Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/06/1988 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 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, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dayson, ^.ity 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 1 . APPROVAL QF ,AGENDA ANQ OTHER.. I TEM,6 OF BUSINESS f MOTION • Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as published . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to amend the Agenda by moving Item K from the Consent Calendar to Item X.B. 10 move Item D from the Consent Calendar to Item X .B. 2, and removing Item L from the Consent Calendar . Motion carried unanimously. ADD Item X .A. 3, an announcement from Councilmember Bentley. ADD Item X .A. 4, discussion regarding Bryant Lake Park requested by Councilmember Anderson. ADD Item X.F. 2, Grading Permit for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce property from City Manager Jullie . Motion carried unanimously. II . MINUTES III . CONSENT CALNDAR A. Clerk ' s LiceDAe List City Council Minutes 2 September 6, 1988 B . end Reading of Ordinance No. 38-88 Amending City Code Chapter 2 by Adding New Section 2 . 32 Relating to Authority to issue Citations, and—Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1, Exgcpt Sections 1 . 03,, 1i0§ 51nd 1 . 09 C . 2nd Reading_ of Ordinance No . 34§8. Amending City Code Chapter 2 by Adding New Section 2 . 19 Establishing a Waste Management Commis s on D . 1st Rgading of Ordinanct No . 42-g8. e R Firearms Rggulat ons Liy Amending City Code Chapter 9, Section 9 . 40, Subd. 3A to Restrigt the Area Where Discharge of Firearms are Permit( (THIS ITEM MOVED TO X.B. 1) E. LARIAT CENTER by Edward F. Flaherty 6 M. Austin Smith. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No . 28-88-PUD-7-88, Rezoning from Rural to PUD-7-88-Commercial-Regional-Service; Approval of Developer 's Agreements for Lariat Center Retail Center, Lariat Center Auto Mall, and Owner 's Supplement to Lariat Center Auto Mall; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-186, ` Authorizing Summary of Oxdinance No . 28-88-PUD-7-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. PUD on 18 acres with waivers within the C-Reg-Service Zoning District, Rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4 . 8 acres, Preliminary Platting of 4 .8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 18, 845 square foot auto mall and a 22, 180 square foot �e retail center . Location : South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard (Ordinance No. 28-88-PUD-7-88. PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-186, Authorizing Summary 6 Publication ) F. MINNE907% MINI-STOR&GE by Bruce Hubbard . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 31-88, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 on 2. 35 acres; Approval of Developer 's Agreement for Minnesota Mini -STorage; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-187, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 31-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Rezoning of 2. 35 acres to I- 2 and Platting 7 . 7 acres into one lot for construction of 44, 255 square feet of storage buildings . Location: Northwest of Flying Claud Drive, southeast of U.S . Highway 1169 (Ordinance No . 31-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88- 187, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication). G. H. 1st Reading of QXdipangg Ng . 32-88, Rules and RegulAtions Govern i ng Municipal Cgmetery I . A2proval fQr Ejaherty Addition located south of (Resolution No . 88-183 ) City Council Minutes 3 September 6, 1988 J . Change Order No . 1 to Mitchell Road/Research Road. I .C. ' 051 K . ADDrovye Ora cl ng Permit for Patrick BAu9XjprqVertv ad Jacent Mitchell Road north at C9AH #1 (THIS ITEM MOVED TO X .B. 2 ) L. Resolution directing the County Auditor to deny division documents without property City certification (Resolution NO . 88-192 ) (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED) M. Resolution to revoke the deaignation of County Rpad 67 along the Townline RoadjCSAH 62 alignment between I-494 and CSAH 4 (Resolution No . 88-193) N. Sp9clal �Assessment -Actreemgnt rglease for BluffsWest 5th AddIJU o n v. Proclamation for LInited way'waylg 1988 K!dnn Pralrie community Campaign (Resolution No . 88-180) P. RAQuegt for grAding Pelmit by Alex DorenkelmRgr to construct a hAMl road to serve adjacent property in ghanhessen HQTION: f Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Consent Calendar as amended with the removal of Items K, L and D. Enger stated that an amendment to the Developer 's Agreement for Item E, Lariat Center should be made regarding an assessment agreement, a cross access agreement, and parking spaces to be 30, subject to City approval . It was by consensus of the Council to approve the amendment . Bentley asked Pauly what the purpose was for Section 2 of Ordinance No. 34-88 . Pauly replied that each Ordinance that was adopted amending the Code incorporated Chapter 1 because it includes the definition. Peterson commented that per discussions from previous meetings the Council had suggested that at least 5 members of the haste Management Commission be residents of Eden Prairie and requested that Subdivision 1, sentence 2 be amended to read as follows : Commission members shall either be residents of the City or employed within the City; however, at least 5 of the members must reside in Eden Prairie . The amendment was approved by consensus of the Council . Peterson asked Pauly if the Council could pass the Ordinance with the above amendment . Pauly replied yes . i ITEM G: Bentley asked why the cost was $3,000 higher for a bituminous apron versus a concrete apron . Dietz replied that the cost was higher due to the thickness of the apron . . Tp{ i City Council Minutes 4 September 6, 1988 Bentley questioned the high cost of the paint for the mezzanine ceilings and walls . Dawson replied that this was a special paint which had a longer life span, dried on contact, and would help protect the ceiling from moisture damage . Pidcock asked if the City had received any other bids for the painting work . Dawson replied that the painting was part of a change order to an existing contract, the prices had been reviewed by the architect who deemed the prices reasonable . ITEM K : Bentley asked if the tree removal policy was applied for grading permits . Dietz replied that on City projects in the past the tree removal policy had not applied; however, on private projects it had applied . Dietz said that trees were not being removed on this project . a ITEM M: Bentley asked for the history of Item M. Dietz replied that currently the section of State Aid Highway 62 between Baker Road and Eden Prairie Road was also designated as County Road 67 . He said the State would like to drop the County Road 67 designation for clarification purposes and would keep the State Aid Highway 62 to maintain State subsidy. f Motion carried unanimously. t I v. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2ATASERV by Opus Corporation. Request for PUD Concept Amendment on 17. 4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17 . 4 acres with a waiver for office use up to 100% within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7 . 4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17. 4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters . Location: South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive . (Resolution No. 88-188, PUD Concept Amendment to overall Prairie Center Business Park PUD; Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD- 11-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-189, Preliminary Plat) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock that this item be continued until the September 20, 1988 City Council Meeting . Bentley questioned where the authority had come from to have plans reviewed based on the traffic generation and did not believe that the City Council had established a policy relative to this issue . Bentley further commented that he was not aware of any other developer in the City I a City Council Minutes 5 September 6, 1988 of Eden Prairie having a traffic management restriction of this nature placed on a development . Bentley stated objection to delaying the project based on traffic management issues that the City did not have a policy on. Enger replied that Staff was under the impression that clear direction had come from the City Council after traffic studies were authorized in 1985 and again in 1987 88 . Enger said that the City Council had reviewed over a dozen projects since the completion of the studies with traffic as a major issue . Enger believed that the Datasery project was being handled like the Wilson Ridge, Vantage, and Lunds projects . Enger stated that the Council had clearly stated that the review of traffic and the impact of traffic was a valid tool of the City and should be persuaded . Enger said that the delay on the project had been per a request from Dataserv. He stated that Datasery was investigating the possibility of a flextime program to reduce the traffic problem . Peterson stated that even though traffic issues had been discussed in conjunction with other projects, that the Council may not have formally or officially discussed and agreed on the direction that the City of Eden Prairie 3 would like to pursue . Peterson believed that the BRW 3 Study would be an excellent tool in helping determine the direction and asked Enger when the study would be complete . Enger replied that the BRW Study should be completed within approximately 30 days . Pidcock believed that traffic was an impact on the quality of life of the residents . Bentley stated that this issue needed to be discussed on the level of establishing policy. Motion carried unanimously. B. CHFXENNS PLA!gE by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 38 . 27 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38. 27 acres with waivers for lot frontage, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 38 . 27 acres, Preliminary Plat of 38 . 27 acres into 76 single family lots, 6 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location : North of County Road 1, 640 feet west of C(.unty Road M4 and County Road 01 intersection. (Resolution No . 88-190, PUD Concept for Cheyenne Place; Ordinance No . 41-88-PUD-12-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-191, Preliminary Plat) Peter Knaeble, representing the proponent, presented that project and approvals requested . Knaeble stated that the 4 lots that front County Road I had been revised per Staff } recommendations to widen the lots to 110 feet . He said that berming had been added along County Road 1 and the school site . Knaeble stated the density of the pro3ect would be 2 . O units per acre . He said that utilities for the project would come from the Fairfield Phase I City council Minutes 6 September 6, 1988 development by late fall of 1988 or early spring of 1989 . Knaeble stated that a tree replacement plan had been submitted per Staff recommendations to replace 300 caliper Inches of trees . He stated that the develop had agreed to meet the phasing guidelines as set forth in the Southwest Area Study. Knaeble said that the plan had been revised to reflect the sidewalks as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Knaeble concluded by stating that he believed that all conditions and recommendations of Staff had been met . Enger reported that this proposal was reviewed at the August 8, 1988 Planning Commission meeting and unanimously recommender) approval subject to recommendations per the August 4, 1988 Staff Report . Enger stated that the plans had changed to reflect Staff recommendations . Enger said that the Southwest Area Study was scheduled to be completed in approximately two weeks . He said that because the Southwest Area Study was not completed at this d time, Staff, the developer, and the school district had been working with contingencies . Enger believed that this project would work well with any recommendations by the Southwest Area Study in terms of timing for utilities and road connections . Enger said that sewer connections for the School . District could come from this project or the project from the north . Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this proposal at its August 15, 1988 meeting and recommended approval on a 5-0 vote per the August 4, 1988 Staff Report and the August 9, 1988 Supplemental Staff Report . Lambert stated that the developer had been a cooperative, group to work with . He said that the existing City park did not connect to the existing school site. Lambert said that the developer had dedicated a strip of land to make a physical connection between the Old City Hall park site and the new school site . Lambert said that two trail connections would be. provided and sidewalk connections would be available between the parks . Lambert stated that the neighborhood park would have playground equipment and court areas . He stated that the park would have a passive theme to tie into the Senior Center . Lambert stated that a park plan would be presented to the Council in approximately a month . Bentley was concerned if there would be storm sewer, where exactly it would be, its depth or elevation, and who would be paying for it . Bentley asked City Engineer Garay when answers to these questions would be available . Bentley € commented that it would be easier to deal with these issues with the developers now rather than individual home owners latex . City Engineer Gray replied that Staff would City Council Minutes 7 September 6, 1988 have more definite answers by the 2nd Reading; however, a feasibility study could not be completed by 2nd Reading . Peterson asked if future development of County Road 1 had been taken into consideration relating to the location of the berm. Gray replied that it had . Anderson asked Lambert if Outlot C would connect to the City park and the school property. Lambert replied that there would be a physical connection; however, a trail system would not be required . Anderson asked Lambert if the City had plans for the pond and if the level of the pond could be managed with a storm sewer . Lambert replied that only the outlot could be controlled and that at the current time there were no plans for the pond area . OOTION . Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-190 for PUD Concept y Approval . Motion carried unanimously. NOTION• Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 41-88-PUD-12-88 for approval of PUD ? District Review and Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. 3 MOTION : 3 r Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No . 88-191 approving the Preliminary Plat . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to prepare a Development and Special Assessment Agreements Incorporating commission and staff recommendations, and to include the recommendation from the Engineering Department that this property be asked to petition for a feasibility study on the drainage . Motion carried unanimously. C. EL"_9_ 1<4n of Intent to Organize Ref- a CgllgCjion (Resolution No . 88-184 ) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was published in the August 17, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News and letters had been sent to licensed refuse haulers within the City in early August . He said that the Eden Prairie News had a front-page article on the hearing in the August 31, 1988 issue . Jullie stated that the Council City Council Minutes 8 September 6, 1988 had discussed way which would provide the most effective waste abatement within the City and that one of the ways to accomplish this goal would be to have refuse delivered to a waste processing facility, specifically the Rueter facility. Jullie said that to accomplish this would require some form of contract or license changes, an arrangement which would fall within the statutory definition of organizing refuse collection. Jullie stated that the State Statute required a minimum 90-day public comment period for planning an organized collection system. He said that the public hearing tonight would begin the process . Jullie stated that if the Resolution was adopted that the following public meetings would be scheduled : 1 ) October 6, 1988 for discussion of alternatives 2 ) November 9, 1988 for discussion of contract provisions 3 ) December 6, 1988 for Council action to formalize the license conditions with the program to be implemented by January 1989 . Peterson commented that by passing the Resolution the Council would not be making a final commitment to any particular program. Bentley commented that the intent was to establish license stipulations for haulers and to determine an end dumping site . MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-184 . Peterson asked Dawson if the Rueter facility would fall under the category of a resource recovery facility. Dawson replied that it would . Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS i tl MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of Claims No . 44642 to No . 45369 . Pidcock asked, relating to #44771, what type of books for the Fire Department would cost $354 .65. Jullie replied that the City had recently reorganized the Fire Prevention Department as a part of the Building Inspection Department . He stated that this charge was for new fire code manuals and updates necessary to have current code manuals . f d i City Council Minutes 9 September 6, 1988 Pidcock asked, relating to 045056, what child support deductions the City was responsible for . Jullie replied that the City was required by law to participate in the program. Pidcock asked, relating to #45113, why the City was obtaining services from a company that was testifying against the City. Pauly replied that the BRW was not testifying against the City regarding the landfill issue . Peterson commented that the BRW was related to traffic and was not involved in the landfill problem. Pidcock asked Jullie if anyone specific was in charge of advertising acids for the liquor stores . Jullie replied that Liquor Operations Manager Dahlberg handled all the advertising for the liquor stores . ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, and Peterson all voting "AYE" . VI . QRQINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII . PETITIQNS, REQUESTS & CQMMUNICA I�' ONS VIII . RERORI§ OE ADVi�SORY COMMISSIONS 9 ` I X. PPOI NTMENTS A. I-494 CQjri4or Cgm�sioq - Appointment of 1 Councilmember and 1 City Staff Member i MOTION: a Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to nominate Mayor Peterson for the I-494 Corridor Commission. P rjOTION : t Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to nominate David Lindahl as staff person representative for the I -494 Corridor Commission. NOT I ON : Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Mayor Peterson and David Lindahl for the I-494 Corridor Commission . Motion carried unanimously. X. RKRpRTS QE gF IICERB. BOARDS & CQMMrSgjQNS i City Council Minutes 10 September 6, 1988 A. Revolts of Council Members 1 . Special City CourLq-Alfeeting for City Budget for Wednesday,� Septgmpgr 14 1988 at 7 • 00 PM MOTION• Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to schedule the Budget Review Meeting for Wednesday, September 14, 1988 at 7 :00 PM in the Council Chambers . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . eSetgpeCial City Council Meeting for Tuesday, October 18, 1988, 6 : 00 PM for meeting with Timber Lakes Homeowners A§sociation Board of Qirectgrs ts2 Discuss Scenic Easement on M1thei1 Lake MOTION: a, Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to schedule a Special Council meeting to meet with the Timber Lakes Homeowners Association Board of Directors for October 18, 1988 at A 6 : 00 PM in the Council Chambers . Motion carried unanimously. 3. Announcement by Counci lmemher Bents Bentley announced that he would not be a candidate for the City Council this year; however, he did not exclude the possibility of running for office again at a later date. Bentley commented that he believed it was time for a break after serving on the Council for 8 years and the Planning Commission for 2 years prior to the Council . Pidcock commented that Councilmember Bentley had contributed a great deal to the Council and would be missed . r Peterson commented that Councilmember Bentley had shared his energy, talents, and leadership for many years and that this expertise would be missed . 4 . Discussion on Bryant Lake Park Anderson was concerned that the development of Bryant Lake Park had been lowered on the priority list for Hennepin Parks protects . Anderson believed that a commitment had been made by the Park District to the . City to purchase the property by the International School and to develop the park . Anderson believed that additional pressure was being placed on the Eden Prairie parks, especially Riley Lake Park , because Bryant Lake Park was not developed . Anderson would like to see the Hennepin Parks Board reconsider the delay in the development of Bryant Lake Park or at least to work with the Council to consider City council minutes 11 September 6, 1988 minimal upgrading of the public access and not to drop the plans for the purchase of the property from the school . Anderson believed that it was time for Eden Prairie to let the Hennepin Parks Board know officially these concerns of the City. Anderson stated that the residents of Eden Prairie could not use Bryant Lake because of the poor public access . He said that the Hennepin Parks Board had received funding to develop Bryant Lake Park and that so far nothing had been done . Peterson asked Lambert if the City had been formally notified of the Park Board ' s decision to : 1 ) defer the development Z ) not to purchase the lakeshore property from the school . Lambert replied that he had not been formally notified . Lambert said that he and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission members had been invited to attend a meeting late this summer where the Bryant Lake project was discussed . The Hennepin Parks Board indicated that there were problems in obtaining the property from the school and that it would like to back out of the agreement and pursue other alternatives . Lambert stated that he had informed the Hennepin Parks Board that the City's main concern was to protect the north shore of Bryant Lake and to acquire the pedestrian and bikeway access easements . Lambert stated that the Hennepin Parks Board had indicated it would maintain the plar..s for the easement and that if there were problems the City would be notified . Lambert said that the Hennepin Parks Board was trying to negotiate the purchase of some of the shoreline and floodplain . He said that the Hennepin Parks Board had only been given half of the funding requested and had to make a choice between developing portions of both Fish Lake and Bryant Lake or developing Fish Lake fully as originally planned and postponing the development of Bryant Lake. The Hennepin Parks Board recommended the complete development of Fish Lake . Lambert stated that the proposal was before the State Legislature for funding in 1989-1990. Peterson asked Lambert to keep the Council informed on any developments . Anderson stated that Bryant Lake was a natural resource that was meant to be used . He said that he would like to see the City make specific requests that the public access , beach and swimming area be upgraded. Anderson said that if these things could be done the rest of the park development could wait . Anderson stated that he would like to have someone from the Park District to come to a Council meeting to discuss the plans for Bryant Lake Park . Peterson asked Lambert to arrange to have the appropriate person come to an early Council meeting. E City Council Minutes 12 September 6, 1988 W B . deport of rLtv Manager 1. Item Q from the Consent Calendar (Firearm ischarge Regulations) Jullie reported that this was an Ordinance change . He said that Staff was asking the Council to formalize further hunting limitations within the City. Harris was concerned that in one or two years these limitations would need to be revised again . She commented that the City of Eden Prairie was filling up and filling in. Harris stated that she would prefer seeing a complete ban on the discharge of firearms in the community. Pidcock concurred with Harris . Bentley stated that the discharge of firearms had been a major issue over the years . He commented that the limits had been restricted further a few years ago . Bentley stated that he had never received a complaint about hunting. Bentley believed that hunting was well-regulated and restricted currently and was not in favor of a complete ban. Pidcock stated that she had been informed that there were properties in the southwest area of the City which had made investments in the promotion 'of hunting and shooting. Pauly stated that there was a gun club in the Minnesota River valley area . Chief of Police Wall stated that the area which allowed hunting in Eden Prairie had been progressively reduced. He said that there were permitted areas south of Highway 169 that could support hunting for several years . Mall stated that the City had special areas designated which required that a hunter had to be in the presence of the property owner . Wall said that the question was where should the boundaries be placed . He said that the Police Department did not have the personnel to monitor the hunters adequately. Wall said that the area allowed for hunting needed to be moved further south as development of the City progresses. Pidcock stated that because it was so easy for anyone to obtain firearms, she believed more restrictions were needed . Harris asked what would be gained by not restricting the hunting to south of Highway 169 now. Captain Clark s-ated that there would be upset hunters and there would be an impact to the farmers who rented their land for hunting purposes . City Council Minutes 13 September 6 , 