Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/20/1985 d APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL 'rr TU ESDAY , AUGUST 20, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL (MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock , & Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jul l i e, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Ser- vices Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE R^LL CALL: City Manager Jullie was in Chicago attending a FSLA Seminar. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: -,III . K. Set Special Meeting of the City Council for Tuesday, Se tember 10 n8-5, at 7 , 30 p.n. in the_ 4 School Administration Boardroom: and X. A, Anderson - Discussion on Grading Permits. Pin rTIO.�• h and Other . Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda a t Items of "usiness as amended and published. P1otion carried unanimously. II . MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meetino held .Tuesday. June 4; A-985 pace 3: para . 8. line 4 - chancae "rel ect to "reflect". page 5: para. 1 . line 4 - add - "it is understood that" before "no consider- ation" . page 10- para. 7. line 1 - change "office" to "officer MOTION: Bentley moved: seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 4. 1985 ' as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. June 18: 1985 MOTIOM: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath. to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday; June 18, 1985, as published. Motion carried with Anderson abstaining. City Council Minutes -2- August 20 1985 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Award contract for Preserve Boulevard Improvements . I .C. 52-071 (Reso- lution No. 85-185 B. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed 1985 Special Assessment Rolls and set Public Hearing date or Tuesday, September 17, 1985 C. PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS b Derrick Land Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 2-85, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 6. 61 acres; approval of Developer's Aareement for Prairie Village Apart- ments; and adoption of Resolution No. 85-118, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 2-85 and ordering publication of said Ordinance. 14.25 acres into two lots and one outlot for two, 56-unit apartment buildings. Location: Gonyea 4th Addition, Outlot B. D. HIGHWAY #101/VALLEY VIEW ROAD. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 29-85. Zoning District change from Rural to R1-22, for 3.62 acres] adoption of Resolution No. 85-194, authorizing Summary of -Ordinance No . 29-85 and ordering publica- tion of said Summary, Location: northeast quadrant of Hiqhway #101 and Valley View Road. E. TECHNOLOGY PARK b Techology Park Associates, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Technology Park Planned Uni—F-9evelopment Concept, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-85 , Zoning District change from Rural to I-2 Park for 4. 5 acres; approval of Developer's Aarement for Tech Park III,- and adoption of Resolution No. 85-197, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No, 19-85 and ordering Publication of said Ordinance. Location: south and east of Valley View Road, west of Washington Avenue, north of Viking Drive, and east of Smetana Road. F. HERZOG ADDITION by K,P. Properties: 2nd Reading of Ordinance No, 20-85, Zoning District change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35 acres: approval of Resolution No. 85-195, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 20-85 and ordering publication of said Summary. 5.35 acres into ten single family lots. Location: southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Road and South Shore Lane. G Final Plat Approval for Herzog Addition (Resolution No. 85-192) H. HAGEN SYSTEMS by Hagen Systems. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 23-85-PUD-4-85, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District change from Rural to I.2 Park, on 3.02 acres : approval of Developer's Agreement for Hagen Systems ; adoption of Resolution No , 85-198, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 23-85-PUD. 4-85, and ordering publication of said Summary. Location: east of City West Parkway and west of Highway #169. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 1 . Change Order No. 4. N.E. Quadrant Prairie Center Drive, I ,C. 51-308A J. Cha nge' Order No. 1, Eden Road & Si ngl etree Lane, I .C. 5-2-0-11 City Council Minutes -3- August 20, 1985 K. Set Special Fleeting of the City Council for Tuesday, September 10, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. . in the School Adrninistraton Boardroom. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve items A - G and I - K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE by Chimo Development Corporation. Request for a revised Planned Unit Development Concept Review an nvironmental Assess- ment Worksheet for a range of 209-249 units of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. Location: north of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road. (Resolution No. 85-196) Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated this request, if approved, would still need to go through the rezoning and platting process. Greg Kallenberger, Chimo Development, and Roger Freeburg; architect, said they were present this evening largely to answer questions. Planning Director Enger noted the Planning Commission had reviewed this request at its July 22, 1985, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval of a concept plan in a range of 209 - 249 units adopted subject to the plans and Staff Report of July 19, 1985. Redpath asked why the proponent had not come back with any change. Kallenberger said the proponent is trying to determine a range at which they can be comfor- table and which will be acceptable to the City and they wished to do this at this point before any further plan development has occurred. Redpath asked about the road connection to the south, Kallenberger stated there has been a realignment with Stonewood Court which would direct traffic to the north. Peterson asked if the developer would have an option on the road to the south. Kallenberger said that land is under the control of the Gustafsons; there is no option on that property. Bentley said he felt that the proponents inability to do the type of inter- section which was discussed at great length previously would jeopardize the project. Kallenberger asked if Bentley was referring to the double "T" intersection. Bentley indicated that was what he was referring to. Kallen- berger said they would do whatever they had to do. Pidcock asked how this could be done if they did not own the land. Kallenberger said he did not have an answer for that; he did not know how they could comply to that request, Pidcock asked how many units would have to be removed to come into the 209-unit range. Kallenberger said he did not have a direct answer to that but that they would have to look at getting a better mix in the building types , City Council Minutes -4- August 20, 1985 ` Pidcock asked if Enger had any information to help resolve this . Enger said there would be design solutions but the Planning Staff had not seen a plan which reflects the range; he stated that taking buildings out would loosen up the center of the site. Anderson noted he had made the motion in support of the 209 - 249 range and now he felt disappointed because the proponent had not been able to come up with something which fits that ranae. Kallenberger said he did not feel that there was a specific range indicated at the last City Council meeting at which this was reviewed. He said this is still in the concept stage. Kallenberger said he was not sure that 209 was the magic number nor did he know whether or not 249 was either. Enger said he felt that 249 units was too dense particularly in the center of the site -- there were too many buildings and they were too close together. Bentley asked if the problem might be that this site should not be guided for medium density residential use. Enger said that is what the City had designated this site as and which means that up to 10 units per acre are allowed; the designation of medium density residential does have some validity in this case. Enger noted that the maximum of 10 units per acre has yet to be proven. Bentley asked if this project had been designated as largely rental all along. Enqer said he recalled that originally it was scheduled with smaller units which were going to be sold. Bentley said he recalled it was to have been a condominium project. Bentley said the Council should keep in mind that it must let the residents and the developer know just what type of density the City wants. Anderson concurred. Anderson said he has walked that area and , because of the terrain and the natural features of the property, this is a very unique area. The Council must determine how this can be a worthwhile project. Kallenberger said he did not think that this particular plan fits and there is work to be done on the plan. He said he felt this plan orients well with the terrain but that more specific plans would be coming back to the Council for its review -- the issue which he hoped would be determined this evening was that of density range and concept approval . Enaer noted the Planning Commission had recommended a base of 209 units and stated the Planning Staff had put together a schematic showing the bottom range. This was shown to the City Council . Peterson indicated concern had been expressed about the stacking of the buildings; the view from the floodplain would give the impression of four buildings stacked. Enger said it is a question of solving the view from any point; he did not think there would be that type of an impact with 209 units. Floyd Siefferman, Jr. , 6997 Edgebrook Place, said he felt BentIcy had correctly assessed the situation. Siefferman reviewed what has happened nuer the course of time when this has been before the Planning Commission as 1-T11 as the Council . He said he would urge the Council to tell the developer that this is worse than what was previously reviewed. Sieffer- i man cited the Euclid vs. Ambler Realty case as the reason why the single- family homeowners do not want to have multiple-family units near them. He said the developer is still using the Cardinal Creek 3 or 4 name as the name of the proposed subdivision and the single-family residents do not want to have this development known by that name. , . I City Council Minutes -5- August 20, 1985 Roger Swigart. 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, reviewed the existing apartment developments, the developments in north Eden Prairie, the density of multi-family developments, and recent building trends in Eden Prairie. Swigart expressed concern regarding property which is for sale which would help to create a safe intersection in the vicinity of Stonewood and Cardinal Creek Road: the Cardinal Creek residents feel this is a breach of what should be considered there. Art Roberts , 13543 Woodmere Circle, indicated he felt the Council and the Cardinal Creek residents are now seeing the proposed development from the same view. He said this should be a time for civic pride; this "showcase" site should be preserved. Roberts reviewed what the Cardinal Creek resi - dents feel is appropriate for this site and what the appropriate density should be. He asked that the Council confirm the density resolution which it adopted in January and reaffirm its desire for an aesthetically pleasing development. Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, said he did not understand where there was any pressure to approve a development. He did not feel this was going to be the last development. Alexander said he felt the question should be that of highest and best use of the property and he did not feel the pro- posal demonstrated that. He stated the residents of Cardinal Creek would like the development in this area be consistent with the density of St. John's Wood. He said he felt there were too many buildings proposed for the site. Alexander stated the Cardinal Creek homeowners are interested in havin4 a quality project developed. Wendy Meneely, 6640 Kingston Drive, said she did not feel there should be rental units next to the Cardinal Creek neighborhood. Kallenberger reviewed the various apartment developments in the area (information taken from the City Council Minutes of January 8, 1985) . He stated that the units which are now proposed to be rental units had started out to be condominium units, but the condo market is "flat" at the present time and Chimo is addressing what is happening in the market now. Bentley said he felt the question was whether or not a multiple residential development on this site would be workable. He said he felt the developer was reputable. He equated this project to fitting a square peg into a round hole. Bentley said he felt this would be an excellent development in any other part of the City. He noted that the Guide Plan indicates this is an appropriate use on the site; he questionned whether the Guide Plan is right. He safd he felt the Council should vote "no" on this proposal . Redpath said he does not like the comparison of rental versus ownership. He said he was disappointed the developer had not come back to the Council with something more than what was shown since the Planning Commission had requested some changes. He said he would consider a maximum of 209 units and that was all . City Attorney Pauly noted that previous action of the Council had approved up to 208 units on this site. The request before the Council is for a range of 209 - 249 units. Pauly said the Council should turn down the re- quest for a revised concept if it wished to leave the matter as it was. City Council Minutes -6- August 20, 1985 MOTION- Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Nearing and to deny the request for revising previous Council action to allow more 'l than 208 units on this site. Motion carried with Bentley and Anderson voting r ' no. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson. to ask Staff to study the feasibility of Chang i nq the Guide Plan in this area , Bentley questi onned whether or not this was an appropriate action . City Attorney Pauly said it was ; he suggested another alternative would be to request a specific chance be made. Peterson asked what the implications would be since Chime still had density on the site up to 208 units . Pauly noted that concept approval does not create binding action on the part of the City according to the Code. Redpath said he felt the Council should request an overall Guide Plan review rather than a study of a specific area of the City. Bentley said he would support the motion with the understanding this is a study with a report back to the Council rather than a recommendation for action. He also suggested that Staff should nuti fy the developer that this is bei no done. Redpath said he thought this is after the fact; this should have occurred when the Gustafsons had the Cardinal Creek Guide Plan changed. Anderson said he would support the motion. Peterson said he would vote against the motion because he did not fell it was appropriate at this point in the process . Bentley said he would recommend this be deferred so the Council could think about i t: he did not think two weeks would make a difference one way or another. MOTION: Bentley moved. seconded by Redpath. to table the previous motion. Motion carried with Pidcock voting "no." B. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM WALLACE ROAD EAST TO CPT, I ,,C. 52-010A Resolution No 8 -160 Assistant to the City Manager Dawson said notice of this Public Hearinv had been published and property o�-.lners in the project vicinity had been notified. Director of Public Works Dietz addressed the details of the improvements. He noted the City would purchase two lots and the remnant of a third lot. Dietz stated there would be a change in the alignment from what had been earlier planned; it would now be 35' to the south. Redpath asked when the portion of Technology Drive east of Mitchell Road would be completed. Dietz said that will be a Spring project; the feas- ilibity report on that portion will be before the Council in September. Dietz noted this road alignment will have a positive impact on the School District as thi t. will provide the District another route to get out of the Central Middle School area. Anderson said he would not like to see more traffic go through the school area City Council Minutes -7- August 20, 1985 Redpath asked what type of intersection is being planned for the the pro- posed TH 212 and