Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/13/1988 APPROVED MINUTES - EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HRA MEETING 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, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of t Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources a Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE t ROLL CALL : All members present . PRESENTATION BY RILEY PURGATORYY CREEK WTTrkRSHED DI STRI!gT OF FUNDING FOR THE CHAIN-OF-LAKES PROJECT i Howard Peterson, representing the Watershed District, presented Mayor Peterson with a check for $119, 000 for the Chain-of-Lakes project . t i I . APPROVAL-OF APPRQVAL- OF AQENVA AND OTHER ITEMg OF BUSINESS g MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS : Add Item XI .A. 1, Minnesota River . Add Item XI .C. 1, Settlement on Community Center Litigation. Motion carried unanimously. II . AWARD BID OF $9, 800, 000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS (Resolution No. 88-296 ) Dave MacGillivray, a representative from Springsted, Inc . , presented the bid tabulation for the $9, 800, 000 G.O. Improvement bonds, recommending the award to Prudential-Bache Securities, noting that MBIA Insurance was requested by the J . ty Council Minutes 2 December 13, 1988 bidder at no cost to Eden Prairie. The net interest rate was 7. 008%. MOTION ; Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . 88- 296 awarding the G .O . Improvement Bonds to Prudential-Bache Securities . Motion carried unanimously. III . MINUTES f A. Cltv Council et t 8 M03:1 ON; Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 6, 1988 as published and amended. CORRECTIONS Page 15, paragraph 4 should read : Harris commented that she viewed the ordinance. _ . . Page 23, Item X.F. 2, paragraph t, should read : owned on the west side of Prairie Center Drive . . . Motion carried unanimously. B . city Counc 13 eet in4 held Tuesday, Se2teMl2er 20, 1988 MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 20, 1988 as published and amended . QQRREQTI ONS : Page 16, paragraph 2, should read: the final design had not been determined. . . . Motion carried unanimously. C . v 8 MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 1, 1988 as published and amended, :y Council Minutes 3 December 13, 1986 CORRECTIONS Page 14, paragraph 2, should read : Anderson stated that as a coach at Bloomington-Kennedy. . . . Page 14, paragraph 6, should be removed completely. Motion carried unanimously. D. SpeciAl gity Council Mgeting held Tgesday. Ngvember 29 , 1988 MOTION• Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 29, 1988 as published . Motion carried unanimously. I V. CQNSENT_ ALLNPM_ A . Clgrk ' s Licensg Llst B . TAx Forfeited Lands C . AoorpveBids for 4-wheel Dr,ivvg Tracto lSnowblower D . 2nd Reading of Or!2in;jn,C Ng , 57-88 , Providing Hodificattions In Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the Clay'* Cagle Commpniggt ions ranchi g &, Pergi,ti-mg Continuance of Belief to the TransfeXeg of the Franchise in Accgr.S2ance with this Ordinance E . PPRAIRIEVIEST II by Curt Johnson Properties, Inc . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Regional Service Zoning District on 2 . 17; Approval of Developer ' s Agreement for Prairieview II ; and Adoption of Resolution No . 88-251, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 43-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 12, 658 square foot retail/office use . Location : North of Plaza Drive, east of the Prairie View Shopping Center . (Ordinance No . 43-88, Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary and Publication) F. BOULDER PPOINTE (AKA RED ROCK RANCH ) Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No . 35-88-PUD-9-88, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl- 13 . 5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approving Developer 's Agreement for Red Rock Ranch; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-203, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No . 35-88- PUD-9-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 150 acres into 61 single family lots, 5 outlots, and road :ty Council Minutes 4 December 13, 1988 right-of-way. Location: west of Mitchell Road, east of Red Stock Lake . (Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-203, Authorizing Summary and Publication ) G. Approyp. ConnCrtion of Pxoposed ShprvinLfIlliama Building to n W!gste QontrolFacilities Located on .E!151za Drive (Resolution No . 88-281 ) x H . FLnal E!lat &Dproval of Blyesteem Hills 5th Additiq�r ) ( located on the wegterly extgns i on of Bluestem Lane. west Creek ) (Resolution No . 88-279 ) I . Receive Petition and Order Feasibility Report for the Extension of the Collector Road through Boulder Pointe (aka Red Rock Ranch) to CSAH 1, I .C. 52-156 (Resolution No . 88-282 ) J. Resolution fissuring. MnDot th!2t Eden Prairie will 074 (Resolution No. 88-283) �S K. Gf Anders n .Lake* earkwayt (Resolution No . 88-284 ) L. Rgsglution corrggting Einal Asagsament Roll for, 1288 82ecial Assessment (Resolution No . 88-285) H!2TT0N : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A through L on the Consent Calendar . Motion carried unanimously. V. PPBL I C HEARINGS A. C&RDTNA,L CR$FK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson 6 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, 6855-59, 6871- 75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court . (Ordinance No . 49-88, Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 33 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, stated that additional information had been presented to the Council to establish the benefits to be obtained by the development of single-family homes versus twin-homes. Krueger stated that less of the lot would be disturbed by a single-family home, allowing additional tree savings . _ `y Council Minutes 5 December 13, 1988 Krueger added that there would be less traffic and parking problems in the cul-de-sac with single-family homes . Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its September 26, 1988 meeting and noted that the Staff Report of September 23, 1988 was being carried forward . The main issue had been the compatibility of single-family homes adjacent to duplexes . Two alternatives were presented in the Staff Report with the Planning Commission recommending that only one lot be { approved for rezoning. Enger concluded by stating that the Staff recommendations remained the same . ` 4 Bentley stated that when this item had been presented originally the only reason► given for the request for a zoning change had been economic and, therefore, he had opposed the proposal . Bentley now believed that the new information presented established valid reasons to proceed z with the proposal . Scott Anderson, 6825 Stonewood Court, stated that he wanted to see owners of homes, not renters. The trend on Stonewood Court was to build cheaper twinhomes because they did not sell well . Anderson believed that even though single-family houses might not blend as well as twinhomes, it was important to the neighborhood to have homeowners . Peterson, Pidcock, and Harris all stated that they had been in favor of the proposal originally and remained in favor of the project at this time . Anderson stated that he could not support the proposal because if the issue were reversed, blending twinhomes in a single-family residential neighborhood, it would be considered poor zoning. Anderson added that he had always been consistent in his vote on zoning issues and, therefore, could not support this proposal . 