Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/16/1988 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1988 7 : 30 PM 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, City Attorney Roger Pauly, , Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present . I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OE 15US I NES S MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Agenda as published. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: ITEM X .A. 1, Peterson to report on Hennepin County Recycling Advisory Committee Meeting . ITEM X .A. 2, Harris requested status of water ban . ITEM X .A. 3, Pidcock to report on Revenue Committee Meeting. ITEM X.B. 4, invitation from BFI to tour landfill . Set a meeting date for Monday, August 22, 1988 at 3 : OOPM. ITEM X.F. 3, move Item J, Grading Permit for Lee Johnson, from the Consent Calendar . CONSENT CALENDAR CHANGES : ITEM H, FAIRFIELD, add Resolution No. 88-181 to approve PUD. ADD ITEM K, Resolution No . 88-182 to approve Final Plat for Technology Park 5th Addition . City Council Minutes 2 August 16, 1988 Move ITEM J to ITEM X .F. 3 as previously noted . Motion carried unanimously. II . MINUTES Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 5, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 5, 1989 . S CORRECTIONS AS FOLLOWS : Page 5, Paragraph 2, change feel to perception . Page 5, Paragraph 5, change trying to put in place to considering . Page 7, Paragraph 2 should read : Anderson asked Pauly if the Council had given hiss the proper direction. Pauly replied he a did understand the direction the Council desired . Bentley suggested that the Ordinance be combined from p. 1459 subjection B, C & D adding section C & D from F. Page 7, Paragraph 4 should read : from significant numbers of residents . . . Motion carried unanimously. III . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Final Apgraval for MelH!IjDsgn Adclition_ ( located north 4}� Pigneer` Trail and east gf Staring Lane )vest ) Resolution No. 88-169 B. Approval Resolution No . 88-170 C. Final plat Approval for Bluffs EaMt SiXth AgIditign t III Resolution No. 88-157 D. ADDroye Coo erslt i vg Aareemut witli- ftnal2in Cog1ty fog P_sian gf T .H . 5 from CSAIJ 4 ,to CSAH 17 (Resolution No. 88-165) E. Seceive Pgtition51D Order Feasibility Study fQr the Extgnslon of 114dcom Boulevar fast to Franlo Rgad I C 52-150 (Resolution No. 88-166 ) City Council Minutes 3 August 16, 1988 F . iteceive Feasibility Study fox Watp_,-main:Extension_ on Pionger Trail (CSAH No 1) froM Mirghell Road vest to gtar. ing Lake 2nd ddition and Set Pudic Hearing Date, I ,C. 52-149 (Resolution No . 88-167) G. WOODDALF CHURCH. 2nd Reading of Ordinance N15-88-PUD-2- 88, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 31 acres with waiver for structure height to 200 feet; Approval of Supplement to Wooddale Church Developer 's Agreement; and Adoption of Resolution #88-117, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #15-88-PUD-2-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2000, 000 sq. ft . of church and educational uses . Location: Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive . (Ordinance #15-88-- PUD-2-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-117, Authorizing Summary and Publication ) H . FIIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties . 2nd Reading of Ordinance #29-88-PUD-8-88, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13 . 5 and R1-9 . 5 on approximately 30 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Fairfield Phase I; and Adoption of Resolution #88-171, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 029- 88-PUD-8-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Approximately 30 acres into 68 single family lots, outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: Best of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St . Louis Railroad. (Ordinance #29-88-PUD-8-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-171, Authorizing Summary and Publication) , Resolution 1 88-181 to approve PUD I . Resoluti - judges Primary Elgction J . Ap2xove gradIngh ImprovementFranJ2 Road K . v Resolution No . 88-182 ' MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Consent Calendar as published and amended to Remove Item J . Motion carried unanimously. j IV. PUBLIC HEARIN S a A. R D ROCK RANCH by Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Request for Comprehensive !Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9 . 2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on City Council Minutes 4 August 16, 1988 approximately 150 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13 . 5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 150 acres into 62 single family lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location : West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake . (Resolution #88-172, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #88-173, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to Overall Red Rock Ranch Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance #35-88-PUD-9-88 , PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-174, Preliminary Plat ) City Manager Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent to 104 surrounding property owners and was published in the August 3, 1988 addition of the Eden Prairie News . 4 Randy Travalia, representing Mason Homes, presented a 4 history of Mason Homes and its previous projects in Eden Prairie . Travalia said that the project had not officially been named Red Rock Ranch and hoped to have the official name within 30 days . Travalia proposed to start the project with Phase I consisting of 61 homes . He said that Mason Homes had dedicated a 4-acre park on the bay and a 40 '-wide outlot on the north of the property. He said the outlot would allow for a connection to the Staring Lake recreational area . Travalia stated that the road had been moved south and the cul-de-sac had been changed to reduce tree loss . Travalia concluded by stating that Mason Homes had always tried to develop its projects in a responsible and intelligent manner and would continue to do so. John Uban, representing the proponent, presented the changes that had taken place in the project following discussions with the Planning Commission. The changes are as follows : 1 ) added buffer area to the south 2 ) provided for trees throughout the unwooded areas 3 ) trees would be added along collector road in accordance with the tree replacement policy 4 ) rearranged the lots to reduce variance requirements from 17 originally proposed to 2 variances necessary 5 ) furnished Staff with a detailed analysis of tree cover for each lot 6)placed homes on lots to save trees 7 ) adjusted the slope and the road to move away from the trees 8 ) adjusted the cul-de-sac . Uban also said that originally some multi-family homes were considered, but the plan had been changed to all single-family homes and low density. Uban believed that all the Planning Commission's concerns had been addressed . Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at the June 27, 1988 and the July 25, City Council Minutes 5 August 16, 1988 1988 meetings . The major Concern of the Planning Commission was how the design of the subdivision impacted the wooded areas . Enger stated that based on the information presented, Staff had estimated a 50% loss in the wooded area . He said the Planning Commission denied the project at the July 25, 1988 meeting on a 5-0 vote; however, Chairperson Bye concluded that if the tree loss could be handled in better manner, the project would be supported according to Staff recommendations for collector road design, road phasing, Street E as a through street, and use of a private road . Enger reported that the proponent had been working with Staff and had made changes in the road alignment to reduce the impact to the trees . He said that greater detail of the character of the wooded area had been provided to allow a better analysis of the impact to the trees . Enger stated that Mason Homes tree replacement plan was far in excess of the City's requirements, but the Planning Commissions concern was related to the impact the design of the subdivision was making to the wooded area. Enger said that the 44% tree loss had indicated to the Planning � Commission that the subdivision needed to be readjusted. He said that the realignment of the road had reduced the tree loss to 25-33% and the Planning Staff recommended approval of the project based on the new information and subject to the July 22, 1988 Staff Report . Enger stated that this item could be acted upon without referring it back to the Planning Commission if the Council so desired. t Enger summarized the project, stating that Mason Homes G would begin the project by Red Rock Lake which would require 3000 ' of road . Enger said that Mason Homes had agreed to a temporary construction loop, which would provide two ways in and out of the project for emergency purposes, and to the continuation of a minor collector road through the site . He said that Mason Howes was concerned, however, about the period over which the assessments for the roads would come due . He said the road was proposed to go in two phases and would be ordered In at the start of the project . Lambert reported that this item was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at the August 15, 1988 meeting and recommended approval on a 5-0 vote . He said that the 4-acre park would be dedicated to the City in lieu of park fees for the first phase development. Lambert stated that the trail to the north of the property was to am 8 ' asphalt trail down a wooded hill, the need for stairs would be determined during construction . He said that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission was comfortable with the tree preservation . He reported that the Commission suggested that the City Council consider two items in the near future : 1) a surface management ordinance for Red Rock Lake 2 ) whether ? a 1 City Council Minutes 6 August 16, 1988 alcohol should be allowed in the park area, with the Commission recommending to not allow alcohol . Several Council members asked for clarification on road alignment . Uban replied that discussions had taken place with Staff as to whether the extension at Mitchell Road should flow thru the site or T into the existing Mitchell Road alignment . Uban stated that the City Engineering Staff preferred the free flow and that Mason Homes preferred the T. Peterson asked Uban to explain the internal road flow. Uban said there would be a split boulevard with a loop system and a temporary connection, there would be a cul- de-sac, a private road for the oversized lots on the peninsula and another loop system on the other side of the boulevard. Harris asked how many lots were on the private road . Uban replied 4 lots . Anderson asked about the phasing of the project . Uban w replied that the major collector road with utilities would be installed this fall . He said that the request for early grading permits would be necessary to accomplish the road work . Bentley asked why the density had been reduced to approximately one-half of the original PUD. Uban replied that the market had changed . Harris asked the price range of the homes . Travalia replied $300, 000 and up for the home and the lot . Pidcock asked about the buffer zone in the southwest area of the project . Uban replied that first there was a physical separation with additional landscaping being provided. Pidcock said that the developer was not proposing to construct a berm at this time, but to use what was naturally there . Uban said that was correct, but if a berm was determined necessary it would be constructed . Pidcock asked how the road alignment would be handled if Seiffert did not sell his property. Uban replied that if Seiffert did not sell he would probably develop the property and that if the land did remain undeveloped Mason Homes could construct a cul-de-sac. Mr . Eickholt, 15380 Pioneer Trail, stated concern about the density of Phase 5. Eickholt questioned why this Phase had a higher density than the other phases and believed that the density of the whole project should be determined now. Uban said that changes in the density of that area had not been made from the original PUD already approved . Travahia said that this would be the last phase City Council Minutes 7 August 16 , 1988 of the project and would be several years away and that at that time there would be another Public Hearing. Travalia said that Phase 5 would probably be smaller single-family homes and would be at a lower density. Eickholt stated concern about the project being compatible with the existing neighborhood . Peterson stated that the Council understood his concerns, but the Council did not have the authority to request the developer to answer tonight how the property would be developed for that phase . Bentley stated that the developer would be required to meet very specific criteria and that the development would conform with the surrounding area . Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, asked for more information on the 4-acre park . Lambert replied that the park would be developed next year . He said the park would consist of a public lake access with 6 trailer parking spaces, playground, tennis courts, picnic area, and a sand beach area . Fie said that heavy berming and screening would be provided to separate the single-family homes from f the park . Lambert said that the park was being proposed as a passive park . Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission suggested that a residents committee work with Staff to draft an ordinance for review by the City Council to restrict the motors on the lake to electric trolling motors or a maximum 10- ( horsepower motor. Peterson asked Lambert when he projected the drafting of the ordinance would occur . Lambert replied that the process should be initiated now, so that potential buyers would be aware of the proposed use of the lake . Anderson commented that it was important to have an ordinance in effect by the time residents moved in. Pidcock stated concern about the possibility for duplication of street names and the confusion which could occur . Gartner asked if the public would be notified when the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission would discuss the development of the park . Lambert replied that notice would be published in the newspaper . Peterson suggested that notice be mailed to the same residents that were notified of tonight 's hearing. Dave Kraemer, 9010 Mitchell Road, asked if there would be grading in the buffer zone area . Uban commented there would be a physical separation and the transition zone would be buffered with landscaping and/or berming . He said that grading would not occur in the area until sewer and roads were installed . Kraemer asked who would . maintain this buffer zone . Uban replied that the buffer zone would be owned and maintained by the Multiple Development and the Association. I i _A City Council Minutes a August 16, 1988 Ron Rasmussen, 15436 Village Woods Drive, asked where the trails would exist and if there would be a walkway along the lake . Uban replied that the proposed trails would connect to existing trails and would connect with sidewalks to access the park . Rasmussen asked if the land was too steep for a walkway around the peninsula . Lambert replied that the area was steep and heavily wooded which make development of the trail. difficult . Lambert further commented that the City would have to purchase the Lakeshore, which would be very expensive . Eickholt stated that the strip of land designated for high density would be appropriate for park use because of its accessibility . Eickholt stated a concern about the high density. Peterson stated that the Council appreciated the concern; however, he believed that the Council and City Staff of Eden Prairie had shown a sincere concern to provide suitability of the proposed development to adjacent existing homes . Peterson further commented that the City did not have a history of placing large multiple units in single-family neighborhoods . Y y Bentley asked about the concern raised by the proponent regarding the phasing of assessments for the roadways . ' Dietz replied that the recommendation was to construct the balance of Mitchell Road through the property. Travalia stated that he was not opposed to the location or the size x of the road, but was concerned about the economics in regard to the timing of the road construction. Dietz replied that a feasibility study would be required because others would also benefit from the road construction. Dietz proposed a 20-year payback period with the first payment due in 1992 . i Pidcock asked if the park was the trade-off for trails not being constructed along the lake . Lambert replied that when the PUD proposal was approved It was decided to accept land in lieu of park fees . Lambert said that the City had decided it was important to have public access to Red Rock Lake . Pidcock asked why if the park was in lieu of cash park fees for the lst phase, trails were not going on the peninsula . Lambert replied that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommended to take the 4-acre park rather than a 50 ' -wide strip. Lambert explained that the City could take land or cash park fees and the City had taken the land . Pidcock stated that she believed it was the City' s policy to have trails around all the lakes . Lambert replied that while it was a policy to obtain trails around lakes wherever feasible, there are a lot of lakes that do not have trails around them. Peterson commented that in some areas it was not feasible to have trails and that it was not the policy of the City to construct trails around all the lakes in Eden i f City Council Minutes 9 August 16, 1988 Prairie . Lambert commented that the whole west shore of Red Rock Lake did not have trails. Bentley asked Uban to explain what the green strips on the plan indicated . Uban replied that the green strips Indicated where variances would be necessary. Bentley asked if the land was platted down to the Lakeshore and there would not be scenic easements or dedication along the lakeshore . Uban stated that this was correct . Bentley believed that the park should not be developed until the Surface Management Ordinance was in place . MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-172 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No . 88-173 for PUD Concept Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. f MOT I CGN Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 35-88-PUD-9-88 for PUD District and Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: d Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-174 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development and Special Assessments Agreement Incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. E . MOTION:_ Hargis moved, seconded by Pidcock to authorize Staff to issue a Grading Permit prior to the 2nd Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and that the developer understand that he would be proceeding at his own risk . Motion carried unanimously. MQT I QN : j Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to authorize Staff to initiate the development of a Surface Management Ordinance in conJunct.on with interested residents and that the park not be developed for use until a Surface Management Ordinance was in place . City Council Minutes 10 August 16, 1988 Peterson asked if a separate motion would be made to deal with the recommendation from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission relating to alcohol use in the park . Bentley suggested a separate motion to prohibit the use of alcohol in the park . Anderson asked if the trail system would be phased in with the 2st Phase of the project . Lambert replied that the sidewalk would go in conjunction with the streets and the trail within the outlot to the north would be part of the 1st Phase . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Code Amendment to prohibit alcoholic beverages in the designated park area . Motion carried unanimously. B . LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING IV by LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership IV. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 4 . 53 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 33 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 33 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 4 . 53 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 0 . 14 acres, and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 1 acre, Preliminary Plat of 7 . 66 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of 60, 000 square feet of office-warehouse use . Location: South of Edenvale Boulevard . (Resolution #88-175, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #88-176, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to Overall Eden Prairie Industrial Park Partnership Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance 036-88-PUD-10-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-177, Preliminary Plat ) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of 43 surrounding properties and published In the August 3, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jim Noreen presented the project for the proponent . Noreen stated that the project would consist of 60,000 square feet of office/warehouse space divided into two buildings of 30, 000 square feet each . He stated that the southern portion of the project was heavily wooded . Noreen said that the proposed site would be developed as industrial with a small outlot that would be developed into a single--family residence . Noreen stated that the concern of Staff and the neighborhood was to protect the wooded area . He said to protect the wooded area a drainage and utility easement had been established to i i City Council Minutes 11 August 16, 1988 prevent any development of the natural wooded area and additional landscape screening would be provided along the woods, along the eastern edge of the property and around the single-family residence . Noreen stated that there would be a continuation of the existing fence along the eastern and southern borders of the property for security and screening purposes . Noreen requested a 25-Moot front yard setback in lieu of a 50-foot setback to help maintain the wooded area and the easements . Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 25, 1988 meeting and recommended the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low-density residential to industrial . He stated that the majority of the property was currently zoned industrial . Enger stated that a . 14-acre area would be zoned from rural to R1-13 . 5. Enger said that the single-family residential site would be platted at a later date . The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 5-0 vote per Staff recommendations of July 22, 1988 report and the following : 1 ) One residential lot 2 ) a permanent 250-foot easement to the back of the property 3 ) a 75-easement along the east d portion of the property 4 ) a buffer along the southwest portion of the property. Enger stated that Staff would investigate a cul-de-sac or private drive to provide access to Canterbury Lane . He stated that retaining walls were to be constructed to reduce tree loss . Enger said that all existing wells were to be removed and capped and all septic systems were to be removed . Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources did not review this issue; however, the connection of a trail from Canterbury Lane to Edenvale Boulevard should be addressed between lst & 2nd Reading . ' Pidcock asked Noreen when the house would be built . Noreen replied that this would be a future development . Pidcock then asked how the street would be shade into a dead end . Enger replied that originally two lots were fi proposed at the end of Canterbury Lane, but now it was only one lot. He said that Staff was still contemplating if a cul-de-sac should be continued or if there should be a driveway to the single lot . He said that Staff also recognizes problems with having a private drive coming off a deadend street . Pidcock 4tated that something should be planned now to deal with the problem. Enger stated that tkie requirement of a cul-de-sac would correct the current situation . Pidcock was concerned that using the existing trees would not provide adequate screening . Noreen replied that the developer would be working this fall with the neighbors and with Staff to work out the best locations for additional trees and shrubs . a P City Council Minutes 12 August 16, 1988 Harris asked Noreen to describe the fence . Noreen stated that the existing fence was a basket weave structure and proposed to continue this design . Anderson asked Enger if the City had any policy or ordinances in place at this time to protect residential neighborhoods from the noises of industrial area . Anderson commented that this was a unique situation in that a residential neighborhood was adjacent to an industrial area . Enger replied that the City did have a section in the City Code which lists performance standards that does not allow vibration, noise, glare, or odor to go beyond the site . Anderson asked if the City could make an agreement with the developer regarding the emission of noise . Anderson asked how having an industrial area next a to a residential neighborhood would affect the value of the adjacent residential properties and what could the City do to protect the value of that property. Pauly replied that specific noise standards could be provided in the Code which would require a Code Amendment . Pidcock asked if the noise level standard could be handled as part of the development agreement. Pauly believed that the { City could not create standards for each development and that the standards should be set in the Code . Bentley } stated that the industrial designation was overstated and that the actual intent for this area would be a high tech office . Bentley believed that the City had a list of . standards for a high tech zone and that the ceiling height restriction was part of the list, which would structurally limit industrial use . Enger replied that part of the list of standards for high tech office did include a 14-foot maximum ceiling height. Bentley asked. Pauly if the high tech designation could be imposed or the developer could f volunteer to agree to . Pauly replied that restrictions could be placed on the property; however, the law now states that such restrictions would terminate after 30 years . Pauly stated that after looking at the City Code he did find that specific provisions are established for decibel levels and there are hourly restrictions for construction noise . Pauly said that he was not certain r where the decibel level range had been derived . Enger f believed that the restrictions were modeled after a Bloomington ordinance . Peterson stated that the question before the Council now was whether or not the present Code stipulation sufficient to address the concerns of the Council regarding noise for this project . Pauly believed that to obtain answers it would require technical expertise from someone in the sound field . Pidcock suggested a two-week continuance until further information could be obtained regarding the sound issue. Noreen stated that the ceiling height of this project was maximum height of 13 ' -6" and this would preclude any large amount of heavy Industrial machinery. He stated that the nature of the development was a front door type of office complex City Council Minutes 13 August 16, 1988 structure . Noreen stated that there were not docks around the edge of the building . Noreen stated that the low ceiling height, the front door structure and the limited dock space would preclude any industrial use of the site. Jullie stated that in 1982 when the ordinance relating to noise levels was developed, Councilmember Tangen had a lot of input into the Ordinance and Dr . Tangen was knowledgeable in the field. Jullie further commented that the City had not had any noise complaints of this nature . Peterson pointed out that this was a unique situation and that the Council needed to take adequate precautions and that after hearing the information presented tonight he believed that the residents would be sufficiently protected . Bentley asked Enger when this parcel had been rezoned to I -2 and was this done in conJunction with the PUD. Enger replied that the rezoning had occurred possibly 25 years ago to I-2 . This parcel was being review because it was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Gulde Plan and approximately 5 years ago the proponent requested a site plan review within the I-2 District and as a result there was a requirement each site was to be reviewed on an Individual basis, this being the last site . Dietz stated that the cul-de-sac issue did need to be resolved and recommended a terminus on that cul-de-sac . He said that the City did need a place to turn around for snow plows and emergency vehicles . Dietz stated that the construction of the cul-de-sac should be part of the Preliminary Plat . Peterson asked if the cul-de-sac would be constructed entirely on this property or would part of It be on the property to the south . Dietz replied that Staff recommended the cul-de-sac be constructed entirely on this property. Anderson stated that a trail system for pedestrians should be looked at . Peterson asked about the closing of the wells and the restrictions placed on capping these wells . Enger replied that whenever there had been any type of buildings on a site the Building inspections Department recommends this as a requirement as a method to alert the developers and make them aware of the strict State restrictions and guidelines for capping the wells . Anderson asked if there was not more fill