Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/23/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case, Jan Mosman and Philip Young CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal,Parks &Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Carol Pelzel I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present. Mayor Tyra-Lukens reported that she had received a telephone call from Hennepin County informing her that Hennepin County will begin construction of a Hennepin County Service Center at the old library site in Eden Prairie. They anticipate this facility ready for operation in October with the scheduled opening date for the new library in July. Mayor Tyra-Lukens expressed her appreciation to some unknown people in the community that she observed walking around Starring Lake and picking up trash. She indicated that it is nice to see citizens taking the initiative to clean up the park. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Tyra-Lukens announced that the City Council provides an Open Forum opportunity for Eden Prairie citizens to address the Council on issues related to Eden Prairie city government on the first and third Tuesday of each month from 6:30-6:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers immediately prior to the start of the City Council's regularly scheduled meetings. Open Forum is reserved for scheduled participants. If you wish to speak to the Council during Open Forum,please contact Ms. Lorene McWaters in the City Manager's office by calling 952.949.8412 by noon of the meeting date with your name and the subject matter you wish to address. She said the Council also provides an impromptu,unscheduled Open Podium opportunity for citizens to address the Council concerning issues related to Eden Prairie city government from 6:50 to 7:00 p.m. immediately following Open Forum. Open Forum and Open Podium are not recorded or televised. The City Council reserves the right to adjust the time allocations for Open Forum and Open Podium. If you have questions CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 2 about the process or procedures of Open Forum and Open Podium,please contact the City Manager's office. IV. PROCLAMATION OF APRIL AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH On behalf of the City of Eden Prairie,Mayor Tyra-Lukens proclaimed April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Eden Prairie. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Mosman asked that an item be added under XIII A.. Reports of Councilmeinbers concerning pedestrians versus cars in intersections. Neal asked that an item regarding comments on the BFI permit be added under XIII.B. Report of City Manager. Motion: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,MARCH 9, 2004 MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve as published, the minutes of the City Council Workshop held March 9, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MARCH 9,2004 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve as published, the minutes of the City Council meeting held March 9, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. VIKING COLLECTIONS PARKING by Kloeckner Limited Partnership. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.42 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 4.42 acres, and Site Plan Review on 4.42 acres. Location: 7500 Office Ridge Circle and 7544 Market Place Drive. (Ordinance No. 10-2004-PUD-8-2004 for PUD District Review,Zoning District Amendment, Resolution No. 2004-41 for Site Plan Review) C. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C AND D REZONING by Pemtom Land Company. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 3 Road. (Ordinance No. 6-2004-PUD-4-2004 for PUD District Review,Zoning District Change, and Resolution No. 2004-42 for Site Plan Review) D. MICRO EAR TECHNOLOGY by Gavic Construction Corporation. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and I-2 Zoning Districts on 35.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres. Location: 6426 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance No. 8-2004-PUD-6-2004 for PUD District Review,Zoning District Amendment, and Resolution No. 2004-43 for Site Plan Review) E. LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP by Richard LaMettry. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on,1.22 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres, and Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres. Location: East of Plaza Drive,west of I-494. (Ordinance No. 9- 2004-PUD-7-2004 for PUD District Review, Zoning District Change, and Resolution No. 2004-44 for Site Plan Review) F. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 5-2004 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.82, RELATING TO PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-45 APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON CSAH 62 AT BAKER ROAD, CSAH 62 AT I-494 WEST RAMPS,TH 62 AT I-494 EAST RAMPS AND TH 62 AT CLEARWATER DRIVE/BEACH ROAD,I.C. 02- 5553 H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-46 APPROVING HENNEPIN COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-47 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TH 212/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS,I.C. 015527 J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-48 FOR SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR 2004 DNR NATURAL AND SCENIC AREA GRANT PROGRAM K. AWARD CONTRACT FOR STREET SWEEPING TO RELIAKOR SERVICES,I.C. 04-5613 L. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TKDA FOR WATER FILL STATION AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT M. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR TH2121VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,I.C. 01-5543 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 4 N. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/PRAIRIE LAKES DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT,I.C. 95- 5372 MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Mosman,to approve Items A-N of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried, 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.70 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS (First Reading of the Ordinance) City Manager Scott Neal reported that official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current. The Community Planning Board did review this Code change on March 22, 2004.Neal explained that the Code is being revised because it does not include a definition regarding non-commercial speech. Signs containing non-commercial speech are allowed in any district, subject to size, height and setbacks of the district they are located in. Also, the Code is being changed to clarify the difference between commercial and non-commercial speech. Commercial speech is related to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment. Non-commercial speech is the dissemination of messages not classified as commercial speech, which include,but are not limited to,messages concerning political,religious, social,ideological,public service and informational topics. Neal further explained that the amended Code would clarify the regulations applicable to commercial and non-commercial speech. Neal indicated that this is the first reading of this ordinance. Later this evening the Council will be asked to approve the second reading. Iu order to approve an ordinance in one evening, a unanimous vote of the Council is required. City Attorney Ric Rosow explained that he reviewed the sign regulations in the City Code and essentially compared those regulations to the provisions of the State Statute and case law.Non-commercial speech is highly protected under the First Amendment. The City Code did not specifically address non-commercial speech. Rosow said he felt it was appropriate to bring the Code more in line with State law and the proposed Code amendments more accurately mirror the language of State law. Young questioned the proposed amendment to Section 2H. He stated that it presumes that all signs involving non-commercial speech would be political signs yet the definition is broader than that. He said the Code as proposed limits non- commercial speech from the August 1 date until ten days following a general election. Rosow explained that there is a special provision relating to all signs any size. The regulations on non-commercial speech are addressed in Section 4. Section 2H allows political signs and is applicable to all non-commercial speech during a specified time while Section 4 relates to signs throughout the year. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 5 Patricia Pidcock, 8379 Red Rock Road,questioned if directional signs and open house signs were considered commercial speech. Rosow responded that they are a form of commercial speech but are regulated by specific provisions in the Code and are allowed. Pidcock asked if those signs are allowed to be up all of the time or if they are suppose to be removed. Rosow explained that they are to be removed after the event has occurred. There is no time limit on non-commercial speech. In response to a question from Mayor Tyra-Lukens, Rosow explained that regulations for directional signs or open house signs would not be changed by this proposed Code amendment. Motion: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing and to approve the first reading of the Ordinance to amend Section 11.70 to include definitions for both commercial and non-commercial speech related to signs posted within the City of Eden Prairie and to set forth which regulations in Section 11.70 are applicable to signs containing non-commercial speech. Motion carried, 5-0. B. SCENIC HEIGHTS APARTMENTS Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .62 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .97 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on .97 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .35 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on .62 acres, Site Plan Review on .62 acres, and Preliminary Plat of.97 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way. Location: Red Rock Road and Scenic Heights Road. (Resolution No. 2004-49 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change,Resolution No. 2004-50 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, and Resolution No. 2004-51 for Preliminary Plat) City Manager Scott Neal reported that official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current and was mailed to 47 property owners. This project is to create two lots. One is for a single-family home and the other is for the existing apartment building. A guide plan change from low density residential to medium density residential and planned unit development waivers for density and parking are required. This project was first reviewed at an informational meeting in November 2003. The Board concluded that the creation of a single-family lot was acceptable provided the existing multiple building could not be expanded for additional units. Staff suggested the RM-6.5 zoning district with waivers to allow the existing building to remain,with provisions to preclude additional units in the future. At the February 23, 2004 meeting the Community Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council, including the waiver for density and parking based on the condition to maintain the character of the site as it exists today, for not enlarging the building, adding units, or adding garages. Duane Pidcock, 8370 Red Rock Road, explained that they are requesting the rezoning to protect the return of their investment should the building be destroyed by fire or a natural disaster. This change would allow them to rebuild. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 6 Case said this request does make sense.He asked if the building were destroyed and reconstructed on the identical footprint,would the owner have to get any additional City approval. City Planner Michael Franzen responded that if there were significant enough changes it would have to be brought before the Planning Board and City Council. If the applicant proposed a reconfiguration of the building,he would have to have a building permit. There is language in the Development Agreement that limits what the applicant can or cannot do. Mosman asked if these waivers remain with the property should it be sold to someone else. Franzen explained that if the property is sold and remains as it currently exists, the waivers will be enforced based on the plans approved by the City Council. Should they modify the building, the new owner will have to go through the process to reapply for the waivers. The