Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/18/1988 City Council Minutes 2 October 18, 1988 B . City Scenic Easement Lambert related that the City' s scenic easement stated that grading, cutting of trees or natural vegetation, and placement ofman-made structures were not allowed . He said that easement also stated that any planting of vegetation required the City' s approval . C . Homeowners ' Associ. tican Scenic ,Easement Lambert stated that the Timber Lakes Homeowners ' Association scenic easement stated that removal of vegetation and placement of man-made structures were not allowed . He said that provisions had been made for a trail system. III . DISCUSSION OF EXISTING PBOBLEMS WITH SCENIC EASEMEV S Lambert stated that currently live trees and vegetation were being removed along with the dead trees . He said that boat docks had been installed and sand had been brought in to create beaches . Lambert believed that if the scenic easements for the entire shoreline were not going to be enforced, an alternate method of restriction should be considered to preserve the natural shoreline . Tim Crain, President of the Timber Lakes Homeowners ' Association, stated that for the past two years the lake had been at flood level ( 8741 ) and had created extensive damage to the vegetation along the Lakeshore . Crain said that over 1600 trees 4" in diameter or greater had died because of the high water . He said that currently the water was below the control level for the lake ( 8701 ) . Crain stated that according to the DNR the State owns the land below the high-water mark; by obtaining a permit from the DNR, sand, gravel, or rock can be placed to create a beach. Crain said that above the high- water mark the land was controlled by the Association and the property owners . Crain believed that the issues needed to be separated as to what had been done above or below the high- water mark . Crain stated that when the violations of the scenic easement were determined the TLHA had come to the City and had requested help to enforce the easements . Crain said that the ` convenant did not prohibit the installation of docks or grading, etc . , but that permission from the TLHA and the City were required . Robert Evans, 8009 Island Road, stated that he understood chat the City had left the issue of docks, beaches, etc . , up to the TLHA until the issue of scenic easements came up. Evans said that when he purchased his property he was told there was a tItr City Council Minutes 3 October 18, 1988 drainage and utility easement . Evans said that on the Certificate of Title for his property it stated drainage and utility easements, but did not mention scenic easement . Evans stated that he paid taxes on the property and believed that if he wi::hed to clean up the area to make it usable, he should be able to do so . Peterson stated that the intent of the meeting tonight was to try to develop a reasonable, consistent policy to deal with easements not only for Mitchell Lake, but for all lakes in Eden Prairie . Bob Hult, 7970 Island Road, stated that in the covenant the drainage easement was also defined as the scenic easement . Hult believed that the City was tied ir:to the covenant because it stated that consent was required by the TLHA and the City before any changes could be made to the property defined as the scenic easement . Crain stated that the TLHA had specific procedures defined for members to request permission to develop or alter the scenic easement as well as the rest of their property. The TLHA had only had problems where the scenic easement was involved . Be said that homeowners believed that it was their right to be able to install a dock . Crain stated that the TLHA had requested several of the homeowners to submit a written request so that the TLHA Board could act on the request and then forward the request to the City; however, the homeowners had refused to do so . Crain stated theat the TLHA did have policies in place, but when it had tried to enforce the policies it had been met with threats. Chuck Sorensen, 7979 Island Road, stated that it was stated in the original covenant that a homeowners ' .association was not b to develop until a certain number of homes were built . He said that this took several years and that the early x homeowners had already built docks, etc.. Sorensen also believed that the problem had further developed because realtors had not informed potential buyers that a covenant existed . Crain stated that development started in 1975, but the TLHA was not formed until 1986 . Brian Foltz, 8008 Island Road, stated that property owners purchased lake property with the intent to use the lake . Foltz did not believe that there had been an intentional damage to the lakeshore . He said that because of the drought homeowners had made adjustments so that they could again utilize the lake . Foltz said that many homeowners were simply not aware of a scenic easement . 4 City Council Minutes 4 October 18 , 1988 Crain stated that the covenant w.