in this area than was originally proposed . Noreen stated that the grade was currently 907 . Anderson said that the floor level was set at 911 . Anderson asked if the floor level could be lowered to 908 . Noreen stated that if the floor level was changed he could not match the ingress and City Council Minutes 14 August 16, 1988 egress . Enger stated that this was addressed in the p August 11, L988 memo . Jim Gnitecki , 14250 Stratford Road, stated the he and other neighbors had met with the developer and were generally in favor of the development . He said that the developer had been considerate of most of the neighbors concerns . Gnitecki stated favor of the permanent easements of 250 feet and 75 feet, the conversion from 2 residential lots to 1 lot, the variance for parking reduction, and the 25-foot setback . He stated that neighbors were opposed to the cut-de-sac and would prefer the private drive . He said that the neighbors appreciated the developer 's cooperation in working for better screening of the area . Gnitecki stated that overall the neighborhood supports the proposal . Peterson commented that it was refreshing to hear positive feedback from a resident and also to hear that the developer worked conscientiously with the neighbors . Dr . Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, stated that the developers were very cooperative . Sandvick asked Enger if the floor elevation was lowered to 910 what would the slope of the driveway be . Enger stated that the City did not like to be 10% above grade and preferred to have a flat spot before coming on to the road . Sandvick stated concern about the noise levels that possibly could be generated from the site . Sandvick said that dropping the ¢ extra foot would provide extra shielding . Enger said that unless the developer had an objection, dropping the extra foot would not create a problem. Noreen said the grade at the road edge was 9L3 and the building was at 911, there would only be 35 feet to accomplish a 2-foot drop. Bentley suggested that this issue be resolved between the developer and Staff and placed as a condition of 2'nd Reading . Richard Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, stated that he was not in favor of extending Canterbury Lane . Mavison said that if a house was built he believed that a cul-de-sac would be necessary and was opposed to a private drive . Mavison was concerned about the sewer connection to the house and suggested that it be connected from Edenvale rather than be brought up hill to connect from Canterbury Lane . f Marshall Schwartz, 6530 Leesborough Avenue, asked for assurance that the fence would be a continuation of color r and style of the existing fence, that the landscape screening would include raising the berm and would prefer the plantings to be evergreen to provide for winter screening, and that the screening take place at the start of the project . Peterson stated that he believed that all City Council Minutes 15 August 1.6, 1988 of these issues had been explicitly addressed . Enger stated that a conclusion had not been determined to have the landscaping and screening to occur at the start of the project . Noreen stated that he had agreed to do the landscaping and screening at the front of the project with the neighbors . Phil Maller, 14202 Stratford Road, stated that he was concerned that the 250-foot buffer be retained and that the landscaping be provided as proposed . He said that he was pleased with the proposal . Harris asked Dietz who was responsible for the , inspection of the capping of the wells . Dietz replied that the Building Inspections Department was responsible . MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-175 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No . 88-176 for PUD Concept Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION• Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 36-88-PUD-10-88 for PUD District and Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-177 approving the Preliminary Plat and to Incorporate a cul-de-sac for the outlot to be a terminus to Canterbury Lane . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION• Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions as follows : 1 ) The fence be a continuation of existing fence . 2 ) Landscaping would occur at the beginning of the project . 3 ) Evergreen style vegetation would be liberally used in the screening process . 4 ) Trail system extension would be resolved prior to 2nd Reading. 5) Height of floor elevation be resolved prior to 2nd Reading with the elevation to leave adequate and legal egress for access to City Council Minutes 16 August 16, 1988 the building . 6 ) Specify the exact location of the berm. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson requested more detail on the Noise Ordinance . C. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION by Eberhardt/Hoyt Development . Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 4 . 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I -2 on 4 . 3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals . Preliminary Plat of 24 . 2 acres into one lot, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a 90,600 square foot building addition. Location : South of W. 74th Street, east of Golden Triangle Drive . A public hearing (Ordinance # 37- 88, Rezoning; Resolution 088-1.78, Preliminary Plat ) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to 12 surrounding property owners and was published in the August 3, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Brad Hoyt presented that project . Hoyt said that two parcels would be combined . He stated that part of the existing buildings would be demolished . Hoyt said that two variances would be necessary. He said that this project would be a warehouse distribution center . Hoyt proposed a 14-foot-high berm be provided to screen the loading docks from Golden Triangle Drive . Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 25, 1988 meeting and recommended approval of the project with the variances on a 5-0 vote per Staff report of July 22, 1988 . Enger stated that a 5' concrete sidewalk or an 8 • bituminous trail to be constructed on the east and west side of Golden Triangle Drive should be added to the plans . He said that variances to allow a Base Area Ratio to exceed 30% and to allow a loading facility on a street frontage in the 2 -2 Park Zoning District should be applied for and received prior to Council review. Enger said that detailed storm water run-off, erosion control , and utility plans were to be provided prior to final plat approval . Bentley asked why the loading docks could not be on the north side of the building. Hoyt replied that the docks would face West 74th Street and that it was more efficient to have all the loading docks in one location. Hoyt said that the west end of the building was the practical location . t Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated that there q was a dvplication of the name of the development . Helle was concerned about the screening to hide the loading docks . Helle said that he did not believe that the screening to the north of the building was adequate . City Council Minutes 17 August 16, 1988 Helle suggested putting a privacy fence on top of the berm to provide immediate screening . Helle was also concerned about where the extra trailers would be parked . Peterson asked Enger if the vegetation on top of the berm was required for screening or if the berm itself would provide