Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/21/1996 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996 7:30 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCIL IEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris,Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J.Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL Acting Mayor Pidcock called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Mayor Harris and Councilmember Thorfinnson were absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pideock added item M.A.1. Poky y on High Speed Chases. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1996 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the minutes of the Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, April 30, 1996, as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Minutes of the Joint City Council/Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 1996, as published. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 21, 1996 Page 2 C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996 Case changed page 15, paragraph 5, as follows: "Case had some concerns that we not get the look of some of the fields in Bloomington." MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 1996, as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR CODDRINITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDB ) PROGRAM Adopt Resolution 96-86 authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the 1996 CDBG Joint Cooperation Agreement (Resolution 96-86) C. TRANSFER OF $21,000 IN CITY HOUSING FUNDS TO BRA HOUSING FUND Approve the transfer of $21,000 of City housing funds into an HRA account to fund the HOPE loan program and other future housing related programs- D. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 21-96 AMENDING SECTION 4.05 OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF MORE THAN ONE II& OR LICENSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL. E. 2ND READING OF PROPOSED REVISION TO PARK USE ORDINANCE 22-96, CITY CODE SECTION 9.04 Regarding item C, Tyra-Lukens asked if it is necessary to transfer all the money to the HRA now since they are only asking for$5,000 at this time. Lindahl said the $21,000 has been there for five or six years and is specifically set aside for housing-related programs. Jullie said the funds are part of the total investment pool but are in a separate interest-earning trust fund set up with that allocation. Case asked if the funds will continue as an investment potential. Jullie said they will. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A-E of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBL•IC HEARINGSIN EETINGS VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS CITY COUNCIL AU NUTES May 21, 1996 Page 3 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Tyra-Lukens, and Pideock voting "aye." VH. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. $FARMT FROM BLOOMINGTON RESIDENTS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF VARIANCE FOR LAKEVIEW OFFICE PROTECT Jullie said we received two letters from residents of Bloomington requesting that the Council review the recent decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments granting certain variances for the proposed Lakeview Office Development. The Board of Appeals &Adjustment approved the requested variances on a 3-1-1 vote at their May 9, 1996 meeting. Jullie noted the developer did make some revisions to the site plan in response to some of the neighbors' concerns. Connie Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, said the main reason for their appeal is the number of errors discovered in the information presented since the neighborhood meeting was held. There were no plans approved in 1989, and the Planning Commission okayed the project based on the 1989 plans. It was stated the DNR supported this project; however, she learned that the DNR does not object to the program but they do not support it. The 1978 plans were farther away from the lake than is the current project. She referred to Ordinance 78-26 pertaining to the need to protect wildlife habitats and neighborhoods. She asked that the building size be decreased and landscaping added in order to screen the project from the lakeshore and the neighborhood. She was concerned that nine oaks will be lost during construction. Enger said he was not prepared to refute or validate any of the facts presented by Ms Wetmore. It is true the building on the east was supposed to terrace from west to east; however this project has less square footage than the previous proposal. He had asked Mike Franzen to address the concerns expressed at the Public Hearing; however, some of these questions are new issues. Pidcock thought we have examined this project very thoroughly and have addressed many of the concerns. On the issue of DNR support, Tyra-Lukens asked if they object or do not object. She also asked for more information on the issue of Ordinance 78-26. Enger said the DNR does not object to the project. Pauly said he would assume Ordinance 78-26 was the ordinance passed at the time of the previous project approval that would have incorporated the Developer's Agreement. Case asked what that means for us today. Pauly said it does not