�s clearly defined on the abstract of the properties and did not believe that lack of knowledge of the covenant was valid _ Bentley stated that two issues precipitated the meeting tonight : 1 ) a violation of the TLHA scenic easement, and 2 ) the question of enforceability of scenic easements in general . Bentley believed that the violation which occurred on Mitchell Lake was a violation of the TLHA private scenic easement and did not reflect on the City's scenic easements on Mitchell Lake or other areas in the City. He said that the original intent of scenic easements was to preserve the natural scenic beauty around the lakes . Bentley commented that it was not envisioned that individual homeowners would have individual access to the lake . Bentley stated that he would like to find out what the City could do to protect the lakeshore . Bentley said that he would like the Council and the TLHA to determine a mutual reference point with which the present and future situations could be ;tl dealt . Peter:on asked Crain if the TLHA had a position or a recommendation to present to the Council . Crain replied that the TLHA Board would like to know what the City could recommend and what the City' s expectations were . Crain stated that the TLHA Board also wanted to preserve the natural beauty of the lakeshore . He said that the Board would like to keep and have enforced the intent of the original scenic and drainage easements . Peterson asked Crain if the Board 's position was to be allowed to restore the lakeshore to its natural state . Crain replied that the TLHA Board would like the lakeshore to be restored within the guidelines of the scenic easement; however, the Board did not necessarily wish to have swimming beaches, docks, asphalt roads, or sod down to the lakeshore prohibited . It would like to have a Means of control over what would or would not be allowed , giving the City the ability to accept or reject any request as provided for In the covenant . Crain staged that at this time the problem had been getting the homeowners to submit the proper requests to the Hoard and the Board did not have the financial resources to go to the court to make the homeowners adhere to the covenant . Crain said that the TLHA Board understood that they were the only homeowners association with this burden . Anderson stated that he had served on the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission in the early 1970 's when the concept of a scenic easement originated . Anderson commented that the trend throughout the country at that time was to give the control to homeowners ' associations . He said that the scenic easement was an Y attempt b the Cityto preserve the natural state of the lake . Anderson believed that the f City Council Minutes 5 October 18, 1968 Intended use of the lake needed to be considered, because originally speed boats, water-skiing, etc. were not intended on Mitchell Lake . Anderson believed that controls needed to be put on the lake and would like input from the residents on the lake as to what their expectations for the use of the lake are . Joleen Burton, 7978 Island Road, asked Anderson why her association had the responsibility to enforce the scenic easement and Weston Bay was under the City's control . Anderson replied that the trends had changed when the Weston Bay Homeowners ' Association came about and cities had d1 scover ed that homeowner ' _a:z-:.o i -.*t is nS ware not work 1n,a chit . Bentley commented that homeowners ' associations had been i introduced by developers and not by the City. Burton asked how the City would handle the violations if the City had control and questioned what the homeowners had to look forward to . Peterson asked City Attorney Pauly to explain what legal rights the TLHA and the City had . Pauly said that historically easements and restrictions were only created to benefit the land encompassed within the area to be protected . He said that covenants and restrictions traditionally were created to benefit areas within a subdivision and the enforcement mechanism or resolution went to the person ( s ) who would benefit; therefore, unless the City owned property within the covenant area, the City did not have enforcement powers . Pauly said that later the law was amended to allow property owners to grant conservation or scenic easements to municipalities . Pauly said that the development of the covenant for the TLHA preceded the change in the laws . Pauly said that the TLHA did have the legal right to enforce the covenant . Pauly believed that even if the TLHA gave the City consent to enforce the covenant, the City would not be able to do so. Peterson stated that the TLHA had come to the City and stated that it did not have the financial resources to take any court action to guarantee the covenant be upheld. Pauly replied the City did have the right to enforce zoning standards, which regulated land alteration, if it fell within the zoning requirements for a permit . Pauly also said that the City could enforce the Shoreland Management Ordinance which would regulate docks and where they could be placed . Harris asked Lambert what had happened on the north side of the lake . Lambert replied that the homes on the north side were older homey consisting of approximately 5-acres lots . He commented that two of the residents had installed docks on the north side . Evans believed that the improvements he had made to his property precipitated the issues before the Council tonight . He said that he had submitted a plan t3 the TLHA Board when he started the improvements . Fvans said that after a complaint City Council Minutes 6 October 18, 1988 Cagle aj)OUt_: tile- a5pha It road f r om Ct�'te+ of hi E. ne i 9llbc-)r4, tyle-:- City had come to inspect the road and had told him the City had found no violations; however, he needed the TLHA approval . Evans said that the City had posted signs stating the trespassers would be prosecuted . Evans expressed concern about ice fishermen leaving behind garbage on the lake . He said that he had asked some fishermen who were abusing the lake to get permission to be on the lake or to leave . Evans said that since the signs had been posted the police were enforcing the law. Bentley .:leaked Evans if he understood that the lake was public property . Evans replied that he did; however, how they were getting onto the lake was trespassing . Foltz stated that the TLHA Board ' s intent was to discuss the Issues with the Council and gain an understanding of the City's position related to the issues . Foltz stated that Just as the Council was responsible to all the residents of Eden Prairie, the Assoc!.ation Board was responsible to residents of Its neighborhood, and believed that it would not be appropriate for the Board to offer .any recommendation- until further input from the members was obtained . Foltz suggested that after Board tact with Members of the Association another meeting be .:scheduled to meet with the Council . ff Peterson concurred with Foltz . Peterson stated that both public and private values were involved and he would also appreciate more time to gather input from residents . Anderson believed that the dilemma occurring presently was I because residents in Weston Bay, which were controlled by the City, were being told that they could not do things such as put in docks , beaches, and sod, when they were seeing it done in other areas of the lake , which were not controlled by the City. Anderson said that the City was losing control of the lake and the original intent of the scenic easement was being lost . Raymond Rice, 8010 Island Road, asked Lambert if a City map existed depicting a walking trail around Mitchell Lake . Lambert replied that he was not aware of such a map; however, residents of the homeowners ' associations did have the right to walk within the scenic easement . Lambert said that a plan did not exist to rut a walking path around Mitchell Lake . :lice asked Lambert where the proposed Mitchell Park would be . Lambert defined the area on the map . Rice stated support for the park ; however , was concerned about a public access being part of the park and the abuse the lake would take because of a public access . Bentley replied that every lake was required to have a public access and that when the access was installed ways to control the flow of traffic would also need to be addressed . ( , City Council Minutes 7 October 18 , 1988 Harris believed that the City' s policy regarding scenic K easements needed further review and possible revisions MOTION• Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to refer the issue of scenic easements back to Staff for further study and appropriate presentation to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission prior to further consideration by the City Council . Lambert stated that a memo had been prepared and the scenic easement issues reviewed by the Parks , Recreations & Natural Resources Commission . Lambert said that the Commission had concurred with Staff that the City should not try to control the lakeshore through scenic easements, but should pursue control through the Shoreland Management Ordinance or actually purchase the lakeshore . Harris withdrew the motion . Crain stated that he would hold a meeting with th1. general membership of the TLHA; however , he did not expect to receive a majority vote on any recommendations . Crain asked if he was correct in assuming that after the discussions tonight that the City would like the lakeshore restored to its natural state . Bentley replied that he believed that each lot would have to be reviewed on an individual basis . Crain asked if the TLHA Board could review a copy of the y City ' s scenic easement to consider possible revision to the convenant . 4 t Peterson suggested that the Council and the TLHA Board meet again in approximately one month. MU-1.QN: Bentley moved, ;seconded by Anderson to schedule a meeting with the Association Board for November 23, 1988 at 6:00 PM, direct the City Attorney to offer a detailed opinion on the City's legal rights, and direct Staff to Took into situations where the City had Scenic Easements . Motion carried unanimously. Anderson commented that the City currently had park property on the south side of Weston Bay which could be used as access to the lake . He said that every resident had a right to use the lake and only the police had the ,authority to ask anyone to leave . Lambert commented that there was also a snowmobile access to the lake . Foltz extended an invitation to the Council to view the �( lakeshore to obtain a better perspective of the problem. M a 9 i 4 j City Council Minutes 8 October 18, 1988 IV. VtL1tTPgthN tip' 140A D Or nlpLrM_, 2t3 MANP FOR 0sr EASEMENT V. D SCUssI4N OF c?RI91— AL COALS FOR PF30TECT ��d OF SI�[1� ��y E'QSSTBLE c; OR NpDIFICATIO _OF GOALS FOR PPO TION OF HORELI E ALONG UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF LAKE V I . AD� JQURNUt T Meeting adjourned at 7 : 25 PM. 5 P 3 1 S y A S APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, October 16, 1988 7 : 30 PH 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 Dawson, Finance Director John Frane, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation 6 Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE a ROLL CALL : All members present. s I . APPROVAL OF AGEND& AND OTHER ITEM OF BUSINESS NOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda. . ADDITIONS : Add Item IX.A, Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Boardmembers . Add Item VII .B, Presentation of Information Regarding Charitable Gambling from the Eden Prairie Hockey Association. Add Item X .A. 1, Comment by Mayor Peterson. Motion carried unanimously. The Regular City Council meeting recessed to the HRA meeting at 7 :40 PH and reconvened at 7 : 56 PH. I I . MI MUTES A. d,0 ICON: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August 16, 1988 with the following amendments: t 'i ty Council Minutes 2 October 18, 1988 CORRECTIONS: ry Page 8, Paragraph 4, should read: policy of the City to construct trails around . . . . Page 9, Line 2, should read : vest shore of Red Rock Lake did not have trails . Motion carried unanimously. III . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk ' s License List H. Final Plat Approval fgr Hirc wood Las ( located south of State Highvay, 5 and east of County Road 4 ) Resolution No. 88-208 C. STARRING LAKE 2ND AQDITION by Red Rock Heights Partnership. Approval of Developer 's Agreement for Starring Lake 2nd Addition. 8 . 3 acres into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 District . Location: North of County Road 1 between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake 1st Addition D. Final Plat ARprgval for f flocated north of Pioneer Trail between StgAina Land and 't Sunrise Circle ) Resolution No . 88-220 E. Final Plat Approval for LAVonne Industrial Park-.- nth Addition ( located south of Edenvale Boulevard east of the Chigavo b Northwestern RaljAoad Resolution No . 88-235 , F. Aoproyal of Extinguishment of Access to T.H. 5 of City OXnsd Pro2erty at ,Round Lake Estates (Resolution No. 88- 236) Y G. AD2rgval Owned Property Out Lot C Gpnyea 4th Addition (Resolution No. 88-237) H . Resolution of Apnxova L for MCtr02211tan Council Arta Grant Agre2ment (Resolution No. 88-238) I . A22royal of Stttlement Agreement with Layne-Western Wel1 Construction, I .C. 52 072B 9 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A P through I on the Consent Calendar . Motion carried ! unanimously. :ity Council Minutes 3 October 18, 19639 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson A Associates Company. Request for Zoning District Change from. RM-6 . 5 to R1-13 . 5 on 1 .67 acres with front yard setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of 4 single family lots . Location : 6801-05 6855-59, 6871- 75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court. Jullie reported that notice of this Public bearing was sent to owners of 32 surrounding properties and published In the October 5, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jeffrey Gustafson, the proponent, stated there had been difficulty marketing the twinhome units and had therefore, rented the units to which some of the neighbors objected . He believed the four remaining lots would make excellent single-family hove sites . Gustafson added that if the proposal were approved, two of the lots were presold . Gustafson stated that a poll of the Stonewood Court r neighborhood had been conducted and the results showed the neighbors were in favor of single-family homes . He added the neighbors believed the single-family homes would improve their property value and help blend Stonewood Court with the rest of the Cardinal Creek development . Gustafson noted that he had been late to the Planning Commission meeting where the recommendation was made to m have the lot adjacent to Cardinal Hills zoned single- family, with the remaining 3 lots zoned for twinhomes . Gustafson said the Cardinal Creek Homeowners Association favored single-family homes and he also had 16 letters from neighbors which favored single-family lots. Enger reported the Planning Commission had reviewed this Item at its September 20, 1988 meeting and recommended unanimously that 1 lot be zoned single-family residential and that the balance of the lots which, were interior to a multiple-family district and would constitute spot zoning, have the request for rezoning denied on the remaining 3 . lots . Enger added the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of Gustafson's presentation. Peterson noted in the minutes of the Planning Commission a concern about a precedent being set, yet there were currently examples where twinhomes were adjacent to single-family. Anger concurred there were examples within the City. Peterson believed that setting a precedent was the main reason for denial by the Planning Commission . Enger believed it was because the Planning Commission considered this spot zoning . Bentley recalled the duplexes on Preserve Boulevard had been zoned to provide a transition between the multiple family and single-family homes. Enger concurred. Bentley f ,ity Council Minutes 4 October 18, 1988 believed this was a completely different situation, that transition was not the issue, and he did not consider allowing all single-family as good zoning . Anderson stated the original plan approved for this area had provided for the houses to all be of similar design (redwood exterior ) , and the houses were to be placed to save as many trees as possible . Anderson was concerned about the control over the pad sizes. Gustafson replied the pad sizes would be smaller than for twinhomes . Gustafson added that the development had been allowed architectural flexibility and the requirement for exterior material was not limited to natural wood. Gustafson stated the development had been granted variances for front yard setbacks to save trees . He believed the commitment to save as many trees as possible had been upheld . Gustafson stated that bank financing had been approved to construct four single-family units. Art Roberts, President of the Cardinal Creek Homeowners ' Association, stated that a poll had been conducted resulting in 100% of the association members he contacted favored four single-family units to 8 twinhome units. Roberts believed the twinhomes should be considered spot zoning because the surrounding neighborhoods were all single-family. Harris was concerned about the ability to market the twinhomes and therefore, supported the approval of four single-family lots . g Bentley stated that he concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Bentley commented it was the duty of the Planning Commission to make zoning recommendations that were consistent with the overall plan for the City and believed that popular zoning was not always considered good zoning. Bentley believed the current housing market situation should not be the rationale for zoning changes . Anderson concurred with Bentley. Anderson said he was concerned about a