Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/16/1989 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock , and Douglas Tenpas 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 Parks, Recreation a Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All Members Present COMMENDATIONS FOR DEBBIE QUANBECK AND JULIE WAONER, RECIE!rENTS OF THE E O'CONNELL AND TOD LH.1'LLE'TT, RECI EI ENTS OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE AWARDS ( Commendations were presenter] by Mayor Peterson to Julie Wagner, Julie O ' Connell, and Todd Hallett . Julie Wagner had been the recipient of the Athena Award for her participation in volleyball and basketball for the past 4 years, along g with an academic achievement. _ Julie O'Connell and Todd Hallett had received the Golden Eagle Award presented by the Eden Prairie Rotary Club for scholar-athletes at Eden Prairie High School . Hallett stated that this was the first year the award had been presented. 1 . APPROVAi, OF AGENDA AND OTHER GEMS OF BUS ILIESS Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the agenda as amended. ADD Item H to the Consent Calendar, Resolution No . 89-109, Cooperative Construction Agreement for Trunk Highway 169 Between Prairie Center Drive and CSAH 1 . ADD Item X.A . 1 , Set Date for Workshop to Discuss the Establishment of Goals for the City and City Manager for 1989 and the City Manager ' s Salary Range . ADD Item X .A. Z, Board of Review Procedures . City council Minutes 2 May 16, 1989 ADD Item X.A. 3, Communication from County Commissioner Johnson Regarding CSAH 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. ADD Item X. A. 9, Commendation Criteria . ADD Item IX .A, Communication Regarding the Appointment of Representatives to Glen Lake Complex Re-Use Committee . Motion carried unanimously. I I . til NYTES A. Canva„sing Board Meeting held Friday, April 28 , 1299 Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Minutes of the Canvassing Board meeting held Friday, April 28, 1989 as published . Motion carried unanimously. B . Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 2, 1989 as amended . CORRFCTIgA Page 18, the last sentence, should read : Pidcock f commented that the City could buy goodwill . l Motion carried unanimously. III . QONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk 's L�Ae List B. Apprgvgv between Prairie Cgnter Drive and CSAH 1 (Resolution No 89-96 ) C. Final Plat AppxQy I of KoQ!dla-nda of Eden P•.Xairie loc ra north of Pioneer Trail and eflat of Franlo Road) Resolution No . 89-97 D. Approve Tyra ontX21 ,Signal t for T. H . 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway Imarovements (Resolution No. 89- 101 ) E. �?�'Qu a ( 152V, D T.Q I TEtj Vr.•r') F . Ghangg Q�;der No . 2 for Natatorium PrniCrt• I G . V,QODLAND PONDS by Michael Halley Homes, Inc . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-89, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 20 acres; Approval of Developer ' s Agreement for Woodland Ponds; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-102, City Council Minutes 3 May 16, 1989 Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 11-89 and ordering Publication of Said Summary. 20 acres into 49 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location : East of Juniper Lane extension, north of County Road 1 ( Ordinance No . 11-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No_ 89-102 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) H . Cooperative Construct ion Agreement for T un%- Highway 162 Between Prairie Qentgr Dlvg 51n!2 CSAfi 1 (Resolution No. 89-109 ) (A.QDED TO THE AGENDA ) f Peterson stated that Mary Jean Carr had requested that the Council remove item E from the Consent Calendar to allow the neighbors to speak on the issue . MITI ON: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to move Item E to Item r vII .C . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: i r Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item E and the Addition of Item H. Motion carried unanimously. IV .. PUBLIC HEARiKQs- A• R..f Q!lEi5_ .Y _CASTLE RjDfaE FOR THE I 55 CE QF 0&8 1-200-.-NK REFUNDING BONDS Jullie reported notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Eden Prairie Neys on April 26, 1989 . He added that the Council had adopted Resolution No . 89-89 for the issuance of approximately $3 .9 million in refunding bonds at the May 2, 1989 meeting; however, a public hearing was required to complete the process . Howard Wallen, representing the proponent, stated that he was available to answer any questions . No further comments from the audience . MOT I QN : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-89 approving the issuance of approximately $3.9 million in refunding bonds. Motion carried unanimously. B. RE.P__tQCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19 ,77 Acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location : East r City Council Minutes 4 May 16, 1989 of County Road No . 4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive . (Ordinance No . 13-89 - Rezoning from Rural to R1-22; Resolution No . 89-104 - Preliminary Plat ) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been sent to 76 surrounding properties and published in the May 3, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Jullie noted that there were possible changes related to the method originally proposed by the proponent for the installation of utilities . Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that various alternatives had been looked at for developing this parcel and added that the design had been changed due to the three existing homes, a problem gaining access across the Harry Rogers property, Staffs concern that a connection be made between Scenic Heights Road and Red Rock Shores, and consideration for the neighbor ' s request for R1-22 zoning . Smith noted that two lot size variances were necessary due to the 80-foot building pads being required by the City, which forced the street to the west . A lift station would be needed and the storm sewer would connect to the Red Rock Lake wetlands . Smith said that the proponent was making an effort to save as many trees as possible by leaving the building pads undisturbed at this time and only grading for the street. The street needed to be brought up to the proposed grade of the Department of Transportation, which would require additional fill . Smith concluded by stating that the proponent had petitioned the Watershed District . i George Hoff, attorney for the proponent, stated that he had been requested to address the issue of the City's Tree Replacement Policy. Hoff noted the proponent had had discussions with Staff on this issue. The proponent was requesting that the Council give special direction to Staff related to the preparation of the Developer 's Agreement : that the Tree Replacement Policy not be enforced on this project or that the policy only apply to those trees which had been removed from Gilk 's construction activity. Hoff referred to a May 16, 1989 memo from Assistant City Planner, Don Uram, which stated that Eden Prairie ' s Tree Replacement Policy resulted from the subdivision process . Hoff added the City was operating under State Statue 462. 