waivers were granted based on keeping the building the way it is on the same footprint. Motion: Young moved and Mosman seconded, to close the public hearing; adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on.62 acres; adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .97 acres; approve first reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .35 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on .62 acres; adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on .97 acres into two lots; and, direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. PEMBERTON LANDING by Minnstar Builders, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 17.29 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 21.66 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 21.66 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 17.29 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.29 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 21.66 acres into 32 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, north of Hilltop Road, west of Eden Prairie Road. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) City Manager Scott Neal reported that official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 119 property owners. He explained that this project is for 129 townhouse units. A guide plan change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential is required. Planned unit development waivers are required for density and setbacks. This project was first reviewed at an informational meeting with the Community Planning Board on January 26, 2004. The Board identified issues with changing the guide plan,project density,proposed waivers,transitions and buffering, drainage, open space,walkways and play areas. The project was reviewed at a public hearing on February 22, 2004. The Community Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the project for the following reasons. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 7 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. The PUD waivers have not been substantiated. 3. Inadequate transition between land uses. 4. High tree loss. 5. No public road connection to Hilltop Road. City Planner Mike Franzen explained that the City Planning Board discussed three options for this project; approval, continuance or denial. The continuing option was offered to the applicant to allow them time to realign their project and to discuss further with the neighborhood. The developer decided not to work with the Community Planning Board in changing their plan but to go directly to the City Council. Franzen indicated that included with the Staff report was information on three other developments similar to what Minnstar is proposing. The City Council and Planning Board did find these projects appropriate for an established neighborhood. Timothy Bohlman, representative of Minnstar Builders, Inc., explained that the Staff report provided to the City Council talks entirely about the plans submitted to the Planning Board over a month ago. It does not in anyway discuss the plans that are before the City Council this evening and does not mention the changes that have been made to the plan as a result of that hearing. He explained that this project cannot be like the three other projects referred to in the Staff report. The developer cannot purchase six homes and afford to put in three units per acre. Also,Bohlman said he was not sure what was originally on the sites that the projects referred to are now located. He said he was sure those sites did not contain single-family residential homes nor were they located on Pioneer Trail or across the street from the largest church in the State. Bohlman stated that not only is a three unit per acre development not financially feasible,but other developers have looked at this site for single-family and twin homes and have been unable to come up with a workable plan. Bohlman displayed the various plans that were reviewed for this site. He stated that the original concept plan contained 104 units and was found to be acceptable subject to approvals. The second concept plan included a second entrance off of Pioneer Trail and they tried to incorporate the back yards of the residents on Hilltop Road into this plan with similar density. This plan would also work with approval. Bohlman stated that when they submitted their initial application to the City they were told that the highest density zoning class that could be supported for this site was RM-6.5. The maximum density is 6.7 units per acre. At that time their plan was for 7.4 units per acre and would require a waver for density. This plan was presented to the Planning Board at an informational meeting in January. Feedback was received at that meeting and minor changes were made to the plan at that time. Bohlman said they were not aware of the three units per acre maximum until the actual Planning Board meeting on February 23. He asked what the City feels comfortable with for the density of this site. If this requirement had been part of the framework they would not be before the City Council this evening. Bohlman stated that this is a good project and an asset to the City and neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 8 Bohlman reviewed with the Council the reasons why this plan should be approved. The change they are asking for to the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. They are proposing to reduce the number of units and are changing the actual type of units, therefore,the PUD waivers are substantiated. With regard to transition,Bohlman explained that their original plan before the Planning Board included buildings and units that did not create a transition from the higher density to the existing single-family neighborhood. They have now addressed that issue and completely reconfigured both types of buildings and have designed entirely new units. They are now proposing three eight-unit buildings and three six-unit buildings with the remaining buildings on the north end of the property. These units now have a different look and feel. Bohlman displayed a drawing of the proposed buildings indicating that they look no different from a single-family home in Eden Prairie. These improvements were done to enhance the transition of the density. The buildings on the south edge of the property have