precedent being set . Anderson supported 1 single-family lot with the remaining 3 lots zoned for twinhomes. Harris believed the neighborhood and the developer were being penalized. She added the development was currently predominantly single-family and believed the twinhomes could be spot zoning. Harris believed that this proposal was an infill project to complete the neighborhood and that single-family units would provide internal consistency. :ity Council Minutes 5 October 18, 19ee Peterson stated that this was an established neighborhood and he did not believe that 4 single-family lots would detract from the continuity, quality, or integrity of the neighborhood. Peterson commented that consideration of the neighbors support for single-family units should be taken into account. Peterson noted that the minutes of the Planning Commission referred to the possibility of setting a dangerous precedent and did not refer to this as spot zoning . He added that similar situations currently existed; therefore, a precedent was not being set. Enger stated that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of Gustafson's presentation or neighborhood input. Enger said that single-family and duplexes had been mixed before. Enger noted that the Planning Commission had referred to Gustafson's absence in the minutes and had stated that Gustafson could appeal to the City Council . Gustafson believed it was not fair to the neighborhood to have 8 more rental units . He added these would not be $245,000 twinhomes because he would be forced to construct inexpensive rental units . Peterson commented that the current market situation would not be considered a deciding factor . Bentley stated that the single-family hones would be mixed in amongst rental units and would be totally separated from other single-family units. There were no further comments from the audience . MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Ordinance No . 49-88 for Rezoning. Peterson stated that while he understood the concerns of Councileembers Bentley and Anderson, he would support the notion. He believed that if the construction were done properly the single-family homes could create a harmony in the neighborhood . Anderson stated that he sympathized with the neighbors; however, he believed strongly that once zoning was set the property should remain as zoned unless compelling reasons dictated a change . Anderson did not believe compelling reasons had been presented and therefore would vote against rezoning. Gustafson withdrew the request. Y :ity Council Minutes 6 October 18, 1988 MOTION• t Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing . Motion carried unanimously. B. VACATION 88-088 VACATIQ OF D AINAGE AND UTILITX EASEMENTS IN FOREST KNOLLS (Resolution No. 88-215) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to owners of affected properties and published in the September 28, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jullie stated this was a housekeeping item related to drainage and utility easements between 13945 and 13995 Holly Road . There were no comments from the audience. MOT I OQI, Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-215 vacating the easements . Motion carried unanimously. C. VACATION 8 8-02 4 VACATION OF QRA I NAGE AND UT L,IT.Y EASEMENTS IN CO&CHMAN• S LAN,DINQ 5TH ADDI„$ION (Resolution No . 88-216) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to owners of affected properties and published in the September 28, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jullie stated this was a housekeeping item related to drainage and utility easements between 8408 and 8413 Savannah Chace . There were no comments from the audience . ' d TION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 86-216 vacating the easements. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OE CLAIMS Harris questioned Claim No. 46050 for "A Solid Gold Sound" . Frane replied this was a band hired for a park and Recreation event. NOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of Claims No . 46046 to No. 46377 . ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, and Peterson all voting "AYE" . ity Council Minutes 7 October 19, 1988 VI . ORDINANCES f BEgOLUTIQNS A. agsolution No . 81-234, n De l i ngugnt Utility Accounts Jullie reported there were 327 delinquent utility accounts of $40.00 or more . Jullie noted that 250 of the accounts were by present owners, 38 of the accounts were non- homestead properties, and 39 accounts were homestead properties where the previous occupant did not pay the bill when the property was sold . Jullie suggested amending the City's current policy to allow the 39 homestead properties to be deleted from the list and turn the accounts over to a collection agency to contact the original owner . Jullie stated that the amount which would not be collected in the usual manner would amount to 04, 088 . Peterson commented that he was pleased to see the recommendation. Pidcock asked Jullie what would happen if previous owners were bankrupt or had moved out of State . Jullie replied the collection agency would be authorized to take certain action and if the collection agency did not receive results, the account would be written off . MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-234 to order Special Assessment of Delinquent Utility accounts on the Assessment Roll and adopt the Staff recommendation to turn the 39 homestead accounts over to a collection agency. Motion carried unanimously. B. BegolutIgn Ng. Ofi-239 oMe&. Inc. (Ella Shares Inc . ) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-239 setting December 6, 1988 for the Public Hearing on the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Ella Homes, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. C. (Elim