358, which stated that the City was given a variety of authority to undertake subdivision review and control which included the preservation of vegetation . Hoff noted the statue Indicated that the only way the regulation could be implemented was by an ordinance . Hoff ' s understanding was that an ordinance was not in place at this time, it was only a policy and, therefore, he believed the City was acting without proper authority. Hoff noted that the policy referred to "actual tree loss", then later to City Council Minutes 5 May 16, 1989 "trees removed" . He added that the Staff 's calculation was based on "trees removed" . Hoff stated that the proponent had identified the trees in the roadway, building pads, and also within the wooded areas . The proponent objected to the requirement to replace trees which he would not be removing or destroying . Hoff stated that the proponent was being asked to be responsible for the trees after the lots were sold and over which he no longer had control . Hoff believed the proponent was being obligated on speculation. Hoff questioned if it was wise to have the developer allow a builder operate with impunity related to tree removal . Hoff believed that what the -City wanted to accomplish was to avoid the "clear- cutting" of older trees; however, he believed what the City was actually doing was giving the builders a free hand . Hoff added that the builders and homeowners were not being held liable; only the developer was responsible . Hoff requested that the motion made by the Council do one of two things : A) Recognize the statutory infirmity and what the Tree Replacement Policy was doing with respect to the lack of ordinance authority under the subdivision regulations, or H) That the Council direct that the Tree Replacement Policy related to this matter, apply only to 3 those areas which the proponent would undertake . construction activity. Enger reported that the proponent ' s position related to the Tree Replacement Policy was a new position to Staff and had not been presented at the Planning Commission or Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meetings . Staff had met with the proponent, where it had been indicated that he had difficulty with the Tree Replacement 1. Policy in general and the way in which it was applied . Staff had indicated a willingness to work out the difficulties with the proponents however, Staff also indicated it was not within Staff 's authority to waive completely a policy which the Council had used for over 30 subdivision projects during the past 2-1/2 years . Enger noted that a draft of the ordinance would be coming before the Council for adoption in the near future _ Enger stated that the policy had been developed based on the direction from the Council that the City was looking for a means to protect the trees because prior to the Tree Replacement Policy very little attention had been given to saving the trees in the subdivisions after the Council had approved the project . In 1982 the Council had adopted a change in the zoning ordinance which included a R1-99 Zoning District which stated that the size of the lots were for these areas where large lots would serve to protect the woodland, hills, and wetlands . The Tree Replacement Policy was developed as a tool for the developers to use In wooded areas where they wanted to use smaller lots . Enger added the Tree Replacement Policy was designed to help mitigate the impact the subdivisions had on the City Council Minutes 6 May 16,1989 wooded areas . Enger believed that it was unfortunate that this issue was being brought forward at this late date . Enger noted that Krueger and Associates had worked with Staff and the Developers Forum In the development of the Tree Replacement Policy. He added that both the Developers Forum and 15 local developers had endorsed the Tree Replacement Policy. Enger believed the policy had been developed in concert with the development community and was in fact a fair policy. Enger clarified that the City was not requiring the proponent to use 80 ' building pads and added that the size of the building pads being recommended were a reflection of the current market . Enger said the 80 ' building pads were used as a tool to determine the impact on the property. Enger noted that there was room to compromise on the number of caliper inches- which Staff believed to be reasonably taken out of the subdivision and have the proponent be responsible for a one time through basis and not into the future on individual lots. Enger believed that the City had been liberal and fair in the application of the Tree Replacement Policy and added that many of the subdivisions were seeing a much higher tree loss than originally predicted . Peterson stated that the Council did not want to begin a negotiation process with the proponent at this point and suggested that the item be referred back to Staff to continue the negotiations . Anderson stated that the Council needed more information from the City Attorney before making a determination on these issues . Anderson added that the suggestion of R1-44 zoning being presented was a new proposal and should start back through the process with Staff and the Planning Commission . Peterson believed that if the proponent chose to change to R1-44 zoning the plan should be reviewed again by Staff and the Planning Commission; however, if the proposal were to come back as R1-22 zoning with an agreement reached between the proponent and Staff, the proposal should come back directly to the Council. Anderson stated that he would strongly recommend the R1-44 Zoning District if the City were not going to have a Tree Replacement Policy enforced on the smaller lots with the larger building pads . Anderson noted it was for exactly this type of situation that the R1-44 Zoning District had been created . 