Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/06/1996 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL, TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, City Engineer Al Gray, City Planner Mike Franzen, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Barb Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pidcock added item XI.A.1 Boulevard Trees and Status of Revisited Tree Ordinance and item XI.A.2 IInkeep of Eden Prairie City Facilities. Case added XI.A.3 Time line of Signalization of Pioneer Trail and Staring Lake Parkway. Thorfinnson added 3I.A.4 Motor Homes Parked at Elim Shores. Jullie deleted item IV.N and added item ZV.Q Release of the 1979 Development Agreement with Ryco Development, Inc. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, Case seconded, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. OM PODIUM M. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL.MEETING HELD TUESDAY, TULY 16, 1996 MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 16, 1996 as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. COUNCIL./STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, TULY 23, 1996 Harris noted a correction on page 4, first paragraph, which should read "trained" and that further elaboration be included in the discussion of her position at the bottom of the first paragraph on page 3. Thorfinnson commented that his question in the third paragraph on page 3 was unanswered and he requested the Minutes be changed to reflect that. CITY COUNCIL M MJM August 6, 1996 Page 2 MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday, July 23, 1996, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Case abstaining. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 30-96 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSING AND REGULATION AND ADOPTING CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4.99 C. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 29-96-PUD-12-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.62 acres and RM-2.5 on 15.33 acres and PUD District Review on 18.95 acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 96-116 for Site Plan Review on 18.95 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169. D. TOM THUMB GAS PUMPS by Mike Eiker. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 31-96 for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial District on 2 acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 96-117 for Site Plan Review on 2 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Tom Thumb Gas Pumps by Mike Eiker. Location: Southeast corner of Dell Road and Townline Road. E. HARTFORD AREA ONE RETAIL 1996 by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 28-96-PUD-11-96 for PUD District Review on 1.27 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service District on 1.27 acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 96-118 for Site Plan Review on 1.27 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Hartford Area One Retail 1996 by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. F. RESOLUTION NO. 96-119 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR PRIMARY ELECTION AND GENERAL ELECTION G. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENTAL.ICE PROGRAM H. RECONIl IENDATION FOR POLICY ALLOWING NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO CHARGE FOR PARKING OR ADMISSION TO TOURNAMENTSIN PARKS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 3 I. REQT T TO EXPAND CURRENT YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO INCLUDE OPEN SKATING, ETC, J. APPROVE BID TO BEGIN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM K. RESOLUTION NO. 96-120 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR MINNESOTA (located south of Valley View Road and west of I 494) L. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-121 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DELL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 93-5311 M. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-122 FOR NO PARKING FOR DELL ROAD, I.C. 93-5311 N. AGRUMM4TREGARDING SPECIAL A ES MINTS AND ABATEMENT FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, MAPLE LEAF ACRES 9TH ADDITION (This item was deleted.) O. APPROVE LIlMTED USE PERMIT WITH 1MLnDOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DELL ROAD THROUGH TH 212 RIGHT--OF-WAY, I.C. 93-5311 P. RESOLUTION NO. 96-123 ACCEPTING GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RICHARD MILLER Q. RESOLUTION NO, 96-124 RELEASING THE 1979 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RYCO. DEVELOPMENT INC. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve Items A through M and O through Q with Item N on the Consent Calendar deleted. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.32 acres into 13 lots. Location: West 82nd Street. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from July 17, 1996 Jullie stated the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on July 4, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 69 property owners. This item was continued from the July 17, 1996 Council meeting at the request of the proponent. The proponent is requesting another continuance to August 20, 1996. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens to continue this Public Hearing to the August 20, 1996 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 4 B. SOUTHWEST CROSSING 1996 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT by BTO Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 109 acres. Location: Viking Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment) Jullie stated the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on July 25, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 17 property owners. This request involves the reallocation of building footage among various building sites within the PUD. One office building site located close to Nine Mile Creek would be eliminated and converted to open space. The City would also benefit from a 12- acre woodland preserve. Miles Lindberg of BRW, Inc. spoke on behalf of BTO Development, and reviewed the proposal. He discussed the PUD Concept Plan and the tree replacement proposal. They are making the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission which will increase the size of the site. This will consolidate the development in terms of shoreline on the northern portion of the lake. He requested the Council approve the tree loss and tree replacement plan for the entire development. Franzen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request on a vote of 6 - 0 at its meeting on July 8, 1996. Staff recommended approval because the transfer of square footage was a benefit for open space and site enhancement. Lambert commented the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommended approval of the proposal on a 6 - 0 vote at its meeting on July 15, 1996 subject to dedication of a trail easement at the time of final plat approval. Harris inquired about the status of the trail and Lambert responded that this segment would connect the trail along this portion of the lake. As additional properties are developed, the City will require dedication of additional easements which will complete the trail around the lake. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. 96-125 for PUD Concept Amendment Review of 109 acres of the Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. C. SOUTHWEST CROSSING GOLDEN TRIANGLE BUSINESS CENTER by MEPC American Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 11.10 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park on 11.10 acres, Site Plan Review on 11.10 acres. Location: Golden Triangle Drive and Viking Drive. Jullie stated the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on July 25, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 11 property owners. This project CITY COUNCIL AfUgl FS August 6, 1996 Page 5 involves an amendment to the approved PUD to allow a change in land use from Office to Industrial, and transfer of development potential of 46,000 square feet from this site to site 12. The site plan shows the construction of a one-story 90,600 square foot building. Dan Gelson, Vice-President of MEPC American Properties, Inc. Introduced Ed Farr of Edward Farr & Associates, Inc. Fan reviewed the plans for the office building and described the exterior building finish. He discussed the landscape plan and noted that on 11.1 acres they have a 19% hardsurface coverage ratio for parking which is less than would be required for a manufacturing use. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at its July 8, 1996 meeting. Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission also recommended approval of this project at its July 15, 1996 meeting. Lambert stated the developer was making a good faith effort to preserve as many trees as possible on the site. Case inquired if the NURP pond was located within the flood plain area on the north side of the site and Fan responded that there was floodplain encroaching into the northern portion of the site but they would be working with the Watershed District to rectify this and ensure that no water storage capacity would be lost. Case inquired if the NURP pond would be able to contain the water runoff from the Viking property and Gray stated the Viking building was a very large facility and the property drains to the east, rather than into this site. Staff will look at this issue before 2nd Reading occurs. Case inquired if this issue was something the Watershed District would look at and Gray responded he was unsure but staff would look into it. Case noted that they should take advantage of any opportunity to help the drainage on another site whenever possible. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case to close the Public Hearing, adopt Resolution No. 96-126 for PUD Concept Review on 11.10 acres; and Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 11.1 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park; and direct Staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. HDMG CORPORATE FACILITY by HDMG. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.58 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 2.58 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.58 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment on 2.58 acres, Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Jullie noted official notice of this Public Hearing was published on July 25, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 34 property owners. This proposal CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 6 involves a 15,220 square foot one-story office building on a site which is currently zoned Office. Jamie Heuton of HDMG reviewed the proposal and described the site layout. He discussed the landscape plan and noted their intent to keep the site in as natural a state as possible. Franzen stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this project at its July 8, 1996 meeting. Tyra-Lukens inquired if the proponents were requesting a waiver for parking and Franzen responded that the developers can add additional parking on this site based on the submitted proof-of-parking plans in the event the building is sold at some future time. They have adequate parking for the proposed use shown on the current plans. Case was concerned about what historical artifacts might be found when the site was excavated since this is one of the few undeveloped farms remaining in Eden Prairie. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson to close the Public Hearing; adopt Resolution No. 96-127 for PUD Concept Review on 5.2 acres; approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 2.58 acres, and Zoning District Amendment on 2.58,acres; adopt Resolution No. 96-128 for Preliminary Plat Approval on 5.2 acres into 2 lots; and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. E. RILEY CREEK RID by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77, Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 134 lots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, West of Eden Prairie Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Jullie stated the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on July 25, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 84 property owners. This proposal involves rezoning and platting for 134 single family residential lots. The plan has no waivers for street frontage lot size nor shoreland lot width. Beth Simenstad, representing Hustad Land Company reviewed the proposal for 134 single family lots with 76 lots being zoned R1-9.5 and 58 lots zoned R1-13.5. They have been working with several builders to create variety throughout the development. She reviewed the history of the project and the way in which this project was developed. They held three meetings with the neighbors to answer questions and address concerns. They presented options.for roadway configuration to preclude land blocking the properties on Valley Road. All lots have been CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 7 redesigned to fall within zoning requirements and no waivers are required. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was concerned about the tree loss and therefore a large area of Norway pines and some silver maples which will be preserved. They submitted a revised landscape plan and met with the City Forester to determine which trees would be included in the tree loss calculations. There are 35 lots which will be served with gravity sewer which are outside of the B Zone. They have presented the plan to MAC and have not had any response as of this meeting. Harris requested clarification of which areas were included in which phases of development and noted that the road alignment issues would arise in the Phase II portion of the development. Franzen stated the Planning Commission voted 6 - 1 to approve this project at its meeting on July 8, 1996. Staff recommended that the roadway connection not be made until the roads are upgraded. Gray commented that staff would construct temporary cul-de-sacs until they could make permanent roadway connections. Harris inquired if there was sufficient area available to develop adequate cul-de- sacs at the end of each road, and Gray responded that there was inadequate area to construct a "standard" sized cul-de-sac but they would be able to create an area which would allow vehicles room to turn around. Land area will be needed from the end of Hilltop and Valley Road landowners to create a standard size cul-de-sac. Tyra-Lukens inquired about the possibility of looping the roadway and connecting Hilltop and Valley Roads together at the end without encroaching into the new development. Gray responded that 33' was quite narrow to construct a loop-type roadway and the topography would make it difficult to construct a straight roadway segment. Discussion ensued regarding roadway connections and how they would fit into the surrounding traffic patterns in the area. Pidcock inquired about the existing homes within the development and if they would be connected to City sewer and water. Gray responded that the existing homes will be connected when sanitary sewer is av available, which will be soon. He noted they are located within the R-1-13.5 Zoning District. Pidcock inquired when the development proposal had been submitted to MAC, and Simenstad responded it was submitted over two months ago. The Public Hearing was opened. Dave Rasmussen, 16275 Valley Road presented a petition to ask the City Council to keep Valley Road as a cul-de-sac to reduce traffic and the potential for accidents and the crime levels down within that neighborhood. Not having the roadway connected gives those residents in that neighborhood a more secure feeling and he requested that the roads become permanent cul-de-sacs. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 8 Harris inquired how long the cul-de-sac would be if it were made permanent and Rasmussen responded approximately 1,500 feet. Case asked if a portion of the city-owned right-of-way could be vacated to provide the land for the cul-de-sacs and Gray responded that the City would retain the easements so that they would have utility access at least. He thought there would be some right-of-way that could be vacated in this area. Case inquired if the City had ever exchanged land with a developer to achieve a better development and Gray responded that there were rules which govern where vacated property goes, and it is usually back to the original owners. Scott Mace, 16150 Valley Road, stated they feel that a connection between Valley Road and Hilltop Road would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents believe that the economic value of their neighborhood if the project is built. However, no one wants to have the roads connected. He requested they be left stubbed in until they are upgraded and City utilities put in, which could be as long as 15-20 years from now. He pointed out that there are five exits from the new subdivision which is more than adequate without connecting Valley Road and Hilltop Road. John Howe, 16380 Valley Road, showed a plan of the Bearpath Subdivision which has only two access points, and compared it with this development which has five access points. He inquired if there were any plans pending for acquisition of a neighborhood park for the area, since once this development was constructed it would cut off access to Staring Lake Park. The development will also create a larger demand for recreational areas in this vicinity and plans need to be made to provide access to them for neighborhood residents. Carol Hansen, 16200 Hilltop Road, was