Wallace Road. Dietz said there would be a half diamond with Wallace going over TH 5. Bentley asked where the City was going to get the money to purchase the lots necessary to complete the Technology Drive proposal . Dietz said that there would be a 25% down payment on .the lots and that interim financing was available. Bentley said he did not want the Council to become involved in the land speculation business. Peterson said he felt if the property c--Cr ::4s not willing to hold the property unitl the road is in then why should the City take the risk. Dietz said the damages would equal the cost of the right-of-wayi this appeared to be the most viable way to do this. Pidcock asked what the area of the two lots was. Dietz said 10 acres . Bentley said he would like to have the opinions of the Finance Director and the City Manager regarding this method of financing the project. Tom Carlson, vice president of operations , ITT Schadow, said he could support the Technology Drive access: the last time this was proposed he was not in favor of it. He expressed concern with the fact that all the costs have not been disclosed. Dietz explained that the City does not attempt to include the land acquisition costs in a feasbility report. Bernie Bogeskov, Pietro Machine and Engineering, stated two years ago his company had donated land to the City for utilities. He said there has been some activity on the lot which he owns and which has been for sale however, when a prospective buyer found out about. the road going through, the offer to purchase the prop-erty was withdrawn. Neil Branstad, owner of property in the area ' questioned whether the land acquisition costs would be assessed back to the owners of properties in the area. Dietz said the City had been talking about absorbino half the cost of the right-of-way, Jon Otterlei , property owner, stated he has had people interested in the property which he owns. He said he felt the lots would be saleable if they were replatted as outlined by Dietz. MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Pidcock, to continue this Public Hearing to the September 3, 1985 . Meeting of the City Council . Motion carried unanimously. C. Request from Welcome Home to appeal decision re tiered July 25 by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance Request o ,-8-79--' '- A Public Meeting T Assistant to the City Manager Dawson said notice of the appeal had been sent to property owners in the vicinity. I City Council Minutes ..8_ August 20, 1985 Assistant Planner Durham stated the Board of Appeals and Adjustments had - reviewed the variance request at its July 25, 1985, Meeting at which time it voted (3-1-0) to deny the variance request. Durham explained the City Attorney suggested the Council base its decision on two items-, 1) were the modifications proposed before the property Welcome Home proposes to occupy constitute such a channe as to violate provisions relating to non-conforming use structures and 2) is Welcome Home entitled to variance from provisions contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to the proposed modifi- cations. Durham referred to the "Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Request of Welcome Home to Operate a Licensed Residential Facility. " Durham reviewed the changes on which the variance was based. Redpath asked if their is an existina. deck on the house and noted there is already a porch on the house. Durham said there is also a deck on the house. Durham noted that any up-grading of the property would have to conform to present City Code. Bentley asked the City Attorney if the scope of the changes proposed for the interior of the structure should be considered by the Council this evening. City Attorney Pauly said all of the proposed modifications should be considered. Pauly said the Attorney General when asked for his opinion regarding this issue , was not specifically asked for an opinion as to the extent of modifications which might be made to the structure: the Attorney General was asked whether or not the use to a three-apartment complex from a two-apartment complex was abandonment of the two-apartment complex. Pauly stated the Council should consider all of the modifications to the structure M but not who is to use the structure. He said that each of the questions outlined by Durham should be answered separately by the Council ; should one be liven an affirmative, Welcome Home could be caranted a building permit. City Attorney Pauly asked that the following documents considered by the Council be included as part of the record- panes 1857 - 1923 of the Council packet; the plan prepared by Delano Erickson, architect, dated January 13, _ 1985; and the plan showing the condition of the structure alone with a January 8, 1985, exhibit and memorandum from Steve Durham. Pauly cited a variety of decisions which indicated there is no clear-cut case law opinion to use as a basis for making a determination. Anderson asked if what is proposed is an enlargement or an expansion. Pauly said the courts have gone from one extreme to the other on that- the City Council can make that decision. Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home. spoke to the request. Schele indicated the porch is to be turned into a room for year-round use: it would be glassed-in rather than screened-in. This will create minimal impact on the building, Schele said the deck they have been told, is there illegally; this can be taken down., but tAe feeling is this would be a place which would provide tranquility and serenity. Schele. noted the staircase is required, it is proposed at the location shown be- cause it would have the minimal impact on the building. Schele noted any plans to change the garage have been abandoned. There will be no expansion of the building. Schele cited various provisions of the City Code which would support their request City Council Minutes -9- August 20, 1985 k ' Bentley said he felt the essence of the issue was whether or not the proposed changed to the structure constitute an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use. June Theese. Hennepin County. asked City Attorney Pauly whether or not the legal opinion regarding a non-conformi nq use/group home in Brooklyn Center was applicable in this case. Pauly said he had already referred to that case and the Court of Appeals did not find the changes to be non-conforming, Patricia Siebert, Minnesota Mental Health Project, asked if Mrs . Sutton (previous owner of the property) were going to build a stairway. would this be undergoing such scrutiny? Peterson said it has gotten this far because it is Welcome Home and because it is a good project, Pidcock asked for clarification regardinci "grandfatherinq . " Pauly said an enlargement or expansion of a qenerally non-conforming use is not allowed based on the assumption that obsolescence will come via deterioration; any modification which would extend the life of the property would then be an improper enlargement or expansion. Don Sorensen. 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated the issue is a very narrow one. He said Minnesota case law is most like that of New York and Illinois and he cited decisions in those states. Sorensen said the property is now valued (assessed valuation) at $84,500 and that the improvements would be about $50,000. He said he did not feel that 77% of the value of the building in improvements constituted the type of improvements allowable. Sorensen x called attention to the fact there is nu exisiting driveway to the property except via the Bren property; Bren will not allow expansion of the driveway to accommodate the needs of Welcome Home. Sorgnsen said that undue hardship is not based on hardship to the property owner, He stated that he did not feel the expansion and variances are valid. Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road; said Mrs `.. Bren had a call today from Don Hansen (owner of the Welcome Home property) regarding the use of her driveway, Schele said Welcome Home had begun working on the approval process on August 10, 1984, and had proceeded in good faith. He said they had done what they had been asked to do by the City, . reasonable use is being denied them. Jim Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home ' said the neighbors had offered $129,000 for the property. He stated the estimated cost of the improvements are in the range of $40,000 - $451'000. John Konek, attorney for the Willow Creek residents. said the value of the building without the land is $90 '000. He addressed the issue of non- confor-ming use and pointed out that the value of the improvements wi l 1 be more than 50% of the cost of the building, He said the Council must look at the question of non-conforming use; he pointed out that City Code states that if 50% or more of the value of a non-conforming use bui 1 di ng is not a l 1 owed. The property can be put to use as a single-family dwel 1 i ng or a duplex: therefore, there it no undue hardship which can be demonstrated. City Council Minutes -10- August 20. 1985 Susan Konvick, Mental Health Association and also a licensed realtor, spoke to the market value of the property. She questionned how many people would sell their homesteads for the price at which the property was assessed. Nancy Furst, 8693 Darnel Road. said she felt the proponents had adequately proven their case and she felt a variance should be granted. Barbara Morris , 6921 Edenvale Boulevard, said she would like to have a a facility like this available in Eden Prairie and related a person exper- ience whereby a relative would have been helped if one had been available. John Wilkie, 7221 Willow Creek Road, noted this had been voted down (4-1) by a committee which first reviewed . it. Mary Ann Radas , 8064 Timber Lake Drive . said a facility such as Welcome Home is badly needed in Eden Prairie. Nelva Mavison, 6613 Canterbury 'Lane, said she could not believe the City Council would have approved this and not realized that there would be a need for some improvements to the structure which might result in variances . Yvonne Hargens , 9060 Staring; Lane, stated the City Council has the preroga- tive to make exceptions to things. She asked what the legal ramifications would be to voting "yes" on this , Anderson said he had the same question. City Attorney Pauly said he felt that either action was defensable and reasonable and would be a supportable action in this instance. Bentley pointed out there were other issues regarding the legal aspect such as overrulina the Board of Appeals decision and the fact that there are a number of non-conforming uses in Eden Prairie, MOTION: Redpath moved seconded by Anderson , to grant the variances with the exclusion of the variance for the deck. Redpath said he felt major expansion involved construction such as that involved in the expansion of Lil Red and Lions. Tap. He said he felt the decision which was made which determined Welcome Home to be a legiti- mate use recognized what might happen next, Bentley raid he felt this was a non-conforming use and no proof of hardship had been demonstrated. Peterson said he was concerned with, the magnitude of