Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/06/1989 EDEN PRATRTE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUES:IDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL (7- nUNCTL CHAMFERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pjdcork , 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 & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A . Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb r?,61und PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL : All members present . COMMENDATIONS FOR P 1281 FDEN _R_&LR_LK rPIR�LN 3GLEAN-TJP DAY AND KE I.Pr. KRUGER . RECIPIENT OF T14E HORATIO ALGER AWARD Mayor Peterson presented commendations to all those present who had participated in the 1989 Spring Clean-Up Day, and to Kellee Kruger for her award . I . APPROVAL OE_ AQZNI? k Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published and amended . ADDITIONS: Add item X .A . 2 ., Ciattils and the Lot between Hampton Inn & Residence Inn . Add item X . A . 3, Safety Issues on County Road 4 . Add Item X .A. 4.. 4th of July Celebration . Add Item X . A . 5, Public Access on Bryant Lake . Motion carried unanimously. IT . "_T_t[!jTFS A . Rec B . j(5 fit City Cgm_mlssion tf!ft-_-1— __xQ '9 C . ty (7ouncI1.__tjtt* ijjS eld May_ 23 1989 J CS}y ((--)nncil Minutes 2 June A. 1989 M�T_I aN Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the three sets of minutes to the June 20, 1989 City Council Meeting . Motion carried unanimously. A . r—l..e ! License List, B. Res .�2don Q� 89 88 An how z.i�na the T.s_suaDee 000 .l_n I i uQ-tX-ial Refundln!z Rev2nue Bonds f Kinder-Care Leah! Centgrs , Inc C . Approva_l—af—Senior Citizen_ Discount D . Soon R Ldge Neighborho-od Petition E. Ap rove B � n_Er nlo_ Park anc Wyndham_ ECnc>I _ Park for Tens you Con�a-tzuct on F . A_p�rove Plans_n Sne ifi.cation for Storm Sewer- and CSAH (Resolution No . 89-131 ) ( G. Arov_e A.3zepme_nt wh_No, th�_r States Pow�rCom ? 4 � t_.Q�erh 1' y tO-- r`-,n v .___...����.�����s�o r�F a c��,..t..��s t�8��� Tran_*mission Fsjcilit�_ Adjacent to CSAH 4 South of T . H . 5 N . Re_ ,ejve Fe. a iIIty;St9d_y for Bluff Road St.r-=t a pd Utility _Im Qveenents and Sgt Public Hearing„ (Resolution No . 89-94 ) I . Approve Plan: n4 _�� � f.Lgat-t.. n..s fS� S,ewe _ !1?Povalents_Rantk� � to �� Qlvec _ _57_�i (Resolution No . 89-110) J . Re ese Fg�s i � Y_ 4�X. for 92.E a e��a!�Rj&ge_ _Elgmejntary School anti et Public HParing,, �,. .. 5 5 (Resolution No . 89-111 ) K . xovP P.lta _ n � t I on for_. AH 1 8v-P 4 Lane at Cedar Ridge 8lgmentary SchoQr�a�rd th (Resolution No. 89 -112 ) L . 4p p:r Ft.521?. t a! _?�_wee ,fie 1_��s_. i o_n FasP�me.nf_._R_Y_.e �� �en _Praos� Ht_rmp V rL Count _ M�L�.€SQt_a. M. Ao .r �1.t. 89- 1 with _!_nD.e.pj.D_CQun..tV € Pntc�iatQnr!_t �._r20atruct. 1.41.10 r of Traffic gntrol SigD.a� �Y. tel(l_ � rSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road ),end City West Pa kwY.� r5. - City Council Minutes 3 June 6, 1989 N . A r.p-TpL -.ructi_on Coone ative vo q p_p H P n,n ep i-n._,C-0 u n ty_.adLij-tip-g_4_5�2 No _soi. 4 ot ( Resolution No . 89-116 ) 0. A_DpiCove n-.3 9 8 9 With KenptDin Count____ for improveMent to Tt-_rr,--y _Pine__Drive end Waq n Wa y a t: their -Lr I ntersect ion 4 , 1 5�.-014 (Resolution No . 89-117) P . for—Refuse Collectors, (Ordinance No. 19-89, FI--st Reading) AlteraL, o P m -_-o_r-ons.Lr - -a C!Zess Drive to _5jtr'V _qqt_-MVj�� t Uth__Q.f_K_t__0�_�nCj_street and We of Indian Cb1--?t-fkOa!! Flexible Bene_f L.1_1!Lgi n. and _Lhe it y -o-f Ed!tp- P r I r I e Q-- Plan ,.2tndg_n _(Larg e ept-- tMT1 Qb!: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve items A through R on the Consent Calendar . IMM—P Harris asked If the yard waste would go to compost . Dawson replied that Hennepin County was nearing a final decision on a site for yard waste disposal . Peterson asked if a compost and a disposal facility were In the same category. Dawson replied that they were not the same and were two -separate facilities at separate locations . Peterson then question the language of Item I related to collection units. Dawson replied that the distinction was that they did not use a common dumpsters . This wording was meant to include 4-and 3-plex units which were responsible for their own trash disposal and did not use a common dumpster . Peterson then requested that the wording be clarified . Pauly noted that the wording was clarified In the ordinance . CLERK'S_7s,ICEN1gE Tt,-npas asked for clarificatinn on the dog license kennel permit and how many dogs would be allowed . Jullie replied that there was a maximum number of dogs allowed . Tenpas then asked If this was allowed in a residential area . Pidcock believed that a certain amount of acreage was needed to allow a kennel . Jullie replied that at times City r"ounc11 Minute---?, 4 June 6 , 1989 the acreage requirement was waived ,and .added that the main concern was how the owner cared for the animals , ITEM R Harris asked if the City offered a cafeteria plan for benefits . Jullie replied no . Jullie added that the wording would also be clarified regarding the program for reimbursement for dependent care services . Motion to approve the items on the consent calendar carried unanimously. IV. R_"_RLIC HEARINGS A . RV-P-,Ftt?GK 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 lets, 2 outlots , and road right-of-way. Location : East 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 ) Continued from May 3.6, 1989 Council meeting Jullie reported that changes had been made to the grading plan and the tree restoration issues . Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that currently the property consisted of two parcels zoned RI- 22 and two parcels zoned Rural . The request: was for subdivision approval for 15 lots with 3 variances required due to the 80-foot building pad depth requested by Staff . Smith did not believe the deeper pads were necessary because of the wider lots and the fact that shallower homes would be built on these lots . Smith noted that other homes had been approved by the City which did not have 80-foot building pad depths. He stated that the homes would be in the $250, 000 to $375, 000 range . Peterson asked If the restriction was on the building pad size or construction limits . Enger replied that the construction limit and the building pad depth were the same - there would be 80 feet allowed for a home to be built. Staff was concerned about the homeowners buying the lots and then requesting variances for decks, etc . Sm I th stated that construction of a deck on these lots would not be allowed because of conservancy zones. Smith recommended that the building pads be between 55 feet and 75 feet and the street moved back approximately 18 feet . He believed this to be a viable :solution, which would not cause any problems with