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 . Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "No" . MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating relevant Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "NO" . 1 ty Council Minutes 6 December 13, 1989 B . ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION by Zachman Development Corporation . Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6 . 5 to R1-9. 5 on 5 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 20 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard . (Resolution No. 88-276 , Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No . 58-88, Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-277, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent to owners of 82 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . z Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that based on recommendations presented by the neighbors, Staff , and the Planning Commission, the cluster homes had been removed from the project to provide a better transition . The flow-through drive had been eliminated to Preserve Boulevard and the plan revised to depict a cul-de-sac accessing to Franlo Road . Another issue raised by the neighbors was the storm water run-off . Smith added that the drainage would be collected in catch basins located in the cul-de-sac and diverted to Preserve Boulevard. Smith stated that originally 16 variances were necessary to achieve the R1-9 . 5 zoning. The Planning Commission believed that the number of variances required was excessive and recommended the elimination of an additional lot, which reduced the number of lots to 16 and the number of variances required to 4 . Smith stated that the density would be 3 . 2 units per acre, with the average lot size being 11, 612 square feet . Smith noted that the Engineering Department had approved the plans for the overflow and swales . Smith stated that the proponent would like to request an early grading permit to allow sand to be brought onto the site and to move the soil to create the building sites; however , he noted there would not be mass grading. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 24, 1988 and November 28, 1988 meetings and received approval for the 16-lot plan based on the recommendations as outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report . Peterson questioned the number of variances outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report and if they were to be based on the final plan . Enger replied that the plan had been revised to eliminate an additional lot after the November 25, 1988 Staff Report had been prepared and 12 of :�y Council Minutes 7 December 13, 1988 the 16 variances had been eliminated . Bentley asked why fill was currently being dumped on the south end of the property. Smith replied that this was fill from another site . Bentley then asked if there was an outlet for the pond area so that it was not land- locked . Smith replied that there was an existing catch basin. Smith added that the pond size and capacity would be increased and the overflow would be directed to Franlo Road . Peterson asked how much attention had been given to egress traffic during rush hour . Dietz replied that a signal was s planned for Preserve Boulevard at Prairie Center Drive, which would create the necessary gaps in the traffic and added that there was the possibility for a signal at s Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive . Anderson asked Dietz if the traffic coming out of this development could be limited to a right turn only. Dietz replied that if it was warranted a signal or a 4-way stop could be installed . Dietz believed that this development would not add a significant amount of traffic; however, he stated that Staff would watch this intersection . Pidcock asked Smith to clarify the storm water drainage for the project . Smith replied that the storm water would be collected in catch basins in the cul-de-sac and directed to Preserve Boulevard . Pidcock then asked if the basement levels would be above the catch basin. Smith replied the basements would be approximately 2 feet above . the catch basin . Pidcock stated that she was concerned with the possibility of water in the basements. Smith replied that the proponent had changed the plan to Increase the capacity of the ponding area and redirect the overflow to the streets to correct an existing problem with water in the basements . Dean Malotky, 8687 Kathryn Court, stated that he was in favor of the improvement in the drainage system and also favored single-family homes, which he believed to be a reasonable transition. Dietz asked for clarification on the purpose of bringing sand onto the site . Smith replied that the sand was required for the preparation of the building pads . Smith added that due to the timing of the season the proponent wished to have the sand hauled in now and placed along the boulevard . Dietz then asked if the grading would all be done at one time . Smith replied that minor grading would be required on some sites and the top soil would be stripped and sand placed on the site to create the building pads . ty Council Minutes 8 December 13, 1988 Anderson asked if grading had already taken place on this site without a grading permit . Zachman replied that he had placed approximately 700 yards of sand on the site when Krueger & Associates had informed him that he needed a grading permit to do this . Zachimnan added that he had stopped hauling the sand at that point and was here to request an early grading permit to allow an additional 300 yard of sand to be placed on the site to solve the drainage problem before road weight restrictions. The sand will be placed along Preserve Boulevard and will not Interfere with the drainage pond . Anderson believed that the developer had been working in Eden Prairie long enough R to know that a grading permit was required and was disturbed that grading had started on this project prior to approval by the City Council . Smith replied that this could have been an error due to the watershed District not requiring a grading permit for under one acre . Smith added that