Shores. Inc . ) 4 E i r 'ity Council Mintites October 19, 1988 MOTION• Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-240 giving Preliminary Resolution of Approval for the Issuance of Housing Revenue Bonds for Elim Homes, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. VII . PETITIONS. REQUESTS a CQMMUVICATIONS A. Request from Policy Doug Reuter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, believed the City's assessment policies were outdated, needed major revision, and treated residents unfairly. He added that he believed the Franlo Road "pending special assessment" was an example of the unfairness of the current policy. Reuter requested that Staff be directed to review the current policies and possibly consider a policy similar to that of St . Louis Park. J Peterson asked Reuter if he was aware that at the meeting where the Franlo Road Feasibility Study was presented the City Council had requested Staff to review assessment policies . Peterson added the City Council and Staff were always trying to find the fairest assessment policy. Reuter replied that he agreed the policy needed to be changed . Reuter added that according to the auditor ' s report the policy had not been revised since 1979. Reuter stated that his goal was to revise the policy so that homeowners would not be taxed out of their homes or forced to sell for commercial development . Reuter believed the residents on Franlo Road were left no other alternative . Peterson requested that the Council keep its comments and questions related to Reuters proposal of a $16.00 per front foot assessment . Jullie reported that he had talked to St . Louis Park officials regarding its Resolution No. 88-41 . Jullie said the resolution was for street reconstruction due to redevelopment activity. He said St . Louis Park had the $16 . 00 per front foot policy in effect for several years as a city-wide street reconstruction program with the balance of the costs coming from its general fund. Jullie believed the St . Louis Park policy was unique, and that the Franlo Road project was not analogous . . Harris asked how Eden Prairie 's costs would compare fox similar work to that of St . Louis Park . Dietz replied that if grading, sidewalk, and storm sewer were excluded the cost would be approximately $25-to-$30 per front foot In Eden Prairie . Dietz said that St . Louis Park was reconstructing 20-year-old streets which required the , i.ty Council Minutes 9 October 18, 1988 existing curb and gutter to be removed and replaced and T the street reconstructed at a cost of approximately $25 per front foot. He said that St . Louis Park would subsidize $9 per front foot . Dietz stated that residents along Franlo Road had not paid for any street improvements previously. Dietz commented that any reconstruction of City streets thus far had come from general funds. Jullie stated that the St . Louis Park City Assessor had indicated given the same circumstances as Franlo Road, where a guide plan change could occur, the assessment would be deferred with interest until the property would be rezoned. Peterson said the Council had informed the residents that the sewer and water assessment would be excluded without interest for 5 years or until they connected to City sewer and water . Peterson did not believe the City was forcing residents to do anything with their property not currently indicated as a possibility by the Comprehensive Guide >' Plan. Dietz stated there was a detailed procedure for special assessments guided by State Chapter 429 . Dietz said the Staffs responsibility at the feasibility study stage of the process was to show what potentially could be assessed to the properties. He added there was flexibility allowed by the deferment policy. Dietz stated the Special Assessment Hearing had not been held and until that time the final assessment could not be determined . Dietz said the City had to show that the property value would Increase by the amount assessed . Dietz concluded by saying the only thing definite was that Franlo Road would be constructed. Peterson believed the City was aiming for equity and fairness . Pidcock believed the Council had been conscientious in assessments over the years to make sure the property value was increased by the amount assessed . Jullie stated the State also provided special arrangements for Senior Citizens and disabled individuals to pay for special assessments . Charles Blesener, $561 Franlo Road, believed that Franlo Road should not be considered as a normal City street . He said the road was to be 32 ' wide, not the normal 28-foot width and considered the road to be a superhighway. Blesener did not believe a residential home should be assessed for a superhighway. Blesener believed the City should pay the cost difference between a 28-foot and 32- foot road . Peterson replied that would be taken into -ity Council Minutes 20 ©ctc-ber 18, 1988 consideration at the time of the Special Assessment Hearing. Blesener stated that contrary to what was previously stated the residents had been assessed already for Franlo Road . Dietz replied there was a $500 per acre assessment several years ago for 1000 acres for the Major Center Area roadway improvements. Dietz added the assessment was not for Franlo Road . Reuter stated that when he talked with St. Louis Park officials, he had asked them if there were different policies for road assessment; he had been told the assessment for road improvements was $16 per front foot . Reuter said the feasibility study had stated "Franlo Road Improvements" and did not indicate the construction of a new road . Reuter questioned if St . Louis Park had a separate assessment structure for new road construction. Reuter said that he was riot saying that Eden Prairie should seta $16 per front foot assessment, but that the policy needed to be reviewed . Bentley believed the proposal presented by Reuter would not be fair to the residents of Eden Prairie. He added if the $16 per front foot had been used over the last 5 years the residents of Eden Prairie would have been required to pay an approximate $2 . 