Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/03/1988 i c APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1988 7: 30PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock . CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J . Jullie, Asst . to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson, City Attorney Roger Paul , Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Planning. Chris Enger, Recording Secretary Deb Edlund . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL : All members were present . I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business, as amended and published . The following item was added to the Agenda : III .o Approval of Resolution No . 88-77 relating to Document Amendments Regarding Housing Revenue Bonds for Baypointe Manor Phase TZ . The following item was deleted from the Agenda : III .N 4 Agreement regarding Special Assessments for Construction of Improvements to Columbine and Fountain Place with Fountain Place Plat . The following items were moved : III .E Eden Place Center by Prairie Entertainment Associates-moved to VI .A, III .M Petition- for Sidewalk on Boyd Avenue (Resolution No . 88- 75 ) -moved to VII .A, III . K Approval of Payment of NSP for Transmission- Tower Protection-moved to VII .B. Moticn carried unanimously. III . CON ENT C&LENOhRR A . Clerk ' s L1 genge L1,1t . B . hX C$ISTI C&THQLIC QHURQH . 2ND Reading of Ordinance #9- i 83 within the Public Zoning District; Approval of Addendum to Developer ' s Agreement for Pax Christi Catholic Community; and Adoption of Resolution #88-63, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance # 11-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Zoning District Amendment within the Public j Zoning District on 38 acres for construction of church r COUNCIL MINUTES 2 MAY 3, 1988 addition . Location 12100 Pioneer Trail . (Ordinance #11- 88, Zoning District Amendment within Public District; Resolution #88-63, Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER by John T. Smith. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #12-88, Zoning District Change from I -General to I -2 Park on 4 . 68 acres; Approval of Developer 's Agreement for West 5 Business Center; and Adoption of Resolution # 88-64, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 012-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 4 . 68 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 36, 805 square foot office/ warehouse building . Location: East of Fuller Road and Northwest of Chicago & Northwestern Railway. ( Ordinance #12-88, Re-zoning; Resolution #88-64 Authorizing Summary and Publication) D. THE FARM 2NP ADDITION by Countryside Investments, Inc . 2r.d Reading of Ordinance #16-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 1 .95 acres and from Public to R1-13 . 5 on 4 . 7 acres; Approval of Developer ' s Agreement for The Farm 2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution#88-65, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #12-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 30 acras into 17 lots and 1 outlot . Location : North of the intersection of Duck Lake Trail and Loralee Lane . (Ordinance #16-b8, Re-zoning; Resolution #88-65, Authorizing Summary and Publication) E . EDEN PLACE CENTER by Prairie Entertainment Associates . 2nd Reading of Ordinance #5-8.8 within the C-Reg-Ser District on 6 . 42 acres; Approval of Developer 's Agreement for Eden Place Center; and Adoption of Resolution #88-66, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #5-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 6 .42 acres into I lot for construction of 52, 000 square feet of retail and restaurant use . Location: West of Glen Lane, south and east of Eden Road . (Ordinance #5-88, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District; Resolution #88- 66, Authorizing Summary and Publication) F . ( located wgst Qf Old Shady Oak Road and north o f Rowla d $4aQ ) Resolution No . 88-69 G . Fi oa l._plat approval for V ik ina Dr lye We4t (,ocated east. of U. S ._169 ah! ,Sg tq ,- V i_ k ine D3 ive ) Resolution No . 88-70 H . cost of Fuller as) . -soutb of gtatg HIShWay 51 Resolution No . 88-71 I . Ma5tgr Card and Visa J . d Lake Elementary Plavgrggnd PXog4 . t, COUNCIL MINUTES 3 MAY 3, 1988 K . ApIroval of Payment to NSP for Transmission Tower a Protection L. Resolution Ng . 88-76 , ,Proclaiming May 2 - May 8 as National Drinking W!'ator Week M. Petition for Sidewalk on Boyd Avenue (Resolution No . 88- 75) N. AgreeMent rg9ardingSpecial -Assessments for CgnstXugtion of IMprgvemgnts to Columbine and Fountain Place with Fountain Place Plat ©. U.S . Fish Willie Grading Permit for Lake Laves', Contxols on Rice Lake P . QJt31 ClCs1n-L1D Day Q. Ano.oval of Resolution #88-77 relating to Document Amendmcnts Regarding Housing Revenug Bonds for Baypolnte Manor Phase II . MQ-ION : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Consent Calendar as published and amended, deleting items N, M, and K and adding Item Q. Bentley questioned language of Item L . Resolution No . 