the modifications; he felt the use was allowed ., but not the perpetuation of the use. Peter- son said he would vote "no" with reluctance. Pidcock said she was torn but was sympathetic to Welcome Home's situation, VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with Bentley and Peterson voting It no. Of MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson. to find that the modifications proposed by Welcome Home are permitted and authorized modifications of a non- conforming structure, Motion carried with Bentley and Peterson voting "no." MOTION: Anderson moved: seconded by Redpath to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of findings reversing the decision by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Motion carried, I City Council Minutes -11- August 20, 1985 MOTION: Anderson moved. seconded by Redpath, to authorize the granting of the necessary building permits and their modifications , Motion carried with Bentley voting "no. " D. Request from Midwest Asphalt Corporation to appeal decision rendered July 11, 1985 , by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance Request No. 85-24 Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated notice of this appeal had been sent to owners of nearby properties. Assistant Planner Durham said theBoard of Appeals denied this variance request on a 4 - 0 vote at its July 11 1985, Meeting. Durham said a " policy issue exists which states that redevelopment .of property within the City should conform to current standards , Dick Bury, owner of the property ' addressed the request and noted that all the industries in that area are non-conforming uses . Redpath said he felt whatever Bury did across the street from his present facility would clean up the area and would be a definite improvement. Peterson asked if the proponent was willing to work with City Staff on a landscape plan as well as other things which had been requested. Bury said he did not want to mislead the Council ; he said he was going to put up a nice looking building and would black top the surface right up to the building. He said he would hate to see this hung up die to the lack of a landscaping plan. Planning Director Enger asked if Bury planned to hard surface the entire lot. Bury said that in that area most of the properties are fenced and are paved right up to the right-of-way line. Bentley asked what the correct zoning on this property is, Bury said he thought it was heavy industrial , Bentley asked the size of the parcel . Bury said it was 8 acres. Bury said the reason he would have problems with landscaping the property in a manner which the City has suggested is that he has a truck scale and there would not be room to maneuver the trucks if there was a lot of landscaping . He said you don't need grass in front of a shop facility. Anderson expressed concern about the entire area in which this property is located. He wondered how long an area such as this is allowed to remain in this condition. Bentley asked Bury if he could come back to the Council with a plan, a simple schematic drawing, which would show exactly what is proposed. Bury said that could be done. \. a 7,7 - -- City Council Minutes -12- August 20, 1985 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue this matter N to the September 3. 1985, meeting of the City Council and to direct Staff to work with Bury to resolve the landscaping matter. Bury was requested to come back to the Council with a schematic drawing of §: what is proposed. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 22030 - 22315 e. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson. to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 22030 - 22315. Roll call vote: Anderson. Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye. " Motion carried unanimously, VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Resoltuion No 85-179 establishing just compensation and authorizing offer for the City o Eden Prairie to acquire Prairie Village Elders Apartment site of 3.05+/- ; and Resolution No. 85-180 authorizing the City of Eden Prairie to sell 3.05+/- acres _of and to Derrick Land Companies Planning Director Enger noted the two Resolutions are necessary for the City to acquire the elderly apartment site and reconvey the land to Derrick Land Companies , He said these are procedural resolutions required for use of Community Development Block Grant funds. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson. to adopt Resolution No. 85-179R establishing just compensation and authorizing offer for the City of Eden f Prairie to acquire Prairie Village Elderly Apartment site of 3.05+/- acres; `.... and to adopt Resolution No. 85-180 authorizing the City of Eden Prairie to sell 3.05+/- acres of land to Derrick Land Companies , Motion carried unanimously. Dick Krier of Derrick Land Development updated the Council as to progress of the proposal . VII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS There were none. VIII . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were none. IX. APPOINTMENTS There were none. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS; BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Anderson -- Dtscussion on Grading Permits .= continued to September 3 meeting due to the lateness of the hour. l R r . _ City Council Minutes -13- August 20. 1985 B. Report of City Manager There was none. C. Report of City Attorney There was none. XI . NEW BUSINESS There was none. XII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 1-.15 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. �s l