the Shoreland Ordinance . Smith did not believe that the previously recommended City Council Minutes 5 June 5, 1989 zoning of R1-44 would be appropriate because of the loss of an additional lots . Smith reported that the utilities would be ey tended from Meadowvale and Red Oak ntrves . The holding pond would have enough area; however , some grading would be necessary on the Mark Olson property, which Olson had agreed to . This plan would reduce the cost of the storm st2wer . Smith noted that the Engineering Staff had briefly reviewed this plan and that by 2nd Reading the proponent would have full approval of the owner and the Engineering Staff related to the best route for the storm sewer . ti 'i 4 Smith stated that the initial grading would be for the streets and utilities within the wooded areas; outolde of the wooded areas would be grading for the building pads and Scenic Heights Road, which would result in a significant tree savings . The initial grading would only result in approximately 190 caliper inches of tree loss . Mr . Hoff, attorney for the proponent , requested that his letter dated June 5, 1989 be entered into the public record . After several meetings with Staff, Hoff believed that a compromise had been reached . The proponent would comply with the tree replacement policy for those trees removed as a result of his construction activities and in addition would have the appropriate restrictions added into the Developer ' s Agreement . The two variances would no longer be necessary based on Mr . Smith ' s presentation . Mr . Gilk would bear the risk for proceeding with the smaller building pads . Hoff requested that the revised plans he approved with the minor modifications presented by Mr . Smith and that the Council accept the compromise proposal reached between Staff and himself . Enger reported that Staff had met with the proponent and had discussed a number of methods to mitigate the tree loss at the time of construction as a result of the subdivision . The City could compromise . Enger stated that if the City Council believed that the Tree Replacement Policy could be used as a mitigation too] , the proponent would be required to guarantee and replace the trees removed at the time of construction when the streets and utilities were provided . He believed that the impact should be mitigated, but the developer believed that with restriction placed on the lots the burden should be borne by the builders and homeowners . By placing the burden of tree replacement on the property it could have an affect on the sale of the lots . The City' s burden would be to the extent that documents sometimes get lost in closing and the owners could become upset when they would apply for a building permit and find out about the restrictions on the lot . Enger did not believe this to be a positive solution for the proponent or the City. Enger stated that n City rCjj_anCil Minutes F. F, 1989 the proponent ' s new figures of 190 caliper inches of tree loss had not been verified by Staff because a new grading plan was being presented tonight . Encler believed that Staff needed more time to review this new proposal to determine the actual impact to the property. Another issue which had not been resolved was whether the utilities would be privately or publicly Petitioned . i Enger reported that the RO-foot building pact size was used as a practical measure for Staff to determine the impact to the property. If the proponent was will my to accept the risk of using smaller building pad sizes, it would be � acceptable and it would be noted in the Developer ' s Agreement . Enger also noted that any hardship would not substantiate a variance request . Enger stated that the City's Tree Replacement Policy was a means approved by the City to mitigate the loss of trees due to land alteration . Enger noted that to date no other developers have suggested any difficulty in adhering to this policy . Staff believed that the subdivision of the property caused the need for land alteration and the issues related to the alteration should be dealt with at the time of development . ff Lambert reported that the proponent was being requested to t construct an asphalt trail to connect to the existing trail along Scenic Heights Road . Peterson questioned the. proposed change in the road alignment . Enger replied that he had not seen this change in the road alignment until this evening . Peterson then asked if the Council was being requested to approve the plan and trust that the issues would be resolved by the 2nd Reading . Smith replied that the change in the road alignment had been offered as an alternative; however, the road could stay in its present location . Harris asked what the benefit would be for the change in the road alignment . Smith replied that building pad sizes could be reduced on the 3 lots with the proposed realignment of the road . Pidcock asked whether the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had discussed any other trails in this area, especially around the lake . Lambert replied there would be no connection available . Pidcock believed that the City was trying to get trails around the lakes . Lambert replied that the trail would not connect to any other trail in the future . Anderson asked if there wtoitlu be a connection from Red Oak Drive to the city park . [,amber. t replied that the park located at the Old City Hall site would serve this area . { City Council Minutes 7 June 6 , 1989 Anderson then asked how the residents of this subdivision would get to the park . Lambert replied the residents would have to go along County Road 4 . Lambert replied that with the Cedar Ridge development the roads were proposed to connect to Corral Lane and Mitchell Road . Anderson stated that the residents would be able to see the lake, but would have to walk 2 . 