6 } City Council Minutes 7 May 16, 1989 Anderson moved that the proposal be referred back to the Planning Commission and direct Staff to confer with the City Attorney related to the status of the Tree Replacement Policy. Harris asked Anderson If he would consider an amendment to the Motion to consider a continuance to the June 6, 1989 City Council meeting and to recommend that Staff and the proponent continue negotiations . Anderson replied that the City had approved over 30 proposals utilizing the Tree Replacement policy and believed that if a change in Lhe policy were going to be made or if a new plan were proposed for this project the Planning Commission should be given the opportunity to look at the new plans and/or policy. Pauly asked when the application had been made for Plat approval and noted that the City had 120 days to act on the Plat request from the date of application before the Plat was automatically approved. Hoff stated that the proponent was requesting that the Council consider the City' s authority to enforce the Tree Replacement Policy and the interpretation of the policy. Hoff believed that it would be inappropriate to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission . Anderson asked Hoff why the proponent had not presented this information at the Planning Commission level . Anderson stated that the planning process started with Staff and the Planning.-Commission and if the proponent had a problem with the City' s policy it should have been presented at the Planning Commission level first . Hoff replied that there had been negotiations with Staff, which had resulted in a memo which was received by the proponent yesterday. Hoff believed the issues to be straight- forward and added that further delay of the project would be money out of the developer ' s pocket. s Peterson noted that the Council had also received the information at a late date and also somewhat of an ultimatum from the proponent, on which the Council did not wish to act at this time . Peterson added that if the developer did not choose to utilize the City' s policy the project could become an R1-44 development, which would be considered a new proposal and would require review by the Planning Commission; however, if the proponent were to continue with the R1-22 zoning and be able to reach an equitable agreement with Staff related to tree replacement, the plan would not require review by the Planning Commission. City Council Minutes 8 May 16, 1989 Hoff believed that the appropriate action would be to continue negotiations with Staff , return to the Council in two weeks and if the R1-22 were denied at that time then the proponent would have the option to seek the R2-44 zoning. Tenpas believed that the results from the City's adoption of a Tree Replacement Policy were positive and added that he did not believe that enough information was available at this time to make a decision regarding this proposal . Enger stated that he wished to dispel the idea that this was a last-minute issue for Staff . He said that a section had been written in the April 7, 1989 Staff Report for the Planning Commissions review regarding the Tree Replacement Policy. Enger added that the proponent did not come to Staff regarding the difficulties with the Tree Replacement Policy until after meeting with the Planning Commission. He noted that Staff had met with the proponent last week and the memo presented to the Council tonight was in response to the proponent 's concerns . Enger said that Staff had been working on this item continuously since the meeting with the proponent and as noted in the memo there was room for compromise. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to the June 6, 1989 Council meeting. Anderson asked if the Council was going to recommend what action should take place prior to the June 6, 1989 meeting . Peterson replied there would be negotiations between Staff and the proponent . Peterson added that based on the additional information provided by Staff at that time the Council would make a decision based on the proposal 's merits . Anderson stated that he was concerned about making any decision without legal advice unless the Council had specific instruction related to a delay. Harris stated that the Council needed to be sure the Plat request would be within the 120-day limit . Pauly stated that the Council could ask the developer to waive the 120- day limit and extend the time. Pauly noted the alternative would be for the Council to take action on this proposal tonight_ Hoff replied that it was not the city council Minutes 9 May 16, 1989 proponent ' s intention to run the plat request past the 120-day time limit . Hoff added that a continuance for 21 days would be acceptable. Motion carried unanimously. C. CSAH 1 and 18 Area Storm Sewer improvements . I .C. 52-123 (Resolution No . 89-92 ) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing was properly published and sent to the owners of affected properties . Dietz stated that the area consisted of approximately 300 acres which currently did not have a satisfactory drainage outlet and added the City had received a petition for the project due to the new developments occurring in the area . Dietz noted that the project was very complex and had required a extensive amount of technical detail . This area was part of a Comprehensive Drainage Plan adopted by the City in 1971 . Dietz stated that it had been determined since the time of that study that 34 acre-feet of storage and an outlet restricted to 20 cubic feet per second would be required. He said the City had a cooperative agreement with Bloomington to provide storm f sewer . The project was divided into east and west i portions due to a drainage divide which separated the two areas . The last pond ( 2W) would require an easement and the installation of future lateral outfall construction and trunk storm sewer along County Road 18 to connect to the existing system in Bloomington . Dietz stated that the construction costs were in two parts : the proposed cost of the current construction for the lateral outfall would be approximately $86,000, and the costs which occurred in 1981 for the cooperative construction with Bloomington of approximately 021, 000 for which the City proposed to reimburse itself now, with the total estimated cost of the entire project at $109, 265 . The City's share of the cost would be approximately $62, 890 with the balance of $46, 375 to be assessed . Dietz noted that the east portion of the project was significantly smaller than the west; however, due to the larger storage capacity on the western portion the project would be assessed half and half for the lateral assessment at $959 . 