6 million in additional taxes . Bentley stated that Staff had been directed to look at capping the level of assessment before the 1989 Special Assessment Hearing . Charles Pufahl, 8560 Franlo Road, asked that a reduction in the speed limit be considered. He suggested 20 MPH . Bentley asked if Staff would review the speed limit and notify Pufahl when the issue would be discussed by the City Council . B. Regort on Eden PKairle HOChSY Ass2clation's Ghdrita ble Gaml2lina Bob Mizell, President of the Hockey Association of Eden Prairie (HASP ) , stated that he wished to answer the issues raised by the City Council at the October 4, 1989 meeting. Mizell said the funds raised by the sale of pulltabs at Greenstreets would be used to: 1) help the underprivileged children to participate in hockey; 2) lover overall fees; and 3) build a second sheet of ice . Mizell stated the other means currently used to raise funds were candy sales, which netted $13,000 last year and sponsoring tournaments, which netted $12, 000 last year . Mizell stated that the second sheet of ice would not be owned by the HASP. He added the second sheet could be used for figure skating, broomball, etc. Mizell said that currently the sheet of ice was shut completely down for one month each year for repairs and maintenance; however, x i i -ity Council Minutes it October 18, 1988 If a second sheet of ice were available income could be generated all year . He added he did not have estimates for what the potential income of a second sheet of ice could generate. Mizell presented to the Council a proposed breakdown of the possible annual income from the pulltabs and how it would be distributed . Mizell added the HASP did not have any way of knowing what the potential income from pulltabs could be . Mizell stated that an HAEP boardmember would be designated to oversee the project . Mizell said the State would have control . He added the Stated required monthly reports and he suggested the HASP would have an external audit annually. Mizell said the Council had asked what other communities were doing with the funds generated from pulltabs . He said that Elk River used the funds to reduce ice costs, purchase equipment, and make mortgage payments for the ice arena . Mizell said that Delano used the funds to reduce ice costs, purchase equipment, and was currently working with Mound possibly to build an ice arena. Peterson asked what the status was for the application. Jullie replied that the City Council had 60 days to take action from the date of application, which was September 61 1988 . Jullie added that if no action were taken it would be deemed approved and would then be reviewed by the State Gambling Hoard . Jullie said the item would appear on the November 3, 1989 Agenda . Bentley stated that he had been contacted by several residents and suggested the HASP withdraw the request at this time and resubmit at a later date to allow time for further consideration and comments from residents. Harris stated that she too had received calls, several from HASP members, who did not support the use of pulltabs . Harris questioned how strongly the HASP supported pulltabs. Mizell replied that he had heard some negative comments; however, they were not in the majority. Anderson stated that the pulltab issue had been addressed In the local newspapers and believed the City Council had a duty to gather as much information from the residents as possible . Anderson believed the issue needed to be weighed very carefully and the Council should take the necessary time to do so . Peterson stated that he hoped the HASP would understand that the issue of pulltabs was a1 serious question for the community, a value question. Peterson suggested the HARP j withdraw the request and resubmit . I 'ity Council Minutes 12 Octe-fiber 18, 1988 Mizell stated that he would discuss the possibility of withdrawing the request with the HASP boardmembers . Charles Pufahi, 8560 Franlo Road stated that other communities use pulltabs as a main source of fund raising . He believed the City was in need of a second sheet of ice . John Lillicrap, 8579 Darnel Road, believed that a second sheet of ice was needed . He said the City was growing; however, the HAEP could not increase its membership because the hockey association could not purchase enough ice time . Mizell added that when the HAEP purchased ice time from other communities the hours were unreasonable . Mizell said that with a second sheet of ice Eden Prairie could sell ice time. Tom Krmpotich, 10456 Devonshire Place, believed that if the City Council could offer another alternative for obtaining a second sheet of ice the pulltabs would not be necessary. Krmpotich said that based on results of surveys conducted by the Park and Recreation Department he did not believe a second sheet of ice would be part of a referendum. VIII . REPORTS OF ARVISORX COMMISSIONS a IX . APPOINTMENTS s A. A2201ntment of Houging and Redevelol2ment Boardmembers MOTION: Bentley moved, o ed, seconded by Harris to cant a unanimous ballot for Mayor Peterson as Chairperson of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock as Boardmembers for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Motion carried unanimously. City Attorney Pauly noted the positions on the HRA Board were coterminous with the terms of the Councilmembers . X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A . Reports Of Council Members 1 . Letter to the Governor Peterson