5 miles to use i t . Lambert replied when the land to the south of Cedar Ridge developed a connection would be made . Lambert added that a sidewalk system would be up to the neighbors . Anderson believed that the City needed to plan ahead of time . Lambert stated that this road would connect to the neighborhood to the south . Smith noted that a sidewalk which would connect to Meadowvale Drive had been recommended by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Smith added that a sidewalk would be constructed in the subdivision. i Tenpas believed that the tree loss would be the same, the only difference being that the burden of replacement would now be on the homeowner . He believed that the tree loss was a critical issue and the objective should be to save as many trees as possible .. The homeowner needed to be .aware of the burden of tree replacement when purchasing the home if the restriction was noted in the Developer 's Agreement . Enger replied that he agreed that by the lots not being graded at this time trees could be saved; however, Staff would prefer to have the tree issues -resolver] prior to homeowners being involved . Enger stated that with this compromise the homeowner would be responsible for a tree inventory and would have to come up with a surety for the tree loss. The Staff would be responsible for dealing with each individual homeowner . Tenpas stated that If the lots did not sell then the developer would bear the burden. Harris asked what the tree loss would be if the road was realigned . Tenpas stated that the Council was relying only on the developer 's calculations at this time and believed that this should be referred back to Staff . Harris believed that the two important issues were tree loss and the variance request for the building pads . Harris then asked when the trees would be replaced by the developer . Enger replied that there was some flexibility: It could be done when the rough grading was finished or toward the end of the road construction . Peterson believed that only because the project was relatively small and that Mr . Gilk had proven to be a responsible developer in the past slid this compromise made sense . He further staged that if this was a larger development the City would not be- able to monitor t'hi:s type of compromise. Peterson recommended that signs be posted on the lots which would be affected which clearly itr rouricil MInutrs stated the tree replacement requirements . He he ieved that enforcement of the tree replacement by the homeowners could be difficult . Tenpas asked how many other areas in the City would be similar to this one which needed to be addressed . Anderson believer] that Staff was being asked to be responsible for the wooded lots within the City .and that with this compromise the burden was now being placed on the City and not on the developer . The City would have to inspect the lots and he believed this to be a complete policy change from what was currently In place . Enger concurred with Mayor Peterson that this would only make sense on the smaller areas . Enger noted that the Council would be having the same d iocussions as tonight with the developer with 8 individUal homeowners and did not believe this to be a practical long-term solution . Pidcock was concerned about the lack of access to a public lake from the south side of Red Rock Lake . Peterson replied that there had been a trail system program in place which identified the trails in Eden Prairie and the City Council did not have a policy which provided trails all alon5 the lakes . Pidcock stated that Eden Prairie was becoming crowded and she would like the residents to be able to walk around the lakes and have access to th<_•m . Peterson recommended that the City Council have a workshop session to discuss trail systems in Eden Prairie . S Tenpas asked if the Tree Replacement Policy issue was totally an economic issue . Gilk replied that he believed that the homeowners and builders should have the same responsibility as the developer to replace and conserve the trees Gilk added that he supported the conservation efforts of the City; however, this was an extensively i wooded area and the cost of providing a surety bond and replacing the trees would create a substantial financial burden . Kathy Anderson, 6420 Craig Drive, asked why two of the lots could not be combined . Peterson stated that combining lots cost money from the developers standpoint . Anderson believed that the homeowners would want the trees replaced on the lots . Nancy Nicolay, 16011 Lakeshore Drive, requested that this Project not be approved until the exact road alignment had been determined . Peterson stated that the plan could be approved subject to approval of the road alignment prier, to 2nd treading. Nicolay stated that she had spent many hours working out the previous road alignment . She noted that she had an option to buy the Harry Rogers property, Ci ty Council Minutes 9 June 6, 1989 which wool d be of fected by a change in the a ignment . Smith replied that discussions had taken Place with Mr. Rogers . He noted that the realignment of the road would move the road further away from the Rogers property. Nicolay agreed that direct access, to Red Rock Lake would be in the best interest of the City, but she was disturbed because she had believed that everything was final and now everything was being changed at the last minute . Peterson asked Nicolay if she believed this would adversely affect her property if the road were moved closer to the lake . Nicolay replied that she could not speak for her grandfather, Mr . Rogers . Nicolay was concerned that her yard would be used as park land. Dietz asked if the utilities would he private or publicly petitioned . Gilk replied that the utilities would be privately installed. There were no further comments from the audience . Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the public hearing and approve Ist Reading of Ordinance No . 13-89 for Rezoning . Pauly asked that this motion be subject to the conditions in the Developer 's Agreement . Peterson stated that he would reluctantly support the motion only because a 2nd Reading was necessary. Peterson added that he was disappointed that the plan was at the City Council level and road alignments were still being negotiated and a report to the Council from Staff on this matter was not available . Anderson stated that the responsibility was on the City Council because this was officially the last public hearing. He believed that this proposal would present problems for the City in the future and because the exact road alignment had not been determined, he would not support the motion. Anderson also noted that he was not pleased with the compromise being made regarding the tree replacement policy. Peterson stated that the Council did have a road alignment .and a recommendation for possibly a better alignment . in voting for the motion Peterson believed that he was voting for the alignment as presented in the Council ' s packet and that which was currently agreed upon with Staff . Pldcock :;tested that she would not support the motion until a definite agreement had been reached . I f I 4 City Council Minutes 14 •71.ICie 6 , 1989 Tenpas stated that he was comfortable with the alternative road alignment being addressed at the 2nd Reading . He believed that the tree replacement issue needed more work . Harris recommended the following conditions be part of the motion: 1 ) Approve the recommendations in the Staff reports, 2 ) Approve the compromise proposed by Staff regarding the tree replacements, 3 ) Proponent would agree not to Make any variance requests related to the 55-foot building pad size, 4 ) Reach a decision regarding the road alignment, either of which was acceptable to the Council at this time, 5 ) Add