the proponent did curtail further grading immediately upon notification that a permit was necessary. v fi Bentley concurred with Anderson that knowledge of the p City 's requirements was the responsibility of the developer; however, in this case no amenities had been harmed and the proponent had stopped upon notification that a permit was required . No further comments from the audience. MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-276 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. NOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading . of Ordinance No. 58-88 for Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-277 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to grant an early grading permit with the understanding that the developer proceed at its own risk . Anderson asked Dietz what the cost of the grading permit i .y Council Minutes 9 December 13, 1988 would be . Dietz replied that the cost was based on cubic yards and estimated the cost to be approximately $200 . Anderson then asked if there should not be two permits, one for what was already done and one for what he proposed to do at this time . Dietz replied that the permit cost would include what had already been brought onto the site in addition to what was proposed . Motion carried unanimously. C. E$ RFIELD PHASES 2 THRQUQH 6 by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 118 . 2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 82 . 7 acres i and from Rural to RI-13 . 5 on 33 . 6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 118 . 2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28 outlots, and road right-of-way, for construction of a residential development . Location : West of County Road No . 4 , southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad . (Ordinance No . 59-88-PUD-15-88, PUD District 34 and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-278, Preliminary Platy p Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent to owners of 63 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented that final plans for Phases 2 through 6 for the Fairfield Subdivision . Based on the results of the Southwest Area Study the phasing had been reconfigured to have Phase 2 be developed at the time when Scenic Heights Road would be realigned with the balance of the project to proceed from east to west following Phase 2 . Ostenson stated that the courtyard areas would have the architectural diversity as recommended by Staff and presented the Council with several of the designs being proposed. Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 13, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988 . Enger stated that it was important that no further development take place until Scenic Heights Road was realigned and the improvements to County Road 04 were completed . Lambert reported that the Parks , Recreation 8 Natural Resources Commission did not review this plan beyond the original review. Peterson asked for clarification on when this phase of the project would be constructed and questioned why the Council was approving a Preliminary Plat in 1988 for development in 1990 . Enger replied that it was the proponents desire to present to everyone as firs► an . ty Council Minutes 10 December 13, 1988 expectation as possible for what would be developed in the area . Bentley asked what the proponents grading plan was and if it included mass grading of the entire site . Ostenson replied the grading had been completed for Phase I and at some point in the future the proponent would like to export fill material from the site . Ostenson added that at that time the proponent would come in for grading and mining permits; however, the proponent did not wish to have this tied to rezoning . Bentley stated that he would like to have grading be tied to the development phases as part of the Developers Agreement . Ostenson replied that ti some overlapping of grading could occur from one phase to another . Enger replied that the language in the Developers Agreement could read such that the grading for a particular phase would not exceed the proposed grading plan by over 20%. Steve Wagner , 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he would like direction from the Council on what to expect with the road alignments, what the impact would be to his property, t will the property be cut in half, where is the proposed alignment for Scenic Heights Road to be located, and how are the property owners to proceed while all these issues r are left undecided . Dietz replied that the road 4 alignments were still in the planning stages . Dietz added that on December 20, 1988 there would be a public hearing a on the official mapping of Highway N212 and in January there would be a public hearing on the Southwest Study Area Plan. Dietz stated that a feasibility study would be required for road improvements and specific answers would not be available until that study had been completed; however, there would be some flexibility for the alignment of Scenic Heights Road . Wagner then asked how the Council - would respond to a development proposal for his property in relation to Scenic Heights Road . Dietz replied that if a development proposal was presented a negotiation process would begin to determine road alignments . Enger added that if Wagner came to the City with a proposal he would be told that provisions would be necessary for the continuance of Scenic Heights Road . Enger added that there would be some flexibility of a £ew feet to the north or south for the alignment of Scenic Heights Road . Wagner stated that he did not believe that he had been allowed to offer any input as to where Scenic Heights Road would be located on his property. No further comments from the audience. MOTION :_ Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance: No . 59-88-- i _y Council Minutes 11 December 13, 1988 PUD-15-88 for PUD District Review Approval and Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION• Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No . 88-278 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Special Assessment Agreement and a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions related to grading . Motion carried unanimously. Bentley requested that Staff work with the property owners on the east side of the project and request that the proponent meet with the neighborhood residents regarding the road alignments . Jim Ostensen replied that the proponent had met with the neighbors and that access had been provided to their properties . Ostensen added that the proponent did not have control over the road alignment between this proposed plat and County Road $4 . D. TRANgEE 2 OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROLLING INTEREST OF THE CABLE SYSTEM. (Resolution No. 88-297, Recommending Approval of the Acquisition of Rogers Cabiesystems of the Southwest, Inc . , by KBE, Cable Inc . ; Resolution No . 