1988 Anderson stated that with a new elementary school going up in the southwest area and a new housing development being approved tonight for that area, restrictions would be necessary in the future . Anderson believed that for this year the Police seemed to have things under control and suggested that a change in the ordinance be made for next year 's hunting season . Harris said that she agreed with Anderson, but would suggest when the change was made that the City look at limits that would be acceptable for 5 to 10 years . Bentley was concerned about the wording of the Ordinance; he said that according to the wording he could shoot in the middle of Flying Cloud Airport . Captain Clark replied that this was true and that federal licenses were granted to shoot the birds on the property to prevent accidents. Bentley stated that the wording was confusing . Pauly replied that he believed there was a clear division as worded and that it could be clearly enforced . a MOTION ; { Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the 1st , Reading of Ordinance No . 42-88 . Motion carried 4-0- 1, with Harris abstaining. Harris stated that she was not against hunting; however, she did not believe that the ordinance was as restrictive as it should be . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris that a recommendation from the Police Department be presented to the City Council on hunting in Eden Prairie before July 10 1989 . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . IteLa K froM the Cc+nsent Ca1endpff_ U aUgr DroDerty Grading Permit Dietz believed that this proposal was a win-win situation for the property owner and for the City. Dietz stated that Mitchell Road was in need of fill material and that a proposal for development of the Sauer property had been submitted along with a grading plan. Dietz stated that the two plans appear to be compatible; however, the Council had not reviewed the proposal for the Bauer project . Dietz stated that a shelf would be created in the hill and he believed that the grading would be necessary at sometime in order to develop the property. Anderson believed that the City had made a statement to the residents that the City wanted to maintain the hflla, trees and wetlands . Anderson stated that he was opposed City Council Minut3s 14 September 6, 1988 to taking down the hill on this property and using the area for a borrow pit, when the Council did not have a development plan available and that a plan had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Anderson was concerned about what this would do to the appearance of the area . Bentley commented that the hill would not be taken down, the hill would be defaced and contours altered . Anderson said that the area would be changed aesthetically. Dietz replied that the City would not save money by allowing the grading and this area was not designated as a borrow pit in the construction plans . Dietz said that the proposal was a plan being negotiated between the property owner and the contractor, Staff supported the proposal, having seen the plans; however, it was not imperative to the Mitchell Road project . Dietz said that grading would not occur within 100 feet cf any adjacent property line . Peterson concurred with Anderson that even though the proposal might be a good one, he believed that the Council needed more time to review the plan and that the Planning Commission should have an opportunity to review the plan. s MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the grading permit for Patrick Bauer . Motion carried unanimously. C . Report of City Attorney F D. Report of Director of Planning 1 . Tree Policy MOTs OBI: A } 0 Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a tree preservation ordinance . Anderson asked if large masses of trees that individually would not be considered significant were included in the preservation policy. Anderson stated that previously Staff had been dealing with tree replacement and asked if now the ordinance would include preservation as well . Enger replied that the ordinance would include preservation . Motion carried unanimously. 2. Vn erground 3orink-line Requirements Enger reported that after talking with other communities in the area, there were many communities that require underground irrigation systems in commercial and city council Minutes 15 September 6, 1988 industrial areas . Enger said that other communities had received little or no resistance to the requirement for Irrigation and in fact was considered an assumed standard. Enger reported that irrigation systems could add as much as 20-25% to the landscaping costs for a project; however, the users found that these costs could be recovered by not having to replace plant material . He said that the amount of water used was not increased by irrigation systems and could save approximately 40% in water use if properly managed. Enger reported that Staff was recommending Irrigation systems for all properties except single-family and duplex properties . MOTION Anderson -moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare an ordinance to require landscaping irrigation for all developments except single-family and duplex residential properties . Peterson commented that he was in favor of an ordinance that would help to promote good water management Harris commented that she viewed the ordinance as another case of government interference and not as a health and safety issue . Harris asked Enger what percentage of businesses currently use automatic sprinkling systems. Enger replied that approximately 1/3 of the businesses use sprinkling systems regularly. Peterson asked why it was recommended that businesses who added on to their facilities would not be required to Install an irrigation system. Enger replied that an when a business adds on to its facility, it would otherwise be required to adhere to the current code. Bentley stated that he would prefer to take a voluntary approach . Bentley did not want this to become a requirement, but to offer some type of incentive to encourage the installation of irrigation systems . Bentley said that all the fees and permits required by the City add up and the costs are substantial . Bentley said that when there was a water shortage increased sprinkler systems could cause problems . Bentley commented that he agreed that it could help to preserve the grass and plantings, but believed there should be an incentive program rather than a mandatory program. d Harris agreed that there should be a program to encourage