Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/29/1986 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL r TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock , and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J . Jullie , Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson , City Attorney Roger Pauly , Planning Director Chris F.nger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz , and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: VI . B . 2 . Report on Round Lake Water Level; VI . B . 3 . Process for Selection of Human Resources Director MOTION: Anderson moved , seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published Motion carried unanimously . II . MINUTES A . Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday , February 4, 1986 page 12 , second paragraph, second sentence : change "there" to "their" . s MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday. Feb- ruary 4, 1986, as amended and published . Motion carried unanimously. B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday , February 18 , 1986 MOTION: Redpath moved , seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 18 , 1986 , as published . Motion carried unanimously. 1 City Council Minutes -2- April 29, 1986 C . Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. February 25 , 1986 MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, ' February 25 , 1986 as published . Motion carried unanimously. D. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 11 , 1986 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 11 , 1986 , as published . Motion carried unanimously . E . Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday. April 15 , 1986 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 15, 1986 , as published . Motion carried unanimously . III. CONSENT CALENDAR A . Final Plat aRprcval for Timber Creek Woods Second Addition Resolution No . 86-767— f MOT o t ION• Bentley moved , seconded by Redpa .,h, to approve item A on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously . IV . PUBLIC HEARINGS A . DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 95+ acres of land for office headquarters , manufacturing and distribution campus . Location: Highway #169 and Anderson hakes Parkway . (Resolution No . 86-35 - PUD Concept Approval/Denial ) Con- tinued Public Hearing from March 4, 1986 and April 1 , 1986 City Manager Jullie noted that this item had been continued 4 from the March 4 and April 1 . 1986 , meetings of the Council . Mr. Arlyn Grussirg, Director of Planning and Development for Douglas Corporation, and Mr . Bob Worthington of Opus Corpora- tion addressed the proposal . Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission first reviewed this item at its November 25th meeting; and was concerned about the item creating an imbalance between in- dustry employment and housing in the City . The item was t continued to the December 9th meeting of the Commission to allow time for Staff to provide alternatives to recommend to the Council . City Council Minutes -3- April 29 . 1986 r a Enger noted the initial Staff report of November 22, the additional recommendations contained in the Staff report of December 6th and some additional information on how the proposal would affect the "big picture" contained in his memo of December 6th . He said that the Commission, at its Decem- ber 9th meeting, felt that the proposal did not go far enough towards a "special type" of industrial use, and moved to con- tinue the item to the January 13th meeting to allow time for the proponent to reconsider the proposal in view of the con- cerns expressed by the Commission and Staff . Enger further noted that , at the January 13th meeting. the Commission reviewed the letter received from the Douglas Corporation stating that the plan they had presented was their "best effort" and no further changes would be presented at that time . The Commission then recommended denial of the request for a PUD concept review on a 4-2 vote . Redpath asked if there had been a fairly recent Comprehensive Guide Plan change for the area around the proposed site that designated office area along Hwy 169. Enger said that the land included in the proposal was designated high density G residential or office . Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed the pro- posal at its February 3 , 1986 , meeting. He said that the Commission noted that the major question on this request was the land use . Lambert referred to his memo of January 31 to the Commission that presented Staff comments on the pro- posal . He said that the Commission recommended approval of the PUD concept on a 6-0 vote with several conditions in- cluding preservation of open space , the addition of a park- way system and payment of cash park fees . Anderson asked if the question had been answered as to how the land along the lake and creek would be handled . Lambert responded that , while proponent had proposed dedicating 4-5 acres by the creek in lieu of cash park fees , the Parks Commission and Staff felt that a scenic easement would be a better solution if the proponent did not want to dedicate the land to the City as a gift . Peterson asked what the basis was for the Planning Commis- sion' s conclusion that the proposed configuration and the construction plans were not the best . Enger said that the Commission was concerned about prcportions--a major-ILy of f the building was proposed to be manufacturing plant with a t V. City Council Minutes -4- April 29. 