adequate screening . Enger replied that if large plantings are placed on top of a berm they usually die . He said that a 10-foot berm was on the west side of the building and was supplemented with 12-foot-high evergreens . Enger suggested discussing with Hoyt the possibility of reducing the size of the evergreens 2 to 3 feet and providing a 2-to-3 foot high fence on top of the berm to provide immediate screening. Anderson suggested that if sprinkling systems were put in the berms the vegetation would not die . He suggested that a sprinkler system be installed in the berm for this project . Peterson asked Anderson if he was suggesting that Staff and the Council review the requirement of sprinkling systems . Anderson suggested that the Council recommend it be part of the developers agreement . Hoyt stated that putting in a sprinkler system would not be a problem. Bentley said that he shared Anderson' s concerns; however, he was also concerned about making a mandatory requirement for installation of sprinkler systems . Bentley did not believe that this was the type of requirement that the City had the right to impose and that n water resources would become precious . Bentley said that p even though the intent was to preserve screening that the Council would be sending out the wrong message . MOTION_: 4 Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 37-88 for Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. tJOTI ON: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-178 approving the Preliminary Plat . Motion carried unanimously. MQTION • Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare Development and Special Assessments Agreements incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council concern to include voluntary installation of a sprinkling system . Bentley asked Enger what type of restrictions the City had for the parking of tractor trailers in general parking City Council Minutes 18 August 16, 1988 areas . Enger replied that the City Code did have a provision that prohibits the parking of greater than a 3/4-ton vehicle from parking in the general parking lot, but that this was difficult to enforce . Motion carried unanimously. Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to authorize Staff to give a recommendation on requirements for sprinkling on commercial and industrial properties within the city. Motion carried unanimously. MQ7'ION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to provide information and suggestions for possible Code x changes regarding the enforcement of truck and trailer parking in the general parking areas . Motion carried y unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF rLAIMS MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of Claims No . 44372 to No . 44640 . Roll Call Vote : Anderson, Bentley,, Harris, Pidcock, Peterson all voting "Aye" . Motion carried unanimously. VI . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. lst Readingof OrdlLiAncen Chapter 2 .ky Adding New Section 2 . 32 Relating to Authgritx to rssug C Referencerity- Code Chapter,;, Except Sectjgs 1 t 03, 1 . 06 and 1 09 MSiMT,S O N: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 38-88 . Pidcock asked for Justification for doing this . Pauly replied that changes in the State Law that require that persons other than peace officers must be given specific authority by the employer municipality to issue citations in lieu of arrests . Pidcock asked if situations could arise where employees ' actions would extend beyond their authority. Pauly replied that the employees would be } given training. Motion carried unanimously. VIS . PETITIONS,"mu=' s :fi SomijuNICATIONS City Council Minutes 19 August 16, 1988 VILI . REPORTS OF ADVTSORY COMMISSIONS I X. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of gouncill Members 1 . Peterson 's report on Hennepin County Recycling Task Force Meeting. Peterson reported that a subcommittee had submitted a list of recycling goals to recommend to Hennepin County Commissioners . He said that 16% source separation a recycling and 4 % waste reduction abatement goals by 1990 be maintained .. Peterson stated that the majority of the discussion related to residential recycling. He said that the committee recommended that cities deal only with residential recycling and not get involved with commercial recycling. Peterson stated that more information was needed regarding mechanical separation . He said that progress was being impeded because representatives for the Metropolitan Council had failed to attend the meetings . Peterson said that a motion was passed requesting the Metropolitan Councils attendance again. He reported that definitions were hard to nail down and there were a lot of major questions that needed to be answered . Peterson said that he would keep the Council updated . 2 . Update on water situation. Harris asked Dietz to update the Council on the waterban situations and if the current ban could be lifted. Dietz replied that after the heavy rainfalls of the last two weeks the City was pumping approximately 4 million gallons a day but was currently pumping approximately 11 million gallons . Dietz recommended leaving the watering ban in place at this time . He stated that Eden Prairie had a mechanical restriction and that Minneapolis/St . Paul had a source restriction . Jullie concurred with Dietz that changes in the ban should not take place per comments received from residents . 3 . Pidcock 's report on the AMM Revenue Committee . Pidcock reported that . Minneapolis would like to get together with Eden Prairie to discuss tax increment financing. Jullie stated that he and Mayor Peterson had been invited to meet with Mayor Fraser . B. Heaort of City Manager 1 . .,�e, t Datg foK Strategic Planning Meeting j. . i� City Council Minutes 20 August 16, 1988 Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to set Mid-year Strategic Planning meeting for September 27, 1988 from 5 PM to 9 PM. Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Re on Pronosal to Move the Prairie Village Mall Licuor Store (continued from July 19, 1988 ) Jullie reported that the owners of the Prairie Village Mall had asked to negotiate with the City an the following Items : 1 ) substantial rent reduction 2 ) a condominimizing proposal similar to the one proposed by the other center 3 ) a free standing building on the site . Jullie recommended continuing this time for 30 days to obtain further information from the Prairie Village Mall on these items. MOTION . a Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item e for 30 days . Peterson asked Jullie about a community survey being done . this fall and if a decision regarding the purchase of space and/or leasing would be necessary before the survey was done and it was determined if the City wished to continue in the liquor business . Jullie replied that the survey would not be done until next year . Jullie believed that the two items were separate issues and that the City would be in a better position if it owned space . Motion carried unanimously. 3 . Report gf Formatign -ofW (continued from August 9, 1988 ) Peterson wished to compliment Assistant City Manager Dawson on his work on this project. Peterson asked if the charge was built into the ordinance . Pauly replied no . Peterson suggested there be a modification to the first sentence of the Charge to the Commission to read as follows : The City of Eden Prairie wished to have a responsible and effective system to manage solid waste, including the capture of hazardous compounds, and recovery of recyclable materials, and minimize the amount of waste to be placed in the sanitary landfills . Peterson believed that hazardous compounds and the recovery of recyclables to be of major concern. Peterson suggested that the same wording be incorporated Into the ordinance . He wished Subd . 