sprinkler use, but not mandate it . Harris believed that there should be an educational program to accompany the sprinkler program for good water management, but was not sure that Eden Prairie was prepared to provide this . i City Council Minutes 16 September 6, 1988 Enger stated that 75% of the time the developers provide for a sprinkling system on their own and that when Staff had suggested sprinkling systems to developers they were glad that Staff had brought the matter to their attention. Enger stated that the systems are not always managed well and believed that the City was not in a position to mandate that the systems be used properly. Enger said that Staff had considered reducing the landscaping requirements if a sprinkler system was installed . Peterson suggested that this item be presented at the Developer's Forum for discussion. Anderson stated that the issue came up as a result of the drought this year . Anderson stated that the original intent of the ordinance was to help protect the natural resource of water and to help businesses and residents to protect their investments in grass and plantings . Anderson believed that if the policy was in place it would save businesses and residents money in the Tong run . Pidcock preferred that sprinkling systems be encouraged, but not regcired . Peterson stated that he was not prepared at this time to say that an ordinance was not appropriate, but would like to have this carried to the Developer 's Forum and have the benefit of their input before making a decision . Motion failed with a 1-4 vote . Anderson voting in favor; Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voting No. MOTION ; Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to do further research into incentive and encouragement programs and to take the Item to the Developer 's Forum. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Anderson voting No. Harris stated that she was not adamantly against an ordinance but , at this time she was not satisfied that this was the approach to take . E . R=grt qf DIx-P.-c—tQu gf !goMMunIty Services 1 . Purgatory Creek ECcreatign hrea A cess _Agggisition Lambert reported that upon direction from the council Staff had contacted owners of the property adJacent to Prairie Center Drive . Lambert stated that per a report from Bauer & Associates, the northern site was the preferred site and the southern site the secondary site. Lambert stated that it would be necessary to purchase the entire southern site to make the design work . Lambert 8 City Council Minutes 17 September 6, 1988 said that the northern site had flexibility as to the size of the property to acquire based on where Technology Drive would line up . Lambert recommended purchasing the largest site that the City could afford on the northern site . Lambert stated that the purchase of this property was a bold wove; however, the City would be gaining access to a 160-acre park . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to authorize the negotiation of a purchase agreement for the northern site of 4 .9 to 5 .5 acres through a Contract for Deed over a 5- year period and obtain a title opinion. After a discussion regarding the necessity of an appraisal of the property, it was the consensus of the Council that an appraisal would not be necessary. t z Peterson stated that the City had made a commitment to the park and that the property was needed for an entrance . ` a Pidcock asked if Staff could not get a lower price from the seller for the property. Richard Feerick, representing the property owner, replied that the price was a fair one and related he vas currently working on the dedication to the City of an additional 40 acres Of a floodplain. Anderson stated that he was pleased with the decision made tonight to proceed . He said that plans had started over 6 years ago and had incurred several delays . Anderson believed this decision would put the project back on target . Motion carried unanimously. 2. Correspondence fXgm Duane Ja kula Lambert stated that Duane Janikula had written to the City stating his desire to sell the property which is located Immediately west of the airport property on the north side of Pioneer Trail . Lambert said that the City Comprehensive Park Plan depicts this property as future park property and recommended that an appraisal of the property be obtained . MQT LQN Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to authorize Staff to obtain an appraisal for the Duane Janikula property. Motion carried unanimously. t City Council Minutes 18 September 6, 1988 F. Report of Direct-or of PpUic works 1 . &pXXSvg_ Prel imJnary Plan for T. H . 5 from 800 ' wept of QSAH No . 4 to Dell Roagl (Resolution No . 88-185 ) Jullie reported that a public meeting for residents with properties adjacent to the proposed Highway 5 project was held August 31, 1988 . Jullie stated that residents and staff had presented concerns about noise abatement, tree replacement, screening and/or berming, signalization at Heritage Road and Dell Road, future speed limits, land acquisition procedures, maintenance of service roads, and access during construction . Jullie stated that Staff recommended to approve the layout plan regarding the geometrics, with the following conditions : 1) signalization be included at intersections of Dell Road and Heritage Road 2 ) further evaluation be made by MnDot regarding noise abatement measures, tree planting and/or relocation and landscaping . Peterson_ presented to the audience the contents of the s memorandum from Staff . Pidcock wished to go on record stating that the signals for Heritage Road and Dell Road should be installed Immediately, that the road be brought further south where there was a high impact to present homes, and that a noise wall be constructed on the north side of Highway 5 west from Prairie Village Mall . Bentley concurred with Pidcock that noise abatement walls should be constructed; however, per a statement from MnDot, its findings, based on Federal regulations, did not support the need for a noise abatement wall and therefore, if any wall were to be constructed it would be entirely at the City's expense . Pidcock stated that a four-lane highway was going to be constructed adjacent to residents ' homes and she believed that a noise wall was necessary and considered this to be a health and safety issue . Pidcock believed that the Council should not approve the plan without noise abatement measures in place . Evan Careen, project manager from MnDot, introduced Jim