Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/18/2020APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2020 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Brad Aho, Mark Freiberg, P G Narayanan, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Police Chief Greg Weber, Fire Chief Scott Gerber, City Attorney Maggie Neuville, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Case called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All Council Members were present. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. 2020 GREEN STEP CITIES STEP 5 AWARD Diana McKeown, representing Great Plains Institute, presented the Green Step Cities Step 5 Award certificate for the City’s work in the area of sustainability. She reviewed the City’s achievements in the area of sustainability and explained Step 5 is the highest possible award the City can receive. Eden Prairie is one of only 18 cities out of 140 cities in the program to achieve a Step 5 award. Case noted he was proud to receive this award. It has been a long journey to achieve sustainability and the City has plans out to 2050 to continue the work of sustainability. B. MRPA AWARD OF EXCELLENCE Lotthammer introduced Aimee Peterson from the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA). Ms Peterson reviewed the history and purpose of the MRPA and the MRPA Award of Excellence. This year’s award is for excellence in the Communications Division for print and digital marketing redesign. Lori Brink accepted the award on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department. She reported response to input from residents wanting more online and social media communications produced the shift in focus from printed communications to digital. Lotthammer commented this work has proved to be very timely during the COVID-19 outbreak CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 2 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to accept the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Award of Excellence for Print and Digital Marketing Redesign. Motion carried 5-0. C. ACCEPT $900 DONATION FROM PASTOR ROD AND JULAYNE ANDERSON FOR STORAGE BOX ART (RESOLUTION 2020-74) Lotthammer explained the City has been covering storage boxes in the park system with art. Pastor Rod and Julayne Anderson reviewed their desire to provide artwork and a wrap for the storage box covering at Riley Lake Park which represents a scene of a vintage baseball game. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adopt Resolution 2020-74 accepting the donation of $900 from Pastor Rod and Julayne Anderson for artwork to cover the utility box at Riley Lake Park. Motion carried 5-0. D. ACCEPT DONATION OF SOCCER BALLS FROM SCHEELS FOR SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS (RESOLUTION 2020-75) Lotthammer reported Scheels has been an active partner in the City for a number of years. They recently donated thirty soccer balls for use in the preschool soccer programs so that each child could have their own soccer ball to use during the restrictions imposed by COVID-19 and thereby help to keep the program fees more accessible to Eden Prairie families. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Nelson to adopt Resolution 2020-75 accepting the donation of soccer balls from Scheels to be used in Parks and Recreation youth development programs. Motion carried 5-0. E. ACCEPT $500 DONATION FROM ENVY SKIN CLINIC FOR ARTS IN THE PARK (RESOLUTION 2020-76) Lotthammer described how the annual Arts in the Park art fair will be designed to protect the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. He reported the Envy Skin Clinic has donated $500 for the Arts in the Park event. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Narayanan, to adopt Resolution 2020-76 accepting the donation of $500 from Envy Skin Clinic to go towards Arts in the Parks. Motion carried 5-0. F. ACCEPT $1,520 DONATION FROM THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF BERMA SHIMANSKI FOR THE SENIOR CENTER (RESOLUTION 2020-77) Lotthammer reported Berma Shimanski was a long-time volunteer and participant in programs at the Senior Center. Her family and friends are making a $1,520 donation for a memorial and programs at the Senior Center in honor of her commitment to Center. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 3 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to adopt Resolution 2020-77 accepting the donation of $1,520 from the family and friends of Berma Shimanski towards the programs and a memorial item at the Senior Center. Motion carried 5-0. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Nelson added Item XIV.A.1. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020 MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the minutes of the City Council Workshop held Tuesday, July 14, 2020, and the City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 14, 2020, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. TARGET REMODEL by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Second reading of Ordinance No.12-2020-PUD-7-2020 for PUD District amendment with waivers on 10.6 acres; Resolution 2020-78 for site plan review on 10.6 acres; Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 12-2020-PUD-7-2020 for PUD District Amendment; Resolution No. 2020-78 for Site Plan Review; Development Agreement) C. HIGHLAND OAKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT by Highland Oaks LLC. First amendment of Development Agreement. D. AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS ON PIONEER TRAIL E. APPROVE REHABILITATION DEFERRED GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND ONWARD EDEN PRAIRIE F. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH ANCOM FOR INSTALLATION OF AVIAT MICROWAVE SYSTEMS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 4 G. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH BOLTON-MENK FOR DUCK LAKE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT H. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH WSB FOR CSAH 61 LANDSCAPING PROJECT I. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH HTPO FOR CSAH 4 WATERMAIN PROJECT J. APPROVE ADVANCED AUTHORAZATION TO ORDER 2021 PLOW TRUCK REPLACEMENT K. APPOINT DEVYN STANTON TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION; JAKE DORSON TO FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ISHAN NADKARNI TO PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AS 2020-2021 STUDENT COMMISSIONERS MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve Items A-K, on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. THE LOFTS AT ANDERSON RESERVE by MWF Properties LLC. Recommend the project maintain consistency with Aspire 2040 guiding of Medium Density Residential with a density of 5-14 dwelling units per acre. In order to maintain consistency, plans must be redrawn using standards of RM-6.5 Zoning District. The redrawn project would require a rezone and different waiver requests, and further staff analysis will be required. Getschow stated the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 52-unit apartment building at 9360 Hennepin Town Road. The property is 2.85 acres and is located on the west side of Hennepin Town Road about ¼ mile south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Existing single family uses border the property along the west side and portions of the south and north sides. The proposal includes a three-story building with underground parking. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended the applicant revise the site plan to maintain consistency with Aspire 2040 guiding of Medium Density Residential and to use standards of RM-6.5 Zoning District. Peter Worthington, representing MWF Properties, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the proposed project. He pointed out wetlands on the east and west edges of the property. There will be surface parking as well as underground parking and underground storm water treatment. The property has a good location for amenities such as access to SouthWest Transit, Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, a grocery store within walking distance and proximity to the Eden Prairie Center. He reviewed drawings of the proposed 52-unit building and described the sustainability CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 5 features including such items as charging stations and a solar-ready roof. They will use Federal housing tax credits to keep rents modest. He related some of the concerns raised by neighbors and described the preliminary development schedule. Case asked Mr. Getschow to review the process used to arrive at the staff and Planning Commission recommendation. Getschow described the process whereby the applicant has taken the proposal through neighborhood meetings, staff review and then the Planning Commission review. The staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to stay with medium density residential rather than changing to medium high density residential. The City Council will hold a public hearing tonight about the project. Freiburg asked Mr. Worthington to review the rent structure again. Narayanan asked what the average rent would be for this size unit. Mr. Worthington explained the units will be below market rates for certain household income levels. Narayanan asked about the number of trees to be removed. Mr. Worthington replied there is no room to replace the number of trees that will be taken by the development, so they will be paying fees instead. Aho asked what it would mean in terms of the total number of units if the proponent were to follow the lower density as staff recommends. Mr. Worthington responded that would result in a maximum of 40 units. The building itself would be somewhat shorter and the parking would be somewhat smaller, but the impact to the site would be essentially the same. Aho asked about the maximum height of the building. Mr. Worthington believed they were allowed 45 feet, and the building is well below that. Narayanan requested an explanation of the medium density designation. Mr. Worthington explained that refers to land use guidance. The land is guided for medium residential density currently, but they are asking it be re-guided to medium high density. Either medium or medium high density would require a rezone to RM- 6.5. Narayanan then asked if the approximate size of the units would change with medium density. Mr. Worthington stated the number of units would be lower but the unit size would not change. Garrett Pommerantz, 9671 Clark Circle, explained as an owner of one of the neighboring properties he spoke in opposition to the potential rezoning to medium high density at the Planning Commission meeting. He believed the City should adhere to the guidelines of the Aspire 2040 plan that was presented just last fall and which included zoning of medium density residential for this property. The Council’s material contained a petition signed by over 500 residents requesting the density be kept at medium residential. Nelson asked Mr. Pommerantz if he was okay with the building having 40 units rather than the 52 proposed. Mr. Pommerantz replied he was not opposed to a multi-family building, rather the proponent should be required to stick to the guide plan requirements. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 6 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Aho understood the fear of a change to the guide plan and zoning from the Aspire 2040 guide plan. He was not clear as to how much difference it would make to have a 52 unit building versus a 40-unit one because it would still have a parking lot and there would be people coming and going. Twelve units is not that significant a difference, and he didn’t think it would impact the single family residences around the building. The residents would go in and out through Hennepin Town Road so traffic on the local streets would not be increased by this development. He believed a 52-unit development on that location was okay because we understand the developer has to make the economics work. He was concerned the affordability of the units would be lost if only 40 units are included. It is important to have a good mix of affordable units, especially for the work force in the community. Freiberg observed the seller does have the right to sell the property, and the question is the rezoning of the property. He reported he has read every letter included in the Council packet, and there were a lot of different types of responses including those wanting the property to stay as it is. He emphasized the property will not stay as it is and something will go into that location at some point. He asked about the specific difference in the footprint between a 40 unit and a 52 unit building because that is something we need to consider. Narayanan noted the height of the building would not change with the number of units and asked how the other distances would change. Case believed the change to 40 units would mean a little smaller footprint. Mr. Worthington explained the building height would not change and the east end of the building would probably be shifted a little bit to the west and the west end would be shifted to the east which would give a little more buffer between the building and the wetlands. The building might be about 40 feet shorter and the parking lot would be a little shorter. Aho noted the building would be shortened, but he did not think it would be a noticeable difference. Narayanan asked about the comments from the neighborhood regarding noise. Mr. Worthington replied he did not believe that would be an issue because they have trees as a buffer between the single family residences. Narayanan asked Mr. Worthington if a traffic study was done to review the increased traffic that would occur with the project. Mr. Worthington replied a traffic analysis estimated the number of trips per day would be 283, with 19 peak hour morning trips and 23 peak hour afternoon trips, so there would not be a big increase in traffic. He noted the City Engineer does not have concerns about the traffic. Nelson observed it looked like the proponent could take off one apartment on each side on each floor to reduce the number to 40. She asked if the rents would be affordable on a permanent basis or if it would be only for a limited time because we CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 7 have had a problem with buildings going to all market rate units after the time for the financing has expired. Mr. Worthington replied the time would expire in 40 years. Neuville explained this property would use tax credits, not tax increment financing. Nelson said that would make a difference and asked if that would be short or long term. Mr. Worthington said all of their properties have remained affordable for the duration. Nelson then asked about noise reduction within the apartments. Mr. Worthington reviewed the construction and materials proposed for the building and stated they do not want residents complaining about other residents. Nelson asked if all the residents would be employed. Mr. Worthington replied the building is not Section 8 housing, but they do accept Section 8 vouchers. Nelson did not see that much difference in the size of the units for the building, and they are proposing good sound proofing and good maintenance. Aho observed someone will own this property and will build it out at some point, so they will make sure it is well run to minimize the number of people who move in and out of the building. Case was excited about the project when he first heard about it. The Council has created an affordable housing task force that will bring back a proposal to increase affordable housing in the City in the next month or so. This project would increase the number of affordable housing units in the City for people such as nurses, teachers and policemen who are employed, but who can’t afford $2,000 a month in rent. In the next ten years we are short thousands of units of affordable housing in the Twin Cities. This is the first project like this to come before the Council since the housing task force was formed, and this is exactly the kind of project the City Council should be eager to approve. However, he was concerned that, in his 22 years of experience on the City Council, we don’t typically approve projects that jump more than two zones. This project would jump three zoning categories if it were changed to medium high density. Except for that fact, this site is ideal for this kind of project. It is going to be difficult to find land for this type of development in the City, and this is a pretty good parcel for this type of development. Case believed the developer could work with staff to make the mitigating effects as strong as possible. The project will add to the tax base, but primarily it will add important housing to the housing mix in the City. He asked if staff could bring back the motions originally presented to staff and the Planning Commission at the next meeting if Council Members would like to pass that. Getschow explained if the Council chooses to move forward with the project it would be proper to direct staff to prepare a development agreement with ordinance and resolutions for the next City Council meeting. Case noted there would have to be four votes in favor because it would be a zoning change. Narayanan asked for a specific reason why the Planning Commission was concerned about the project. Case replied the neighbors believed the development was too intense for that location and also were concerned about the three-level jump in zoning. He noted we are in an infill situation in our city so we are a little different than we were before. Getschow elaborated on the Planning Commission’s concerns CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 8 which came down to the guide plan change. Medium density residential is 5-14 units per acre and medium high density is 14-40 units per acre. With a change to medium high density, the applicant could go from 40 units to a maximum of 114 units, but they applicant is proposing just over the maximum for medium density. He said staff can follow up and come back with any amendments to the plans at the next meeting. Nelson commented if the Preserve property were not right next to this property she would not be in favor of the project. That property provides a buffer, but she wanted privacy fences and tree borders and wanted the wetlands to be well cared for. All the lighting should be pointed down and not directed at people’s homes. Additional landscaping would make the building look more residential. She would want to limit any building on the property to 52 units so it could not be torn down and replaced by a much larger structure. Under the circumstances and with the inclusion of the items she enumerated, she would be in favor of this as an opportunity to get good quality housing for a lot of people. Freiberg stated this is a quality project and provides more affordable housing in Eden Prairie; however, one thing that concerned him is whether it should be located on this site. Case pointed out he will be gone for the September 1 City Council meeting. Getschow suggested staff could prepare everything and bring the item back for first and second reading at the September 15th meeting. Aho suggested Council direct staff to bring the development through the process as originally presented with the Council conditions discussed tonight. Getschow said the Council does not have to take any action tonight because staff has received direction and would plan to bring the proposal back on September 15. B. PRAIRIE HEIGHTS by Norton Homes LLC. Resolution No. 2020-79 for PUD Concept Review on 9.6 acres; First reading of an ordinance for PUD District review with waivers and zoning change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres; Resolution No. 2020-80 for preliminary plat on 9.6 acres (Resolution No. 2020-79 for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Amendment with waivers and Zoning Change; Resolution No. 2020-80 for Preliminary Plat) Getschow reported the applicant is requesting approval to develop 12701 Pioneer Trail and vacant lot 27-166-22-14-0035 into 23 single-family lots for villa-style homes. The parcels are located about 1/3 mile east of the Pioneer Trail and Flying Cloud Drive intersection. The property contains two (2) parcels for a total of 9.6 acres with about 0.28 acres located north of Pioneer Trail. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote at the July 27 meeting. Pat Hiller, partner in Norton Homes, gave a PowerPoint presentation that included a review of the site plan, the requirements for projects located near Flying Cloud CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 9 Airport in the Zone C area, the sustainability features included, and the addition of a right-in/right-out access to Pioneer Trail from Surrey Street. He reviewed the neighborhood concerns and described the change in access included to accommodate the future development of the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) property that would cause the right-in/right-out access to be closed. Aho asked if residents would have the ability to take the access road close to the MAC property and go in that way. Mr. Hiller explained the plans for access to the MAC site with a new full intersection to be built to connect Surrey Street and the subsequent closure of the right-in/right-out access. John Fedora, 9820 Tree Farm Road, understood something will go in that property, but he cautioned we have to think hard if it is the best use of this land to put 23 houses that close to the MAC property. Bridget Rief, Vice President of Development for the MAC, appreciated the good working relationship they have with the City; however, they were concerned that the points they raised in the Planning