86 per acre plus any costs to acquire necessary easements . The trunk sewex assessment for the western portion would be $261 per acre and the eastern portion assessed at $875 per acres due to the smaller area, but an equal benef it . Dietz noted that there was a significant amount of park land in the project area as well as existing residential homes . He said that the areas of future development would City Council Minutes 10 May 16, 1989 be assessed at a later date . Dietz concluded by stating that the technical design work had been completed and if the project received Council approval the bid opening would be June 1989, the construction completed in 1989 . There were no comments from the audience . MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Hartis to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-92 ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications . Motion carried unanimously. s D. SASE P©INT by Crosstown Investors . Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 7 . 9 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2 . 78 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7 . 9 acres into 2 lots, I outlot with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a gas station, and daycare facility, and request for Land Alteration Permit to Begin Soil Correction Work . Location : West of Shady Oak Road, north of the proposed City West Parkway extension. (Resolution No . 89-106 - Comprehensive Guide // Plan Amendment; ordinance No. 14-89 - Zoning District t. Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial; Resolution No. 89-107 - Preliminary Plat ) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing was sent to owners of 9 surrounding properties and had been a published in the May 3, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jim ostensen, representing the proponent, stated that the request was for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to ) Neighborhood Commercial on approximately 8 acres and rezoning for the construction of a Superamerica store and a New Horizon daycare facility. Ostensen stated that the parcel was being truncated with the extension of the City West Parkway. The project would serve several thousand employees in the area . Ostensen noted that another convenience store or daycare facility were not located within this area of the I-494 quadrant . He believed both uses of the property to be appropriate . The property was bordered by 3 major roads and the adjacent property had been buffered from this development . Ostensen noted that Staff had been concerned about the traffic generated and noted that it had been determined that this project would utilize 8% of the "reserve capacity" and the proponent acknowledged that the property to the north would require land uses which would conform with the balance of the reserve capacity allowed as determined by the traffic study . Ostensen stated that the proponent had also City Council Minutes 11 May 16, 1989 reviewed carefully the Staff 's concerns related to similar architecture, roof design and material, and exterior building materials . The proponent had also provided Staff with a Development Framework Manual which outlined similar lighting, signage, and landscape designs . Ostensen stated that the proponent had submitted a request for an early grading permit for this protect. He believed that the property had held hostage for three years due to the surcharging of the soil . Ostensen added that the New Horizon Daycare was scheduled to open August 15, 1989 and, therefore , construction needed to begin immediately to meet the deadlines . He noted that the daycare was currently operating in Minnetonka and that its current lease would expire in August. k Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 24 and May 8, 1989 meetings . He noted that a traffic study had been commissioned to determine the amount of "reserve capacity" available in the Shady Oak Road area . Enger stated that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change was being requested for Neighborhood Commercial . He noted that neighborhood commercial projects typically generate more traffic than multiple-family residential development . Enger stated that this area did not currently have the amount of traffic as projected in the original study. The traffic Z distribution would depend on the improvement and signalization of Shady Oak Road . Enger said that if the Council favored the proposal it should be with the knowledge that the road improvements would be necessary in this area . The property to the north would not have a large amount of traffic. capacity available and the Council may wish to entertain a different type of land use for the property to the north int he future . Enger reported that the proposal had received Planning Commission approval at the May 8, 1989 meeting with a 6-0 vote, based on the Staff recommendations outlined in the May 5, 1989 Staff Report. Peterson stated that the Staff reports referred to two different descriptions of the roof material . ostensen replied that the Superamerica had always been proposed as a metal roof and added that Superamerica had agreed to construct a hip roof similar to the daycare facility. Ostensen stated that the proponent had reluctantly agreed to a metal roof for the daycare facility due to the increase in the costs . Ostensen noted that the proponent would prefer a shingle roof, which he believed would provide a better transition to the residential area . Enger stated that the Staff and Planning Commission ' s rationale was to have the buildings be consistent. Enger added that the Superamerica sloped roof would be acceptable . Staff did not have a preference as to whether City Council Minutes 12 May 16,1989 the roofs were metal or shingle; however, an attempt to match architecture should be made . Peterson believed that the architectures