1986 small office building attached to it . He said the Commission was also concerned with the potential for future expansion of the project . particularly in regard to adding rooftop mechanical equipment and any building additions made during the 15-year period of development planned by the proponents . Redpath asked if the hang-up is the design of the building. the 20 acres at the end of the building or that the pro- ponents had refused to change the plans . Enger stated that the main differences in each of the three Planning Commis- sion meetings were in the information presented by Staff and that proponent had presented no new information beyond the original plans . Redpath expressed his concern about proponent paving been somehow falsely encouraged in present- ing their plans for the site . Discussion followed about previous concepts and plans suggested for this site . Bentley noted that he believed Douglas Corporation had been encouraged to come back with a plan that would convince the Council tha-; the site could be used for industry. He pointed out the idea was to make it difficult enough so that the site could not then be opened up to any sort of industrial devel- opment . ` Peterson noted that at this point the merits of the concept should be reviewed and approval would be based on its being judged a superior product . Bentley asked why this particular project should have to be superior to any other industrial project in the City. Peterson responded that over the pre- vious months of deliberation it was determined there would have to be very good reason to give the site an industrial category rather than office or medium/high density residen- tial . Discussion followed concerning the requirements for approval of an industrial project on the site . Anderson noted that he had thought of this area in terms of multi-residential and corporate headquarters, but not indus- trial , and therefore was concerned about the change in land use . He noted that he would like to see more work done on the plans . He also said he felt that visibility is very important in this area and that we have responsibility to the residents in the area for visibility. Pidcock asked how this project would impact the people in the area . Enger said it would be visible to residents in the Centex develop- ment . A discussion of visibility followed . Redpath asked why the decision was made to not change the plans in response to the Staff recommendations . Mr. Worth- ington responded that at the first meeting they were I J 4 City Council Minutes -5- April 29, 1986 encouraged by the Planning Commission in their early concept but that at the second meeting they felt a different atti- tude as the Commission returned to the issue of land use . He said that after requesting a continuance to a third meet- ing, proponents conferred and decided that they had an inno- vative concept and that they would not revise the plans until they were more certain that the industrial use for the site would be approved . Redpath asked about the location of the land that the School District was interested in. Mr. Worthington pointed out the area on the plans and said that it might require a realign- ment of the road or other adjustments. Bentley asked what the impact would be to our sewer alloca- tion if the discharge plan for the project could not be worked out and water had to be discharged into the sewer system. Enger responded that their estimates show that a residential component would have more sewage discharge than the fully-completed Douglas plant . Bentley asked about the location of an outlet to the south of the development . Enger said the outlet would be to the northern access road to Vo-Tech . Bentley then asked about the timetable for the Hwy 169 upgrade . Director of Public Works Dietz responded that work is now scheduled to begin in August of 1987 , with completion of four lanes to Hwy 1 in 1988 . Peterson asked about possible alternate types of parking for the development . Mr . Worthington said he felt the proposed berming and landscaping would be sufficient to screen the parking lots along the distribution road but that they might be willing to consider alternatives . Pidcoc k asked about the roadway through the site and if it would be a one-way system. Mr . Worthington pointed out the location on the plans and said it would not be one way . r C 3 Anderson asked if the proponents would be willing to work with Staff and the Council to bring back more detailed plans if the zoning is changed to meet their needs . Mr. Worthington said they would . Mr . Keith Orner, 8880 Knollwood Dr. . expressed concern about the air quality of emissions from the building and about the visibility of the project from his residence He also was concerned about the future growth of the manufacturing opera- tion. He said he believed the site should remain as a resi- dential site . r S 5 City Council Minutes -6- April 29, 1986 Mr . James McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Dr. , said that he bought his property on the assumption that the site was zoned resi- dential . He felt that the land to the northwest of Research Road should , in any case , remain residential . He also ex- pressed concern regarding the covenants made for the open space . He asked about the aerosols from the electro-plating process and what methods of control there would be on air quality. Mr. Grussing explained the technology involved in the electro- plating process and said that there would be no hazardous wastes created . Mr. Worthington noted that the electro-plating function would probably be the last one to be moved to the site . Mr . Chuck Shaw, 8615 Hiawatha Ave . , spoke in favor of the project . He expressed his concern about the trend of busi- nesses leaving Minnesota . He also described some problems that can occur with high-density residential developments . Bentley noted that uses considered on this property had been quite varied in recent years. He said his thoughts on the parcel were that the southern part of the site would