stated that he had been asked by Richard Feerick to help write a letter to the Governor, on behalf of Eden Prairie, commending the Governor 's efforts and support for ;it y Council Minutes 13 October 18, 1988 the improvement of Highway 5 and the future construction Highway 212. B. Report g f City Manager Jullie suggested that the ordinance prepared by City Attorney Pauly regarding burying utility lines be sent to the utility companies for review and comment . C. RepoXt of City., Attorney D . Reuort of Director of Planning E. piregtor of Parks. Recreation A Natural Resources 1 . Acquisition of Riley Lake Park Lambert reported that in 1987 the City had received a matching grant from the State for the acquisition of an additional 24-acre site to the north of Riley Lake Park owned by Elaine Jacques . Lambert said aYA appraisal of $277,000 for the 24-acre site including the Jacques homestead buildings had been obtained per the State grant requirements . Lambert noted that the State initially believed the appraisal to be too high. He added that after reviewing additional comparative sales the appraiser confirmed his appraisal to be consistent with the market. Lambert reported that the City did not have a willing seller at the price of 0277,000. Lambert noted the grant assistance would be for 50% of the appraised value and any cost above the $277, 000 would be paid 100% by the City of Eden Prairie . Lambert requested approval for a purchase offer to be prepared by the City Attorney based on the appraisal and to authorize a survey to obtain a legal description for the purpose of acquisition. Lambert added an agreement had been wade to notify Mrs . Jacques ten days prior to a surveyor being on the site. Lambert stated that after the purchase offer and survey were complete, Mrs. Jacques would have the option to either turn down the offer or to counter the offer . Peterson asked Lambert if a survey were necessary before the City had a sale agreement . Lambert replied the City needed a legal description of the parcel . Pidcock believed the process was transpiring backwards . She believed the City should have an offer and then go to the State for a grant . Lambert replied the State rules would not allow a grant if the City had already entered into a commitment to purchase property. Paul Anderson, Attorney representing the Jacques family, stated that he fully understood the process required by t the State . Anderson believed the appraisal was flawed, i :ity Council Minutes 14 October 18, 1988 considerably less than fair market value, and did not properly reflect the development in the area . Anderson added that the Jacques family had offers significantly higher than the City's offer . Attorney Anderson stated that firs . Jacques ' s preference would be to wait 3 to 5 years and let her children deal with the sale . Anderson added that Mrs . Jacques would continue to cooperate with the City regarding the acquisition and would cooperate with the surveyor . Anderson said that Mrs . Jacques was pleased that the Jacques Homestead would be preserved; however, she would prefer that the sale of the property would not occur at this time. Anderson added that it was Mrs. Jacques 's hope that less property, especially less lakeshore property, be involved in the acquisition. Anderson said Mrs . Jacques was concerned about how the roads would connect and the park design and layout. Anderson stated that Lambert was correct in the Mrs . Jacques was an unwilling seller at the current price offered; however, she would continue to make every good faith effort to come back with an offer at a fair market value .. Anderson commented this was not a pleasant experience for Mrs . Jacques and she wished to be allowed to deal with the sale on her terms. Anderson asked to Council to consider the emotional impact. Peterson asked Lambert if there were legal restrictions in regard to maintaining the amount of property to 24 acres . Lambert replied the original grant request was for 24 acres and if the City significantly varied that amount, it would require additional review by the State . Lambert added that the shoreline acquisition had been reduced by 90 ' by altering the park configuration per Mrs . Jacques 's request . He said the State approved the revised configuration. Lambert stated that Staff believed 24 acres to be the minimum amount of land needed. Pidcock asked if there were other properties available in N the area besides the Jacques property which would allow the City to acquire 24 acres, but not entirely from the Jacques family. Lambert replied there was no other lakeshore property available. Lambert said the City intended to acquire property to the south and west in the 4 future. Lambert said that any other configuration would not benefit the park . He added that eventually the City planned for the park to be approximately 40 acres . Councilmember Anderson stated that this property was the last major purchase of lakeshore property based on the City' s plans dating back to 1969 . He believed the City should act on the proposal now, before the land prices rise further ; however, he added the City needed to be fair to Mrs . Jacques . I r +.::ity Council Minutes 15 October 18, 1388 MQT I ON i. Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to authorize Staff to 1 conduct a survey of the Site with proper notification and at Mrs . Jacques 's convenience and prepare a purchase agreement based on the amount of the appraisal . Peterson asked Lambert if the City was required by Law to first offer the appraised value . Lambert replied yes . Motion carried unanimously. F. Revort of Director of Pu lig Works G. RgUort of Finance Qir2ctor I X. ysw agg i minas X. ADJOURNMENT MQ I'� ONE. Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. r r. i