88-298, Giving Final Approval of the Transfer, and Approval of Consent Agreement s Guaranty of Performance Document with 3 Exhibits ) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been properly published . Jullie noted that the approval of the Resolution was recommended by the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. Bentley asked what services would change . Jullie replied that the same operating tears would operate the system. Jullie added that the parent company's philosophy was that decisions related to programming would remain at the local level . Pidcock noted that the parent company was Houston Industries, which was a utility company with the reputation for having long-term investments versus short- term investments . She believed this would have a stabilizing effect on the cable system. No further comments from the audience . MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to dose the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-298 for final approval } :y Council Minutes 12 December 13, 1988 of the transfer, and approval of the Consent Agreement and Guaranty of Performance Documents ( including 3 exhibits) . Motion carried unanimously. E. AMENDED .HOUSING PLAN FOR PRAIRIE V I T L&DE APARTMENTS (Resolution No . 88-293 ) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been properly published . There were no comments from the audience . 2 9 MOTION : R Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-293 to amend the Housing Plan for the Prairie Village Apartments. Motion carried unanimously. w a. AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED ITEM VIII . B. ' F. EIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates . Request for a Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2. 5 Zoning District on 8 . 36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8 .36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development . Location: west of County Road No. 4, east of Mitchell Lake . (ordinance No . 56-88, Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No . 88-275, Preliminary Plat ) Continued from 11/15/88 Jullie reported that the proper notices had been mailed to the affected property owners. John Miller, representing Elim Homes, presented that plans for a 64-unit senior citizens housing project . Miller stated that 9 variances had been requested with 6 being approved and 3 being denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments . He added that two of the variances dealt with the height of the building and the third related to setback requirements from Mitchell Lake, which had been withdrawn . A Corps of Engineers grading permit had been Issued. Enger reported that the plan had been reviewed at the November 28, 1988 Planning Commission and had received approval based on the recommendations outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report . Enger noted that the plan was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission . . -y Council Minutes 13 December 13, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 56-88 for Zoning District Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOT T ON. Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . $ 88-275 approving the Preliminary Plat . Motion carried unanimously. x MOT I Q1V: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Anderson asked that the consideration of the color of the brick and the roof design be incorporated in the Developers Agreement . Bentley suggested that an earth tone color would be appropriate due to the colors of the surrounding homes . Enger recommended that the proponent provide color samples for the brick, trim, and shingles prior to 2nd Reading . Motion carried unanimously. G. ELIM SHOREg . (Continued from 11/15/88 ) Resolution No . 88-294, Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting . Motion carried unanimously. H . ELIM SHORE6 . Tax Increment Financing Plan (Resolution No. 88-295) MOTION' Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting . Motion carried unanimously. VI . PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of Claims No . 46969 through No. 47564 . ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, Peterson all voting "AYE" . Motion carried unanimously. 4 i ty Council Minutes 14 December 13, 1988 VII . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No . 88-266.. regarding State Funding of Minneapolis and St . Paul CoMbined ,Sewer Overflow Separation Project (continued from 11/15,188 ) Peterson stated that he would vote against the proposed resolution . Peterson added that he supported the program mandated by the Legislature and that Eden Prairie was not automatically opposed to what the legislature determined was good for the core cities. Bentley stated that the core cities had already received forgiveness for $32 million and were now requesting an additional $49 million because federal money which had a been pledged was not forthcoming. Bentley did not believe action by this Council would change the outcome; however, it did give Eden Prairie a chance to voice its opinion. MOTION : ? P Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No . 88-266 supporting the position of the Suburban Rate Authority. Motion carried 3-2, with Peterson and Pidcock voting "NO" . B. waft O_ r_ dipange regarding .Recrgational Vehicles MOTION' Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct staff to redraft the proposed ordinance to include the recommendations from the Planning Commission . Simon Root, 7286 Topview Road, stated support for the ordinance . He encouraged the City to act as quickly as possible as the ordinance had been vith Staff and the Council for sometime . Bernadine Moser, 7263 Topview Road, asked why the process was taking so long and why it seemed that the Council and Staff were hesitant to make a decision . Peterson replied that Staff and the Council would be taking a major step with the motion made by Councilmember Bentley. Peterson added that the ordinance would have a significant impact on the residents of Eden Prairie and believed that it was appropriate to allow sufficient time to allow residents to comment . He concluded by stating that this was a careful process . City Attorney Pauly wished to address the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Pauly stated that the Planning Commission had requested that grandfathering provisions be limited to specific vehicles . Pauly added a �y Council Minutes 15 December 13, 1988 that the grandfathering as currently described provided for continuance of the uses that were legal at the time of the adoption of the ordinance . Pauly believed that limiting the grandfather policy to specific vehicles could not be allowed . Pauly recommended that the applicability of a grandfathering clause would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis . The recommendation that a vehicle was required to be in a safe and operable condition with a current license had already been addressed clearly in the current draft. Pauly requested clarification on what the Planning Commission had considered for the height of a recreational vehicle and the recommendation to minimize storage in the front yards . Enger replied that the Planning Commission had requested that the restriction referenced in the Nebraska draft relating to parking across sidewalks and/or trails be included in the ordinance , that a minimum sideyard setback be provided, and that as the 7-foot height restriction might not be appropriate, further study should be done . Enger added that the Planning Commission believed that the ordinance would be clearer if a specific time limit was set for the abandonment period. Anderson stated that a van was 7 feet in height and a pickup with a topper was lower in height than a van . Anderson was concerned about the number of times the residents had been to the Council meetings and had not been heard until late in the agenda and, therefore, recommended that when the public hearing regarding the ordinance was held that it be at the beginning of the agenda . Anderson believed that the residents had been g patient and that the process was taking a long time . Forrest Colston, 7215 Topview Road, stated that he had a a recreational vehicle which was an 11-foot Winnebago. x Motion carried unanimously. VIII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS A C9MMUNICAU M A . MUCH OF CLASS--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No . 88-51 . Kate Halverson, believed that the letter dated November 7, 1988 presented the rationale for the variance request . Halverson presented additional facts which had not been presented to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments . Halverson stated that several meetings had been held with the Shelard Group related to the development of the property. She added that a finalization for the purchase of the adjacent property was near completion and, therefore, the entire parcel would be developed . Halverson noted two other cases in the vicinity where the Council had been flexible related to siding. Halverson _ may Council Minutes 16 December 13, 1988 ` believed that the requests were realistic and reasonable . Peterson stated that this was a transitional area, the property had been well maintained since it had been changed to commercial use . Peterson noted the reason for the requirement of a brick or better exterior material for commercial buildings was to provide easy maintenance . Peterson did not believe it was the intent of the ordinance that all commercial facilities conform immediately and recommended an extension of the time period to conform to three years or until such time as any contiguous property was developed . Peterson added that if a contiguous property developed Touch of Class would be k notified to appear within 30 days to determine conformance . x Pidcock believed it would create undue hardship on the property owner to use a brick exterior when the state of the surrounding properties had not been determined . Harris concurred that the property had been well r maintained; however, she preferred to delimit a time for review. Bentley believed that a conditional use permit should be utilized in this type of situation and added that the ordinance was designed to create conformity, not to cause undue hardship for the property owners. Bentley questioned the long-term existence of the buildings in their current state . Bentley added that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments had not acted improperly and had performed correctly based on its interpretation of the City Code . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the Board of Appeals decision related to Variance Request No. 88-51, that the reversal be for a period of three years and reconsideration take place when the property was sold or significant alteration of the property took place . Motion carried unanimously. B. ELIM SHORES--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No. 88-57 . Enger reported that the Board of Appeals was concerned about the Shoreland setback variance and the building height variance . Enger stated that the proponent was prepared to withdraw the variance request at this time for the Shoreland setback . Enger noted that the original plan for the building was at a height of 57 feet. The Shoreland Ordinance allows for a height of 30 feet. Enger said that approximately one year ago a variance was y council Minutes 17 December 13, 1988 approved on this property to allow a height in excess of the 30 feet based on the rationale of the difference between a flat roof and a pitched roof, with the Board of Appeals and Adjustments believing that a pitched roof would be more appropriate adjacent to a residential area . The proposed 57-foot height consisted of a 4-story building with a walk-out and a pitched roof . The Board of Appeals and Adjustments heard testimony from residents that believed this height would be out of character with the existing structures in the area and that sufficient evidence had not been presented for a hardship case . Therefore, the request was denied by the Board of Appeals ' and Adjustments . Enger reported that the proponent had revised the plan to depict 3 stories by changing the mix of the units to retain the 64 units originally proposed . The proponent wished to maintain the walk-out and the pitched roof . Enger noted that the walk-out would not affect the height of the building. Enger stated that Staff concurred with the proponent that a pitched roof would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood . Bentley asked what the ,proposed height of the building was at this time . John Miller, representing Elim Shores, stated that the height of the building presently would be 37 feet from grade to the peak of the roof on three sides . Miller added that if the walk-out were retained the height would be 47 feet For the front of the building facing the lake . Enger replied that the variance request at this time was for 47 feet if the walk-out were retained . Harris stated that the walk-out area would include the a service areas and asked if the services would be eliminated if the walk-out were not possible . Miller replied that- extensive berming and landscaping was being proposed to mitigate the height of the building. Miller added that with the elimination of one story, the units had been compacted, and the dining room, kitchen, and service areas had been moved to the lower level . Miller believed that the kitchen and dining area needed natural light to make it a useable space. Peterson asked for clarification on the mention of residents being "Christian" over the age of 62 . Miller replied that the facility would be nondenominational, with the