bind CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES May 21, 1996 Page 4 the Council from varying the type of development in the future. Tyra-Lukens asked if it is specific to a proposal brought forth in 1978, and without that same proposal it is not in effect. Pauly replied it is in effect until superseded by 2nd reading. Pauly noted some of the issues raised tonight are related to the approval of this project and not to the issue of variances. The plan has gone through the process and the Public Hearing was closed; therefore, the Council could not consider issues not related to the variances. A discussion followed regarding the amount of the setback variance requested and approved. Peter Beck, representing DLR, said there is some confusion because there are two lakeshores. A portion of the lake setback is an outlet from the main lake which was altered by the City of Bloomington. The DNR told proponent to measure from the original outline of the lake as given us by the City of Bloomington. Proponent took ten feet off the building in order to move ten feet back to 165 feet. Case asked about the legal ground if we decide to review the decision. Pauly said the Council would not be making a decision to review a Council decision; rather, the question is whether to review the Board of Appeals &Adjustment's decision. Case said he has some empathy for the neighbors; however, he had a problem with bringing it back before the Council. There were tradeoffs in this project, and we have tried to balance those tradeoffs. He does have some concern about giving variances. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to elect not to review the decision of the Board of Appeals &Adjustments relating to Variance Request No. 96-10, Lakeview Office Project. Motion carried unanimously. Beck said they had hoped to move the eight or nine oak trees on the building site; however, the window of opportunity for that is closing. Wetmore noted there is a risk of spreading oak wilt. Beck said they will not move the trees if the City Forester does not think it would be all right. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMNIISSIONS A. FOURTH QUARTERLY REPORT FROM SENIOR ISSUES TASK FORCE Bette Anderson presented the 4th Quarterly Report of the Senior Issues Task Force. She said they have continued to emphasize the focus groups this quarter and spent some time visiting surrounding communities to see what their guiding philosophies and organizational strategies are. She said the Task Force is assuming we do not want to make Eden Prairie a magnet community for seniors, and, if that CrrY COUNCIL MINIITES May 21, 1996 Page 5 assumption is not correct, they will need to know before they prepare their recommendations. Case said the Task Force, at some point, will need direction from the Council as to how we would like to see the senior population integrated into our governmental bodies. Pidcock thanked Ms. Anderson for the report. X. APPOENTNUMS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCRAffA MS 1. Policy on High Speed Chases Pidcock asked if the City has any policy on high speed chases. Jullie said we do have a policy on that. He will bring it to a future Council meeting. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Agreement with M.A.C. regarding Ordinance No. 51 Jullie said we have had two meetings pursuant to the Metropolitan Council's direction asking that the Met Council, the Metropolitan Airport Commission (M.A.C.) and the City get together to talk about some of the concerns left in the wake of the approval of the long term comprehensive plan by the Met Council. Case asked if there are any timetables. Jullie said there are none, only that they will commence 120 days after all approvals from regulatory agencies. We indicated there are property owners on the west side of the airport who are close to submitting development proposals to the City and who are concerned about assessments and extension of utilities. M.A.C. staff asked us to forward the plans to them as soon as we get them. Jullie said the long term comprehensive plan does propose to increase the weight limitations from 20,000 to 30,000. We asked their staff for the rationale behind that change, and they indicated they are in the process of pulling that together but couldn't enumerate anything specific other than that they do not think Ordinance 51 is that defensible. Jullie said Ordinance 51 is the key to keeping the character of the airport as it is now. We continued to press on with discussions and, at the last minute, M.A.C. staff proposed the agreement included in the packets. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 21, 1996 Page 6 They asked that our staff report back to the Met Council on Thursday. Case asked if M.A.C. agreed to revise the weight limitation to comply with Ordinance 51. 