did match. Tenpas asked if this would not make the daycare look like a Su peramerica . Enger replied that the Superamerica would be a new sloped roof prototype and added that Staff had suggested that the two facilities use some of the same elements, such as brick and roof material . Tenpas believed that because of the cost issue some leeway should be allowed . Harris believed that a shingled roof would make for a better transition to the residential area . Anderson stated that in the shopping areas the Council had directed Staff and the Planning Commission to provide similar architecture. Tenpas stated that the uses of the facilities were not the same in this instance and it would be difficult to make them look similar . Pidcock stated that if the daycare operation left its facility, the building would remain compatible with the ' surrounding structures . Pidcock believed that daycare facilities should not be allowed next to gas stations . Enger replied that this issue had been referred to the Human Rights and Services Commission . Enger added that the City did have a number of daycare centers currently next to gas stations and added that Staff continued to receive more proposalsF however, the recommendation had not been received from the Human Rights and Services Commission. Enger stated that the direction from the Council in the past had been to develop a sense of continuity in the facilities and that the Council did not want to determine such detailed items as color and building materials . Peterson stated that there was an economic consideration and a transition issue to be considered in this particular case. He added that the Council did want as much integrity within a development as possible and, therefore, he recommended adherence to the Staff - and Planning Commission recommendation. Anderson stated that he did not have as much problem with a daycare being close to a gas station as being so close to a busy roadway system. Anderson asked Enger how far away the daycare would be from the Crosstown highway. Enger replied it would be 800 feet away. Anderson stated that studies had shown that at least 3 to 4 days during City Council Minutes 13 May 16, 1989 the year the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels were harmful next to the busy roadway systems . Anderson stated that while the Council did not have the recommendation from the Human Rights and Services Commission at this time it was still a concern . Tenpas stated that daycare facilities wanted to be close to busy roads and gas stations because of the convenience . There were not comments from the audience . MOTION : a Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-106 for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading of ordinance No. 14-89 for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial . Motion carried unanimously. (r MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 89-107 approving the Preliminary Plat . Motion carried unanimously. HO�TQN : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. MQT I ON : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to grant a land alteration permit and to further recommend that the developer proceed at its own risk , and that building permits would not be issued until other agency approvals were received and approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance had occurred. Anderson stated that normally he would not favor this type of motion; however, due to the surcharge and the deadline for the daycare opening he would vote in favor of the motion . Anderson added that he did not want to set a precedent for allowing early permits . Motion carried unanimously. r , City Council Minutes 14 May 16, 1989 E. EDENVAI.E II BUSINESS CENTER by Hoyt Development . Request for Site Plan Review within the I -2 Zoning District on 4 . 59 acres for Construction of a 70, 528 square foot office/warehouse . Location: 14500 Martin Drive . (Resolution No . 89-105 - Approving Site Plan ) Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that the Site Plan and Architectural Review Ordinance had not been in effect when the plan was first approved . He noted that the plan had received Council approval previously; however , the project had never been constructed . Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at is April 21, 1989 meeting and had recommended approval of the project with a 5-0-0 vote . Enger stated that this was one of the first plans required for review based on the new Site Plan Ordinance . He added that the plan was in conformance and consistent with the original plan . Peterson noted that a Development Agreement was not mentioned in the proposed motions . Enger replied that the original Development Agreement would be continued . There were no further comments from the audience . tIOTI ON: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-105 approving the Site Plan for Edenvale II Business Center . Motion carried unanimously. F. -W V - ( south of W. 62nd Street - Vacation No . 89-05) Resolution No. 89-100 Jullie introduced the item. There were no Council or audience comments . MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-100 to Vacate this Right-of-Way. Motion carried unanimously. V. RAYMENT QE QLAI MS MQ I'�ON : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims No . 50613 through No . 51007 . ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voted "AYE" . City Council Minutes 15 May 16, 1989 VI . ORDINANCES & RESO UTIONS A . CA_BRIOLE C'FK�'FF� by Hansen, Pellinen, Olson, Inc . Request for Preliminary Plat of 10 . 3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65, 000 square foot office building, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals . Location : South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes . (Resolution No . 