88- 76 . MQTIgH1 : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to amend language of Resolutions # 88-76 to Read : Where as water that flows dependably. . . Motion carried unanimously. Further discussion of Item L followed . MOTI01I.: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to delete Item L from the Agenda . Motion carried unanimously. I V . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. T V (Resolution No . 88-72 ) City Manger Jullie stated that Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Eden Prairie News on April 21 and April 28, 1988 and sent to the owners of affected properties . Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the details of the project and the proposed method of assessment . Dietz presented the two alternative routes proposed . Alternative A was Mitchell Road in same through pattern as d COUNCIL MINUTES 4 MAY 3, 1988 exists today. Problems with Alternative A are traffic ,patterns and the need for a wider street, thus causing ' more grading and tree loss . Alternative B had two routes connected by a short street (one new street and what would become Mitchell Road as it runs through Red Rock Ranch) . Staff recommends Alternative B . A handout was presented by Dietz to the Council from the Douglas Corporation asking to have decision regarding watermain alignment to be deferred until June . The letter also stated concern about assessment for turn lanes which would not benefit its property, and of the high assessment it already absorbed for Anderson Lakes Parkway. A second handout was presented to Council by Dietz from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, representing Mason Homes, stating its support for Alternative A. Dietz stated that regarding road intersections, Red Rock Ranch is not in favor of the alignment of the road as proposed through its property. Dietz said that if Council adopted the Resolution, bids could be opened as early as July 15 and the project could start in late summer 1988 . Dietz addressed the issue of renaming of Research/Mitchell Road, stating that 3 of 5 property owners affected favor White Oak Parkway for name of new road necessary if Alternative B is adopted. Dietz said that even though the cost issue was one that was not to be discussed tonight, it was a major concern to property owners . Affected property owners were invited to a meeting with City Engineer Alan Gray. Staff was not prepared for final recommendation of costs tonight . Dietz proposed 1 ) Council assure property owners that Staff would not exceed $18, 000 . 00 in special assessments for streets and utilities unless property was later subdivided . 2 ) City policy of deferring the assessment for utilities for 5 years or until they connect or subdivide would be applicable . 3 ) Between now and fall of 1989 Staff would review a policy, consider doing appraisals to develop a more definitive policy. Peterson requested clarification on road widths and if those proposed will be adequate . Dietz replied that based on traffic studies the high volume would be on the road through Red Rock Ranch and felt widths were appropriate as proposed . Harris questioned that if the Seifert property were developed, would a different alignment for utilities in COUNCIL MINUTES 5 MAY 3, 1988 'a northwest section be anticipated . Deitz answered that interior streets would be developed through which sanitary 3 sewer and water would follow. Bentley referred to letter from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban regarding concern of roadway width and alignment due to possible housing density changes . Bentley questioned if it was necessary to deal with road name tonight . Dietz replied it was not necessary, and added that a public hearing is not required . Anderson questioned traffic flow when the new middle school opens with buses coming from all over the City. Is this the best alignment from the western part of the City and if street width of 32 feet can handle volume? Dietz stated that this alignment produces a smooth flow. Bentley commented that this is not an assessment hearing. Actual costs can not be determined at this time. Assessment would be based on actual cost of project if it proceeds . Assessment hearing would be in the Fall of 1989 . Mary Jenkins, 13800 Research Road, stated objection to name change . She had not been asked about name change . Dietz commented that the reason Mrs . Jenkins was not asked was because access for her property would now come off a new street . Mrs . Jenkins stated that has not been approved yet . Mrs . Jenkins went on to say that there were too many cutesy names for streets now, making it difficult for residents and police etc . to find their way around the city. John Sword, 8895 Mitchell Road, stated support of Mrs . Jenkins