concerned about the traffic on Eden Prairie Road and believed it needed to be dealt with. Miles Stover, 16291 Hilltop Road, stated he had been notified of the second public hearing, but not the first, and he requested that the 500' notification area be expanded, perhaps to include properties within view of the subject property. He was opposed to having the roadways connected to the development. Lance Stover, 16291 Hilltop Road, stated they decided to build in this location because they could have their own water and septic system and their own street. He were opposed to having the roadway connected, and requested it become a cul- de-sac. Sharon Johnson, 16400 Valley Road and Susan Howe, 16380 Valley Road, were concerned about the degree of tree loss which would occur with the proposed development. Johnson inquired why the trees had to be removed and Gray responded because of site grading and roadway construction. Johnson asked why the City did not make the developer retain the woods as they were now, and Harris explained that property owners have a right to develop their property and plans CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 9 which come before the City are reviewed by several advisory boards and commissions who give input to the City Council on the merits of the proposals. She noted that the density of the proposed project had been reduced already. Tyra Lukens commented that many people in Eden Prairie agree that open space preservation is a high priority, which is why referendums have been passed to allow the City to purchase some tracts of land which can be preserved in their natural state. Johnson stated that if land and woods were preserved they would not need tree replacement requirements. Tyra-Lukens stated that they try to create a balance and some mature trees do not have that much longer to live, and replacement plans allow for the continuation of healthy trees throughout the City. Eden Prairie has many more trees now than they had in the past. Pidcock inquired about the trails in this area and Lambert responded that the City has twice the amount of trails that most communities in the Metro area have. Eden Prairie was the first City in the metropolitan area to have a tree replacement program. Park acreage will be acquired within the vicinity of the development and will probably be between 15-20 acres in area, and will be located south of County Road 1 and east of County Road 4. The exact location has yet to be determined. John Hansen, 16200 Hilltop Road, stated he had not found out about the proposed development until a neighbor told him. He did not see the need for the connection between Hilltop Road through to the development, and if there was no gain to the developer, he did not understand why the City was requesting this be done. Hams responded that the City has a policy of connecting roadways whenever possible to facilitate traffic flow and avoid creation of excessively long cul-de-sacs. Hanson commented that they have had no problems since the area was platted and he did not see the value of connecting the roadway through. He believed they would lose a great deal of the quality of life which they now enjoy if the road were connected. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the-Public Hearing. Motion carried unanhnously. Pidcock stated she supported leaving the roads the way they are for the neighbors who live there. She did not see the necessity or advantage of connecting them because it has been there for 46 years. Tyra-Lukens concurred with Pidcock, noting she believed the issue of how to end these roads as cul-de-sacs so that vehicles can turn around needed to be dealt with. Case stated that he believed the City should connect roads only if it truly created a traffic solution or gained access to a collector roadway. These roads have been there so long and they do not impact the new development. He inquired if there was a way to potentially connect the loop road in the future, and Gray responded that staff could look into that in the future but he believed it may be possible to obtain the necessary right-of-way from within the existing neighborhood to create the cul-de-sac. With a loop road the land needed would not be as much, but if they create the loop road they will also be creating double-fronted lots, which may have CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 10 an adverse impact on setbacks. He noted that a utility corridor may be needed through this area from the new subdivision as that is the easiest way to bring utilities into the existing neighborhood when it is upgraded. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of the cap on assessments and the potential for increasing the cost to the homeowners. Thorfinnson commented he did not think that looping the roads was a good idea and did not see how that would happen. He believed there was no compelling argument to connect these roads and did not support that. Harris commented she did not find a reason to connect these roads at this time. She shared Thorfinnson's concern about creating double-fronted lots, and believed there was a consensus on the Council not to order the roadway connections. Case inquired how they would acquire the land to construct proper cul-de-sacs. Harris inquired if the proponents would be wiling to give a sliver of land to the City to create these cul-de-sacs, and Simenstad responded affirmatively. Gray stated that it would require some land from one or two lots but he believed it could be worked out when the time came. He believed staff could design a workable solution for the termination of Valley Road and Hilltop Road. Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this plan at its meeting on July 5, 1996 and had recommended approval of the first phase, excluding Phase 2 until the Commission is able to review the landscaping plan and tree inventory. Staff will review this situation and make a recommendation prior to Second reading. Tyra-Lukens inquired if bike trails were constructed at the same time as roadways are built, and Lambert responded that was usually the case. Pidcock requested that a sign be erected on the land included in Zone B informing people of that, and saying that they should contact City Hall for additional information. Mayor Harris commented that MAC will need to respond to the City which it has not done, and inquired what would happen in the event there was no response for a period of years, and then suddenly they decided they needed this land. Pauly stated that there was a decision that the landowner has to be compensated for any taking of land which it may decide is needed for a safety zone. The City is without authority to impose additional safety zones without paying compensation to those landowners. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens to adopt Resolution No. 96- 129 for PUD Concept Review on 65 acres; approve 1 st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 65 acres, and PUD District Review on 65 acres; adopt Resolution No. 96-130 for Preliminary Plat Approval of 65 acres into 134 lots; and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission, Council and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock to approval the Payment of Claims CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 11 as submitted. Case, Pidcock, Thorfmnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voted "aye" on a roll call vote. VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOI,LTTTONS A. 1ST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY ADDING SECTION 9.82, RELATING TO THE EMERGENCY SECURING OF BUILDINGS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 7ullie gave the staff report and recommended approval of the First Reading which will give staff the authority to secure buildings which represent a danger to the public. Pidcock inquired what notices would be given to the owners of such buildings and Pauly responded that the ordinance was pursuant to the law which was adopted in the legislature and it was designed to be effective without notification in advance, as it is not done on a case by case basis. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson to approve the 1st Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 9 by Adding Section 9.82, relating to the Emergency Securing of Buildings and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 9.99. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOEVIMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. TREE POLICY TIME LINE Pidcock inquired if there was any time line on the Tree Policy and Lambert responded that the tree preservation ordinance Time line was that the Council should receive it for review and approval at their meeting on August 20, 1996. 2. BOULEVARD TREE POLICY Pidcock requested staff to provide her with a copy of the Citys policy governing boulevard trees. Lambert responded that the City did not have a policy regarding boulevard trees. 7ullie stated that right now City policy excluded trees on boulevards as they were reserved for sidewalks. Pidcock stated that she wanted to see this policy and when it was adopted. She CITY COUNCIL NE NUTES August 6, 1996 Page 12 believed perhaps it needed to be revised. Case commented it would be informative to see why the Engineering Department had determined not to put trees on boulevards and why it made sense in the past. 3. UPKEEP OF CITY HALL PROPERTY Pidcock noted that there were numerous weeds growing around the trees along Scenic Heights Boulevard, and suggested perhaps a garden club would be interested in doing some maintenance work on the City's property. It was also suggested that perhaps this was something the Volunteer Coordinator could be in charge of coordinating. 4. STARING LAKE PARKWAY & PIONEER TRAIL.I_TPGRADE Case stated that with the installation of turn lanes at the intersection of Staring Lake Parkway and Pioneer Trail it was almost impossible for pedestrians who use the trail crossing in this area to get across. He inquired if there were any plans for signalization of this intersection in the near future. Gray responded that signalization was usually based on traffic volumes, not pedestrian traffic, and staff would look into this to see if there was something that could be done in this case. Thorfinnson suggested that since one of the roads involved was a county road perhaps Hennepin County could bear a portion of the cost in this instance if signalization were done. Gray responded he will review the situation and report back to the Council. 5. MOTOR HOMES PARKED AT EL.IM SHORES Thorfinnson stated it has been brought to his attention that there were several large motor homes parked in the parking lot at Elim Shores, and he requested staff to investigate. He also had noticed the smell of raw sewage over the creek along the bike path south of his home, and he requested staff to take a look at that to determine whether there was a leak in the sewer system. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Presentation of 1995 Audit David Steen and Bill McCue representing the auditing firm of Eide Helmeke PLLP gave a presentation on the significant findings from the 1995 Financial Report. Steen discussed the audit process and legal compliance issues. They had no disagreements and found the City to be in compliance in all but one area. The City was within its budget for the year and the general fund balance is in a healthy situation. The liquor store operation has been well-managed. There was one item on the legal CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 13 compliance section regarding investments which needed revision. Pidcock inquired how they had interpreted the decrease in liquor store revenues and Steen responded that it was a general lowering of sales due to the new mall location and choices of shoppers. Pidcock inquired if cameras had been included in the plans for the new liquor store location and Uram responded they had not been included at this time but they are considering putting them in. After extensive discussions with the managers of the liquor stores, who have a minimum of eight years experience, they believed they were not needed at present. The plan to implement them in the new store, and then gradually over time, funding permitting, installing them in the other stores as well. Pidcock commented that research has shown them to be a good measure. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, that the City Council accept the 1995 Financial Reports. Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock inquired about bar coding fixed assets of the City and Uram responded that it was not possible to do an inventory and implement this process at this time given the cost of such an operation. They had discussed the possibility of implementing such a program on a department by department basis, and thereby completing an inventory every five years or so. Bar coding would require a significant initial outlay. 2. Set Date for Future Discussions on Toll Road Proposal Harris stated that the two issues before the Council were 1) Do we need and want to have Highway 212 built as soon as possible; and, 2) If the current toll road proposal is a condition we are willing to accept in return for early and certain construction of Highway 212. She stated that the preponderance of testimony, letters, and phone calls indicate the need for 212, with construction as early as possible. The disagreement is on the proposal for financing of the road. She further indicated that the toll road discussion really belongs at the level of the State. If tolling is the preferred method for constructing highways in the future, it should be clearly articulated and promoted. Harris believed that our need for the immediate and total construction of Highway 212 is pressing; but perhaps not so desperate that the Council need accept what might possibly become the only toll road in the entire State of Minnesota. She also felt we have yet to hear a clear expression of the intent to use tolls as a method of supporting future State Highway construction. Harris asked whether the Council had heard sufficient information that would lead them to cancel the second Public Hearing because of lack of support for the philosophy of tolling on Highway 212. She felt Council should proceed with the scheduling of the second Public Hearing to continue the information gathering prior to taking a vote. Harris emphasized if we were to vote to veto the "toll road" and CITY COUNCIL bIRJUTES August 6, 1996 Page 14 the second Public Hearing, it should be done with a clear understanding that the Council is not voting on the proposal which MnDot has yet to send forward, but rather on the philosophical issue of tolling. Lastly, she indicated that from information currently available, MnDot could possibly fund the westward extension of TH212, perhaps all the way into Carver County. Harris pointed out, we would not be getting the whole loaf, but we would be getting relief. Harris added in summary, if the Council proposes to send a signal to MnDot to return to traditional funding, it must also clearly emphasize that the issue is not the need for 212, but rather its discomfort and that of its citizens with the funding proposed for its construction. Case stated that he had spent hundreds of hours in conversation and study on this proposal and he would not support the toll road proposal. He stated he and Tyra-Lukens had co-authored a letter which was submitted to the Eden Prairie News stating this fact, and that they were in agreement on this issue. If the legislature is making a shift away from tax funded roadways then they need to bring this to the people of Minnesota and act accordingly. Tyra-Lukens stated she initially supported the toll road proposal because of all the plans that have been done for it. It does not make sense to expand Flying Cloud Drive to deal with these types of traffic levels. She did not believe toll roads belonged in Minnesota and she did not want them in her community. Her opposition has nothing to do with tolls themselves; rather, she believes this is a state issue and should be dealt with on that level. She believed it was the responsibility of the state to develop a comprehensive traffic plan which addressed these transportation issues as a whole. Pidcock stated she gave her word to the citizens at the last public hearing that they would have an opportunity to be heard, and she thought they should keep that promise because it would be a betrayal of public trust to do otherwise. She believed the process should be continued through to its conclusion to allow those people who had been collecting signatures for the toll road a chance to be heard. All the citizens who wish to address their Council on this issue need to have an opportunity to speak. Thorfinnson stated he meant to infer that he was angry because the legislature had not done their job and had placed their responsibility on the City. He was also concerned about taking this project out of the public bidding process. He stated that if they were taking the vote that evening he would vote against the toll road funding proposal but he supported the need for Highway 212., He was not sure about the funding issue and how it could be done. The course of action has not been completed and he has not really made up his mind. They had promised the people a process and that was important if they want to obtain all the public input and information that was available. He believed they should adhere to the process rather than sacrifice the public trust. CrrY COUNCEL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 15 Harris stated that she was discomfited by the apparent abandonment of the legislature of its clear duty to decide policy on roadway construction and placing the responsibility on Cities which border the roadway. The Council had established a process, and while a second public hearing may not bring forth any new information she was not comfortable aborting the process at this point. She thought perhaps some things had not yet been expressed. She did not believed that the City Council was undertaking the second public hearing under false pretenses or that Councilmembers were deliberately withholding their positions. She stated that the second public hearing will be a public meeting and perhaps there will be sufficient information coming forth to enable all Councilmembers to make a decision on this issue. Pidcock proposed that they not set a precedent by not following through on something they have promised the residents. Harris stated that they would have the call-in lines available for those who wished to utilize them; they would endeavor to clear up erroneous data, and would have a basic fact sheet which was factual. She believed they needed to consider the political ramifications of a gas tax, and the possibility of the legislature approving the toll road method of construction anyway. She welcomed suggestions from the public regarding means of paying for the roadway. Case stated he believed that public trust was also served by having Councilmembers declare their positions on issues once they had reached them. It would be good to have the answers and facts before them and he could see the reason for having the public hearing and supported continuing the process. He was not continuing with any charade but it would be a good thing to have all the information out in the open. Tyra-Lukens concurred with Case. After a brief discussion, the Council determined to hold the public hearing on August 27, 1996 and move the scheduled work session to another date. Harris reminded the citizens that the Council will not actually vote on this issue until September. Mike Rush, representing Eden Prairie Citizens Against Toll Roads, requested that Mayor Harris allow them an opportunity to speak at the next public hearing. 3. Update on Telecommunications Subcommittee 7ullie reviewed the staff report of August 6, 1996, and requested the City Council to direct staff to draft a Zoning Ordinance to regulate the construction of wireless telecommunications throughout the City. Several requests for installation permits have been received and the ordinance is needed to assure that the installation of these facilities is orderly and will have the least visual impact within the community. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 16 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct staff to draft a Zoning Ordinance regulating the construction of wireless communications throughout the City. Motion carried unanimously. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACIL.ITIES 1. Request from Doug and Susan Heyvaert Lambert reviewed the proposal relocate the existing outdoor riding arena from the Spring Road location to the Riley/Jacques Homestead site within Riley Lake Park. The Spring Road location will need to be moved because of the pending expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. The Heyvaerts have offered to donate money to the City to offset the costs of this proposed relocation. The Heritage Preservation Commission has recommended approval of this proposal on a unanimous vote. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission considered this item at two of its meetings, and on July 15 a motion for approval failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Tyra-Lukens inquired if any special rights or privileges would be given to the Heyvaerts and Lambert responded negatively, noting that staff has had concerns regarding potential problems with the horses, as there have been problems with horses in other areas. Tyra-Lukens inquired if the City only left the arena there for a few years what would the costs of repayment be. Lambert stated that staff was not comfortable having the park system being contributed to by private individuals with an expectation of a long-term commitment. Case inquired if the property had been surveyed for being a historical site. Lambert responded that the site had been purchased with cash park fees even though it was designated as a historic site. The City cannot put a soccer field there, but there could be an old farm building, a fishing pier, picnicking and it would part of the park. Case stated he did not believe the City should reject the offer of the Heyvaerts. Thorfinnson stated he shared concerns about taking the money and then having some problems in the long term. He thought they should accept this offer only if they could do so without restrictions. Doug Heyvaert stated it will cost them $3,000 to put the arena on this property. He wanted a commitment from the City to keep it there for a period of five years, which would make it worth his while to do this. Thorfinnson stated he would approve the concept and leave it to staff to work out the details with the Heyvaerts. Susan Heyvaert stated that timing was critical as they were intending on constructing a new barn in the spring. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens to accept the plans for relocating the riding arena from the Spring Road site to the Riley Lake site CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 6, 1996 Page 17 during the summer of 1997 with the details of this agreement to be worked out between the City and the Horsemen's Club similar to the current agreement the City has with the operation of the riding arena at the Spring Road location. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OFPUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XH. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. AWOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.