a section to the Developer ' s Agreement regarding notification to the property owners regarding the tree replacement stipulations . Pauly recommended that a separate agreement be written regarding the notification of the potential buyers of the property of the tree replacement, setback, and building pad restrictions placed on the property. Gilk stated that he would be comfortable with a two-week conti nuance . He added that he did not want the Council to V think that he was trying to push anything through . Tenpas asked if an agreement on road alignment could be reached in two weeks . Dietz stated that he could riot be sure that it could be completely resolved . Pauly stated that tie believed that the road realignment was done in part to avoid the tree replacement policy issue and was an attempt to get assurance from the City. Pauly noted that the City did not have to give an approval or a denial based on the road alignment . Peterson believed that there would be merit in a two week continuance and further. negotiations . He noted that a rezoning issue would require 4 affirmative votes . Anderson commented that he remembered when the City did not have a tree replacement policy and did not want to go through those times again. He added that from comments tie had received from the residents, they liked having the tree replacement policy. Harris withdrew her motion . MOT I QA: Pidcock moved, seconded by Fi-arris to continue this item to the June 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried 4- 1 . Tenpas voted "NO" B . tV_E__aQjL7'H by BRW,, Inc . Request for Planned Unit D,.:velopment Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, 1-omprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighhorhood City Council Minutes 11 .June 6, 1989 Commercial and open Space to Regional Commercial on 9 . 07 acres , Planned Ur.it Development District Review on approximately 18 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9 . 07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25, 248 square foot theater complex . Location : East of Highway #169 , south of Medcom nozilevard . ( Resolution No. 89-124 - PUD concept Amendment to overall Preserve South Planned Unit Development; Resolution No . 89 -125 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 17-89- PTJD- 4-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No, 89- y 126 - Preliminary Plat ) ¢ Jullic reported that notice of this public hearing had P P 4 been mailed to 172 surrounding property owners and had been published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Ed Flaherty, representing the proponent, stated that the project had started in 1987 . Several other lases such as high-density office, a strip mall , high-rise residential $ and medical use had been considered and it was determined that the movie theater was the most appropriate use . Flaherty also stated that several neighborhood meetings (( had been held . t. Miles Lindberg, representing the proponent, stated that the proposed movie theater use was consistent with the traffic generation allowed for the area . The theater would not need to rely on direct access or view from a highway. Residential areas surrounded the proposed development . The plan was to subdivide the property into two lots with the second lot being used for proof-of- parking . The movie theater would occupy approximately 8 acres with the second lot consisting of approximately 5 acres . The theater would be located at the north end of the property with the parking area located to the south . This plan would keep the activity of the theaters away from the residential areas . A sidewalk and driveway would extend all around the building . The street plan was designed based on the extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road . All utility details had been worked out with Staff. The DNR and the Watershed District had given their approvals for the project . A conservation easement was provided to maintain the open area . A trail connection had been discussed with the Park & Recreation department . The landscape flan had been revised to limit the impact to the neighboring residential areas . The parking lot would be terraced with berming and landscaping provided throughout . The setback had been increasedalong the Pastern boundary. Retaining wally would he constructed . The extension of Medcom Boulevard would not have an impact on the site . The exterior of the building would be constructed of brick, glass , and metal . The building Clty Council Min►ate,► 12 'Tune f , 1989 height would be 32 feet . The s i gnage- for the fa,:, i 1 i ty would consist of a marquee and another identification sign . Flaherty gave a slide presentation which summarized the proposal . He stated that Cinema rk was a quality organization and he believed that this movie theater would be one of the finest in Minnesota . Flaherty gave the following reasons to support the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change : 1 ) The technical interpretation of regional use, while other communities considered this neighborhood commercial, 2 ) the impact on the residents had been mitigated with berming and landscaping, 3 ) the proposed use was the best land use alternative, 4 ) he was committed to owning the Property long term and being active in the management of the business . Flaherty further believed that all the issues had been positively resolved and , therefore, a Guide Plan change was warranted . Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at several E Planning Commission meetings and had received approval at the May 8, 1989 meeting by a 4-2 vote based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report . Enger noted that much of the concern had been for the screening and buffering of the residential areas . Enger recommended a that the berming be increased in height . A safer access would be from Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road once Medcom was extended . The present access did not rely heavily on access to Highway 169 . t Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources commission had reviewed this item at its June 5, 1989 meeting and recommended approval on a 4-3 vote . The main discussion had centered around screening and noise mitigation. Tenpas asked how many of the Planning Commission members had walked the property. Enger replied that all of the Commissioners voting yes had walked the property. Peterson asked for clarification on the lighting proposed and the pedestrian flow from the building to the parking lot . Flaherty replied that the lighting would be 24 feet in height and would be downcast . Flaherty noted that the main concern by the residents had been the headlights . The parking lot had been terraced to direct the headlights down to mitigate this concern . Lindberg replied that the islands would have pedestrian ramps through them and exits would come from each theater . Harris asked what was the purpose of the game room. Flaherty replied that the ,lame room was to provide entertainment before and after the movie . city (.