
violates the present policy for development. She strongly
recommends that Commission deny and give project back to
Developer and request it be done in compliance with
Ordinance and the same rules that have governed the lower
part of the valley. She feels, and has heard the same from
other people, the City needs to have some consistency and
predictability as the rules cannot change for the whim of
just any Developer at any time.
Ed Vigil, 11191 Burr Ridge, expressed his desire to not be
redundant, but he was a new owner and resident of Eden Prairie
and feels if everyone does not obey the established rules, the
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 13
City would continue to have more problems in the future.
He was concerned whether City Staff was qualified to
understand all the issues and if his tax money was going
into something that it should not be going into.
John Sherman, 11171 Branching Avenue, referring to the
comment from the attorney for the Developer referencing
homeowners being contacted, stated he was not contacted and
lives directly across from the development. He continued
that they demonstrated on the drawings a tree line but
there are no trees there. He hopes the development was
executed in a responsible way so the topography was
disturbed as little as possible.
Beth Simenstad, 10255 Summer Place, understands that the
Staff was recommending approval of a road that was in the
conservancy where there was to be grading and removal of
trees. She would like to know how City Staff advocates
this plan when it appears to contradict their stated policy
on conservancy line. Also she understand that they plan to
put a watermain under the creek to service the lot. Does
this not violate Watershed permits. Regarding tree
replacement, she was aware of the size of trees and number
that have been removed but if Developer replaced them with
311 caliper, how many 3" calipers were going to be replaced.
She does not think 1700 was enough considering the size of
trees removed. Lastly, she asks the Commission how would
City monitor the tree replacement which has to be an
awfully difficult task. In conclusion she requested
Commission to ask the Developer to return with a better
plan.
Doris Brooker, 10164 Trotters Path, stated she walked the
trails and saw the graded area and asks Commission to take
some consideration especially the major issues of City
Planning Policy. She stated the lots in question are
magnificent but if approved would violate the Ordinance
with the Purgatory Creek Study. She also stated she was
appalled to find, not the old walking trail, but a 9 ' wide
trail. Her home has been broken into and she hopes safety
of the area was addressed as well as wildlife. She was in
favor of a naturalist study being conducted prior to
approval with a statement on the impact of the wildlife.
Larry Griffith, 2200 First Bank Place, Minneapolis, stated
the concerns of the people are real. There was no
environmental study required on this project, but if there
had been one required it would have determined what the
impact would be. Perhaps the Commission could instruct
Staff to prepare one and bring it back before the
commission.
Dennis Doyle, 11200 West 78th Street, feels after walking
the property there was room for comprise. It would work if
the road across the creek was eliminated.
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 14
Ed Sisam, 10109 Wild Duck Pass and attorney for Creek Knoll
Association, was appalled by the counsels opening
statement. The Commission had heard the peoples issues and
to disregard them and say they don't exist was
unbelievable. Regarding fifth amendment with private
property, the association cannot inhibit them but would
explain to them what Ordinances are all about and the
effect zoning has.
The Association feels that going across the creek totally
devastates the project. The bridge going across, that's a
thing to disregard - a red herring. They feel the road
should be moved back to get a circular route with some of
the neighbors. The Association has four recommendations:
1) require the Creekview Development to abide by the
Purgatory Creek Study on an equitable basis; 2) move the
road to avoid mass grading of the rim even if it amounts to
loss of lots for the owner; 3) eliminate the road crossing
the creek; and 4) remove the fence from Phillippi 's lower
Purgatory Creek plan and have Phillippi restore
approximately 14 acres that has been harvested of trees.
The Association was not opposed to the development of this
project but they are opposed to the way it was being
developed. They think Developer has every right and it was
good for the community that the land be utilized in its
most economic ability but this was in violation of what
they feel was a covenant which was an agreement that has
the force and effect of law, the policy with which the City
has represented that policy.
He sincerely feels that before the City tonight, the
Planning Commission was charged with keeping the good faith
of the people in the community. The people believe in the
Commission and City and trust they would have confidence
that a suit would not be filed because they cannot possibly
approve this plan.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to close
the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-0
Mike Franzen stated that Staff went back and examined the
projects along the lower Purgatory Creek, and the studies
indicated that in the lower portion, the 1-1/2 mile was the
most critical part of the valley because it was so steep,
and does not have these same characteristics any where else
in the community. Staff looked at 8 different projects
along the creek and how they compared with density, how
much land was gifted to the City, how many lots they had in
the conservancy, and what were the setbacks. Staff wanted
to see how consistently this policy had been adhered to.
They found some minor variations but all were in compliance
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 15
with the statements that were put forth many years ago in
the Purgatory Creek Study. City does have lots that have
been platted in the conservancy, but this was the first
project in this area that has had a house in the
conservancy. There have been other houses approved in the
upper parts of Purgatory Creek conservancy area. All the
projects have homes in the transition area of Purgatory
Creek. There was an average setback of 3001 . Staff
analyzed if the Creekview project compared favorably or was
it abusive of policy. It compares favorable in terms with
the number of lots in the conservancy area, the transition
area and the setback. This was the first project that has
a housepad so there was a grading proposal in the
conservancy.