89-103 - Preliminary Plat ) Jullie reported that due to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments denial of the variance requests, it was recommended that this item be continued to the June 6, 1989 meeting to review the decision . } MOTI ON Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the June 6, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. V I I . PETITIONS , REQUEh9TS & QgMMUN I CATIONS s A . Request fXom Jim Ogtgnsen and Ron KrU!:Ser gn brhalf of the mate the Council Qn their grogress and 0olicit ideas for. Jullie reported that Staff recommended setting the meeting for June 13, 1989 at 7: 30 PM. Peterson asked the Council if they would consider starting at 6 s OQ PM - MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to set a meeting with the Developer 's Forum for June 13, 1989 at 6 : 00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. B . Request from Trammell Crow Company for Land AlteAation Permit BegLn railing Work go Property ( located West of Washington Avenue and South of W. 76th Street) John Griffith, representing Trammell Crow Company, gave a brief history of the company's activities in the Twin Cities. Linda Fischer, attorney representing the proponent, stated that Trammell Crow currently had a contract to purchase the 21-acre site south of 76th Street . Fischer noted the significant physical constraints of the property as wetlands, floodplain, and an existing home. Fischer stated that the property was currently zoned Rural and City Council Minutes 16 May 16, 19e9 guided as industrial, making the proposed land use consistent with the City' s Comprehensive Guide Plan. The proponent was proposing to develop 3 to 4 one-story office buildings on the northern portion of the site . The proponent had met with Staff and expected to apply for all required zoning approval in 1989 and start construction upon receipt of approvals from all the necessary government agencies. Fischer said the request before the Council was to issue permit to allow early grading of the property prior to the conclusion of the zoning process . Fischer added that an extensive amount of fill would be required for this property and noted that engineering consultants had advised Trammell Crow Company that fill would be required for any development of the property. Fischer stated that Trammell Crow Company had access to a source of fill based on a condition that the removal of the fill begin within one week . The request for the early land alteration was due to both economic and timing factors . She added that if Trammell Crow Company was unable to take advantage of: this source of fill or obtain fill at the same price from another source, the company would be unable to proceed with the development based on the amount of fill required for this property. Fischer believed that there would be no safety risks, no effect on surrounding residential areas, no effect on neighborhood roadways, all City requirements would be adhered to, the site was guided for industrial use, and Trammell Crow would be willing to post a bond or a letter of credit to insure the restoration of the property. Trammell Crow had agreed also adhere to the City's Tree Replacement Policy and to replace caliper- inch for caliper-inch any tree loss due to the grading . Fischer concluded by acknowledging that an approval by the Council of this grading permit would not commit the City in any way to approve any project proposed by Trammell Crow Company without going through the City's process. Steven Pellinen, civil engineer representing the proponent, stated that a high knoll currently existed along West 76th Street with a drastic drop in elevation toward the floodplain . He noted that fill would be required in a small part of the floodplain. Pellinen said that only a narrow strip of land could be preserved regardless of the type of development and added that there were no trees located in that area . He said the knoll would be cutdown. The proponent had contacted the DNR, the Watershed District and the Corps of Engineers . Pellinen stated that 15% of the floodplain could be filled at this time . City Engineer Alan Gray stated that Planning and Engineering Staffs had reviewed the proposal . Gray stated that the proposal would have a significant impact on the City Council Minutes 17 may 16, 1989 site. He concurred that given the land use some grading close to what was being proposed would be necessary. Gray noted that City approval would be contingent on the approval from the numerous other agencies which needed to review the proposal . Gray stated that the timing of the request was based on the availability of fill and asked the proponent if it could identify where the fill would be coming from, and if the site was within Eden Prairie whether the necessary permits had been obtained by its source . Gray stated that Staff was also concerned if a hazardous waste study had been done on the site and if the proponent would be willing to abandon any existing wells and -septic systems . Griffith stated that the proponent had two sources of fill z available , one within Eden Prairie and one outside of Eden Prairie . He added that he would prefer not to identify the owner of the fill at this time as it might endanger the finalization of the contract . Griffith said that part of the contractual agreement stated that the party owning the fill would also obtain all the necessary permits required . Griffith stated that Phase I of a hazardous waste study had been initiated and had indicated one small area without any apparent hazardous waste . He said the proponent would be abandoning the well and septic systems. Peterson asked what percentage of fill would be obtained from the site compared to the amount of fill imported. Pell inen replied that approximately 30% would be available on site . Peterson asked if the proponent would be willing i to leave the hill as it currently existed until other approvals were granted . Pell inen believed the proponent could leave the hill intact for the time being only. Anderson questioned how the proponent would restore the property if 40 feet had been taken off the top of the hill as proposed . Pellinen replied that the restoration would pertain to landscaping . Anderson believed that it would be better for the proponent to come to the Council when it had a specific development in mind . He added that the amenities of the land would be taken away. Anderson noted that the City had worked with the developers to preserve the knolls when possible . Griffith replied that only the narrow strip of land could be developed at this time without fill . Griffith added that the proponent was trying to pay attention to the amenities on the 17 acres which would not be touched . Anderson stated that he was concerned about allowing grading to begin without a plan . Tenpas stated that he found it hard to believe that Trammell Crow Company would base its decision to develop a property on the price of fill unless it was at a significant savings . Griffith replied the savings was substantial and could mean a difference of 0500, 000 . City Council Minutes 18 May 16, 1989 Tenpas asked if Trammell Crow was going to begin construction with preleased agreements . Griffith replied Trammell Crow wished to begin construction as soon as all approvals had been obtained and would proceed without specific tenants . Tenpas stated that the proponent could leave the knoll in place and the area would be cleaned up. Tenpas asked the proponent what contingencies it was willing to provide . Griffith replied collateral for the trees and restoration of the site could be provided . 