2 . A. to read: . .and other wastes, and review and make recommendations related to resource recovery ( recyclables ) . 1 i City Council Minutes 21 August 16, 1988 Peterson suggested that the Section 1 . subd . 1 . to read : . . .composed of seven ( 7 ) member, with a minimum of 5 Eden Prairie residents, is hereby . . . . . . Peterson believed that there should be an allowance for some non-residents to serve on this committee . Bentley said that this would not mean that there had to be non-residents, but left the option open . Harris believed that someone with expertise in this field would be beneficial . Pauly stated that the charge should go under duties . Bentley stated that the charge should be separate from the ordinance and was intended to give a direction to start . Peterson believed that the duties a,b,c,and d were a reordering of the charge . Pauly replied that the duties of the commission are set forth in the code itself. Bentley suggested increasing to areas of conservation and the potential energy conservation . Peterson suggested that at the beginning the Commission should focus on waste management for a year or two and then could broaden to areas of conservation. He said that in the beginning there would be a lot of work to do. i Anderson asked if this would be an on-going committee . He said that the City had a Development Commission . Anderson ,( asked if the City would not be better off having a standing committee for a certain period of time . Peterson believed that this would be an ongoing task and challenge for the City. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt ordinance No. 34-88 as amended. Harris stated that originally she believed that this should be a task force to evaluate the issues placed upon it at designated times; however, now she believed that waste management would be the issue of the remainder of this century. Bentley stated that if people are appointed to a Commission they are more committed than if Just a member of a committee which would have a beginning and an end . He said that a Commission was considered to be an official organization of the City. Motion carried unanimously.. MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to pass along the charge as amended to the Commission as a guideline for direction. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 22 August 16, 1988 4 . BFI Invitation . Jullie reported that the Council had been invited to tour the BFI facility on Monday, August 22, 1988 at 3 : 30 PM and that this should be set up as a special meeting. MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Peterson to schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for Monday, August 22, 1988 at 3: 30 PM to tour the BFI facility. S There was a discussion regarding the open meeting laws . Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Attornfty D. Report of Director of .Manning E. Reporto£ Director of Community fervices 1 . Review Bids for Staring Lake Park Improvements MOTION: " Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to reject all bids . Motion carried unanimously. Lambert commented that the Commission was disappointed and was concerned about this item being nut on a referendum. Peterson agreed that this should not be put on a referendum. Lambert said that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission would like to see this developed next year and that cash park fees should be available . He said that the Lioness Organization and Historical & Cultural Commission would like to have an indication if the Council supported this item. F. Report of Director gf Public Works 1 . Signal Systems on RrAiXie -Center DXivS (at V RosId ., at Viking Drive: at West 78tStreet; and at Preserve Boulevard I .C. U-134 (Resolution No SO- 168) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-168 to award the contract for Project I .C. 52-134 . Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 23 August 16, 1988 2 . Approve P91icy Regarding Water Pres a BoosSystems for Single Family Homes Located in isolated Areas of High Elevation and Exr)eriencin!g Low Water j2r!Cjsure Dietz reported that the proposal was for water pressure booster systems to be installed for structures located at elevations of 950 or above . He stated that the cost to the City would be $685 per unit and that the homeowners and/or developers would be responsible for the installation . Dietz believed this to be the least expensive way to resolve the problem. Peterson asked Dietz what different obligation the City would perceive in providing water at a certain elevation and sharing the costs instead of the increased cost that a developer aright incur because of elevation which require special grading to get a house on top of a hill . Dietz replied that there was probably not any difference; however, at Bryant Lake the City did not know exactly what the pressures would be. Harris asked Dietz who would be responsible for maintenance . Dietz replied that Staff was proposing that the homeowner be responsible for maintenance . Peterson asked Dietz if there was any problem with maintaining pressure to the fire hydrants in this area . Dietz replied that after discussion with the Fire Marshal It was believed that pressure was satisfactory. Bentley commented that when property owners buy a home they should be able to expect the same level of City service as any othez property owner in the City. Bentley was concerned that residents were being penalized because they built on a hill . Dietz replied that the City collected approximately $450 per lot for the trunk water system and would now be paying out $650 . Dietz clarified that the City would pay for the entire unit and the homeowner would be responsible for installation. MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve Staff recommendation for Water Pressure Booster System Installation . Motion carried unanimously. 3 . A92roye Grading Permit fg-r Lee Johnson Property - - - Ro2d IMprrgvement Project ( I . C . 52-132) j OTI QN } City Council Minutes 29 August 16, 1988 Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to move Item X .F. 3 forward in the agenda to be reviewed at this time . Motion carried unanimously. Dietz explained that Johnson owned the triangular piece of property adjacent to Franlo Road and as the plans for improvements to Franlo Road were reviewed it became apparent that several mature oaks would be lost . Dietz said that it could be possible to save the oak trees if changes were made in the grades, which would generate more fill material . He said that this plan seemed to fit with Johnson ' s plans to fill his property to allow future development of the property. Dietz stated that a great deal of the side slope would be disturbed as a result of the road construction and that Johnson's property would be a good location to dispose of the excess fill . Dietz said that this proposal could benefit both Johnson and the City as well as the other property owners along Franlo Road as it would reduce the overall costs of the project . He stated that a City engineering technician had presented the proposal to the adjacent property owners . Dietz said