Hanson, who had prepared the noise study for Highway S . Jim Hanson presented that Federal criteria for noise abatement, the State day-and night-time noise level { criteria, and the predicted noise levels based on the study conducted . Hanson stated that two noise mounds were currently in place along the proposed highway. Hanson stated that the State night-time level was exceeded only between the hours of 6AM to 7AM according to the study. City Council Minutes 19 September 6, 1988 Lonnie Gray, 7780 Heritage Road, questioned the credibility of the study because there were so many variables . Gray asked MnDot if Highway 5 would become the preferred route and what the speed limit would be . Gray believed that the noise level would be altered based on the speed limit . Gray stated a concern about the noise created from the truck traffic . Hanson replied that the traffic projections were based on forecast figures from the Metropolitan Council for the year 2010 . Hanson explained how the hourly figures were broken down into various factors and stated that the truck traffic was part of these factors . Hanson stated that the study was based on using a speed limit of 50 MPH and that there would not be a significant difference for noise at 55 MPH. Pidcock was concerned about the study being based on Metropolitan Council figures . Mr . Christensen from MnDot, stated that the Metropolitan Council was a recognized planning body for the metropolitan area and that the numbers used were based on worst possible cases. Christensen believed that MnDot had received valid information from a reputable source. Christensen stated that the current plan was to leave the speed limit the same as it is today. He said that the road was designed for a speed limit of 65 MPH. Christensen said that the 1 speed limit would be determined after the road was open to t traffic . I Lonnie Gray stated that after meeting with neighbors in the area, the consensus was that a speed limit by Heritage Road of 55 MPH was too fast for a residential area, especially without noise abatement . Gray said that there t was a berm on the east side of Heritage Road and questioned why a berm could not be placed on the west side . Gray believed that this would compromise his living conditions and would effect him financially. Gray believed that the proposed highway would have a monumental effect on the selling price of his home . Bentley commented that the City had no control over the speed limits set for a State road . Peterson stated that the two signals at Heritage Road and Dell Road should help to reduce the speed . Hanson stated that it was because of State recommendations . that the two berms currently in place were constructed by the developers . Kenneth Meuwissen, 17260 Park Circle, asked MnDot if it had considered the seasonal grain truck traffic . Hanson stated that the figures were from the Metropolitan Council and that grain truck traffic was considered to be under 10% of the total traffic. Bentley stated that up until three years ago Highway 5 was not considered a regional d City Council Minutes 20 September 6, 1988 highway by the Metropolitan Council . He stated that Highway 5 and Highway 169 were the major farm to market routes and found it difficult to believe that the grain traffic was under 10% . Mike Boen, 7760 Heritage Road, stated that noise was a problem in the area and that he had been awakened continually by the truck traffic early in the morning . Boen stated that the property owners needed some protection from the noise . Don Sabinske, 7740 Heritage Road, stated that Just by widening the road it seemed to have created more noise . Sabinske stated that something had changed drastically in the area because currently he was being awakened at 4 : 30 AM from noise from the trucks on the highway. Hanson replied that MnDot could build a 50-foot wall along the highway, but the annoyance factor would still be there because traffic noise could still be heard . Sabinske stated that he had lived in his home for 11 years and had not had a problem until recently. Sabinske stated that the noise was a serious problem and believed that r something had to be done . E Glenn Johnson, 7067 Springhill, asked MnDot if it had taken actual noise level readings from Highway 5. Hanson y replied that the traffic had been monitored all summer and that a study had been done 3 to 4 years ago . Johnson asked MnDot who would be responsible to correct the noise problem if in 5 to 10 years it was determined that the figures for acceptable noise levels presented were being exceeded . Johnson asked if residents would have to petition the City or if the State would be responsible . Hanson replied that this was a 20-year forecast and did not believe that in 5 to 10 years the dBA' s would be exceeded . Peterson stated that the time frame was irrelevant and asked what the State policy was if the predictions for noise levels were not accurate and did exceed Federal regulations. Hanson said that monitoring would becin one year after construction and then would be done periodically. Peterson asked if the figures were determined to be incorrect, would the State assume the responsibility to mitigate the problem . Green stated that to his knowledge this had never been done before . Bentley stated that I-35W was a case, where the road was there for 20 years, and when the residents said that it was too noisy and the State paid to have the barriers put up. 9 Green stated that the barriers along 35W were mandated by the Legislature and funds were provided to construct the barriers . Lonnie Gray stated that the 35W scenario was not a fair comparison, because thousands of homeowners were involved, and asked if the State would really consider the problem { - J City Council Minutes 21 September 6, 1988 for the 7 to 10 homeowners involved in the Highway 5 project. Bentley stated that noise abatement walls were placed along freeways where the traffic volumes were high and that MnDot was stating that Highway 5 would not come close to the amount of traffic along the freeways. Bentley stated that he could not justify having the City spend money for noise abatement along Highway 5, because of the expense and other areas in the City would be requesting the same type of protection . Bentley believed that noise abatement along State highways should be the State ' s responsibility. Bentley stated that if the noise levels did exceed the standards then it should be a community effort to request the State to correct the problem, not just the 5 or 6 