5 Tenpas stated that Trammell Crow Company had an excellent reputation in the Twin Cities and believed that if the proponent were willing to leave the hill alone at this time, he would favor approving the early grading permit . Pidcock asked what alteration had already taken place on the site. Pell inen stated that the hill was higher at one time . Pidcock then asked what the age of the trees were on the site . Pellinen replied that many of the trees were. past their prime. Anderson stated that he could support the early grading only if the hill was left alone . Peterson concurred with Counc i lmember Anderson and added that the City wanted to protect the knolls. Griffith replied that based on the information provided by surveys and studies conducted by Trammell Crow Company it would not be possible to save the knoll . Peterson believed that it would be premature to discuss that at this time; however, if the proponent wanted an early land alteration permit it would be with the understanding that the hill would be left alone at this time and that no assurance was being wade that the Council would approve the removal of the hill. Griffith stated that he understood and accepted the conditions . MQTL ON: Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to grant a land. alteration permit which would not allow grading of the hill on the site . The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee to the City to Insure tree replacement and site restoration. The applicant shall receive approval by other agencies with authority over this land alteration request . The applicant shall proceed at its own risk . Pauly noted that the motion should state that the granting of the permit was without prejudice to the remaining portion of the property. Motion carried unanimously, B . 9.E. Mar .lean Garr, 8100 Ensign Road Y , gn , Bloomington, stated that she had been observing and recording data about the geese 'i City Council Minutes 19 May 16, 19 89 on Anderson Lake for the past 19 years . She had been working with Dr . Cooper on his study of the urban geese . Carr stated that she had never had a problem► with aggressive geese . Carr said that goose population was approximately half of what it had been in the past and currently there were only 45 resident geese at the northern most portion of Anderson Lake . Carr stated that since she had received the notice on Friday she had driven through the G.E. Capital lot on three separate occasions and had only observed 7 adult geese, 4 goslings and 4 mallards . Carr stated that she was opposed to having "Preserve" geese trapped and relocated due to the possible injury to the geese . Tenpas stated that the geese had been trapped at Olympic Hills and asked Carr if she had noticed a significant u difference in the number of geese in the area . Carr replied that since the time of that trapping the goose population had diminished from 200 to approximately 30 to 40 which are seen today. w Harris asked how many resident geese were currently on Anderson Lake. Carr replied approximately 30 . Harris then asked Carr how many geese had been there last year . Carr replied approximately 80 and added that the population had decreased since the trapping on the Olympic Hills Golf Course . Carr said that the neighbors loved and enjoyed the geese Anderson noted that the geese were nesting now, but when 3 the geese get their wings they would gather into large groups . He added that 200 geese had been sighted on the Edenvale Golf Course last year at one time; according to the DNR there were a large numbers of geese and in fact were over the carrying capacity. Emerson Greenberg, representing G.E. Capital , stated that G .E. Capital had remained silent about the goose issue for many years because it also enjoyed and liked the geese. Greenberg said that he had spoken with Dr . Cooper regarding the problem. He noted that there were 8 to 10 pairs of geese on G.E. Capital property. Greenberg stated that the geese had attacked the employees . Greenberg added that G . E. Capital had to pressure wash the sidewalks and entrance to the facility twice a day. He stated that it was impossible to keep the people and the geese apart . Greenberg believed that; the overall goose population would not be harmed by the removal of these 8 to 10 pairs . Greenberg concluded by stating that Dr . Cooper would be handling the trapping and relocation to North Carolina and G. E, Capital would be paying for the removal of the geese . Harris stated that her main concerns of how would the trapping take place and where would the geese go had been City Council Minutes 20 May 16, 1989 addressed . Harris stated that she understood the need for G . E. Capital ;:o protect its employees and visitors. Bill Peter, 8108 Ensign Road, Bloomington, believed that the residents had moved in on the environment and that this was a people problem and a management problem. He stated that over the years he had had trouble with deer, raccoons, and beavers . Peter said that G.E. Capital moved to that particular site because of its beauty. Peter suggested that the neighbors work with Dr . Cooper and G.E. Capital to consider other alternatives . Tenpas asked Greenberg if G.E. Capital would be will ing to work with the neighbors on a temporary basis to solve the problem. Greenberg replied that the problem was multiplication and added that last year two pair of geese produce 40 goslings . Greenberg stated the problem was both attacks and sanitation . Greenberg noted that if the geese were removed this year, possibly G.E. Capital could go for 7 to 8 years without problems again before the geese return . Pidcock asked if G.E. Capital had considered putting out artificial swans . Greenberg replied that it did not take f the geese long to figure out the swans were fake . t � Tenpas stated that he could understand both sides and questioned if the removal of 8 pairs would be a problem, Greenberg believed that the 8 pairs would not make a dent in the goose population and added that the geese would only be removed from G.E . Capital property and would only be taken one time . Anderson stated that the neighbors put up with the geese because they wanted to; however , the G .E. Capital situation was different. Anderson believed that it was prudent to have the geese removed and added that this effort would not eliminate the entire population on the lake . Peter asked where this would stop and added that people should expect animals in a nature area such as the Anderson Lakes Preserve. He said that now the animals are considered a problem because they are In our environment. Anderson replied that there would always be a problem controlling the numbers of deers and other animals and there needed to be a means to deal with the problem. Anderson believed that G.E . Capital had been a good neighbor and the City needed to look at its interest . Tenpas stated that one of the reasons he moved to Eden Prairie was because of the City' s effort to preserve the wetland and natural areas. Tenpas believed that the 4 neighbors concerns were valid; however, 8 to 10 pairs City Council Minutes 21 May 16, 1989 would not have a significant impact . Tenpas added that G. E. Capital had done an excellent Job in preserving the area . MOTION' Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the request by G.E. Capital for the DNR to preform a one time only trapping on the G.E. Capital property only. Pidcock stated that the Council had the responsibility to balance the rights of everyone . Harris believed that a reasonable compromise had been ' provided and added that there would still be a goose population on Anderson Lakes . Motion carried unanimously. V I I I . REPORTS OF -ADVISORX COMM I E S I ONS I X . ,,IPPOI NTM.ENTSS A. AppQll2t lent of R"T&gpntatives to %I TsIs_k fQrrt regarding Glen Lake Nursing Home Land i MOTION: 1 Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to nominate Mayor Peterson and City Manager Jullie to serve as representatives for Eden Prairie . Peterson stated that ho, vould like to be involved in the Initial meetings and recommended that if this became an ongoing process consider appointing two additional representatives. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson stated that there was valuable property in the Birch Island Lake area and hoped that the committee would be informed of Eden Prairie 's long-range goals for this area . Peterson commented that he had been asked and accepted to serve on a Task force to study ways to fund highways . X . R PO T9 OF OEFI CER;g a WARDS A COMMISSIONS A. RCBorts of Council Members 1 ' Qg5jls fQr the City sln!;3 City Manilger for 1989 and the City Manager ' s Salary Range City Council Minutes 22 May 16, 1989 Harris suggested a meeting date be set to establish the City's goals for 1989. She stated that the City Manager had provided the Council in February with his personal goals; however, the Council had not discussed these goals with the City Manager. MOTION• Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to set the meeting for May 23, 1989 . Motion carried unanimously. 2. B.QAxdQf Review glocedures d3 Harris questioned if there could be alternate ways to have-- the Board 's process . Tenpas stated that he felt handicapped with the lack of ' nformation. Peterson stated that it appeared there were diverse philosophies amongst the Councilmembers which needed to be discussed . He suggested inviting a facilitator to conduct the meeting and suggested Barb Arne y. Peterson added that he did not wish to chair that discussion as he preferred to participate . MO,TI OBI: Pidcock moved, seconded by. Harris to review the Board of Appeals process on June 13, 1989 at 7 : 30 PM contingent on the availability of Barb Arney. Motion carried unanimously. 3. romm r}icatior� from County Qgmminsigogr Anderson Regarding CSAH 18 4051 Anderson Lakgg Parkway Harris asked if the City had any projection as to when County Road 018 would be widened . Dietz replied it was scheduled for 1989 . 9. ComMendatign Criteria Pidcock asked why Julie Wagner was not included with the commendations as she had recommended and why the two other persons were added . Pidcock believed that she should have been informed of the additional commendations and requested an explanation of the criteria used to determine these additions . Jullie replied that when Staff called the Eden Prairie School District they were told that Julie Wagner did not attend Eden Prairie High School. He added the school would be calling to inform Staff of other students receiving special awards and Staff will present a list to the Council in the future before authorizing the presentation of commendations. Pidcock stated that the City Counci i Minutes 23 May 16, 1989 purpose for recommending that Debbie Quanbeck and Julie Wagner receive the commendations was because they had not been recognized within the bounds of Eden Prairie; the others given the commendations tonight had been recognized locally. Pidcock concluded by stating that she was all for the commendations; however, she would have appreciated the courtesy of being informed . Peterson recommended that a specific criteria be established. Anderson concurred . Peterson recommended that Counci lmembers Pidcock and Anderson formalize criteria and present them for Council review. B. Report of City Manaq C. Relort of City attorney D. &C29Kt of 121zector of Planning E. Qirectol. ofPa lso. Recreation N!jtuxa1 SegQgrcea F. Report of Dire for of Public W!2rks 1 . h9pec1al Assessment Policy (continued from April 18, t 1999 ) Dietz reported that some changes had been made after discussion with the City Attorney and he presented the Council with a revised copy. MQjr ON: . Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item to the ,Tune 20, 1989 City Council meeting . Motion carried unanimously. 2. - III (Resolution No. 89-95) MQTI4N : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . 89-95 awarding the contract for Hamilton Poad Improvements. G. Rgg2rt 2 F1tjnce QireCtor, xi . My- zuT$Mra City Council Minutes 24 May 16, 1989 XII . ADJOURNMENT MOTIQN : Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to adjourn the meeting at 11: 05 PM. Motion carried unanimously.