Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/15/2021APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Mark Freiberg, P G Narayanan, Kathy Nelson, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Planner Julie Klima, Police Chief Matt Sackett, 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 Case introduced the new Police Chief, Matt Sackett, congratulated him on his promotion, and noted how proud we all are of the Eden Prairie Police Department. IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. ACCEPT CONTRIBUTION FROM ESTATE OF JEFFERY KIRST IN AMOUNT OF $45,790.22 FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SENIOR CENTER (Resolution No. 2021-37) Lotthammer announced the City has received word we are the beneficiaries of proceeds in the amount of $45,790.22 from a life insurance policy held by Jeffery Kirst, who passed away last winter. Mr. Kirst was a long-time resident of Eden Prairie, served as an Election Judge and frequently contributed to the Eden Prairie Community Fund. The funds were directed to Parks and Recreation. We plan to fund improvements at the Senior Center with the $45,790.22 together with the recent contribution of $25,000 designated for use at the Senior Center. Plans are also being made for a memorial bench for Mr. Kirst. Case noted we are very appreciative of this sizable contribution from Mr. Kirst’s estate. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-37 accepting the contribution in the amount of $45,790.22 from the Estate of Jeffery CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 2 Kirst to go towards improvements to the Senior Center. Motion carried 5-0. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Mayor Case added Item XIV.A.1. Getschow stated there is an additional resolution to add to the Consent Calendar as Item VIII.Q. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021 MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Toomey, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, May 18, 2021, and the City Council meeting held Tuesday, May 18, 2021, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE QUOTE AND AUTHORIZE XIGENT SOLUTIONS, LLC FOR CISCO UCS BLADES REFRESH AT CITY CENTER C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-38 APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL ON LOCAL RESULTS AND INNOVATION D. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH VTI SECURITY FOR FIRE STATIONS 2, 3, AND 4 CAMERA UPGRADE PROJECT E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-39 WITHDRAWING FROM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING REGIONAL ALL-HAZARDS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR MINNESOTA STATEWIDE ALL- HAZARDS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 ACCEPTING GRANT FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PURCHASE OF PORTABLE LICENSE PLATE READER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 3 G. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH MOTOROLA FOR DISPATCH CONSOLES, MONITORING, AND LOGGING RECORDER SUPPORT H. AWARD CONTRACT TO MICHELS PIPE SERVICES FOR REGIONAL CENTER ROAD WATER MAIN RELINING PROJECT I. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR CUMBERLAND ROAD REHAB J. AWARD CONTRACT TO VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. FOR WATERMAIN VALVE REPAIRS K. APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORT TO MPCA FOR PHASE II NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT PROGRAM L. AWARD CONTRACT TO VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. FOR CREEKWOOD DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS M. ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT TO ODESSA II FOR RILEY LAKE PARK PLAY AREA IMRPOVEMENT PROJECT N. ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT TO PRAIRIE ELECTRIC FOR INSTALLATION OF SPORTS LIGHTING AT MILLER PARK O. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-41 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-117 RELATING TO MAXIMUM ACCRUAL FOR DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS P. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-42 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2017-80 AND 2017-81 RELATING TO DESIGNATED COMMUNITY FESTIVALS Q. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-46 APPROVING SUPPORT OF JOB CREATION FUND APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH COLLAGEN SOLUTIONS (US) INC. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve Items A-Q on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. MORIMOTO CITY HOMES by Hennepin CityHomes LLC. Resolution 2021-43 for Planned Unit Development concept review on 2.84 acres, first reading of an ordinance for Planned Unit District review with waivers and Zoning change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.84 acres; Resolution 2021-44 for Preliminary Plat on 2.84 acres (Resolution No. 2021-43 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, Resolution No. 2021-44 for Preliminary Plat) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 4 Getschow explained Morimoto City Homes has acquired the 2.85-acre property at 9360 Hennepin Town Road and would like to develop the site with 16 owner- occupied town home units in groups of 3, 4 and 5 units. Surrounding land uses include residential and commercial to the north, residential to the west and residential and open space to the south. Hennepin Town Road and Highway 169 run along the east side of the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project which does require PUD review, rezoning and preliminary plat. Steve Furlong, principal at Hennepin CityHomes, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the project and stated it is a special project for him because it brings home ownership and affordability to the City. He reviewed the project site plan and the design for the proposed 16-unit development. All of the units provide single-level living and some of the units provide ADA accessibility. He reviewed the waivers requested: no lots will have street frontage; lot sizes of 2200 and 19020 feet; lot depth of 50 feet; main drive width of 24 feet; parking stall depth of 18 feet; and Group Usable Open Space is a wood chip trail, c-shaped around the wetland to the