objection to name change . x Julia Larson, 8705 Mitchell Road, questioned assessment policy being fair . Mrs . Larson would like to see that assessment be decreased or increased proportionately. Randy Treville, representing Mason Homes, stated the firm favored project, but questioned data on which traffic study was based . Treville stated that Mason Homes property density would be reduced approximately 56%, therefore, the trip count will be reduced by approximately 1/3, thus eliminating need for a through roadway through Red Rock Ranch . Treville believed Mitchell Road properly served the area and neighbors to the south . Mason Homes is supporting a north-south connection along the current alignment of Mitchell Road, and a long minor roadway or cul-de-sac through its property which could possibly be named Red Rock Ranch Road for continuity of identification. COUNCIL MINUTES 6 MAY 3, 1988 Peterson questioned if Staff was aware of proposed development changes . Dietz replied that Staff has heard about possible changes, but we are dealing with an approved PUD . A collector is still necessary. Peterson then stated that an amendment to the current PUD at a later date could possibly change width and alignment, but was not appropriate for discussion at this time . Bob Lambert, 9260 Mitchell Road, stated three concerns . 1 ) Questioned if a pending assessment were on a property and it was sold before final assessment, would the property owner be responsible for an $18, 000 assessment. Council replied yes . 2 ) Lambert wishes to go on record that he questions that his property will increase $18, 000 in value . 3 ) Regarding name of road; Lambert has talked with residents Lender and Beckman who are in favor of White Oak Parkway. Kottke and Kraemer do not have a preference . All five residents object to Research Road . Virgil Seifert, 8390 Hiawatha Avenue, stated he was being assessed twice on part of his frontage . Dietz replied that the right dimensions will be made at final assessment Leland Kottke, 9190 Mitchell Road stated his objection to the name White Oak Parkway. f David Kraemer, 9110 Mitchell Road, stated this improvement 1 will not increase property value . Concerned about the ease of access for City sewer and water because of steep grade . There were no further comments from the audience . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-72 with the assessment cap of $18, 000 . 00 as recommended for preferred Alignment B. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley recommended Staff review with neighbors possibilities for road name . Dietz replied Staff will meet with property owners and set a hearing date . Anderson suggested Staring Lake Parkway as a possible name to be considered, this being descriptive of the area . Anderson felt that White Oak Parkway seems to take away from the area . B. STA BRING ,LAKE 2ND ADDITION by Red Rock Heights Partnership . Requisition for Preliminary Platting of 8 . 3 acres into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 District . Location : North of County Road # 1 between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake lst Addition . ( Resolution No . 88-67, Preliminary Plat) COUNCIL MINUTES 7 MAY 3, 1988 MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Anderson for a continuance to next Council meeting . Motion carried a unanimously. C. RS QP EN STORE by Sears, Roebuck and Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 87 . 75 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the C-Regional Zoning District on 87 . 75 acres with variances for exterior building material, for the construction of a 1, 000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center . Location: Eden Prairie Center/Sears . (Resolution 0 88-68, PUD Concept Amendment to the Overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance 0 18-88, Amending Ordinance #213 within the C-Regional District ) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of 45 surrounding properties and published in the April 20, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jack Rittle, Operations Manager for Sears Eden Prairie Store, proposed to have a temporary garden lot to be k Installed early April and taken down the end of July. The unit would consist of a 6-foot-high chain link fence and a canvas enclosure approximately 1, 000 square feet . Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission reviewed this item at the April 11, 1988 meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote . Enger stated this was an amendment to the original shopping center approval of 1973, because an outdoor garden center was not anticipated . Staff has been approached by others for similar outdoor facilities and believes that this is the proper process to be established for review. l Enger said this is a zoning amendment . A variance through the PUD is required because of exterior building materials . Enger reported Staff recommendations from April 8, 1988 Staff Report . Pidcock questioned if there was any way this could become a permanent structure without Staff knowledge . Enger replied that anything could happen. Pidcock asked what safeguard could be put in place to prevent this . Enger answered this would be written as a development agreement and filed. Bentley asked Mr . Rittle about not using signs or banners etc. . . Mr . Rittle replied Sears would be relying on r I I COUNCIL MINUTES 8 MAY 3, 1988 Internal promotions . Outside signs have not been used in previous locations . Therms were no further audience comments . MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution #88-68 for PUD Concept Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOTI,.QN : Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 18-88 . Motion carried unanimously. IKQ=K: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Supplemental Agreement to the Developer ' s Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously D . TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV by Technology Park Associates . Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 41 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to I -2 on 13 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of Approximately 41 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162, 860 square feet of industrial use in two buildings . Location: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek, east of Smetana Lane . A public ( hearing. (Resolution #88-73, PUD Concept; Ordinance 319- 88-PUD-3-88 , Zoning District Change to I-2-PUD-3-88; Resolution #88-74, Preliminary Plat ) Jullie stated that notice of this Hearing was sent to owners of fifteen surrounding properties and published in the April 20, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Mike Gair , Hoyt Development, representing the proponent, made an extensive slide and graphic presentation of the proposal . Gair stated that Hoyt has had several meetings with City Staff, has met with Mr . & Mrs . Ed Smetana, and has attempted without success to meet with Frank Smetana . Hoyt believed it was in compliance with land use/zoning, watershed district and DNR requirements, had developed a j reasonable buffer zone, and had provided for health, safety and welfare needs for adjoining properties . Based on a traffic study Hoyt has had prepared, the need for Smetana Lane does not exist . Gair concluded that a timely decision was essential, as Hoyt already had a tenant for approximately 20, 000 square feet to be occupied in late summer 1988 . Enger stated that Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its April 11, 1988 meeting and recommended on a 6-0 vote denial of the project . This denial was based COUNCIL MINUTES 9 MAY 3, 1988 on two issues : 1 ) A continuation of Smetana Lane through the property has not been provided in any location . The Commission believed Smetana Lane is important for traffic flow and circulation . 2) Proper land use transition to existing single-family homes . Properties with existing homes would be hard to market as residential or commercial . Enger said with the exception of these two issues the site planning is fine . Enger reported Staff recommendation per an April 8, 1988 Staff report . Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission considered this item at its April 18, 1988 meeting and voted 5-0 for approval. Dietz stated the major issue is connecting roadways . The need for an effective, integrated street system is extremely important . A common road to connect the Hoyt property and the Cherne property is best way to allow access to properties . If a road can not be put through the area in a location approved by the City, then the project should be denied . Anderson requested more information on preserving the 875- foot contour . Enger replied the 875 level was a last effort to provide screening from the industrial development . A future land use and design solution was to substitute for the 875 level, but several questions have been left open since PUD approval in 1985 . Anderson questioned if the City will have the building and screening that is desired for this area . Harris questioned if Smetana Lane were continued through, would the buildings have to be moved north . Dietz replied it would require some relocation. Smetana Lane could be also be rerouted between the buildings . Harris asked Enger if the buildings were moved north if this would accommodate the need for additional transitioning to Smetana homes . Enger replied it would require further review; it would seem that moving further away would provide more opportunity for this. Harris asked Gair what effect moving the buildings would have on project . Gair replied a significant impact . Peterson asked Gair about a West 76th Street connection . Steve Hoyt replied that a West 76th Street connection is a possibility, but a street that runs along the