be suit- able for high-tech office/industrial type of use compatible with Vo-Tech and that the northern part would then be resi- dential . He noted that he had resisted designating the area industrial , as that would have brought many proposals for the site . He further said he felt this proposal has gone a long way to convince him that an industrial use can be accomplished on this site . Bentley asked if the PUD concept approval would require a Guide Plan change . Enger said that a Guide Plan change had not been requested and that it would be feasible to obtain PUD concept approval at this point without a Guide Plan change . Enger said the proponents could then proceed with plans for a first phase with a subsequent request for a first phase rezoning and a Guide Plan redesignation. Bentley then noted that , should there be PUD concept approval , proponents would then have to provide additional assurances as to the plans for the southern and western portions of the site , air quality standards, and specific traffic flows as to numbers and patterns . MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Red path , to close the Public Hearing, to direct staff to prepare Resolution No . 86-35 , approving the Planned Unit Development concept, and a. City Council Minutes -7- April 29 , 1986 to direct staff to prepare a Developer' s Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations and including con- tinued dialogue and cooperation with the School District . Anderson expressed his concerns about this proposal being the highest and best use of the land and asked City Attorney Pauly if it was possible to tie up the restrictions regard- ing water and air emissions . Pauly noted that any resolution or agreement entered into would be on condition that cer- tain standards be met . Pauly noted that concept approval is no more than that and there is no obligation on the part of the Council to adopt a development PUD, rezoning or a sub- division. lambert asked if the Council would like Staff to pursue the idea of the City working with Vo-Tech and proponent to devel- op the southern portion of the land in a joint effort . A discussion regarding possible joint uses followed . Pidcock expressed her concern that this might develop into a situation similar• to the landfill situation some years from now as far as chemicals in the ai.r and water . Peterson noted that they would be subject to the appropriate Minne- sota state regulations and control mechanisms . ! VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock voting .#no.. . i B. TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS by Kate and Craig Halverson . Request or Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office , and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office for an interior design studio . Loca- tion: Southwest quadrant of County Roads #1 and #18 . (Resolution #86-50, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment ; Ordinance #14-86 Razoning) Continued Public Hearing from } March 25 , 1986 and April 15 , 1986 City Manager Jullie noted that this item was continued from the April 15 , 1986, meeting of the Council. Planning Director Enge r reviewed the status of the project and noted the letter from the Halversons dated April 17 , 1986 , indicating the extent of their plans for development of the property . He noted that the Planning Commission did not act on the zoning request in the required 60-day period , therefore the Council could now act on the request for re- zoning. ,N M. �F Sim City Council Minutes -8- April 29, 1986 Mr . Fred Hois ington, representing the proponents , said that he and the Halversons were present to answer questions . There were no comments from the audience . MOTION: Pidcock moved . seconded by Bentley , to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 86-50 approving the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office . Motion carried with Anderson voting ..no., . MOTION: Pidcock moved. seconded by Bentley, to adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 14-86 for rezoning. Anderson noted that he has concerns about what is planned for the surrounding area and about a trend to spot zoning, particularly at intersections . Bentley said he felt the use is consistent in the long term to what is appropriate use for the entire quadrant . c i Anderson expressed his concern that a precedent is being set by approving this item. Redpath said he did not believe we are setting a precedent . A discussion followed regard- ing the potential development of the area and the plans for upgrading Hwy 18 . VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Anderson voting ,ono„ MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct staff to prepare a Developer' s Agreement for the proposal includ- ing Commission and Staff recommendations and the letter of April 17 , 1986 , from the Halversons , subject to approval . of variances by the Board of Appeals . Motion carried with Anderson voting "no" . V . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports . V I . REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A . Reports of Council Members 1 . Bentley - Bentley noted that, because of the polls closing at 8 : 00 PM for the referendum on May 6th and the School City Council Minutes -9- April 29, 1986 Board election on May 20th, the Council meetings on those dates could not convene until 8: 00 PM. MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Pidcock, to convene the May 6, 1986, and May 20, 1986, meetings of the City Council at 8: 00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. B . Report of City Manager 1 . Authorize expenditure of funds for Joint lobbying efforts for MDIF (Metropolir"tan Development and Invest- ment amework - continued from April 1 . 