—ouncil Minutes 13 June 6 , 1989 Harris asked Dietz if there would be left turns allowed onto Highway N169 . Dietz replied that Left turns would be allowed until Medcom Boulevard was extencled . Tenpas asked what the reasoning was for not having a left- turn lane into the Lariat Center . Dietz replied that a turn lane would interfere with the spacing of traffic for Highway 169 . Pidcock asked if the parking lots would be video monitored . Flaherty replied that there would be workers W at the theater cleaning up after the last movie had ended . Bill Horn, 11375 Boulder Bay Road , asked if this project was contingent on the extension of Medcom Boulevard . Dietz replied that the City was looking at a feasibility study for the extension of Medcom Boulevard . The site was designed with provisions that- allowed for the extension of Medcom Boulevard . Mark Pfister , 11929 Joy Circle, had been asked to represent the neighborhood to the southeast of the proposed site . The residents were very proud of their neighborhood . A slide presentation was given depicting the neighborhood . The residents believed that a significant traffic impact would occur on Grier Lane . t Pfister noted that the streets were constructed for residential traffic. . A Comprehensive Guide Plan was being requested on this site and Pfister noted that a Guide Plan change had already been allowed at the Lariat Center ; therefore, reducing the buffer area in half . Pfister believed that the City Council would be setting a precedent . The designated open space would also see a significant reduction . Pfister noted that the residents already in this area had purchased their homes based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designation and did not believe that it was appropriate to change that designation after the fact . The residents believed that the project should be denied based on the requested change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the incompatible use with a residential area based on the hours of operation being in the evening and on weekends, generating Intolerable noise and traffic levels . The residents were concerned that their property values and duality of life would be reduced if this development were allowed to proceed . The residents believed that the noise from the proposed development would disturb their privacy, outside social gatherings , and their sleep because of the late shows . The traffic would be concentrated and not random as with other possible land uses . The residents also believed that the times the traffic would increase were not compatible with a residential neighborhood. Pfister stated that the project had been planned around the extension of Medcom Boulevard, which he believed would r-it;y (7ounctl Minutes 14 June 6 , 1989 increase traffic significantly for Grier Lane . The residents would prefer some type of office use rather than retail use because they believed ieved that, the t r:a f f is and noise patterns would be more compatible with a residential neighborhood . Joe Weber, 11917 Joy Circle, believed that the developer had presented false arguments regarding the fact that this proposed use would be better than other uses and further believed that the project should be judged on its own merit . Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that he was representing himself and had been asked to speak for his neighborhood . Walters believed that there were four major problems with the development : 1 ) The theater proposal Itself, 2 ) Deviation from the Comprehensive Guide Plan, 3 ) Unde f i ned parameters for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, and 4 ) Poor traffic flow . Walters presented further written explanation of the objections for the above mentioned items . Walters believed that with the extension of Medcom Boulevard the neighborhood traffic would increase . Walters recommended that the project be denied . Walters believed that a formal study show ld be conducted regarding water run-off and traffic . Wayne Mueller, 8710 Grier Lane, asked why the City needed 8 more movie theaters and what would happen to the site if Cinemark was not successful . Peterson replied that the site would most likely be developed as office use. Mueller then asked what Cinemark 's track record was for successful developments . Enger replied that he did not believe that it was necessary to have the theaters on this particular site; however, the theaters could contribute to ) the downtown area . Flaherty replied that in the last seven years Cinemark had not closed one theater and t currently had 400 theaters in operation . Flaherty added that the theater was designed to be able to be converted to office uses if the movie theaters were not successful . Rich Jensen, 8680 Grier Lane, stated that the proponent was asking that the second lot also be rezoned . Jensen believed that this should be kept for public waters and the proponent should be obligated to comply with shoreland regulations . He believed that to approve the rezoning of the second lot would be in violation of State Laws . Lee Johnson, an owner of property along Franlo Road, stated that he had expected to have a parking lot adjacent to his property and had found the developers very cooperative in addressing his concerns . Johnson did not agree, however, with the circulation and blocking. Johnson had planned to develop his property for residential use and believed that additional screening City ('(�t.incil Minutes 15 June 6, 1989 would be required on the eastern boundary and that possibly a fence would be appropriate to block the homes from the headlights, otherwise JohnCon believed that he would have to downgrade his plans . Chuck Pufahl, 8560 Franlo Road, stated that his property bordered this development and he would not be able to see the project . He believed that the project should be allowed to proceed and added that the proponent had proven in the past that he developed quality projects . Pufahl requested that a large oak tree be saved if possible which was close to his property line . Mueller asked Pufahl if he had anything to gain financially by supporting this project. Pufahl replied that he did not . Mike Doherty, $716 Grier Lane, asked if the DNR had signed off on this project . Lindberg replied that the proponent had met on site with the DNR and had determined that there would be no impact on the wetland area; however , there was another formalizing process which still needed to be completed . Mike Wallace, 8722 Grier Lane, asked how the proponent had determined