west. He noted the waivers are requested in order to facilitate affordable housing as a public benefit and to avoid subsidies for the project. Mr. Furlong described the two wetland areas and the stormwater collection system. He noted a neighborhood meeting was held prior to meeting with the Planning Commission. One of the primary concerns of the neighbors was the preservation of trees along the north property line. After the neighborhood meeting he met Matt Bourne, Parks-Natural Resource Manager, to visit the site and identify some trees along the north property line that could probably be saved by excavating no more than 40% of the root system during construction. Subsequently, the plans were updated to include the preservation of those trees. Mr. Furlong displayed drawings depicting the backyards of the units with optional pervious patios. There are two-stall garages, and the main floor of the units has the kitchen, living room, one bedroom and a bathroom. Full basements are included, and the second level has two bedrooms, a bathroom and storage space. Mr. Furlong explained in order to preserve affordability there will be a restrictive covenant on the affordable units such that if the initial or a subsequent buyer sells within the first ten years, they must sell it as affordable to a household earning 115% AMI or less. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency purchase price limit of $402,500, and 115% of AMI is $118,200. The project will include at least 20% of the units as affordable. Housing and Community Services will review the applications for the affordable units. Narayanan asked what would happen if a single buyer who was at the 115% AMI income level for eligibility purchased a home and later married so the total income would now be higher than the AMI eligibility requirement. Mr. Furlong responded they are only allowed to do the test at the time of acquisition. If the buyer were to resell the property, the new owner would have to pass the affordability test. Narayanan then asked about determining eligibility at the time of a resale. Mr. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 5 Furlong replied the deed restriction would prevent the transfer of deed until the affordability test is applied. Narayanan asked about the number and size of trees to be cut down for the project. Mr. Furlong replied he did not have an exact figure, but many will need to be cut down. Their tree inventory shows exactly which trees will be cut and which trees will be preserved. He said only one of the five heritage trees can be saved, and heritage trees must be replaced at more than a one-to-one ration. Narayanan asked about charging stations in the garages. Mr. Furlong responded they feel it is important to be able to add a charging station in the garage; however, different manufacturers have different types of charging systems so they will pre-wire the garages with a 50-amp circuit in every unit. Narayanan asked if the affordable units are the same design as the other units. Mr. Furlong replied the exteriors and interiors will be identical, but the affordable units will be the interior units. Nelson asked how the affordability test would be maintained when the unit is resold. Mr. Furlong explained they are not able to restrict the resale price of the property in the deed restriction, but the buyer would have to qualify for financing on the purchase price amount. If the new buyer has a large down payment, it will be difficult to control. Their goal is to encourage financing through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency who would impose a subsidy recapture tax on a portion of the gain. Nelson questioned whether a school bus could turn around in the development. Mr. Furlong replied it could, as could a 13-wheeler. Nelson then asked how close the homes on the north side are to the existing homes. Mr. Furlong explained there is a 10-foot setback requirement from the lot line to the boundary of each lot and block, and there is a nine-foot distance between the lot and block line to the structure. Nelson asked about the possibility of privacy fences. Mr. Furlong replied they strive to use plantings as a barrier rather than fencing. There are no fences planned around the perimeter of the property but there is a possibility to add a fence between each unit in the backyard area. Nelson asked if there will be trees or other plantings to provide privacy as the owners look out their windows and if there would be room in the backyards for a playset. Mr. Furlong noted the landscape plan provides a significant line of trees along the north side. There is nine feet beyond the wall of the structure in which the owner could add a playset. Nelson stated she liked the concept and the main floor living with enough room for a family. The price for the units is more reasonable. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 6 Freiberg asked about the line of trees that backs up to Garrison Way. He noted the information provided states 43 of the 63 significant trees on the property will be eliminated and asked how many of the remaining trees will be in the northwest area by Garrison Way. He wanted to make sure there are enough trees left behind to provide a barrier to the homes on Garrison Way. Mr. Furlong replied the majority of the 43 trees to be removed are concentrated around the hammerhead turning area and along the entire north property line. There are a number of desirable trees along the north property line that probably can be saved, so they will keep as many as possible in order to include mature trees along there. The majority of the trees in the hammerhead turn around area will be cut down. Freiberg appreciated Mr. Furlong’s concern about saving the trees, his taking time to walk the property with Matt Bourne, and for being concerned about what the neighbors think of the development. He thought there were a lot of positives to the project as it is laid out. Toomey thanked Mr. Furlong for coming tonight and noted it is nice to see some affordable housing plans. She asked how many years the deed restriction will be in place. Mr. Furlong replied it is a 30-year deed restriction. Toomey then asked about the project’s compatibility with solar energy. Mr. Furlong replied he just today had conversations with the Center for Energy and Environment and Xcel Energy. They told him it is much more cost effective to put dollars into windows, extra insulation, and other types of energy improvements during the construction process. In addition, it is not necessary to wire for solar panels at the time of construction. He added the townhome association will require approval of any structure added to the outside of the building so it would be helpful for the association bylaws to allow solar panel to be installed by the unit owner and to streamline the process the owners must use to obtain association approval. Mike Amundson, 9565 Garrison Way, commented this proposal is by far the best of any proposed over the last 15 years, and he appreciated that. He was concerned about the waivers requested, especially the space between houses and the low amount of Group Usable Space compared to other developments in the area. He would like to offset all the units in the group that is shown with one unit offset in order to preserve as many trees as possible adjacent to his backyard. He noted the Preserve Association does not allow owners to put up fences. Garrett Pommeranz, 9671 Clark Circle, said this is the best project to come through for this property. His concern was with the tree line and maximizing the trees along his property line as that would serve both him and the townhome owners. He would like to see a detailed map of trees to be removed and those to be saved. Saving as many trees as possible will make all the owners concerned happy. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 7 Case thanked the two neighbors who spoke tonight. He explained we are trying to make this project work on a very small parcel. It will be the first project with affordable homes for purchase in the City. The City Council has prioritized the environment for decades and recently has made an effort to prioritize affordable housing. He appreciated the developer’s promise to monitor the trees on site and suggested City staff might help with that to avoid instances of trees mistakenly removed. The developer plans a lot of tree replacement, and that will enhance the development as those trees grow to maturity. While it will be tough to save some of the trees, he believed the intent is there. Freiberg suggested the developer work with the neighbors to make them aware of which trees will be removed. He believed this is a very good project. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-43 for a Planned Unit Development concept review on 2.85 acres; to approve the first reading of the ordinance for the Planned Unit Development District review with waivers on 2.85 acres and Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.85 acres; to adopt Resolution No. 2021-44 for the Preliminary Plat to create 16 lots and 3 outlots on 2.85 acres; and to direct staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating staff and commission recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. CHAPTER 11 CITY CODE AMENDMENTS by City of Eden Prairie. First reading of ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Group Usable Open Space, Gross Site Area Per Dwelling Unit, and Parking (Ordinance) Getschow stated the Council devoted a workshop session to discussing code amendments that will be coming through this year. He said Julie Klima, City Planner will give a brief overview of the three proposed changes. Klima gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the three code changes: 1. Group Usable Open Space—Changes are necessary because most projects now require a waiver for Group Usable Open Space when the requirements cannot be met. Most of the recent developments have been on infill sites with less land area to accommodate the Group Usable Open Space required. Staff researched other metro cities, many of whom are also proposing to reduce the Group Usable Open Space requirements. The amendment changes the definition of usable open space to make it more understandable and easier to comply with. 2. Gross Site Area Per Dwelling—This requirement has been in place since 1969 and is intended to regulate density. Maximum density requirements established in the City Code and in the Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent with the Gross Site Area Per Dwelling; therefore, the Gross Site Area Per Dwelling requirement will be removed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 8 3. Parking—Parking requirements are revised from 19 feet to 18 feet deep parking stalls and drive aisle widths are revised from 25 feet to 24 feet. Multi-family housing parking requirements state two parking stalls per dwelling unit. That requirement will be maintained but exceptions will be made for studios/efficiencies and senior housing. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing; and to approve the first reading of the ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Group Usable Open Space, Gross Site Area Per Dwelling Unit, and Parking. Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Narayanan, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Narayanan, Nelson, Toomey and Case voting “aye.” XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-45 TERMINATING LOCAL EMERGENCY Getschow reported we have started to return to a more normal routine after the emergency restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This action is part of that return to normalcy. On March 16, 2020, the Mayor declared a local emergency, and on March 17, 2020, the City Council extended the emergency. The emergency powers are no longer needed. The resolution terminates the local emergency and provides that meetings subject to the Open Meeting Law will now be held in person. MOTION: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adopt Resolution No. 2021- 45 terminating the local emergency. Motion carried 5-0. XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. STUDENTS ON COMMISSIONS Case explained we offer these appointments annually to high school students, and this year we received over 40 applications. He noted the students contribute a lot and bring a valuable viewpoint to the commissions. MOTION: Toomey moved to appoint to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission – Alec Aldrich, Max Johnson, Paawan Kathuria, Suchita Sah, Yash CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 9 Salunke, and Zuheb Ibrahim; Narayanan moved to appoint to the Heritage Preservation Commission – Andrea Porter, Devyn Stanton, Joseph Canham, and Luc Willett; Case moved to appoint to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission – Hina Kazama, Keerthana Ramanathan, Salma Awale, Shubhangi Mohan, Sophie Lunda, and Zudaysi Osman; Nelson moved to appoint to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission – Aditi Nadkarni, Arie Cohen, Evan Lembke, Joey Schommer, Kamal Yusuf, and Maria Zeien; and Freiberg moved to appoint to the Sustainability Commission – Abi Rajasekaran, Amoligha Timma, Anna Maristela, Augie Stukenborg, Julia Harris, and Muthu Meenakshisundaram. Seconded by Toomey. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Police Body Camera Update—Mayor Case Case stated he gets questions about why Eden Prairie does not have functional body cameras yet. We have been planning for these for quite a while, and he asked Police Chief Sackett to give an update. Chief Sackett reported we expect shipment of the cameras by the end of June or mid-July. Once received, the training time and integration time should be somewhat reduced because the system is the same as that used in the squad cars. Case further explained we have dash cameras in the squads now, and the body cameras will integrate seamlessly into that system. We are ready to go once the cameras arrive. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1. Highland Oaks Development Agreement Amendment Request No. 2 (2021- 08) Klima reported the City has received a request to amend the Highland Oaks Development Agreement to allow the removal of two significant trees. The Highland Oaks development was approved in 2019, at which time there was a considerable amount of discussion about saving a 53-inch burr oak identified as Tree 142. A year later, the developer returned with a request to remove Tree 142 as well as five other trees. The City Council allowed removal of the five other trees with appropriate tree replacements, but retained the preservation of Tree 142. The lot with Tree 142 is now owned by Mr. Terry Brown, and he has submitted an application that Trees 141 and 142 be removed. Mr. Brown’s rationale for the request is the need to address some drainage on the site as well as to remove the trees to allow him access to that part of his lot to install CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 10 additional conifers for added screening between the adjacent homes. Staff is recommending the development agreement be maintained in its current condition because the tree replacement triggered by the removal of Trees 141 and 142 would be challenging to provide on the site. Case asked if trees are taken down in a development that is still being developed would be assessed against the developer rather than the homeowner. Neuville responded the development agreement is with the initial developer, but it runs with the land so it technically applies to every future property owner. The homeowners are obligated to comply with the terms of the development agreement. Considering this tree was the topic of so much discussion and the Council made very specific decisions about this particular tree, her opinion was the proper application would be an amendment to the development agreement rather than just an application to remove the trees. Case said he visited the property yesterday and offered Mr. Brown the opportunity to speak to us tonight even though this is not a public hearing. Terry Brown, 11896 Germaine Terrace, explained he began the house design process with Wooddale Builders in December of 2020, and they broke ground in March of 2021. At the building review meeting in March 2021, it was brought to his attention that, because the house is situated on the lot as it is, there is now a drainage issue. The engineering firm recommended the land be built up away from the foundation, a retaining wall be put in to keep water away, and the adjacent unexcavated area be contoured down. In the contouring process, the issue regarding removing Tree 142 came to light. In addition, removing the tree and completing the contouring would give him more complete access to about 3000 square feet of his lot. He would also be able to plant evergreen trees to screen the adjacent lots. There is a steep grade at the back of the lot so there isn’t a lot of room back there. If he is not able to remove the tree and contour the land, access to a significant portion of his property will be denied him and the chances for water intrusion will be increased. Freiberg asked if we have determined the health of the tree. Mr. Brown replied his application included a letter from a certified arborist who determined the tree is healthy. He said the tree has three trunks coming out of a 53-inch base rather than one large trunk. Toomey asked Mr. Brown if he would be willing to plant additional trees on his property if that one is taken down. Mr. Brown replied there was a tree replacement plan identified when the development was approved. The replacement plan did not specify any replacement trees to be planted in the area of his lot where Tree 142 is located. Because there is significant property on the north side of his lot, he plans to plant more than the three Norway pines specified in the replacement plan. In the area near Tree 142, his lot line is about one foot beyond the tree. He would prefer to plant native grasses and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 11 wildflowers to cover the area and to place a line of evergreen trees along the lot line for screening. Case asked Ms Neuville to clarify whether Mr. Brown would be responsible for the tree replacement caliper inches because this is a heritage tree. Neville replied the Council approved the replacement plan for the entire development, but staff could address the question of how it is applied once the individual lot is sold. Klima explained we have required a tree removed be replaced on an inch- by-inch basis post development. Case noted a lot of those replacement trees could be placed back along the lot line and, if not, there could possibly be cash- in-lieu. Narayanan asked how many trees would be required to replace Tree 142. Klima responded 68 caliper inches would be required to replace Trees 141 and 142. Narayanan asked for clarification on the drainage issue. Ellis replied if the trees are removed, the drainage problem is much easier to address, and there are a number of options for landscaping the yard. With the two trees remaining, the drainage options are more limited and would probably be cost more. Case asked if addressing the drainage issue would mean the two trees are more susceptible to damage. Lotthammer replied he understands the grading that has been done has protected the two trees as much as possible so there would be a risk if additional grading were to get into the trees’ root systems. He explained any time we identify a tree to be saved on a tee replacement plan, it is understood that tree is healthy. In this case, the arborist has confirmed the two trees are healthy. Toomey observed this is a twofold issue: the drainage issue, and the placement of the trees on his property. She stated she would be in favor of allowing the tree to be removed if the owner were willing to plant other trees in the area. Case commented it appears to be the understanding the replacement caliper inches would be assessed against the Browns and where the replacements were planted would be an item for negotiation; however, 68 caliper inches of replacement trees is a lot of trees for that property. The replacements would thicken up as they grow over the years. He said he trusts staff to know the drainage can be improved to make the water flow correctly. While he did not like the idea of removing the two trees, there would be a tradeoff in 10-15 years if Mr. Brown plants more high quality trees to replace them. Toomey stated she would say keep the tree if there was not a potential problem with drainage. Narayanan asked if it was correct we would not be able to replace the full 68 caliper inches on this lot. Klima replied the trees would need to be replaced on Mr. Brown’s lot. Tree replacement at more than minimum size would help come closer to meeting the requirement, but it is not likely to be sustainable to replace CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 12 all 68 inches on the one lot. Narayanan asked how many caliper inches of replacement trees could be safely placed on the lot. Case responded one possibility would be to plant larger trees as Ms Klima suggested. Mr. Brown has suggested planting a row of large pine trees and that would help fulfill more of the caliper inch requirements. He believed staff would have to work with Mr. Brown to determine reasonable size trees as replacement and, if the caliper inch requirement cannot be met on the lot, staff could negotiate whether trees could be planted elsewhere in the development or if Mr. Brown could make a cash payment in lieu of replacement trees. Nelson stated she is irritated with the builder who told us it was possible to do the drainage to save the two trees and yet he didn’t do that. Rather, he kept coming back to ask for the amendment to cut down the trees. She asked Mr. Brown if he understood replacing the trees with as many as will be required may mean no room for gardening. Mr. Brown replied he was learning throughout this process and was not aware of the caliper inch replacement requirement. He was not sure he can get the full number of replacement trees on the lot; however, he was willing to consider a compromise between trees and cash payment. He also was not expecting to plant a lot of trees in that area because he is not sure they would grow in there under the huge canopy of trees that currently exists in that area. The area where he wants to plant the evergreens is open and it would benefit his neighbors to the north to have more plantings on that side. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Narayanan, to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the development agreement reflecting the Council’s preference for tree removal and meet City staff recommendations for tree replacement. Narayanan clarified we are saying staff will work with the owner to meet the replacement requirements and, if Mr. Brown is not able to meet the requirements, staff will negotiate with the owner on some other arrangement. He believed our City is blessed with a lot of healthy trees overall, but he is also concerned about the developer’s actions in this situation. Case explained after visiting the site he would add the comment our residents spend a lot of money to buy a house here in Eden Prairie and they do have rights to fully actualize their property. This kind of discussion belongs more at the time the developer comes in for approval, but now we have a homeowner who wants to move in and fully actualize his property. Mr. Brown has lived in two other houses in the City and has been very responsible about trees. He believed the homeowner has rights to take a tree down on his property, so he planned to vote to allow the amendment to take down the tree. He then asked permission of the Council Members to allow a neighbor to speak on this situation. David Ring, Beehive Court, related his vision that occurred before moving in CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 15, 2021 Page 13 to his current home wherein he saw a border of beautiful pine trees on the north side of his land. He believes there will be beautiful trees on multiple lots along there as he saw in his vision. Mr. Brown’s plans to add the pine trees to replace Trees 141 and 142 will begin to fulfill his vision. Freiberg stated he is very concerned about property rights but he is also very concerned about heritage trees, so this request presents a conflict. He believed the biggest flaw is with the developer as the owner is now in a position where he could be harmed if the tree is not removed. He agreed the fact Tree 142 has a multiple trunk does have some weight in the matter. This is a tough decision because only about 1% of our trees in Eden Prairie are as large as Tree 142. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. 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: Narayanan moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Case adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m.