1986and April 15 , 1986 Planning Director Enger noted his memo of April 25 , 1986 , to the. Council that reviewed the revised M+D IF and suggested three possible action items for the Council, as follows: 1 . We would suggest that Council direct Staff to write a letter to the Metropolitan Council asking for an additional sixty days prior to the firs: public hear- ing on this matter for purposes of holding at least four sub-regional meetings out within the Metropoli- tan area to take testimony on the currently pro- posed MDIF . 2 . If the Council is interested in an Eden Prairie lobbying effort , we would suggest that they begin contacting our local legislators and members of the Metropolitan Council with whom relationships have been established , in order to go over the key points outlined above. 3 . We do feel there is merit to participating with the other southwest area communities in a joint effort on those items of common concern. Therefore , we would suggest that rather than being left out of the lobbying effort, the City Council participate to the extent of $2, 000.00 in the joint lobbying effort on those issues upon which the communities agree as listed above . Peterson asked about the wording of the first suggested action and the likelihood of them granting the additional 60 days requested . Enger responded that it was designed to make the Metropolitan Council come out to the suburbs for sub-regional meetings on the matter and noted that such meetings had been held on other items. a y u City Council Minutes -10- April 29, 1986 Enger noted that one of the major concerns about the current proposal is that there may not be flexibility on the part of the Met Council. MOTION: Bentley moved , seconded by Anderson, to approve the three actions suggested in the staff memo of April 24 , 1986 , including the $2 ,000 .00 participation in the joint lobbying effort . Roll call vote : Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Report on Round Lake Water Level City Manager Jullie reported on the problems created by the extremely high water level of Round Lake . He said that pumping is scheduled to begin next week to help alleviate the problem. He noted that , because of the concerns of property owners around Mitchell Lake , water would not be pumped into Mitchell Lake as before , but would instead be pumped into the Purgatory Creek area. Jullie said that the pumping is a short-term solution only and noted that , for the long term, Barr Engineering has completed their report on the Chain of Lakes feasi- bility study . The report is scheduled to go to the Watershed District Board meeting on May 7th for review and , if approved , the Council should have the report at the May 20th meeting. He noted that the Comprehen- sive Drainage Plan developed in the early 1970 ' s had called for Round Lake to act as a storage reservoir. Anderson asked if we can expect to maintain the level of Round Lake in the next few years with the pumping into Purgatory Creek. Jullie said that he believes there is a suggestion in the Chain of Lakes report for a short- term solution that outlets Mitchell Lake in addition to the suggestions for a long-term solution. Anderson asked if the pumping could be relied on to alleviate the recreational loss caused by the current high water level . Jullie responded that it will take about 30 days to bring the level down and that after that time it would depend upon the rainfall . Anderson noted that Round Lake is the most visible lake and so it is important to keep it as usable as possible . Discus- sion followed regarding lake drainage in the surrounding area lakes and anticipated costs for the drainage project . k City Council Minutes -i1- April 29, 1986 Red path asked if the budget would cover the costs of pumping. Jullie said that there is money to cover the planned short-term pumping efforts but not for pumping all summer. Bentley noted that he felt Staff should be prepared to make specific recommendations on what can be done to keep the water level down in the interim period until the long-range solution is implemented . Red path asked about the effect of pumping water into Purgatory Cree.c . A discussion of the possible negative consequences of the pumping project followed . Jean Deneve , 7605 Carnelian Lane , expressed concern that the pumping program will cause problems with a pond located behind his house . Director of Community Services Lambert responded that the pond was originally a natural pond that had become a holding pond . Bob Villars . 7616 Carnelian Lane , expressed concern about this as a continuing problem that needs a perma- nent solution and also about the funding needed to maintain such a solution. Anderson noted that the real need is to stabilize the water level because some years it has been necessary to pump water into Round Lake because of low water levels . Melody Villars , 7616 Carnelian Lane, noted her concern about spending money on new parks before repairing exis- ting facilities . Nancy Schmitt , ?635 Carnelian Lane , expressed her con- cern that no more trees would be planted or another path made before a permanent solution is reached . Peterson suggested that the area residents be notified when the Council is scheduled to review the Chain of Lakes report . 3 . Process for Selection of a Human Resources Director City Manager Jullie said that four candidates were interviewed last Thursday and that he had selected Natalie Swaggert , currently with Target, for the posi- tion. He said she will be starting work on May 13th . C . Report of City Attorney There was no report . 4 City Council Minutes -12- April 29, 1986 VII . NEW BUSINESS There was none . VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved , seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously . i }