Hallett responded that he would have trouble approving this
road up the creek valley. He commented that in seven years
on the Commission he has seen a lot of issues come before
the Commission. He stated he trusts the Staff and has
pride in their judgment. He continued that Staff was of
high quality and he looks to them for guidance on issues.
He expressed his feeling that the public should be able to
access Purgatory Creek, and an access for fire was an
issue.
Anderson thanked the interested parties for their
participation. He stated the City had a problem in this
. development with the lot across the creek. A person can
look at the minutes of all the meetings but they don't
record everything that that was said, they are all edited
and memories are always filtered. All must deal with the
issue now. The suggestion regarding density transfer, no
one here asked them to transfer density to the other side.
Developer may feel they have enough prime lots to maximize
their development. Nevertheless they still have that lot
and a reasonable answer would come from a compromise. He
stated he believed and trusted the Staff. He supports the
project and feels the trails for public space should be for
public use enjoyment. Without trails City does not have
that. He continued that the comment by Diane Luke who was
not in favor of trails but concerned with fire hazard made
a good point, that like the forests in the mountains there
are fire trails that have been cut for access to the fire.
The City needs the trail to access the fire.
Dodge stated if Commission allows approval of this
Developer, Commission would have to look at other proposals
in a similar manner. Her reason for non approval was not
just because its in the conservancy but does not like the
idea of having that road out through the area.
Fell stated it was unfortunate that there was only one way
to reach the lots on the other side of the creek. He felt
it was important that the creek be available for the public
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 16
not just the homeowners in the area. In light of public
safety, trails would give police and fire better access.
He feels very strong about having trails constructed with
this project, as he surmises they would never go in if not
with this project.
Fell mentioned he had a problem with the area defined as a
loop road when its a cul-de-sac. He feels their should be
another access to connect that road.
Franzen responded that the development had two good access
points but he agreed with Fell that another access should be
be looked at.
Fell commented that traffic would be concentrated on
Riverview Road and this should be addressed, and he trusts
City Staff would look at these issues.
Bye stated her strongest concern was about access to
trails, and liked the concept of the City of Minneapolis
whereby they decided the lakes were for everybody and
designated them open space. The evaluation of the grading
was a delicate issue and hoped there would be a compromise.
Schuck reported that the Commission felt it was not
feasible to approve this project and sacrifice so much for
so little. There was a major issue with the trails and
roadway across the creek. He then turned to proponent to
come up with a solution to make the project acceptable.
Brill, counsel for Developer, responded to changing of the
rules. He stated rules are defined as Statues and
Ordinances of the City and Developer must follow the
Ordinance that was a fact. However, the Purgatory Creek
was nothing more than a study. There was a resolution
passed directing Staff to draw up policy, but it had never
been adopted by the City or put in the form of an
Ordinance. Developer comes before the City because they do
not violate an Ordinance.
Counsel stated that Mr. Brown and Mr. Phillippi are willing
to give up the road and the lot, and would donate 4.5 acres
east of the creek to the City at a time prior to plat
approval. They would also pull back the road 350 ' from
where the cul-de-sac ends. They agree to no improvements
below the conservancy line and that leaves two lots that
they were going to trade as a swap and they would pull the
housepad out of the conservancy so they would not violate
the conservancy line and there would be no encroachment on
the conservancy, and they would be clean from the point of
view of creek policy. They hope that this would appeal to
the Commission as the primary concern was addressed here.
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 17
Counsel does not believe there would be grading as the kind
described on the bluff. A grading plan would be presented
that would not be as severe as depicted. Developer hopes
this would bring the project to a successful conclusion.
MOTION 2 :
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development Concept on
78 .22 acres to be known as Creekview, based on plans dated
October 27, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated December 11, 1987 and the proposed offer
of Brown Land Company to donate 4.5 acres and move two
housepads out of the conservancy and roadway pulled back as
reflected on plat.
Motion carried 6-0-0
Franzen commented that Staff would look at loop road before
going to Council.
Jim Brown requested clarification on the trail. It seemed
to him that the proposed trail would keep the public out
because there was no sidewalk and public could only go down
and back up, not be able to walk along the creek valley as
it was presently proposed.
Schuck remarked he appreciated that comment.
• MOTION 3 :
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 78 .22 acres and zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13 .5 on 60. 15 acres, with variances, to be known as
Creekview, based on plans dated October 27, 1987, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December
11, 1987, and the offer of Brown Land Company to donate 4.5
acres to City.
Motion carried 6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
Brown Land Company for Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into
92 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way, to
be known as Creekview, based on plans dated October 27,
1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated December 11, 1987, and the offer of Brown Land
Company.
Motion carried 6-0-0
Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 18
MOTION 5:
Motion was made by Anderson seconded by Schuck to recommend to
Parks and Natural Resources that a trail for public use be
implemented in this project.
Motion carried 6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to
adjourn the meeting at 10:39 PM.