Commission meeting had not been addressed. She outlined the points of concern: aircraft noise, overflights during the day and night, the proximity of the airport to this particular property, and their requests for navigation easements and homeowner disclosures. She emphasized this residential development is only one-half mile from the end of the airport runway. The MAC would like the City to include as a condition the requirement that the developer include the navigation easement for the development and issue disclosures to potential buyers. The MAC acknowledges the efforts of the City and the developer to provide for a future road connection to the south of the MAC’s property, but the developer created the construction of the stub road connection rather than a full intersection. Ms Rief stated after the Planning Commission meeting the developer and the MAC came to an agreement whereby the developer would build the stub road for the MAC at this time, but now staff is saying no to that agreement. That puts the MAC in the onerous position of requiring the MAC to build and pay for the removal of the stub road connection, the modifications necessary to the internal residential roads on the site to connect to the future intersection at Pioneer Trail, and the construction costs of the future intersection. These improvements should not be solely the MAC’s costs to bear in the future. The City should not put on the MAC the costs that would not be required but for this development. The MAC has offered to participate in the construction of the full intersection at Pioneer Trail now so no rework would be required in the future, but they have been turned down by City staff and the developer. The City and the new residents will benefit from a full intersection at Pioneer Trail. If the City is willing to require the two developments be connected, then all parties should be partially responsible for the costs associated with the connection. If the City does not want to take on future costs or require the developer to take on those costs, then the City should approve a development that does not require any future connections or modifications to Pioneer Trail. The MAC understands the City’s hesitancy to go ahead with the construction of the full CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 10 intersection before the MAC develops plans for the development of their parcel; consequently, the MAC proposes an amendment to require participation of the developer (or the Homeowners Association) and the City should any roadway changes be needed in the future. Case asked Ms Rief if she was suggesting the City could approve the full development of the site, which would include developing Lot 24 and thus would essentially block access for development of the MAC site. Ms Rief replied they are suggesting if the City does not want to participate in, or have the developer participate in, the future connection, then this development needs to be looked at as a development with a permanent connection to Pioneer Trail. Case then replied he thought the City was doing what they suggest by approving the right-in/right-out access and having the developer give over Lot 24 to provide for future access to the MAC site. Ms Rief disagreed, and said with the current proposal, the development will go in with a right-in/right-out access that is not ideal and is not recommended by the County in order to make do for now until the MAC comes along to pay for something better. Case replied he is looking at this development as being a final development in that area, and the right-in/right-out would be an okay alternative. He thought this is far preferable to the previous project that was approved by the Council that had no access to Pioneer Trail and sent all the traffic through Tree Farm Road. Case asked Ms Rief to clarify her point that the MAC would be willing to participate in construction of the full intersection now. Ms Rief stated the MAC recognizes that intersection would benefit the MAC as well and would be willing to participate in the joint effort. She said the details of the design and cos would need to be worked out. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Narayanan, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Case reviewed the time he spent in the neighborhood in discussions with residents. The developer has considered the issues that came up and addressed the neighborhood concerns regarding construction traffic and has agreed to build the right-in/right-out access in the first phase of construction. Aho reviewed the concerns regarding noise because the houses are in close proximity to the airport. People should be aware there is an airport there and planes will be flying in and out of the airport; however, people always seem to be surprised there are planes there. It is very critical to somehow make it understood to people buying now and in the future that there is an airport there. Given the construction method and materials to be used, some of that noise can be mitigated. He liked the project in terms of the style of homes, and there is a real need for one-level living in our community as people age in place. Regarding the right-in/right-out access, development on the MAC site is not for sure at this point. We should explore more fully what the cost sharing would look like in the long term solution. Staff should work with the developer and the MAC to develop a plan and determine what may be CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 11 a better solution regarding access in order to reduce the traffic through Tree Farm. He did not want those discussions to delay the project in the long term, but we do need to explore the possibilities. Case asked if we really need to go back to Norton Homes to ask for more money to build the access road. Aho replied he was fine with that too, but we need to fully investigate the possibilities for a better solution for everyone. He would hate to see the development come in and build the right-in/right-out access and then the MAC comes in with development for their site and has to pull it out. Case pointed out this was originally to be a commercial site, and the traffic from that would be worse. Aho explained this is a philosophical issue regarding whether we want residential here or a lower usage like commercial. Nelson was not thrilled with the prices proposed for a development that is at the end of the airport runway. In response to her comment, Case reflected the City Council tries not to get into the marketing of projects nor do we try to make money for developers. It was not his decision to develop this for houses at that price point; however, in America people have a right to own their land and to maximize the development of the land. He believed these units will sell based on what is selling around the City, and it is our role to approve this to be an appropriate use. Freiberg liked the villa concept and believed it is probably the right style home there. Something will go in there, and right now he believed we are looking at the right fit for that property. Narayanan agreed with what has been said because as a City we make sure the development conforms to the ordinances. There is a question of authorizing this for housing or commercial, but he didn’t think we have control of whether this should be commercial or residential. He did want to make sure there would be no danger to residents living there. Aho explained the Joint Airport Advisory Board (JAZB) conducted extensive studies on the safety of all properties around the airport. The JAZB would not allow anything to be zoned in such a way that would put anyone at risk. Aho noted his primary concern was with the noise. Narayanan noted potential buyers will be advised there is an airport there, but do not realize the impact so there will be calls to the MAC. He asked if that fact will be made obvious in an agreement with the potential buyer. Mr. Hiller replied they will work with City staff to draft that language. In terms of the actual decibel reduction, there will be a 20 decibel reduction inside the homes so they have to create an additional 10-12 decibel reduction through noise mitigation. Narayanan observed it is also very important what the noise level is outside on the deck. Klima explained we have standard language in the development agreement that is included for all properties in proximity to any MAC property. Staff will review the language to determine if something needs to be added. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 12 Mr. Hiller then addressed the question of building the full intersection at part of the project construction. He emphasized they agreed to build the expensive right-in/right- out access, gave up development of Lot 24, and agreed to pay the MAC a substantial amount for grading easements on their property. The addition of a full intersection would extend the project at least a year and would add substantial costs. Case believed we have a very positive relationship with the MAC staff. This is not the City against the airport or the MAC; however, he has been a little frustrated with the MAC over the years, for example when they recommended not to build Grace Church. He did not believe they should weigh in on projects like that and recommend not building there; in those cases, they should just buy the land to ensure it will not be developed. In the last six months he has received 25 complaints about increased operations at the airport creating more noise, and those are not from people who just moved in. Aho explained he was okay with moving forward with the project as presented. He was not aware of the developer’s strong opposition to looking at the full intersection; however, he thought it is worth investigating but not so it would hold up the project. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-79 for a Planned Unit Development concept review on 9.6 acres; to approve the first reading of the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development district review with waivers and a Zoning district change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres; to adopt Resolution No. 2020-80 for a Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 23 lots on and four outlots on 9.6 acres; to direct staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating staff and commission recommendations and Council conditions; and to authorize the issuance of an early land alteration permit for Prairie Heights at the request of the developer subject to the conditions outlined in the permit. Motion carried 5-0. C. FLYING CLOUD COMMONS (CASTLE RIDGE RETAIL) by Oppidan Investment Company. Resolution 2020-81 for PUD concept review on 7.27 acres; First reading of ordinance for PUD District amendment with waivers on 7.27 acres; Resolution 2020-82 for preliminary plat on 7.27 acres (Resolution No. 2020-81 for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Amendment with waivers; Resolution No. 2020-82 for Preliminary Plat) Getschow explained Oppidan Investment Co. is requesting approval of a request to develop the property at the corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center Drive. The proposed project is the third phase of the Castle Ridge Redevelopment project. This phase proposes the construction of approximately 34,000 square feet of commercial uses and reserves a 1.74 acre outlot for a future phase of additional commercial development. Ian Halker, representing Oppidan, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the Flying Cloud Commons and the other phases of the Castle Ridge Redevelopment. He explained there will be separate access points for the three areas of the redevelopment CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 13 project as well as safe pedestrian walkability throughout. They tried to address the needs of residents in the area surrounding the project as well as to provide access for those coming in to the development from the outside. Nelson expressed concern about the inclusion of drive-throughs because she thought we did not want those to be included in the project. She also was disappointed there was no sit-down restaurant included in the plans. She asked the applicant to explain how the traffic will flow through the drive-throughs. Mr. Halker reviewed the plans showing the paths for the drive-throughs. He noted drive-throughs have been considered essential during the pandemic. Aho thought the drive-throughs are an important point to be considered because traffic stacking up in those can be a concern. It is important that we analyze this closely and make sure the traffic flow around the property is efficient and safe. Nelson said walkability is very important, and a drive-through creates problems with walkability. Mr. Halker explained they understand that point and considered how to place the drive-throughs along the periphery of the site. Nelson noted the applicant said they did not want to discuss the outside plans for the building and asked if staff will come back and make sure the plans abide to our standards. Klima replied they have provided building elevations, and staff will analyze those to make sure they comply with the requirements. She explained staff has been dealing with a third party on behalf of the three tenants up until now. Nelson recalled one restaurant that came in not too long ago with a proposal that did not meet our requirements. Klima replied staff will make sure they meet or exceed City requirements. Freiberg asked if the grocery store is 250,000 square feet. Mr. Halker replied that should be 25,000 square feet. Aho had an over-all concern because of what is happening to retail businesses in general; however, each of these tenants appear to be excellent selections for our community. He thought this is a great development with good tenants. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing; to adopt Resolution No. 2020-81 for Planned Unit Development concept review on 7.27 acres; to approve the first reading of the ordinance for Planned Unit Development district review with waivers on 7.27 acres; to adopt Resolution No. 2020-82 for a preliminary plat of one outlot into 3 lots and 2 outlots on 7.27 acres; and to direct staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating staff and commission recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 14 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Freiberg, Narayanan, Nelson and Case voting “aye.” XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOARD Because of an increase in the responsibilities for his day job, Case announced he would like to pull back from some of his other responsibilities. He has served as the City Council representative on the Eden Prairie Community Foundation Board and would like to ask Council Member Freiberg to fill out his term until June 2021. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the appointment of Council Member Freiberg to the Eden Prairie Community Foundation Board. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Concerns Regarding Absentee Ballots—Council Member Nelson Nelson was concerned by the number of calls she has received regarding absentee ballots. She learned Minneapolis had places where ballots could be handed in, and she understood Eden Prairie does have ways for people to hand in their ballots to an election judge. She believed it would be good to put together a plan that would accomplish this if there were large numbers of ballots being handed in near the end of the absentee voting period. We could publicize the plan in a timely fashion so people would feel comfortable they can vote. COVID-19 has made differences in everything we do, and we don’t know what will happen in the future. Case stated all the Council Members have the highest respect for City Clerk Kitty Porta and he thanked her for her work. He asked Mr. Getschow to make sure we have the situation under control and to report back on September 1. Getschow replied he has already talked to Ms Porta about the concerns and will provide more information at the next meeting. We can provide a drop-off location at City Hall for all the weeks of absentee voting. We can also provide a plan to get information to the community. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 2020 Page 15 B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Case adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.