7ullie was not sure they went that far; however, we did agree to work with them. Case noted the regulatory agency mentioned in point 2.b. would be an agency above M.A.C., but the Met Council is above MAC and could conceivably come within the definition of 2.b. He would like to delete both points 2.b and 2.c., and asked if 2.b. was wording they felt was needed. Enger replied it arose out of a concern that MAC had to develop a situation that we could describe and agree to that would not necessarily force the issue to go to court. They believe issues have changed from 20 years ago when they agreed to Ordinance 51, and they want to spend whatever time it takes to bring us up to their way of thinking. Ordinance 51 is likely to be challenged and if the whole thing is struck down in regard to weight limitations, they would be blamed for it. Enger said they are looking for additional time and a process to illustrate to us that it would be in our best interests to work in an effort to modify Ordinance 51. We were not aware they were coming out to try to end up with an agreement and we believe this opens up a door to us. Tyra-Lukens was also concerned about the regulatory agency in item 2.b. She was not sure she could approve this with that wording. If we agree to 2.b and 2.c, would we be left with no legal recourse should they try to break Ordinance 51. 7ullie said we would have agreed to amending Ordinance 51 if it is ordered by a regulatory agency. The consensus was to delete item 2.b. from the proposed agreement. Scott Mace, 16150 Valley Road, said this is a good start at a resolution of the expansion issues, but he urged the Council not to take action on this before it can be reviewed by legal staff and make sure it is reduced to an enforceable agreement. He thought there is nothing taken away if items 2.b and 2.c are removed. He thought the Met Council should be made a part of the proposed agreement. Pidcock also had a concern with item 2.b, but she thought we need to have this approved for the Met Council meeting on Thursday to show we are anxious to collaborate with the others. Case wanted to continue this until the next Council meeting when the five Councilmembers are present to vote. There are a lot of issues that have come up tonight that he wanted more information about. CrrY COUNCIL M UTES May 21, 1996 Page 7 Tyra-Lukens also felt strongly on the issue of all five Councilmembers voting on this. She wondered if the message could be conveyed that we are in agreement initially but want to have a vote from the full Council. Pidcock asked if we could approve the agreement tonight and then bring it back for a vote of the full Council. Pauly said it could be brought back through a motion to reconsider. Case liked the idea of sending some type of favorable message but waiting for the full Council to approve the agreement. Enger thought there are two questions: Are we better off to modify and send something back with an affirmative; and, are we at risk to ask for a little more time. Jullie said the downside of striking items 2.b. and 2.c. would be that they could say they made a good faith effort and we just blew them away. He thought there are some legitimate reasons to delete item 2.b. He suggested staff talk to the Met Council tomorrow and indicate the Council discussion and then bring back the proposed agreement at the next Council meeting. Pauly thought we would not be giving up anything to include item 2.c. Mace thought it was reasonable to say the Council agrees but would need to see the final agreement. He thought we could demonstrate good faith in trying to compromise with negotiation between staff and the counterproposals we have made. Case thought sending the agreement back with changes sends a different message than if staff calls and gives them feedback with our concerns on item 2.b. Tyra-Lukens asked why they want approval on a conceptual agreement rather than the final document. Jullie said they are anxious to see where we are coming from. He thought the final agreement will be quite short and simple. MOTION: Case moved to direct staff to communicate to the Met Council and M.A.C. that we have initially reviewed the proposed agreement and have favorable feelings, and to continue the item to the second meeting of June. Motion died for lack of a second. Enger said they have a self-imposed deadline to have the parties report the results of the meetings at the May 23rd meeting. He believes M.A.C. thinks we are operating according to wrong premises about heavier planes being a concern. They believe the 20,000 lb. limit is more arbitrary than it was 20 years ago, and they believe we will come around. He thought the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 21, 1996 Page 8 Met Council believes the weight should not be limited. Enger suggested that we could split the approval by passing item 2.a. and, for the reasons indicated, request more time on items 2.b. and 2.c. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by 'Kyra-Lukens, to approve the wording of items 1., 2, and 2.a. with the addition of the words "acting through a good faith effort"; to defer until a later date for approval of the whole Council the final wording of the agreement; and to direct staff to pursue all of the considerations and concerns expressed tonight so that the final agreement reflects those concerns. Tyra-Lukens wanted to make sure staff conveys the message we would like to expand the agreement to include the Met Council. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XH. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADTOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Pidcock adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM.