Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/03/1996 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: 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 Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL All members were present. VOTE ON HIGHWAY 212 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL Mayor Harris opened the meeting with the following statement: For the past three months, this City Council has listened attentively to the voices of Eden Prairie, both pro and con, on the construction of Highway 212 as a Toll Road. Tonight is not a Public Hearing, rather it is an opportunity for the Council to express its concerns, its views, and its decision on this issue. When first advised that the InterWest proposal was the only surviving response to MnDOT's Request for Proposals, the Council devised a schedule of open houses, town meetings, public hearings, guest opinions and letters to the editor, designed to insure maximum dissemination of information and participation for all Eden Prairie residents who wish to voice an opinion. In spite of misdirected criticism to the contrary, the process has been open, inclusive, and deliberative. In spite of exhortations to rush to early judgement, this Council has held to its original schedule in order that it have maximum information and input as we proceed to individually and, as a group, deliberate and decide. Eden Prairie citizens have had access to all the same information, all the same data, all the same presentations, all the same testimony, as the five members of this Council. Tonight we conclude this lengthy process. Personally, I have heard many voices during these three months. Voices of anger, of anguish, of disbelief, of concern, of hope, of reason, and yes, even some unreasonable voices and threats. I have not only heard but listened to their content and to their emotion. EDEN PItAIRM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 2 I have assimilated what I believe to be the core legitimate concerns. I have spent a great deal of time sifting fact from fiction in order to make a clear and reasoned decision. I have struggled with enormous expenditures of time and energy and dollars of previous community leaders, Councilmembers, and staff, in defining this corridor and trying to get it funded. I have struggled with our community's distaste for the concept of tolls - period. I have struggled with the issue of whether it is better to swallow hard, hold your nose, and take the plunge, against the real risk of absolute gridlock on our few through streets and the potential for never having this road built if we don't take advantage of this immediate opportunity. It has not been easy to come to the conclusion and decision driving my vote tonight. For it is clear to me that with continued devolvement of responsibility from national to state to local level, with continuing attempts to reduce the national debt and to contain costs at the State level, that the easy days of Federal/State partnerships in the construction of highways are over. And not over only for highway construction, but for issues of health, education, social services, as well. Our State will be hard pressed to replace these dollars and, in many instances, it will not. For these reasons, my view of the future includes the real possibility of alternative funding, not only for new highway construction, but for maintenance and replacement of existing roadways. I fear that in spite of our communal dislike of tollways, some form of volume or congestion pricing or user fees are a part of all of our future. Acknowledging that, I have struggled with my personal discomfort with several issues surrounding our decision tonight. The two most difficult for me are first, the absence of a clearly articulated State strategy on use and kind of alternative funding strategies for future highway construction throughout the State, and secondly, the process the Legislature has put in place for voting new highway construction up or down. As early as 1993, the Legislature passed, and Governor Arne Carlson signed into law, a measure authorizing MnDOT or road authorities in Minnesota to develop, finance, design, construct, improve, rehabilitate, own and operate toll facilities, and to enter into agreement with private operators for the construction, maintenance, and operation of toll facilities. To this date, and through the Tuesday, August 27 Public Hearing, I have yet to hear MnDOT clearly state that tollways are a component of the overall State strategy for both the Arrowhead, the southwest corridor, the Pipestone area, the Minnesota River Valley, or even the toe of the Minnesota boot. As to the second issue, if the road were to be constructed from St. Paul to Cologne, each community through which it passed, would have the option of vetoing it. Thus, if nine out of ten communities and counties and governmental entities wanted it but one did not, the road would not be constructed. To me this seems a poor and unrealistic way to make regional and State policy, and I would suggest that this legislation needs to be revisited and, perhaps, revised. So, I have been stuck on the horns of a real dilemma. This road is needed; I have problems with the process. I have driven this City in the early morning hours, in the EDEN PRAMM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 3 middle of the day, and in the evening rush hours. There is no question that a new route is needed to the southwest corridor. Our City of cul-de-sacs was built on the premise that a new 212 is to be constructed. We could open some of these cul-de-sacs at great expense and great disruption to our current City residents. But this is highly unlikely. This means, therefore, that this and future Councils will and must insist on opening the remaining 37 stub cul-de-sacs to more evenly distribute our internal traffic. And even then, I fear that there will still be clear and convincing evidence that this roadway is needed. Tonight I am going to ask you, my fellow Councilmembers, to separate the need for the road from its financing. I am going to ask you to reaffirm our support for the construction of Highway 212, in a motion separate and apart from a subsequent vote on the proposal for its construction as a toll road. Following this vote, we will proceed to a discussion on the merits of the construction of Highway 212 as a toll road. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, that the Eden Prairie City Council send a strong message to MNDoT, the state legislative leaders and Governor Carlson that we support the need for a new Highway 212 along the corridor as has been proposed, and that we request the very earliest construction of the highway regardless of the outcome of the vote on the financing plan. Motion carried unanimously. Each Councilmember then read a statement. Councilmember Thorfinnson's statement follows: During the course of the last several months, I have had the opportunity to hear from many people in regards to this issue. Even today, people were calling to voice their opinions. I can say for certain, this is an emotional issue. I'm not sure there is anyone in Eden Prairie, if not the state of Minnesota, without an opinion. Several weeks ago, the City Council discussed cutting short the debate and taking a vote on the issue. At that time, I strongly advocated for allowing the established process to continue. I felt that there were many people who had not had the opportunity to express their feelings, and that has proven to be the case. I have heard from more people during the last several weeks than in all the weeks and months preceding. I want to thank everyone that has contacted me either by mail or by phone. My apologies for not getting back to all of you, but the calls and letters were overwhelming. I can assure you that I read every letter and listened to every message. Some have said we dragged our feet on this issue, and that we should have voted it down immediately. We did what we always do. We allowed a proponent to bring forward a proposal, we gathered information, opened it up to public input, got questions and concerns answered, and have carefully weighed all of that information. This proposal has received more time and public input, than any other issue during my time on this council. This is the process at work. Thank God for the process. Much of my education about this issue and the toll road process has occurred during the last three weeks. I have been able to answer most of my EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 4 concerns and have received information and input I never would have had. It has clarified my position on the issue and led me to make the decision I have made. I want to address some of my feeling and concerns about this issue. First, let there be no mistake in anyone's mind that I am a supporter of and will continue to be an advocate for the building of Hwy. 212. Having lived in this city for more than 19 years, I have seen many of the changes that have come with growth. One change obviously is the increase in traffic. It will get worse. How much worse? Who knows, the estimates vary, but it's a safe bet that it will get worse. Without a new Hwy. 212, Eden Prairie will strangle on traffic trying to get to or from Minneapolis from the west. The route for Hwy. 212 has long been established, much of the right of way in Eden Prairie has been purchased and development has been guided with that route in mind, including Miller Park. We will continue to develop along that corridor with the eventual building of Hwy. 212 included in all of the City's planning. Some have suggested that the State Legislature has abdicated its responsibility in regards to this toll road proposal. At one point, even I felt that way. After careful thought, I am very reluctant to lay that on the Legislature. Local governments have long sought more local control in regards to decision making and the spending of money. If anything, the one good thing that came out of this legislation was the local veto power. The veto prevents MnDot and the State Legislature from pushing anything down the throat of the local government. However, the Hwy. 212 toll road is not just a local issue. Bob Lindahl, in his opening comments last week, said it is a regional problem, that perhaps it should even by viewed as a state issue, not just a problem of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. And, ... therein lies the rub. If anything, all of the communities west of here should have had the ability to vote on this toll road, with its approval based on the majority's decision. But, even that process would have its flaws. The issue of toll roads in Minnesota is indeed a statewide issue. In Eden Prairie we are being told that Hwy. 212 will not be built within the next 20 years using traditional funding methods. There is no more money they say. And, ... when you listen to their arguments there is not enough money currently allocated to highway construction to build or upgrade every highway on the list. But, you need to dig a little deeper to get to the scoop. There is approximately$400,000,000 available for highway construction statewide. That's what is remaining out of the $900,000,000 per year allocated to highway financing, the balance going to operations and maintenance of highways. By state law one half of the $400,000,000 is spent out-state, which leaves just$200,000,000 for highway construction, new and upgraded, in the metro area on an annual basis. Not enough money to make a dent in the highway needs of the metro area. Projects, therefore, are scheduled and need regional approval before funding is allocated. They can sit on a wish list for years without receiving the approval and funding to go forward. Or worse yet, decisions are made on EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 5 a piecemeal basis, handing out the small amount of money available across the metro area to pacify the greatest number of people. I submit that that is a poor way to make regional and statewide transportation decisions. Several factors have combined to create this funding crisis. There is less Federal money available for highway construction than in the past. The per gallon gas tax revenues have dropped as cars have become more efficient. The mandated use of ethanol has further reduced the gas tax revenues because no tax is collected on ethanol. To further the crisis, beginning July 1, 1996, all of the revenues from the sales tax on motor vehicles, approximately $332,000,000, will be redirected to the state's general fund. Transportation now needs to compete with other funding priorities for it's own money from the general fund. No matter how you look at it, a toll road is a tax. Some call it a user fee. I say we already have the ultimate user fee, the gas tax. Does it need to be increased? Is it being spent wisely? The gas tax should be revisited and these and other questions answered. We reside in a state where taxes are among the highest in the nation. We already pay high property taxes, we already pay high income taxes and we already have a 6.5% sales tax. There is plenty of money, we are choosing to spend it on something other than highway construction. Let's examine our priorities, spend our money wisely and make some tough choices. If highway construction is deemed to be such a low priority that funds are not to be available, then perhaps toll roads are the only way. No one has convinced me that we are at that point. If we are, then the State Legislature MnDot and the Governor have done a very poor job of communicating that position. Highway 494 and its expansion to three lanes to Carlson Parkway and to Highway 100 is critical to Eden Prairie and the other south and west suburbs. The twice daily gridlock on 494 would only be made worse by a new Hwy. 212 and the upgrading of Hwy. 5. And, the fact that there will only be a temporary upgrading of the interchange at Hwy. 494 and Hwy. 169 further complicates the issue. We are happy to see that MnDot has committed to adding a third lane on Hwy 494 from Hwy. 212 to Hwy. 100 but it is only a temporary solution, a full rebuild is absolutely necessary. Another example of the hit and miss planning and funding that is being used. In conclusion, no matter how I vote there will be many unhappy people. In the short run, there is no question that we as a city with some difficulty can survive without Hwy. 212. In the long run, it is clear that highway improvements will be necessary as we deal with the ever increasing traffic. Either position leaves someone dissatisfied. I am sorry for that. As always I have made my decision based on what I think is best for the community. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 6 The question is; what is the community? In this case the State Legislature, MNDot and the Governor have made the region if not the State of Minnesota, the community. In that light, and with a tremendous amount of thought, I must vote to veto the current Hwy. 212 toll road proposal. By doing so, I am sending this issue back to the State Legislature, MnDot and particularly the Governor of the State of Minnesota and asking them to revisit the issue of highway construction funding and either allocate the money necessary to fund highway construction in a fiscally responsible manner or make the case for toll roads and be out front, on the firing line, stating that position. Once again thank you all for your input. Councilmember Pidcock's statement: My thirteen years spent working on the Southwest Corridor Transportation Commission leads me to believe that this is the only opportunity Eden Prairie residents will have to get stop-light free lanes on Hwy. 5 from County Road 4 to Hwy. 494. The passions on both sides of this issue remind me of my arrival in Minnesota 38 years ago when the raging issue of the day was, then as now, urban versus rural. At that time the issue was, should we or should we not have "day-light" saving time. Rural people said if we would have day-light saving time the time clocks of the cows and chickens would be haywire. Thirty eight years later the chickens are laying eggs, the cows are supplying milk and day-light saving time is on a regular national schedule. The people here today who are opposed to this roadway brought the city to my doorstep. You have made us urban. I would like not to have to put up with the traffic congestion created by 46,000 people living in this community. I have been elected to put policies in place that are in the best interest and for the long-term welfare of the city. Sometimes it is necessary to do what is not popular. Like a parent who has a child throwing a temper tantrum, you don't give into that temper but allow it to subside and later deal with reason. Knowing that a road is needed and that there are no funds available under usual means to build that road creates a dilemma. MNDoT suggested a toll road and held open bidding for those wishing an opportunity to bid to do so. A toll concept is a radical change in thinking for Minnesotans. We have been told there is no money to build a freeway. It is either a toll road or no road. I have visited with a number of legislators who are on the Transportation Committee and they assure me there is no money. Must we mandate that people use our public transportation system and ride share to use the highways? When those of you who are opposed to a new road have relocated will you care about the traffic problems of Eden Prairie? I have received hundreds of letters in support and in opposition to this project. Some of my best friends have called in opposition. The facts of the project have been distorted and the truth shaded so that I know that many people are making false assumptions regarding EDEN PP kUUEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 7 what would or would not occur in the construction period. I know with certainty that there will be retribution to the City of Eden Prairie by other agencies for our failure to accept this opportunity and it will be fifteen or twenty more years before we get this needed transportation spoke. I'd briefly like to mention my position on the legislature placing this home rule project in my lap. I'm a mature person with wisdom and discernment and have always believed that one should have the courage to deal with and make a decision on what comes down the pike. I have not seen any legislator here, except Tom Workman, who seemed to have the slightest interest in our area or what is going on here. With my 13 years of work on Hwy 5 and Hwy 212 I therefore vote that it is in the best interests of our city to allow the road to proceed. Pidcock noted that she had received an opinion from the Attorney General that she could vote on this matter. Mayor Hams' statement: In my opening statement, I identified my two major concerns with the proposal before us. They are: the absence of a clearly defined State strategy for the utilization of toll roads as the or one among many methods of new highway construction, and the process for approval of highways. I will add to that a third one, and that is the absence of regional strategy that assists in a more positive way the impact of traffic flowing to and through Eden Prairie from the south and west. Such a strategy would include construction of additional lanes to distribute traffic both north and east on 494, and would reduce the dumping that will occur with increased traffic coming from the south and west on Highway 212. I have lived in the east where tolls are fairly common. I have found them to be a minor inconvenience. I have also lived in communities where tolls have been removed when the payment for the construction was completed. I, therefore, have a slightly different perspective than many people who have spoken so vividly and strongly about the use of tollways. However, what is offered to us tonight is not truly a regional strategy for a local and regional problem. Traffic will still be bottle-necked in Eden Prairie. We need redistribution both north to 394 and east to 100 to eliminate the difficulty encountered today on 394 where the lanes go from three to two, back to three lanes. I am also discomforted with the decision process. In the long run, as elected officials, we must demonstrate both leadership and responsiveness. Putting aside the organized resistance, the preponderance of calls, letters and personal intercessions over the last several weeks have led me to understand that the true opposition is not to the road, but to the idea and concept of tolls. We have just reaffirmed our position in strong construction of the roadway. As an elected representative of the residents of Eden Prairie, I am going to vote NO to the proposal before us. I do not take this step lightly. In fact, I struggled even last evening with my knowledge of the need of the road versus the philosophy of tolling. I have received many calls and letters from EDEN PRAIRIE, CITY COUNCIL AUNUTES September 3, 1996 Page 8 elected officials, from residents and businesses and communities south and west of us. I share their need and concern that the road be built as soon as possible, and yet it appears to me that a flawed process should not proceed further. I encourage our Legislature to revisit the language of the current legislation. I encourage MnDOT to state clearly and unequivocally its position on use of this method of financing of new highway construction. I encourage all those residents who have devoted so much time to educating, counseling, voicing opinions to the Council, to now turn your attention to our State Legislature- especially those on committees which make decisions regarding highway and transportation funding. Eden Prairie will not, and cannot, be the expedient experiment. Eden Prairie will not, and cannot, be the sole toll road in the State of Minnesota. Councilmember Tyra-Lukens' statement: As you have heard, this has been a very difficult issue for all of us. I want to thank all of you for all your phone calls, letters, and statements made at our forums. I considered all the opinions presented, but I am sorry that I was unable to return all the calls just due to the sheer volume. Thank you for your involvement in the process. And thank you also for the fact that you are sticking around to hear what I have to say even thought you are mentally tallying up the votes and know that the issue has failed! My position has been obvious to anyone who has read the paper in the last few weeks. You have invested a great deal of time in this issue and many of my concerns with this project and process have now been voiced by Mayor Harris and Councilmember Thorfinnson so I won't go over them now. I just have a few brief comments to make. First for those who wish this were to pass. After all we in Eden Prairie probably won't use it and it will help take traffic off our local highways. My fear is that if we open the door to toll roads then eventually improvements to 494 and Crosstown may be made through making them toll roads. Then we will find ourselves in the situation that we cannot leave Eden Prairie without taking toll roads. Also, as you know, a significant amount of state funding is going into this road. Will those in St. Paul look upon this as our fair share of the transportation funding pot, and not allocate us money to improve the free roads that those of us in Eden Prairie do drive? We have been asked, "isn't this the kind of local control that city governments are asking for?" I would argue that this is neither the project nor the process for local control. This is not a situation where the state is giving us our share of transportation funding and saying spend this as you see fit on transportation. We do not hold the purse strings or the control in this situation. Furthermore, transportation is a system, and not a closed system at that, so local control is not sensible. As we have said, most Eden Prairie residents would not use this road. It will be used by those west of us driving through. And they are not getting input into this decision! EDEN PPAHUF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 9 As a statewide issue the legislature should be deciding on this toll road as part of an equitable, overall, long term, clearly articulated approach to highway funding. For these and many other reasons I will vote in opposition to the toll road. Councilmember Case's statement: Eden Prairie today is a truly great place to live. We're populated by nearly 50,000 people who have chosen to live here for the suburban experience, great schools, an excellent park system, and an over-all high quality of life. Basically, we're successful people, with good jobs, above average priced homes, townhouses, and apartments and a rather positive outlook on life. We're also very generous. We acknowledge our blessings. Our community sustains more than a dozen churches, participates in Habitat for Humanity and countless other service projects and shares millions of our tax dollars with other less fortunate communities around the 7 county metro area. Government should not punish this kind of success. On the contrary, Government should hold up the Eden Prairies of the state as shining examples of how it is supposed to work. So, why then, are we perceived as being insensitive to the needs of the core cities for no other reason than that we don't share some of their problems? Why are we threatened by government agencies with additional losses of our hard earned tax dollars if we don't raise our densities, crowd our streets, and pack kids into our schools? Why are we asked to pay into the construction of everyone else's highways, but then asked to build our own? I think the residents of Eden Prairie are tired and frustrated. We're tired of being punished for our successes. We're tired of being the lowest of priorities, except when it comes to collecting our money. We're tired of the unfair treatment, the inadequate representation at the legislature, and the lack of positive recognition for all of the good that we do for this region. It is within this climate that the 212 tollway concept has arisen. This tollway, not the road, is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. One is that I don't believe Minnesotans want tollways. Therefore the State Legislature has one of three options: Allow our state highway system to fall apart, raise the gas tax, or initiate a system of tollways throughout the state over the objections of most of the people. Either way, it is the state's responsibility to choose the course we should go. Another reason to vote against the tollway is that MNDot has some serious prioritizing problems that need to be addressed. For decades roads have been built with a lot less EDEN PRAIRIE, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 10 demonstrated need than the 50,000 cars projected daily to drive on 212. Roads built with tax dollars, some of which came from Eden Prairie. As a legislator I would vote against this particular proposal because all other funding alternatives have not been exhausted. As a Minnesotan I would vote it down because we have set a quality of life standard in Minnesota that doesn't have room for tollways. And as an Eden Prairian, I am going to cast my vote against this tollway on behalf of all of our frustrated taxpayers, who just don't understand how government can punish people who are doing what is right. We work hard, we pay a lot in taxes, we support people all over the region and the state, we vote in high percentages, we pass our education and park referendums: In short, we've placed our faith, hope and trust in a system that is now slamming a door in our face. And I am really angry about that. Citizens deserve better from their government. To ask the southwestern suburbs to fund the construction themselves of a highway that is clearly recognized as a high priority for people in the entire southwestern quadrant of the state is nothing short of an outrage. So, on behalf of the people of Eden Prairie, I say, "Enough is enough." I say no to this type of unfair treatment, I say no to double taxation, and I say no to bad government. But I don't plan to just go away silently. In fact I pledge myself to become a very noisy advocate for Eden Prairie, for government not punishing success, for parity in highway construction spending, for honoring Eden Prairie's contributions to the region and the state. And I challenge our legislators to become as visible in advocating for Eden Prairie as Myron Orfield has so effectively done for his constituents in Minneapolis. I am prepared in my heart for 212 not to be built for a long time. But I hope that the Legislature and the Met Council will come to their senses and bring us back a new 212 project much sooner rather than later. I also hope they will begin to celebrate the successes evident in the lives of the people who live in Eden Prairie and would stop punishing the very success that government seeks from its citizens. I am so proud of Eden Prairie and the people who live here. I am proud of our accomplishments as individuals and as a city. And even though the majority of us would like to see a 212 funded by tax dollars, I believe the great majority of Eden Prairie residents do not want 212 at the inordinately unfair high price of it being a tollway. With a clear conscience and vision for our future, I will vote "Yes" this evening to veto the 212 tollway proposal. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to veto the Highway 212 Toll Road project as described in the AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE THE T.H. 212 TOLL ROAD FACILITY PROJECT AMONG THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, THE 212 COAMUNITY HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION, AND INTERWEST/DLR GROUP EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 11 INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC. Motion carried with Pidcock opposed. Pidcock announced that she had resigned her position on the Highway 212 Board as of last week. Harris thanked the audience for their approval. She suggested that she and City Manager Jullie invite the mayors and others from the other communities to meet and begin a strategy that will bring about the construction of Hwy 212 as expeditiously as possible. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jullie added item IV.H. SOUTHWEST CROSSING/GOLDEN TRIANGLE BUSINESS CENTER. Pidcock added item XI.A.1. Clocks. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. OPEN PODIUM M. MENUTES A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ARTS COMMISSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the Joint City Council/Arts Commission Meeting held Tuesday, August 6, 1996, as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996 Case said paragraph 6, page 4 should read: "Case stated his support that the Environmental &Waste Management Commission work on the problem that we have an ordinance that is recognized ..." MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August 20, 1996, as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION 96-142 TO CONTINUE PARTILCIPATTON IN THE LIVABLE COAIMUNITEES PRO RAM C. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT by John Stedman. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 35-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 12 Adoption of Resolution 96-143 for Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Impact Marketing Development by John Stedman. Location: Baker Road and Hwy 62. (Ordinance 35-96 for Zoning District Change and Resolution 96-143 for Site Plan Review) D. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 36-96 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.30, TO BAN LAWN IRRIGATION BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12:01 PM AND 5:00 PM E. RESOLUTION 96-144_APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF HARTFORD PLACE RETAIL ADDITION (Heated at the northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drivel F. RESOLUTION 96-145 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BEARPATH TOWNHOMES 3RD ADDITION G. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES H. SOUTHWEST CROSSING GOLDEN TRIANGLE BUSMESS CENTER by MEPC American Properties, Inc. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 11.10 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 11.10 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Southwest Crossing Golden Triangle Business Center by MEPC American Properties, Inc. Location: Golden Triangle Drive and Viking Drive. (Ordinance 34-96-PUD-13-96 for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park and Resolution 96-146 for Site Plan Review) MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve items A-H on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER by City of Eden Prairie. Request for Zoning District Change from C-HWY to C-REG-SER on 1.76 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.76 acres. Location: Den Road and West 78th Street. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Enger said this project is for construction of the third liquor store in Eden Prairie. He introduced Mike Wilkus who reviewed the proposal. Pidcock asked what the difficulty is in leasing the 7000 square foot area. Wilkus said they just engaged the leasing agent about a month go. Pidcock was concerned about approving such a large area and not having the income from a tenant. Enger said we will work at the construction estimates, the bidding, and the leasing. Enger said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 13 proposal at its August 26, 1996 meeting, subject to the Staff Report of August 23. The main item of concern was the significant trees on the site. Although we will be using only about 17% of the site, there will be a significant change in the site when it is graded. We will save the trees along the perimeter and will replace as many as possible on the site. The Parks Commission did not review the project. Pidcock asked about the size of the significant trees. Enger said there are some ash trees in excess of 12 inches. Pidcock then asked what the life span of that size tree would be. Enger said they could live to be 100 years old. Pidcock was concerned that we would make the same mistake as on the corner of Mitchell and Anderson Lakes Parkway. She would like to see us retain as much old growth as we can. Enger said we will retain about seven of the large significant trees. Thorfinnson asked about the size of the sign for the project and questioned why is it okay to put a sculpture on this building but it wasn't okay for the Big Woods project. Enger said the sign is measured in accordance with the sign ordinance. Wilkus said the sculpture is not physically attached to the building. Tyra-Lukens thought the sculpture was an important architectural element. Enger said we need to be consistent and should make this similar to the ones at Doolittle's and Ciatti's. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from C-HWY to C-REG-SER on 1.76 acres. Motion carried unanimously. B. ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia. Request for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.3 acres into 10 lots. Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive. (Ordinance for Rezoning and Resolution 96-147 for Preliminary Plat) Jay Jasper, representing proponent, reviewed the proposal for ten townhomes with prices in the $225,000 to $275,000 range. Enger said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this project at its August 12, 1996 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the August 9, 1996, Staff Report. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommended approval on a 3-1 vote at the August 19, 1996 meeting. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 14 Commissioner Koenig voted against the project because of the steep grades and the grading on the adjacent property necessary to make this project work. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to approve lst Reading of the Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-147 for Preliminary Plat approval of 4.3 acres into 10 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. C. MITCHELL BAY TWIN HOMES by Noecker and Associates. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .75 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.5 acres and Preliminary Plat on 1.5 acres. Location: Terrey Pine Drive. (Resolution 96-148 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Ordinance for Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 and Resolution 96-149 for Preliminary Plat) Randy Noecker, representing proponent, reviewed the project for two twin home buildings. He said several variances are being applied for and there are three easements required for the project. Enger said the Planning Commission voted 6 - 0 to approve this project at its August 12, 1996 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the August 9 Staff Report. There are variances with regard to shoreland that will need to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The Guide Plan calls for middle density on the east part and low density on the west side of the property. The twin home development would be a reasonable use of the property. The Parks Commission did not review the project. Tyra-Lukens liked the fact that the significant trees are saved on this project but was uncomfortable with the variances on the shoreland ordinance. She asked if the ten units the property is currently guided for could be put on the property without variances. Enger said there was no site plan developed with ten units, but it would have to be a multi-family unit. Tyra-Lukens said she would like to understand what the hardship is and if all the barriers were there when it was purchased. Noecker said all of the things were there when he purchased the property. Tyra-Lukens asked what is entailed in proving hardship. Enger said they look at the conditions on the site that are unique to the site which would cause unreasonable restriction of the property if all the requirements of the ordinance were followed. Noecker said they looked at a plan that would get about eight units on the parcel EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 15 but it would be out of character with the neighborhood. He thought that an eight- unit building might be within the requirements for the shoreland ordinance. Thorfinnson asked if we are being asked to approve the variances tonight. Enger said the Board of Appeals would review the variances, but only if the Council approves the project tonight. Harris did not have a problem with the setbacks, and she thought an effort had been made to blend the project with the existing neighborhood and to make it a quality project. She was unclear about how many of the current limiting physical conditions were there when the land was purchased. Enger believed all the conditions were there. He noted all of the conditions for the variances could be met if the property for these units were to be owned in common so that there was only one lot. Case asked why the process has the project brought to the Council first before it is reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Enger said sometimes it does go to them first. Proponent could appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals if they reverse the decision of the Council. Case said he was concerned about the precedence for more variances. Noecker said he originally showed a five-unit plan with one structure but decided against that because it is difficult to market the internal units. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 96-148 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .75 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Rezoning from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.54 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-149 for Preliminary Plat Approval on 1.54 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. REALITY INTERACTIVE by Oppidan Investment Company. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 6.42 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 100 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.42 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 6.42 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 20.5 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of a 40,000 square foot building. Location: Equitable Drive. (Resolution 96-150 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution 96-151 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, and Resolution 96-152 for Preliminary Plat) Keith Ulstad, representing proponent, reviewed the project to construct a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse building. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 16 Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at the August 12, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 9. He noted the area was originally reserved for office construction, hence the request for waivers in the Industrial District to be mostly office. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the project at the August 19, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a 4-0 vote, contingent on the condition that the soft surface trail be relocated by Equitable Life to a site suitable for pedestrian traffic to the existing soft surface trail along Purgatory Creek. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfmnson, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 96-150 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 6.42 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-151 for PUD Concept Amendment on 100 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 6.42 acres and PUD District Review with waivers on 6.42 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-152 for Preliminary Plat approval of 20.5 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. Ulstad said they had originally requested an early grading permit but they probably will not be able to begin construction this fall anyway so they do not need the permit. E. RESEARCH ADDITION by Research, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 26.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 26.2 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 26.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 26.2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 26.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: Flying Cloud Drive. (Resolution 96-153 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 96-154 for Preliminary Plat) Claude Johnson and John Dietrich, representing proponent, reviewed the request to approve a subdivision to readjust the lot line so that a lot can be sold to Starkey Labs. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at the August 12, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 9, 1996. The project was not reviewed by the Parks Commission. There were no comments from the audience. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 17 Harris noted she was impressed by the quality of product and the morale of the employees when she visited Research, Inc. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 96-153 for PUD Concept Review on 26.2 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 26.2 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-154 for Preliminary Plat approval of 26.2 acres into 2 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pideock, Thorfmnson, Tyra- Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 96-155 ADOPTING 1997 PROPOSED TAX LEVY AND ACCEPTING 1997 PROPOSED BUDGET Jullie said the resolution certifies the maximum tax levy for 1997, sets the Truth- in-Taxation hearing dates for December 4, and, if necessary, December 16, 1996, and accepts the 1997 Proposed Budget that was reviewed at the Council/Staff Workshop earlier this evening. Harris asked if this is a net levy on tax capacity and a levy on market value. Jullie said the legislature made some changes a few years ago whereby certain referenda such as Park Referenda have to be spread against market value of the property whereas other tax levies go on tax capacity, which is a formula that skews the burden towards commercial property. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve Resolution 96-155 adopting the City's Proposed 1997 Property Tax Levy, setting the dates for the Truth-In-Taxation hearings, and accepting the Proposed Budget for General Operations and Tax Supported Obligations for 1997. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION 96-156 ADOPTING THE 1997 PROPOSED LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE TAX LEVY Jullie noted the City Council has determined that the levy for transit service shall become a local responsibility because of the major benefits to the community in terms of being able to keep a substantial portion of the revenue from the transit operation. The Council is being asked to certify the proposed 1997 Net Local EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 18 Transit Service Tax Levy and to set the dates for the Truth-In-Taxation Hearings. The budget is approved by the three-member City Board of Southwest Metro Transit. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adopt Resolution 96- 156 adopting the City's Proposed 1997 Local Transit Service Tax Levy and setting the dates for the Truth-In-Taxation hearings. Motion carried unanimously. VM. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Clocks Pidcock noted the four clocks on the City water tower are showing four different times. Tyra-Lukens also noted that they are not lit up. Dietz said we believe we received a lightning strike two or three weeks ago. We have ordered surge protectors for the clocks to keep this from happening again. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS. RECREATION & FACILITIES 1. TREE PRESERVATION TASK FORCE REPORT Stu Fox thanked the members of the Task Force for their work. and said they found out that things are going very well. We are actually gaining tree cover as we become more developed. Fox reviewed the September 3, 1996, report from the Task Force, noting the City Attorney suggested that several of the issues be formulated into a policy to see how they work. Those issues included the recommendation that trees be replaced with similar species, that in some cases saving masses of trees is as important as saving a few large significant trees, that there be a goal to minimize the loss of large significant trees in areas of remnant pieces of big woods, and that there be a policy and criteria established to allow a tree to be nominated for Exceptional Tree designation. Fox said both the Planning Commission and the Parks Commission have unanimously recommended Council approval of the report. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1996 Page 19 Case noted the Task Force was not part of the discussion regarding Exceptional Tree designation and asked if the designation must be part of the development project or if the designation can occur before a project is proposed. Fox said it would come with a development proposal. Case thought the Heritage Preservation Commission is eligible to designate trees as part of the CLG project. He asked if it would help to alert City residents to let Staff know about such trees so that we could begin an inventory list. Fox said we have a list that people have called in. Case suggested Staff prepare a map with the location of such trees for the Council to use when development projects come through. Pidcock asked if significant trees on projects such as the Mitchell property could have been saved had we known the size ahead of time. Fox said they did a tree survey, and 90% of the significant trees there were cottonwood, with one or two oaks and basswoods. If the trees are damaged or diseased, they are not included in the count. Thorfinnson asked if the oak tree at Research, Inc. would qualify as a significant tree. Case and Tyra-Lukens thought it should be put on the list. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Tree Preservation Task Force Report as per the Staff agenda report of September 3, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. AD I-1RNMENT MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.