been redesigned with internal units being ramblers rather than two-story as they were previously presented to the Planning Board. The homeowners on Hilltop Road will no longer be looking at three-story buildings but will be looking at ramblers. Bohlman said the Planning Board was concerned with the high tree loss. He indicated that there is very little they can do about that,however, considering the number of trees that exist on this property,the percentage of the trees to be lost is high. There are not that many trees out there. They do have a landscaping plan developed for this site and in exchange for the trees they are removing they will be replaced with trees that are substantial in size. The Planning Board also expressed concern with no public road connection to Hilltop Road. Bohlman explained that they did not include a road because they did not own the property. Since the Planning Board meeting they did acquire the necessary property for a road connection on Hilltop Road. The original street and traffic patterns proposed were on Pioneer Trail. The City preferred one entrance on Pioneer Trail. Bohlman said they feel the best layout would be to have all access at Gateway with a right in and right out at Gould. Because City staff wanted access at Hilltop they made arrangements to do so. There are now three options for access to this development. With regard to a compelling reason for a Comprehensive Plan change on this property,Bohlman said this land does not have any of the natural features you think of when you think of preserving natural features or dedicating open space. There are no wetlands on this site,no ponds or rare plants and animals, etc. This is a good location for a neighborhood as proposed. Bohlman stated that this proposal brings its own compelling reason for approving a Comprehensive Plan change in that what they are proposing will be better than what is there now and will bring those beautifications to the land that it doesn't currently have. This project will provide nice curbed streets, open area and clean space. The site will eventually have far more trees than it does today. CITY COUNCIL AHNUTES March 23, 2004 Page 9 Bohhnan said he sees the Council having two options in front of them for consideration. They can keep the neighborhood as it is or they can do something new, current and better. To restrict this site to three units per acre is a myth. Franzen explained that the public hearing for this item was advertised on March 11 and that notice was based upon a 129-unit plan. At the time of publication, Staff was not aware that there was a plan with fewer units. The Planning Board reviewed a 129-unit plan,not a plan with 110-units. Franzen said Staff did ask the developer on several occasions that they go before the Planning Board for an informational meeting. Staff encourages developers to not spend time and money on detailed plans for an informational meeting with the Planning Board. Had this developer met with the Planning Board for an informational meeting they would not be at this point. Franzen explained that a Planning Board informational meeting was eventually held in January and a feasible recommendation was not made at that meeting. The Planning Board was surprised that the plan came back with only minor changes. Caryl Hansen, 16200 Hilltop Road, said her property adjoins the proposed project. She asked that someone with authority from the City state that there is no Phase II and that the exercise of eminent domain will not occur. Franzen responded that eminent domain is ultimately the City Council's decision. Eminent domain has been used to acquire right-of-way for sewer and water easements, however, the City has not previously used eminent domain to tear down property or to redevelop neighborhoods. Franzen further explained that the transition between one land use and another has to occurwithin the project boundaries and not on someone else's property. Hansen said she feels the developer has done a good redesign to satisfy the City. Traffic is a problem but that comes with development and she urged the Council to allow this project to proceed. John Hansen, 16200 Hilltop Road, said he is a landowner wanting to sell part of his property to the developer of the proposed project. They have been working on this proposal for three years. Hansen said he is in favor of this development. This has been a long process and all of the landowners wanting to sell to the developer are in limbo. Because of the conceptual use plan referred to as Phase II,people are assuming that they will lose their homes down to Valley Road. Staff has confirmed that there is no Phase H. The City has no plans to use eminent domain to acquire these properties. Roxann Johnson, 9009 Sutton Drive, stated that she is representing the South Park neighborhood and since the January 26 Planning Board meeting she sees no positive change or impact on the development in their neighborhood. Traffic is their main issue and the direct result of density will have an impact on their neighborhood. This development will only compound the existing traffic issues of speed and noise. Construction will impact Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road and there will be an increased risk to those people using the senior center and park located behind this site. There will also be increased danger and risk to the children in the neighborhood because of this increased traffic. Johnson pointed out that there CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 10 is only one access to Sutton Drive and she wants to be assured that they can get in and out of their neighborhoods. The changes to the plan presented this evening are not significant and she fails to see the integrity of good faith in this development. Johnson said she respectfully urges the Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Board and to deny this request. Kari Totall, 16176 Hilltop Road, said she opposes this development,which would be in her back yard. They looked at the Comprehensive Plan before they built their home and were convinced that City looked at their plan seriously and rarely, if ever, changed it. Totall pointed out the Planning Board made several recommendations to the developer at the informational meeting and moved forward without taking their recommendations into consideration. There were