average age of the resident expected to be 75 years . The units would be privately subsidized by Elim Shores and Elim Hoses . Twenty-five units were pre-registered at this t time . Peterson stated that the wording was not intended to be restrictive in any way. Miller replied that this was correct . ~y Council Minutes 18 December 13, 1988 Hill Scholz, 7924 Island Road, read into the record a letter from the Timberlakes Homeowners Association which stated obJection to the 48-foot proposed building height . Scholz noted that this request would represent approximately a 60% increase above the existing 30-foot requirement . Scholz stated that the second obJection related to the fact that existing homeowners had purchased their property with the knowledge of the present zoning restrictions and believed that a precedent would set which he believed could pose a negative effect on the resident 's faith in the zoning system . Scholz believed that the variance should not be approved. Scholz presented a slide { presentation viewing the existing neighborhood both from the lake and the land proposed to be developed . Scholz was ccncerned not only with the height of the building but also the total mass size of the structure . Scholz added that this size of a building did not blend well into a single-family area . s Colleen Pe tree, 7906 Island Road, stated that she would be able to see the building from her back yard. She believed the building would appear extremely large and added that the 30-foot height restriction should be maintained. i Charles Kuvaya, 7902 Island Road, stated that he applauded the purpose for providing senior housing; however, he # opposed the design. Kuvaya believed this structure would have a negative effect on the property values of the existing homes . He added that he had invested over $200, 000 for his home and had planned to live out his life in this home, but if this facility was allowed to be built his view of the lake and the whole appearance of the neighborhood would change . Kuvaya believed the 30-foot height limit should be upheld . Dwight Harvey, a member of the Board of Appeals, stated that while he appreciated the proponents reducing the height from 57 feet to 48 feet, he believed that the Shoreland Ordinance was designed for a reason . Harvey added that the highest portion of the building would face toward the lake and the. Shoreland Ordinance protected the view of the lake . Har,iey asked the proponent if nursing services would be provided . Miller replied that there would be home health care services . Harvey then asked if the beauty shop would be a commercial shop and if this were allowed in a residential area . Peterson replied that it would be allowed, but only for the residents of the facility, not the general public. Brian Foltz, 8008 Island Road, concurred with Mr . Harvey that the Shoreland Ordinance existed for a reason, and although great strides have been made by the proponent to revise the plan, he believed that the 30-foot height restriction should be respected and upheld. .y council Minutes 19 December 13, 1988 Kermit Hansen, 8002 Timber Lake Drive, stated that he recommended approval of the project . Hansen added that other alternatives for development of this property could be worse . Hansen stated that if a flat roof were used on the building it could meet the 30-foot height restriction; however, he concurred that a flat roof would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood . Hansen stated that Elim Shores had spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the design of the building and the landscaping plans to try to conceal the buildings view from the lake . Hansen concluded by stating that he believed that the plans as presented by Elim Shores were the best that could be expected for this parcel . Anderson asked Enger if site elevation comparisons had been done . Enger replied they had not . Anderson then asked if this development would be higher or lower than the homes along the youth shore as shown on the slide presentation by Mr . Sholz . Enger replied that he did not have the exact elevation; however, he believed this facility would be lower than the homes to the south. The proponent stated that the height of the building would be similar to the existing homes. Miller added that due to access available to the facility it would be difficult to lower the elevation further without redistributing the [ parking area . l Jack Pointer, member of the Northbay Homeowners Association, stated that this property had been stagnant for sometime and believed that development of the property would improve the existing property values . Pointer believed that other alternatives for development would be less desirable . Pointer believed that this was a quality project . Pointer noted that the single-family homes on Island Road were multi-story with walk-outs, which would be similar in height to what was being proposed by Elim Shores . Pointer stated that the property was zoned multi - family and believed that any structure to be developed on this site would be larger than the single-family homes . Pointer concluded by stating that the Board of the Northbay Homeowners Association had recommended approval of the project . Bob Holt, 7970 Island Road, stated that there were reasons why the Shoreland ordinance was written and questioned what criteria were used to determine if a variance should be allowed . Holt said that he did not object to the quality of the project or its intent, however, what he did object to was the physical size of the building. Holt believed that the color of the brick could help to mask the size and asked if a definite color had been determined . Miller replied that the color had not established and added that it would work to have the color be compatible . Pauly replied that the answer related to . ty Council Minutes 20 December 13, 1988 the criteria for a variance was proof by the applicant that an undue hardship was being placed on the property due to the ordinance . Charles Kuyava, 7902 Island Road, believed that because this and another project were meeting opposition at the planning stages of development, that possibly the property was incorrectly zoned and could the zoning be changed at this time. Kuyava believed that the proponent had done the best it could to development a quality project; however, he wished that another type of project could be considered for this property. Peterson replied that it ` would be unlikely that a developer would consider down zoning this poperty and added that if a project were brought before the Council , which met all the City Codes, s the Council could not deny the developer to proceed . Dave Orlowsky, 7920 Timber Lake Drive, believed that this was the highest quality project that had been proposed over the years for this property. He added that the developer had worked cooperatively