this particular use for the property . Flaherty replied that he had looked at the trade area and determined that this would be a regional use and would generate regional traffic on regional roads and not neighborhood road systems . Flaherty believed that those using the facility would take the most convenient route, not the most direct . Mueller asked If Franlo Road was considered a regional road . Dietz replied that it was considered a collector road . Peterson added that Franlo Road had been designed to be wider as a collector road . Pidcock asked Lambert if this project would be in violation of the Shoreland Ordinance . Lambert replied that the Shoreland Ordinance had been developed over 3 years ago and that Eden Lake was considered by the DNR to be a man-made holding area and, thezefore, was not subject to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Peterson commended all of the residents making presentations . Peterson stated that a number of the concerns raised related to the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change . Peterson assured that residents that anytime a change was made in the Comprehensive Guide Plan it was done only after very careful and thorough study . He added that a Neighborhood Commercial designation allowed for a 50, 000 square-foot structure to be build and the proposed development would only be one-half of that size . Peterson also believed that the proposal before the Council would be a less intense use of the property. � (71t (70111)rf i Min1_1tea 16 .I1atie , 1989 rt Anderson stated that the proposed project would fit into the area, would benefit the major center area, was compatible with other adjacent land iir es, would aid in the development of the downtown area, and will help attract regional trade to Eden Prairie . Anderson believed that this development would have only a minor effect on the residential areas adjacent to it . Tenpas stated that if the theater was not successful a more intense use could be developed on this site . Tenpas noted that another major concern of the residents had been traffic. Tenpas believed that from a safety issue it would be better to have the traffic later rather than during the day, and added that it was a definite benefit that the traffic wou?d not be during the peak hours . Tenpas stated that the theaters would draw business from a larger area which would be beneficial to other businesses In Eden Prairie . Tenpas asked the residents if there had beer► an increase in noise since Applehees had been constructed . Pfister replied that there had been an increase . Tenpas then stated that he had walked the area and did not believe that the residents on Porcupine Court could see the project at all and the residents on Joy Circle would only be able to view the parking lot . Tenpas also questioned how much of the noise would be heard by the residents . Tenpas stated that he would support the project . There were no further comments from the audience . 9 Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-124 for PUD Concept Amendment . i Pidcock stated that the Council was voting for the benefit of the City as a whole and believed that this project would be good for Eden Prairie . Peterson stated that he believed that this project would be the most benign use for the property . Tenpas requested that Staff do whatever was possible to mitigate the traffic problems . Harris stated that this vas a difficult decision , the neighborhoods had made compelling arguments; however, she believed that this project would add to the recreational facilities available in the City Motion carried unanimously . City Cc.unci I Minutes 17 June 6, 1989 MnTZON• Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No . 89-125 for Comprehensive G+iide Plan Amendment . Peterson asked if it was essential to approve a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment on both lots . Enger replied no . Lindberg stated that he had understood that it was necessary to rezone the second lot because of the proof-of-parking requirement . Enger replied that he did not believe that an application had been made to rezone the second lot and, therefore, the Council could not act on that request . Motion carried unanimously. M�ION : Andersen moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89 for PUD District and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MQTION• Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No . 89-126 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct _ Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Committee and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. r C. COUN RY GLEN by Coffman Development . Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 9. 3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9 . 3 acres into 20 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Townliney Road, west of Claycross Way. (Ordinance No. 1.8- 89, Rezoning; Resolution No . 89-129, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing had been mailed to 65 surrounding property owners and had been published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Ron 8astyr, representing they proponent, stated that the proponent concurred with the Staff recommendations and he was available to answer any questions Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at the May 8 and May 22, 1989 meeting and had recommended approval of the project unanimously at the May 22, 1989 meeting based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report . Lambert reported that this proposal h P p p had been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at city Cr-,unr11 Minutee. 18 7une 6, 1989 its June 5, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the project with the addition that trees be provided to screen both boundaries of outlot A . Bastyr Mated that the proponent concurred . Anderson asked If the trail would he signed as a prospective trail . Lambert replied that the trail might never go through this area . Anderson believed that it was Important that it be signed as a possibility. There were no further comments From the .audience. MOTI oN i Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the, public hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance. No. 18-89 for Rezoning . Motion carried unanimously. MOT I -N Harr i s moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 89-129 approving the Preliminary Plat .and to Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. i D. vIF�TN�Pg S�_�N _� X ANSION by Fortier and Associates, Inc . Request for Site Plan Review within the I-5 zoning district on 6. 7 acres with variances to be reviewed by the F Board of Appeals for construction of an addition to a building. Location: 7000 Washington Avenue South . (Resolution No . 89-127 - Site Plan Approval ) Jull ie reported that notice of the public hearing had been mailed to 11 surrounding property owners and published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Enger reported that this Item had been reviewed at the May 81 1989 Planning Commission meeting and had received approval on a 6-0 vote based on the recommendations outlined in the May 5, 1989 Staff Report . There were no comments from the audience . MOTT ON : Pidc.=ock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 69 -127 for Site Plan Approval . motion carried unanimously. E . c)L TT CAE, Q9� 89 by Alex Dorenkemper .. Request f or Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2. 17 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 2 . 17 acres into 3 single family lots . City Council Minutes 19 June 5, 1989 Location : North of Dell Road . Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been mailed to 25 surrounding property owners and had been published in the May 24 , 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News . Alex Dorenkemper , 18925 Pioneer Trail , stated that he had been turned down four times on this project . Dorenkemper did not believe that the City Council or the City Attorne y had ever known all the details . He added that he had written several letters over a 5 1/2-month period to the City and had presented a copy of the original Building Permit for the Wilson home. Dorenkemper stated that he had sold two lots pending preliminary plat approval , which i he had never received. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at the May 8 , 1989 meeting and recommended denial of the request on a 6-0 vote based on the Staff Report dated May 5, 1989 . Enger noted that this was the exact request which had resulted in a lawsuit against the City in which the City prevailed . Dor. einkemper stated that the courts had never known about Outlot A and, therefore, the court had not ruled on this Issue. Harris asked if the lots all had homes on them and if septic systems were on all of the lots . Enger replied that not all the lots had homes . There were no further comments from the audience . MOUQN: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial with Findings on the Outlot A. Crestwood 89 application . Peterson stated that the reasons for denial outlined in the Staff Report were compelling ones . Motion carried unanimously. F. TIRES PLUS, by M . Austin Smith . Request for Site Plan Approval for Eden Prairie Auto Mall to allow a Tires Plus sign on the building 's northwest side which does not have a sign band designation . Location : 8453 Joiner Way. ( Resolution No . 89-130 - Site Plan Approval ) Jullie reported that the notice of this public hearing had been mailed to 17 surrounding property owners and published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie City council Minutes, 20 •71-111H 6 , 1989 News . Enger reported that this request comes about because of the newly-adopted Site Plan Review Ordinance . He added that the proponent would like to add a sign on the west side of the building, which would be consistent with the City ' s Sign Ordinance . The proponent stated that a pylon sign would he used to list all of the tenants and that no other free-standing sign would be approved for Tires Plus . There were no further comments from the audience . Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-130 for Site Plan approval . Motion carried unanimously. 4 V. PAYMENT O _,_MAIMS MO,-�N : Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of Claims No . 51008 through No . 51475 . w ROLL CALL VOTE : Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting "AYE". VI . ORDNAIVCSRSO�UQN$ A . CAH�j 0 CENtr�,R by Hansen, Thorp, Pe l l i nen, Olson, Tnc . Appeal from Decision of Board of Appeals and Request for Preliminary Plat of 10 . 3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65, 000 square foot office building. Location : South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes . (Resolution No . 89-122 - Preliminary Plat ) Joe Ryan, Lexington Company, stated that the request was to subdivide the property into two parcels of 5 acres each . Collateral was provided on the entire parcel and the proponent would like to have a construction loan approved on the second lot . The proponent wanted to be prepared for development in the future . Ryan noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the lot separation unanimously. Ryan realized that this property was a sensitive issue due to the lake and issues were also raised regarding parking . A cross-easement had been developed between Phases I & IT to provide parking and the: parking agreement would go with the land in the future and would become part of the public record . City Cotinc_ il Minutes 21 June 6, 1989 CEnger reported that the proposal had received unanimous approval by the Planning Commission ,and had been denied by the Board of Appeals . The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with 8 conditions due to a concern for future_ development . Enger stated that the Board of Appeals had denied the request because a hardship had not been proven and it believed the request to be strictly for economic reasons . Enger said that the Council needed to determine how much the City wanted to have deferred into the future . Anderson asked if the property was originally proposed to be split . Enger replied no. Tenpas asked if the developer could have built a second building . Enger replied that the proponent could have constructed a second building . Tenpas believed that the proponent was limited due to financing restrict ions . Peterson asked if the original intent was to have a second building attached to the first struct uxe . Fnger replied that th:� second building was not to be attached . Peterson then asked if the proponent could keep the financing and sell half of the property. Ryan replied that it would be possible to have two lenders on the property. Enger stated that this would present a dilemma, having multiple buildings on a site not owned by the same; developer . Peterson asked what variance requests were being made . Enger replied a height variance for the existing building, setback variances, and a proof-of-parking variance . Dale Hubred, 8065 Ensign Road , stated that he had met several times with the developer and Staff . He noted that the original building had been approved at 45 feet in height, but was constructed at 52 feet and that many oak trees were removed and never replaced as originally agreed upon . Hubred stated that the project was designed as one project and should be left as such because this proposal would leave Phase I without parking . Hubred asked what would happen with the proponent not having an actual plan before the City Council . The Board of Appeals had voiced a concern about the request for future