creek is undesirable . a COUNCIL MINUTES 10 MAY 3, 1988 Bentley asked Hoyt to consider looking at road dedication . Steve Hoyt felt this would have too great an impact on project . After lengthy discussion about the road issue, Steve Hoyt asked Council to considered approval of Tech VII & VIII; Hoyt would come back at a later date for approval of the northern property, at which time the Smetana Lane issue would be resolved . Deitz stated three possibilities for putting road through; south of buildings along creek, between the two buildings or north of second building . To delay a decision on this could cut out two of the alternatives . The issue needs to be resolved with this project . t Pat Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, stated she has to sell because of noise and no access, and would be forced to sell for commercial use . She believed she deserved use a of this road . Frank Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane , said there is more concern than just transition . He felt Smetana Lane should go through but not to Highway 18 . He urged denial of this project for four reasons; 1 ) Smetana Lane . 2) Inappropriate transition . 3 ) 1985 PUD Agreement . 4 ) Impact on the physical, financial and emotional health of the Smetana ' s . City Attorney Pauly requested that letter from. Mr . Frank Smetana become part of the record. Bill Cherne, stated a need to find a plan that works for all the various owners and be sensitive to Frank Smetana 's problem. If Smetana Lane were continued, it would have a negative effect. The best alternative is to extend W. 76th Street . He suggested the three property owners get together . Marcella Smetana, 7730 Smetana Lane, stated she did not want Smetana Lane to go through. There were no further comments from the audience. ' MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue issue to next Council meeting on May 17, 1988 . Bentley requested to see at that time how access is going to be accomplished . Motion carried unanimously. E. VALLEY GAIE„200 by The Helle Partnership. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 4 . 9 COUNCIL MINUTES 11 MAY 3, 1988 acres with variances for zero lot line to be reviewed by square foot office/warehouse . . Location : Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street . Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of 13 surrounding properties and published in the April 20, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Mr . Sigmund Helle, made presentation of project . He requested that the zero lot line request be approved . Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at its April 11, 1988 meeting and recommended approval with a unanimous vote . There were no further comments from the audience . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and direct staff to prepare a Supplement to the Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations including the zero lot line request as part of approval . Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYL4ENT OF CLAIMS MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Payment of Claims Nos . 42C17 - 42267 . Pidcock asked regarding Claim 1 421010 if any other haulers have been investigated . Roll Call Vote : Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye" . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to put out bids for hauling trash from City facilities . Motion carried unanimously. VI . ORDiNANcEs b RESOLUTIONS A. Hem I .E. EDEN PLACE CENTER by Prairie Entertainment Associates. Bentley stated that 1 ) Nothing was in the information packet that indicated fulfillment of one of the prerequisites for Second Reading approval, that a firm. agreement be in hand for a first class restaurant facility be within the Eden Place Center . 2 ) Council had not received a copy of Final Landscape plan relative to screening. 3 ) Language in Developer ' s Agreement was not specific, and did not state what type of restaurant this needed to be . 3 COUNCIL MINUTES 12 MAY 3, 1988 i 4 i Bentley questioned whether a traffic study was part of PUD. What impact would this development have on intersections in area? Bentley was concerned about sight line distance and screening for west side loading area . Norman Brody, representing the developer, stated that proponent had an executed lease agreement in hand from Ciatti ' s . The Final Landscape plan has been delivered, and the proponent and Staff believed that all issues have been worked out. Enger stated that Staff did have a landscape plan, and that forwarding it to Council was omitted in error . The issues have been resolved . Regarding back side of building : this will be covered with landscaping and berming similar to Target Store . Regarding sight line : sight distance is a potential problem. An access on north would not be considered a major entrance to Center . Regarding traffic study: traffic study was done with original PUD of Eden Glen by BRW in 1985 . Staff compared the trip generation from this proposal to the original PUD. This proposal did not exceed the original PUD. Pidcock commented that she was not comfortable with this proposal . Peterson stated that procedurally Mr . Brody has answered satisfactorily the Restaurant issue . Procedurally a p motion would be required to consider concern relative to traffic inasmuch as it was not raised by the Planning Commission or Council at the first Public Hearing . Peterson did not feel this is appropriate to add this issue on now to deny Second Reading . Anderson also stated concern about traffic. MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to have traffic problems in this area studied relative to this project . Enger stated that no traffic problems were indicated in original PUD five years ago . y Peterson stated he is against the motion . Bentley stated traffic problems do and will exist in this area . 'Bentley was concerned if a strip mall was an appropriate use for this area . i Enger stated this project compared favorably with original PUD and BRW traffic study. Anderson withdrew motion. COUNCIL MINUTES 13 MAY 3, 1988 Bentley stated his hope that the developer would work with neighboring residential properties . Mr . Brody assured Council that he would work with various property owners . It is developer ' s desire to be good residents and produce a project the City will be proud of . MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Peterson to approve Second Reading . Motion carried unanimously. VI I . PETITIONS, REQUESTS STS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Ideal III M. Petition for Siidegg k on Boyd Avenue (Resolution No . 88-75) MOTIQN : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to notify all residents and continue item to May 17, 1988 Council Meeting . Motion carried unanimously. B. va NSP for Iranramis2ion Tower Protect on. Pidcock commented that she would have liked to have seen more detail. MpT_I_QN_N_: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Item III .K . Motion carried unanimously. C. discellanegus Com.Municatiops Peterson questioned the intent of action based on correspondence from Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc . . Jullie stated that Naegele wanted to assert its right to go through the planning and zoning approval process . After discussion, Peterson directed the City Manager to have Naegele make a more specific request . i Pidcock requested status of a quarterly budget report . VI I I . REPORTS OE ADVISORY COMIII SSI ONS I X . APPO1,NTMENTS X . REPORTS OF OEEICERS. BOABDg & ,CQ ggIO 1,,,S A • gDort Could l Member No Reports B. RCPQrts of City Manager R A COUNCIL MINUTES 14 MAY 3, 1988 No Report C. Report of City Attorney No Report D. N_eoort of Director of Planning No Report E. Report of Directg r of CommUnityv c 1 . PKesgrve Hgmeownera Association Trail Lambert stated this was a no-win situation . Staff met with Preserve Homeowners • Association . The Association did not want to set precedent by paying for fencing or screening, and stated its belief that property owners should be responsible for screening . Association stated it would be willing to close the trail if the City authorized . Mr . Paumen stated that he has replaced hedges twice, has replaced broken windows and has had to repaint his house; all at his expense . Paumen said the path is a nuisance . Paumen would accept a split-rail fence, a cost which the City and Ryan Construction should absorb . ` MQTJON: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Recommendation $ 3 . The City would split the cost for repairing the trail between the Preserve Association, Ryan Construction and the City; split the cost of acquisition of plant and fence material with Ryan Construction; and require the property owners to plant the shrubs and install the fence . Cost of 12" plant material is $520. 00, cost of fence is $500 .00; therefore, the total City cost is $710 . 00, Ryan Construction Cost is $710 . 0O, Preserve Association cost is $200 .00, and the property owner cost is labor for installation of fence and plants. f Mr . Humphreys stated there is no privacy. Ryan said it would put in 4-foot trees in the beginning; now it is compromising to 1-foot plants and a split-rail fence . Humprhreys did not feel that adequate screening would be provided . Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of Director of E►ubip Works No Report G. Bgogrt of Finance Qirector COUNCIL MINUTES 15 MAY 3, 1988 I . Financial Consultants Jullie stated that representatives of Springsted Inc . were present, but wished to continue this item to another time . Pidcock requested to have proposals from others along with present consultant. Bentley questioned why this matter was being considered . X I . NEW BUSINESS XII . ADJOURNMENT The Council adJourned the meeting at 12 :22 AM and went into executive session. q