to try to develop a w project which would fit in with the existing neighborhood and to protect the property values of the surrounding y properties . Orlowsky was concerned that if the height of the building were reduced the length and width would be Increased, which he believed would be more detrimental to property values for the adjacent properties . There were no further comments from the audience . E a MOB'I ON Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the decision made by the Board of Appeals . Bentley believed that in essence what was being approved was the equivalent of a three-story building due to the fourth story being buried and the site heavily landscaped and bermed . The pitched roof which added to the height added quality to the building and helped to blend in with the surrounding properties . He stated that the developer was providing subsidized senior housing which had been mandated by the Metropolitan Council . Bentley concluded by stating that because the height of the building had been reduced after the Board of Appeals decision he would support the motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals . Harris stated that she understood the concerns of the residents; however, an extra effort had been made on the part of the developer to give this project a residential character . Harris believed that if the height of the building were reduced and the length and width increased, the result would be less desirable . Harris added that if i - �y Council Minutes 21 December 13, 1988 a flat roof were proposed the developer would be closer to the required height; however, she believed that the pitched roof would be more attractive . Harris supported the motion. Peterson believed that undue hardship had not been proven. He said that the developer had stated that the project could be constructed with one less story and, therefore, would not support the motion. Motion carried 4-1, with Peterson voting "NO" . Pidcock stated that she believed the City had a moral obligation to provide housing for the elderly in Eden Prairie . MOTION• Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to recess the City Council meeting and proceed with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. Reouest for EXterlor Chan99,g to Eden Plairle Center Pidcock asked what the building materials would be . Larry Johnson, architect, replied that the exterior would be stucco with brick peers . The facia would be curved with 5 horizontal reveal bands with 518" red neon tubing. The new Eden Prairie logo would be placed on the reveals . The columns would be enlarged, wrapped with steel, and possibly illuminated . The canopy would also be made of steel with a Teflon sleeve, which would be illuminated . The purpose of the exterior renovations was to make a grander statement and to draw attention to the entrances . A slide presentation was made showing the proposed entrances and the other interior renovations taking place at the center . Bentley asked if the proposed neon lighting and signage would be allowed within the City's sign ordinance criteria . Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, replied that the signage had not been formally reviewed . She added that discussions had taken place regarding what would be necessary and what might be allowed in the future . Larry Johnson replied that the intent was to have the Council review the preliminary plans so that the project did not progress only to find out it would not be permitted . Bentley believed that if any action were taken by the Council tonight it should be to review the sign proposal and its compliance with the City' s sign ordinance . Jean Johnson stated that the Eden Prairie Center signage had been approved as part of the original PUD in 1976 and was part of a total sign package . She ty Council Minutes 22 December 13, 1988 added that the plans that were reviewed by Staff would meet the code requirements and the proponent would be returning to the Planning Commission and the Council with an overall signage plan . Peterson believed this proposal should be presented to Staff and the Planning Commission before any Council action. D. Reguest from Foxtlgr & Associatesn Permit on the EcddoK property lQc!2ted at the N .E. n Rgad and T.N . 5 for Site Grading and Coastruction of a gavel Acceas Rgga Dietz reported that based on an onsite inspection by Staff It was recommended that the request be denied due to the fact that the reasons presented for the request were determined to be unfounded . Darrell Fortier, representing the proponent, stated that Highway #5 would be upgraded at sometime in the future . He added that currently the land was leased and being farmed : access on the property was limited by the gravel road and an existing stricture . The proponent wanted to eliminate the draw to provide a smooth contiguous road . Fortier stated that the request was in compliance with the requirements of the Land Alteration Permit; however, he did not disagree with Staff that the same results could be accomplished with less grading . The other alternative road alignments were not favorable to the proponent at this time . Bentley stated that Land Alteration permits were not typically granted without the review of a development plan. He added that allowing speculative grading was not a policy of the City of Eden Prairie and, therefore, could not support the issuance of a Land Alteration permit without a specific proposal being presented to the Council . Peterson asked what purpose the road would serve . Fortier replied that the road would provide access to and from the property and the farm land . Fortier added that there was nothing in the ordinance which referenced the requirement of the plan . Dietz asked Fortier if Staff had informed him that a development plan was not necessary. Fortier replied that Staff had advised him of what information was necessary to receive the Land Alteration permit and upon receipt of the information requested the issue of tree removal was brought up: there had been no reference by Staff that a development plan was required . Fortier believed that this was not speculative grading . Bentley recommended that the proponent work with Staff to resolve the issues . i --y Council Minutes 23 December 13, 1988 r Peterson believed that this same parcel had been before the Council within the last 2 to 3 years for rezoning without a development plan . Enger replied that there had been a request for rezoning and a hypothetical plan had been presented . Enger added that the problems then were that the plan was only hypothetical and that parts of the plan were in conflict with City ordinances . Dietz stated that the fact remains that significant grading was being requested without sufficient rationale . Peterson believed that adequate access was provided for farming at this time. Fortier replied that the proponent was