property owners . Dietz commented that there would be a grade change in the Heritage Road area which should reduce the noise problem. r Hannon explained the safety clear zone area requirements and how it related to each house and intersection along the project . He stressed that the safety clear zones were established to prevent accidents and that if the FHWA R standards were violated the entire project would be held up. Lonnie Gray stated that the safety clear zones were already violated with the berm at Heritage Road . Hanson replied that the State did not have a berm there, the berm was placed there by the contractor on private property and was not on State property. Roger Pauly, 17450 W. 78th Street, stated that on page 2 of the memorandum it clearly stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency day-and night-time standards were exceeded . Pauly questioned the cost-benefit ratio presented in the memorandum. He stated that the cost was for a 19-foot wall and questioned why the wall could not be placed on top of the berm already in place . Pauly believed that the number of homes benefited by the noise abatement wall was judgmental . He stated that the cost had been based on only the lst and 2nd tier of homes; however, he had calculated 10 homes just on the 1st tier and this did not consider any future development which might take place in the area . Pauly believed that the park land located to the east of Heritage Road was also entitled to protection from the noise . Pauly questioned why sight distance standards would not be the same for a private contractor and the State, regarding the berm located at Heritage Road . Pauly was concerned about the tree preservation for the project . He said that there were several stands of pines which he believed should be preserved . Pauly believed that if the City approved the City Council Minutes 22 September 6, 1988 plan with the condition that noise abatement be provided then it would be the State 's obligation to pay for the noise abatement, not the City's obligation . Pauly believed that this was a question of Justice; the property owners along the Highway 5 project were being asked to endure the expansion of the highway, which would benefit all of western Minnesota . He said that the property owners were being asked to bear the burden of the Increased noise on the highway, which he believed would become intolerable . Pauly stated that the question becomes, whether it is fair to impose the costs on those that are impacted by the highway for the benefit of the public at large . Pauly asked that the Council continue the item until specifics have been provided by MnDot for noise abatement, tree preservation and signals or to impose definite conditions that these matters be resolved satisfactorily with proper implementation. Peterson concurred with Pauly that more definitive answers to the concerns of Staff, Council-, and the residents were necessary. Peterson asked MnDot to provide compelling reasons why it was not possible to protect some or all of the properties from the noise, and if it was not possible then what other alternatives were available . Peterson believed that Staff needed time to further negotiate with MnDot the issues pre3ented tonight . M!Q T I ON Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue approval of the Plan for Highway 5. Bentley stated that he would vote in favor of the motion with the understanding that the decision to upgrade Highway 5 or not was hanging in the balance . He commented that the State wanted to proceed quickly on the project based on a request and funds from Eden Prairie . Bentley stated that he could not believe that the issues had not been discussed earlier and that a noise abatement wall was going to become the deciding factor as to whether Highway 5 would be improved or not . Harris did not believe that the noise abatement would become the deciding factor, but whether there was a possibility to provide relief to those residents that were being impacted by the upgrading . Peterson stated that he appreciated the memorandum from Staff; however, he stated that he was not comfortable with the general statement which referred to requesting further evaluation from MnDot regarding noise abatement measures, tree planting and/or relocation, and landscaping. } Peterson believed that very specific answers to these issues were necessary. City Council Minutes 23 September 6, 1988 Carolyn Anderson, 17065 W. TBth Street, stated a concern about the service road at Terrey Pine Court . She commented that the area contained residents with several small children . Anderson was concerned about the Increased traffic. Anderson commented that the street would no longer be a neighborhood street, but would become a major through street . Peterson replied that the street had always been designed to be a through street . Anderson requested that the area be looked at again because of the Increased traffic. 9 Doug Tenpas, 10005 Amsden Way, stated that the residents are not asking for a 30 foot wall, but are requesting that d additional berming be provided . Tenpas believed that the solution was not as complex as it seemed . s Richard Feezick, 7103 Interlachen Court, stated that he s respected the Council 's concern, but noted the project was a fast-track project and believed that the plans should be q approved with conditions placed on berming . Peterson replied that the item would be continued for two weeks to allow Staff to work with MnDot on the issues . Motion carried unanimously . 2 . Grading Permit for Canadian Imperial Hank o ce�smmer Jullie reported that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had requested a grading permit for property it owned on the west side of Prairie Center Drive between Flagship Athletic Club and Hroodmoor Apartments . Dietz reported that fill material: was available from construction sites in Eden Prairie and that the plan was to raise the elevation of the property for future development purposes . Dietz stated that the Engineering Department had recommended approval of the grading permit subject to the requirements as outlined in the memorandum dated September 6, 1988 . MOON: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the issuance of a grading permit for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , subject to Staff recommendations dated September 61 1988 . Motion carried unanimously. G. ggport of Finance Director X I EY_ JLQS__ _Z_S§ XII . AyiouRNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11 : 20 PM.