that only willow and ash trees would be affected as a result of the new plan and that none of the trees affected a would be part of the tree replacement policy. a, Lee Johnson stated that he had been asked for a slope easement for the Franlo Road project . Johnson believed the slope and the oak trees would be the buffer for his property and wished to save the oak trees . Johnson had met with the City Consulting Engineer and Johnson believed that it would be better not to fill in the area around the oaks . He said that by filling in the other area of the property the side slopes would not be disturb, making restoration costs lower . Peterson asked for clarification on what was being proposed . Dietz replied that Johnson had presented to the Council what was requested of him for the temporary slope easement . Dietz said that the grading permit request was for a guard rail system to be installed around the curve, to steeper: the slopes, and to dispose of the fill in the triangular portion of the property. Dietz stated that some trees would still be lost; however, these trees would be the ash, willow and boxelder . Bentley asked for clarification on why this matter was being reviewed . Dietz replied that Staff felt uncomfortable with making this as a Staff change and so it was being presented tonight as a grading permit. Joanne Syverson, 11912 Joy Circle, stated concerns about the approximate 20 trees that would be lost and the potential for the Johnson property to become a weed patch without trees after the fill was brought in, which would completely alter the appearance of the land . She believed that the City was only looking at this as being an inexpensive way for the City E City Council Minutes 25 August 16, 1988 to dispose of the extra fill and to benefit Johnson without regard to the change in appearance . Syverson did not believe that they were given sufficient notice of the proposed changes . She said that the changes were first presented to them on Friday night . Syverson asked if consideration had been given to possible drainage problems . She said that they currently had water problems and were concerned about the change in grade and how this would affect their lot . Syverson also wanted to know where the floodplain would end up and whether it was actually feasible to develop Johnson 's property. She questioned if this natural area should be destroyed for a plan that might never be . Syverson stated concern about what might be dumped in this area besides dirt . She said that after the big flood large chunks of concrete were dumped into another lot in the neighborhood . Syverson asked that this item be postponed until answers to her questions could be obtained . Bentley asked Dietz if a decision had to be made tonight in order to continue the construction of Franlo Road . Dietz replied yes . Ray Hovland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated concern about this being a safe solution. He said that there was currently a drainage problem and questioned the possibility of erosion problems . He said that his home was in the low spot and was concerned about the affect the grading would have on his property. Hovland stated concern about the weeds that would ' replace the natural marsh land . He was concerned about the area looking decent and if the Johnson property was developable . Hovland concurred with Syverson about the chunks of concrete dumped into the other lot in the neighborhood and did not wish to see s the Johnson property become a landfill . Peterson asked Dietz if Staff had answers to any of the concerns . Dietz replied that the drainage situation would be improved . He said that storm sewer and curb and gutter would be installed along Franlo Road . Dietz said that the Watershed District was currently reviewing Lake Eden . He said that the drainage would run westerly and did not anticipate drainage problems due to the grading. Dietz said that erosion could be a problem and that erosion control fencing would be installed . He said that erosion would be a problem no matter which plan was followed . Dietz did not believe that whether the land was developable or not was relevant to this issue , He said that the City would be responsible for the restoration of the property and that prairie grass could be planted . Dietz said that the comments were true about the concrete in the fill; however , he was not aware of any complaints . Dietz said that because the protect was under way it would be desirable to make a decision tonight . Harris asked Dietz to explain more about the p possibility of erosion . Dietz replied the new plan would fill in Johnson 's City Council Minutes 26 August 16, 1988 property approximately 7 feet and would create a flat plain where there was a valley before . Dietz stated that the area up to the berm would be filled in to the elevation of the berm. Johnson said that the berm was not on his property, therefore there would be an area between the berm and his property that would not be filled creating a route for the drainage between the properties . Harris said that in essence a gully would be created . Harris asked where the drainage would go . Dietz replied the drainage would flow west toward Eden hake the same direction that it currently flows . Hovland stated concern about the drainage and the gully being created, because the gully would be at the back of his property. Dietz said that the fill would go from 0 to 7 feet close to the property line . He said that the berm would be higher than the fill . Dietz stated that there would be an opportunity to provide for screening when Johnson would come before the Planning Commission with definite plans for the s development of the property. ,d Anderson asked Dietz if the potential was present to push the drainage onto the adjacent properties . He commented that the natural drainage was being altered . Dietz replied that he did not believe this would push the drainage onto another property. He said that the drainage channel was being moved to follow along a property line and that the City had drainage and utility easements to allow for this. Harris asked Dietz if the proposal did pass if the City would restore the area with prairie grass . Dietz stated that he believed this to be a commitment the City should make . Harris asked Dietz what was going to be done to cover up the concrete In the other lot . Dietz replied that the City did not have any further plans for that lot at this time . Bentley believed that the real issues were : 1 ) could the City ;preserve the oak trees 2 ) could the plan be accomplished with less disruption of the area . He commented that Johnson's plan would allow for these items to take place . He believed that the grading permit should be issued . Peterson believed chat the Council had been assured that the adjacent properties would not be adversely affected and he would support a motion. Dietz stated that the MaJority of the trees in the area would be lost, but the City would try to move some of the smaller willow trees . Dietz stated that all of the trees could not be saved, but possibly six could be saved . MOTION• Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to issue the grading permit with the stipulation that the area be restored with 4 City Council Minutes 27 August 16, 1988 ' prairie grass and that the City save the trees where passible . Motion carried unanimously. G . Report of Finance Urector XI . NEW BUST iESs XII . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12: 00 AM.