no changes in density or transition and there was no meeting held with the neighbors. Totall said the neighborhood has not seen the plans presented to the Council until this evening and were never once contacted by the developer regarding this project. Totall stated that she has received hundreds of signatures from residents against rezoning of this area. There needs to be a compelling reason to change the guide plan. It appears that the developer does not want to work with the neighborhood. Totall asked that the Council deny this project and indicated that there are other developers that are interested in looking at this property for single-family homes. John Deminico, 16100 Hilltop Road, explained that the previous plan presented had some trees as the transition material between the medium density area and the units in which they live and were determined to be insufficient. Deminico said they reviewed some plans that did not include the landscaping drawings presented this evening. He asked why transition material such as berms used by other developers was not used in this proposal. Deminico said another issue he has with this proposal is that his property is located adjacent to the new proposed road added to Hilltop. This road would severely impact his ability to enter and exit his driveway. Dick Perkins, 16351 Pioneer Trail,presented photos of his property on Pioneer Trail and explained that traffic has increased tremendously and has done so all over the metro area. He further explained that adding 121 units to the area would not impact the traffic any more than the thousands of homes added around this area in the last ten years. Perkins said that it is not economically feasible for the developer to purchase this property and only build two homes on it. There currently are multi- family homes adjacent to single-family homes in this area and it does not make sense to build single-family homes backing up to a church and commercial property. Perkins said he feels the developer's new plan creates a good transition to the single-family neighborhood. Perkins asked that the Council consider this development as a good use for this area and that it is a good time for it to happen. Jacob Meyer explained that he is the son of Larry Meyer who owns the land west of the area being developed that does not have an address. Meyer said he wanted to make sure that there are no assessments for sewer and water on this particular property. He also questioned the drainage and grading for this development and how it might affect his father's property. Public Works Director Eugene Dietz CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 11 responded that there are some details in the grading plan that need to be solved should this development be approved. The City will do its best to make sure that the drainage works. The developer would pay for the cost for sewer and water and there would be no assessments to the surrounding property owners.Meyer asked if the City intends to run sewer and water to the surrounding properties. Dietz said to his knowledge, there is nothing proposed off-site and nothing proposed on Hilltop West at this point. John Howe, 16380 Valley Road, explained that the current residents of this area relied on the Comprehensive Guide Plan when they purchased their property. They need to be able to trust the City and City services are based on the current Guide Plan. Howe said.that representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Met Council stated that increased density in the area surrounding Flying Cloud Airport is undesirable. Howe further stated that this request is in conflict with the City's zoning regulations. Also, the proposed density creates environmental issues. John Hamel, 16260 Valley Road,presented a plan that showed one-third acre sized lots. He stated that the homes on Pioneer Trail appear to be in very good condition. Hamel said he has met with a developer and said a plan for single-family homes was feasible and the price of the land being offered to the property owners is consistent with landowners in this area. Dawn Stover, 16291 Hilltop, said she is opposed to this project and this proposed plan has already caused detrimental affects. There is no transition to the single- family neighborhood and the developer is proposing to remove over 100 trees. This proposal will affect the integrity of the neighborhood. The neighbors are not fearful of eminent domain but feel that their children will be put in danger by the additional traffic that will be generated by this project. Stover stated that their neighborhood is a village within the City and this is being jeopardized by the proposed plan. Jeff Simon, 8900 Bradford Place, explained that he is representing the Boulder Point Townhome Association and they are opposed to this project. Their major concern is that the density is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. They are also concerned with the additional traffic this project will create. Scott Brau, 16201 Pioneer Trail, stated that he is one of the landowners wanting to sell to the developer. Brau explained that he tried to get sewer and water before he built his home and City staff indicated that a developer would probably drive this. Small developers were not able to help them. Brau said he does not see traffic as being an Eden Prairie problem. In 2005 Pioneer Trail will be four-lanes to the west and it would be nice to get Pemberton in prior to that. Brau said he feels they have chosen a good developer for their properties and Eden Prairie would benefit from having a development like this in the area. Scott Fiedler, 16150 Hilltop, said he wanted to address the traffic issue. The City may have made mistakes in adding to the traffic problems. They allowed Grace Church,ballfields at Flying Cloud and developments to the north and to the west. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 12 All of these projects have contributed to the traffic problems. The proposed development will only be a small portion of this traffic. This project needs to be put into perspective,particularly when considering the amount of traffic generated by Grace Church. Fiedler pointed out that Ron Clark is the only developer who has come forward with a plan and money. Susan Howe, 16380 Valley Road, said that other plans did not require getting rid of some of the older homes and other developers have never gotten all 17 acres together to make it more feasible. Howe stated that a developer said there is nothing special about this property, however, it is apparent that the neighborhood itself is pretty special. Howe said she feels the main problem with this development is the way the developer handled it. The neighborhood was never consulted and the neighbors know that this area will be developed with the main question being how dense the development will be. Motion: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to close the hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Young asked if general discussion regarding this project involved only properties abutting Pioneer Trail. Franzen responded that Staff identified what they thought the issues of this project were and one of those issues was the difference between the density of this project and the adjoining neighborhood. Staff did discuss with the developer the importance of having an informational meeting. The City does not require such a meeting but it is strongly recommended. The developer elected not to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Young said Staff has indicated that informational meetings allow them to find out how a neighborhood feels. Young asked how they define neighborhood. Franzen explained that the City is required by State Statute to send notices to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development. Butcher said she is uncomfortable with the way the developer presented this proposal this evening. There appears to be gaps in the process and Butcher said she feels the developer was not forthright about how this proposal changed. Some of the neighbors have lost faith and trust in this developer. Animosity is not a desirable way to begin a project. Butcher said she feels that when you have an in-fill project an informational meeting is essential. The more information you have, expectations can be managed and everybody can say what they like and a project may become workable. Butcher said it is important to have a more compatible plan and she questioned if it is feasible to have a plan in this area that could support what the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan suggestions. Franzen pointed out that the City has not seen a redevelopment plan from any developer with 2.5 units per acre for single or multiple family homes. The only proposal they have seen is the one submitted by Minnstar. Butcher explained that there might be future proposals submitted to the City. Landowners do have the right to develop their land,however, she could not support the plan currently before the Council. The developer does have the option of working with the landowners and neighbors to find something that is more compatible and to follow the process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 13 Mosman said she agrees with Butcher regarding the process followed by the developer. It too makes her uncomfortable. Mosman said she did ask the City Manager if it would be possible to send this proposal back to the developer and ask that they go through the proper channels and that they work with the neighbors to see if they could get more of a consensus. The City Manager did indicate that there is time to do that. Mosman explained that this is a busy area and there are driveways on Pioneer Trail and it will become a major road whether there are houses built or not. However, this plan brings six driveways onto Pioneer Trail down to one. Mosman said she would be in favor of having a continuance of this project should the developer choose to do so. Case pointed out that the options of the sellers will expire and the developer's alternatives are complicated and problematic. There will be other projects that will be before this Council and Case said he believes the Council needs to be more prepared to think through some of the issues that have been presented this evening so as redevelopment projects come forth they will better know what to accept for redevelopment projects. Case said he does believe that future projects will involve higher densities. The Council needs to show some forethought and Case suggested the Council have a workshop to work through their thoughts on this issue. He said that he personally agrees that when the Council does an in-fill of redevelopment they should not impact the current neighborhoods. He stated that he is opposed to having a road go through Hilltop and does not understand why this is necessary. Case explained that as a Council, they need to discuss when they would be comfortable with rezoning for higher densities. As a City,they have economic hard times before them and they need to determine if they want higher taxes or if they want higher densities. Case said he is not opposed to this site being townhouses, however, it is not pre-guided for townhouses. The Council has changed the Guide Plan with great care when they felt it was necessary. The Council needs to be cautious when they can to raise the City's tax base. Case said that this evening he is unable to come up with a compelling reason to change the zoning for this project. This is a big issue that the Council has to rework for themselves. The Council needs to develop a plan so that they are not dealing on a case-by-case basis. Young said this is a hard issue in a number of respects. It is clear that for the future of the City redevelopment is right. Redevelopment does not have to have the same density and they will be faced with increased densities and part of this neighborhood is a prime candidate for that. If this project is denied,this area will be back for redevelopment. Young pointed out that several comments have been made about the developer not following procedures. It appears that the developer did satisfy all of the required procedures. Young said he does have reservations about this project. With regard to transition issues, he questioned how they define neighborhood and questioned if there is an appropriate transition.Young said he did not see a transition that he was comfortable with. He also stated that he has concerns about approving this project because of the homes on the north side. Young explained that the developer did address a number of issues but the transition issue was never met. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23,2004 Page 14 Mayor Tyra-Lukens said she sees the main issues of this project being a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the transition issue. She stated that she rarely votes in favor of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Part of the issue might be maintaining scenic property but she cannot find a compelling reason for the change. Mayor Tyra-Lukens said this is a beautiful development but that is not the issue. The issue is the pledge that was made to the community through the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Development of this project will be problematic. Mayor Tyra-Lukens pointed out that it is important that the transition to single-family homes on Hilltop occur on this site and not at the expense of the neighbors on the north side of Hilltop. Transition should occur on that property whether they are single-family homes or some kind of large berm or screening to make the transition more palatable. Motion: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to direct staff to prepare findings supporting denial by the City Council to be adopted at the April 13, 2004 meeting. Motion carried, 5-0. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Butcher, Case, Mosman,Young and Tyra-Lukens voting"aye". IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.70 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS (Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11-2004) Motion: Case moved, seconded Mosman, to approve second reading of the Ordinance to amend Section 11.70 to include definitions for both Commercial and Non-Commercial speech related to signs posted within the City of Eden Prairie and to set forth which regulations in Section 11.70 are applicable to signs containing Commercial and Non-Commercial speech. Motion carried 5-0. B. RESOLUTION REGARDING POLICY OF NOT FENCING STORM WATER PONDS AND WETLANDS This item was not considered due to lack of time at the meeting. X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS MI. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2004 Page 15 A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. I-494 Corridor Funding(Resolution No. 2004-52) Mosman reported that at the most recent I-494 Corridor Coalition meeting, it was determined that member cities would seek approval of a resolution requesting stable funding for transportation be given to the State Legislators to show solidarity asking that a Transportation Joint Powers Agreement on I-494 corridor be given priority. The Resolution asks for consideration of an increase in gas tax, full allocation of Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes, dedication of 0.5 percent sales tax collected in the metropolitan area; and other steps to increase State revenues available for improvements to the I-494 corridor and other metropolitan transportation systems. Dietz further explained that there has been a list of projects that have been put to bonding and the costs for the I-494 corridor has come in higher than anticipated. There needs to be some additional funding and this Resolution is an attempt to get some of this money out of Washington D.C. These communities are lobbying to get the Legislators to deal with the shortfall. Some additional funding sources are necessary. Young said he has reservations with regard to increasing the State gas tax. These funds can be used anywhere in the State of Minnesota. They are unable to control dedication of these funds in the metro area. Neal explained that the Resolution does state that 0.5 percent of the sales tax would be dedicated to the metro area and for the I494 corridor in the metropolitan transportation system. Neal further explained that the intent is to apply this dedicated tax to the metro area and to keep that increment of gas tax in the metro area. Mayor Tyra-Lukens suggested that the Resolution be amended to read that they support the increase in State gas tax specifically dedicated for its metro projects. The Council agreed to amend the Resolution to include the phrase "specifically dedicated for metro road projects" after the words "State gas tax". Motion: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher,to adopt a resolution as amended supporting legislation to provide improved fiuiding for I-494 corridor improvements. Motion carried 5-0. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER Neal reported that the Council received comments regarding the proposed expansion of the waste processing capacity at the Flying Cloud Transfer Station. At the request of the Mayor,Neal said he met with City staff and they put together four proposed comments for the City Council to consider. Should the Council approve these comments they will be put into a more formal format and distributed to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as the official comment for the City of Eden Prairie with regards to the permit process. Motion: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to direct staff to submit to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency WCA)the City Council concerns as drafted by the City Manager regarding BFI's proposed expansion of the waste processing capacity at the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23,2004 Page 16 Flying Cloud Transfer Station prior to the comment period deadline for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) on March 31, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. Neal invited the City Council to the City's spring employee recognition and awards banquet on Tuesday,March 30, at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Round Lake Water Quality Report This item was not considered due to time. D. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF F. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF G. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS A. CLOSED SESSION 1. 'City Manager's Performance Review 2. Potential Litigation The Closed Session was not held due to time. XV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Tyra-Lukens said that because of the lateness of the meeting, she asked that all other items listed on the agenda be considered at a future Council meeting. The Council will deal with the items listed under Closed Session on April 13. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.