currently trying to market the property and wished to be able to drive a car on the road surface . Pauly concurred with Councilmember Bentley's recommendation to refer this item back to Staff . He added that there was not sufficient information provided in the Staff Report to determine if all the criteria had been met to meet City Code . MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to refer the request for a land alteration permit back to Staff . Motion carried unanimously. I X. EERQBTS QF hQV I,SORY r.OMMI SS IOISS X. APEOI NTMENTS A. Commission MOTION; Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to nominate Mayor Peterson for the 3-year term to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MQT I ON Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot . Motion carried unanimously. XS . REPQRT.S QF QFFICERS,, BOARDS _& COMMISSIONS A . Re p.Qrjs of CoUnr,11 M!Cml2rr E 1 ' Anderson stated that there was a bill before the j :y Council Minutes 24 December 13, 1988 Legislature which would give national park status within the metropolitan area on the Mississippi River . He added that upon further investigation he believed that the Minnesota River could be included in the Hill to be presented to the Legislature . The State of Minnesota and the DNR were currently in the process of trying to clean up the Minnesota River and Anderson believed that the City of Eden Prairie should support, this effort and request Staff to investigate further the possibility of including the Minnesota River in the Hill to be presented to the Legislature as part of the Durenberger plan . moTr0m= Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to investigate including the Minnesota River in the . Durenberger plan to be presented to the Legislature . Motion carried unanimously. H . Re ort of City Mana9cr 1 . Tempgrary Funding for the Caoh Ege eark jm2rovemcnt Fund // MOTIQN• �! Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the transfer of funds as outlined in the Staff Report . Motion carried unanimously. C. RCyoXt of Gity At&orgy 1 . ftt Agrgementn MOT ION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to accept the terms outlined by the City Attorney and abide by then. Motion carried unanimously. D . Re2grt QfD,irecfor of Planning E . Direct 1 . Re9.ueat front Foxiet Swim Club David Goble, representing the FoxJets, believed that the Foxjets pay rental fees approximately twice that of other teams in the metro area . Goble stated that currently the Foxjets were paying $22 for b metered lanes and added that the request was to have the fee be in line with what other teams are paying . He said that staff 's contention was that if this reduction was granted, other teams would also be requesting reductions . -y Council Minutes 25 December 13, 1988 Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission 's recommendation was to continue with the existing rates . The purpose of the fees was to pay for the operational costs of the Community Center . It was further recommended that the Foxjets continue to pay on the $4, 000 debt, and that the rates not be increased but remain the same . Anderson stated that the original intent was that the operational costs of the facility would be paid for by the users of the facility. Lambert replied that the original theory on rates had been for the City to meet operational E costs as well as be in a comparable range with other r areas . Lambert added that compared to other municipal facilities Eden Prairie was competitive; however, compared with the rates charged by schools, the Community Center was higher . Peterson asked how many of the Foxjets were residents of Eden Prairie . Goble replied that currently 80% are Eden Prairie residents . Lambert commented that Staff believed that the operational costs to operate the pool and the ice arena were similar . He added that the charge is $72 per hour for ice and only $28 per hour for the pool. Lambert stated that the pool costs were being subsidized. Bentley stated that the original intent of the Community Center was to provide a facility which would be open to the public the majority of the time; however, the majority of the time the Center currently was occupied by organized groups which infringed on the public use of the facility. Bentley believed that the City' s operating philosophy could not Justify a reduction in frees unless there was a correlating change in membership fee . Goble noted that the Foxjets did not use the entire pool at any given time . He added that the Foxjets would be willing to extend the time and reduce the number of lanes used at any time . Anderson stated that athletics had changed over the years and the costs had become dramatic. Goble concluded by stating that the request was to receive similar rates as other communities and noted that the Foxjets did utilize extensive fund raising programs. MOTION :: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the request by the Foxjets based on the Staff Memo . Motion carried unanimously. . ty Council Minutes 26 December 13, 1988 ( 2 . Recommendation on Revised Cash Park Fees Lambert reported that it was the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to further study this issue . Anderson recommended that a certain percent of the Cash Park Fee be set aside as a trail fee . Lambert replied that would require an additional fee . Lambert added that County Road #4 and County Road 01 were the only missing links in the trail system and believed that a referendum would be the best way to receive the funds to complete the trail system . Anderson stated that recommendations for trails along County Road #4 and County Road N1 were made back in 1975 and added that because of lack of funds there were still unsafe areas within Eden Prairie . Lambert believed that Eden Prairie had one of the best trail systems in the metro area . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to draft n a memorandum with recommendations for the 1989 Cash Park Fees and to include the consideration of an additional amount to be utilized for trail systems . Motion carried unanimously. 3 . Janikula Property ��_ Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to withdraw the request for the purchase of the Janikula property. notion carried unanimously. 4 . Naming Park on Red R,gck Lakc MOTION • Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to name the new park in the Boulder Pointe Subdivision, Red Rock Lake Park . Motion carried unanimously. 1"D SON : Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to have a contest to name the old Red Rock Park, considering the top three recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. F . Report of Director of public Works �^ G . Report of Fin!QncO 121Yector XII . NEW BUSINESS :y Council Minutes 27 December 13, 1988 XIII . ADJQURt!H,ENT The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 35 AM. S 1 C