Loading...
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.