variances . Hubred stressed that Phase I had not been completed as promised Hubred said that 7 feet might not seem like a lot to the Council , but when the building was on a hill it had the appearance of a 10-story building . Peterson stated that the fact that a specific plan was not available at this time was not an issue . Peterson did believe, however, that the unresolved requirements of the original development should be addressed . Tenpas stated that the Lexington Company was not the original owner and the residents were talking about issues City Council Minutes 22 June 6, 1989 which this developer had no control over . Peterson believed that the City would not lose any control over the project if the property were to be split . Peterson understood the residents ' concern over unfulfilled requirements . Tenpas stated that the City had a Developer ' s Agreement and the burden was on the City to see that these requirements are upheld . Peterson asked what items specifically had not been fulfilled . Enger replied that landscaping had been installed because trees had been removed which were not designated to be taken; however, the landscaping that was added also died and had not been replaced . Enger added that to enforce all of the Developer 's Agreements successfully would require additional Staff . Peterson then asked If the landscaping was substantial . Enger replied that the landscaping had been requested to help mask the size of the building and had been substantial . K-971— N: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to adopt Resolution No. 89-122 approving the Preliminary Plat of the Cabriole Center with the condition that the cross-easement agreement for these parcels be executed prior to approval of the Final Plat. Pauly noted that In addition to the above requirements a declaration of the easements was necessary. Ryan replied that lot 2 would be for supplemental parking . Pauly believed that this shou>_d be part of the conditions . and that declaration of the easements would not be changed without prior notification to the City. Motion carried 4-1 . Anderson voted "NO" . MQ�4� Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the Hoard of Appeals decision and grant the variance subject to the condition that the declaration of the easement be executed, delivered , and filed and that Lexington Company would enter into an agreement with the City to construct the parking structure and that Lexington Company would not agree to any modification of the easement without the City's consent . Anderson asked if this declaration related to all the easements . Pauly replied that this was only related to City Council Minutes 23 ,Tune 60 1989 parking acid did not modify the Conservation easement . Motion carried 9-1 . Anderson voted "NO" . B . Ordinance �oZ_N_ame Change - _pIain�n�.�14�c1_e t��L__?R V i �r Ce u_t (Ordinance No . 15-89 ) Dietz reported that all concerned parties were in agreement . MOTC)N Pidrock moved, seconded ►jy Anderson to approve lst Reading of Ordinance No. 15-89 to change the name of Diamond Circle to LaRivier Court . Motion carried unanimously. VI I . P 'ITIONS, R QUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS_ A . Receive 100 Percent Pztit on f��r S iait.3�r�y Sewer. Watermain, Storm SewCr and Street Paving f9K Propose Qountry Road and ClaYQross Way with the Plat of Country Glen and O-der Prepggattion of Plans and Pc_ f icat ions I. . Q._ 52-171 (Resolution No . 89-113) MOTIQtj: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No 89-113 to order the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for I .C. 52-171. Motion carried unanimously. WIT . tPnRTS„O ' ADV SORY�QgMM I LUDAa A . MoI_a Term Study Committee - Recommendations far the Mayoral Term The Mayor left the room during this discussion . Harris reported that the Study Committee unanimously agreed that the Mayor 's term should be extended to 9 years . The committee believed that the decision-making process would be improved and that the powers of the Mayor were the same as any other Council member . The Study Committee had surveyed 12 cities with 11 responding favorably to the 4-year term of the Mayor . f Tenpas added that the City could easily go from a 5-member Council to a 7-member Council and that once a 7-member Council were approved terms could change . Anderson stated that he was pleased to see this proposal . Anderson believed that a considerable amount of the Mayor ' s time was taken away from the City when he was i City COUI-Wil MinL1te6 24 June 6 , 1969 asked to run for office every two years and it also had an added cost factor . MOT I ON : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt the recommendation to change the Mayoral term from 2 to 4 years beginning with the 1990 election . Harris stated that the Committee would like public comment when this item was going through the Ordinance adoption process. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Mayor Peterson was not present for the vote . MOTI c?td: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance changing the Mayoral term from 2 years to 4 years. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Mayor Peterson was not present for the vote . IX . A 0IN °'SFFt_T3 X . #2POR,?'S a � FeER s__A012I .S_& dM1`41$ 14?N_S A . Reports of CQunc__i_L Memo s 1 . Reschedule C3 tY unS, I Meet1nq o July 4 , 1989 MOTI ON : Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to reschedule the July 4, 1989 City Council meeting to July 11, 1989 . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Ciatt_,i_js and Lot by Hamgton Inn Pidcock asked what the City could do to have Ciatti •s clean up the area in the back of Its building and also the lot between. the Residence Inn and the Hampton Inn . Jullie replied that the manager of Ciatti ' s had been notified and had indicated that construction was still taking place at this time . 3 . Sa_ tX_ ,s ued on_.G lgj ty- Rya?d-.JB. Peterson requested Staff to review the pedestrian traffic safety in the Round Lake Park and County Roars A4 area. Peterson questioned If these areas were as safe as they tr could be . Tenpas added that it was frightening to see the children City Council Minutes 25 .June 5, 1989 In these locations and also along County Road 018 . Harris asked if there was any way the City could discourage joggers from jogging in the street when sidewalks and trails were available . Pauly replied that he would review the issue . 4 . Tenpas asked if more portable restrooms could be available for the event . Tenpas added that he was also concerned about the safety of the irides both at the 4th of July Celebration and at Schooner Days. Peterson replied that the rides were inspected by State inspectors . 5. im r vempnt of Public_ Acce_ss _qn�r.yant Lake Anderson asked tf Hennepin County was rPsponslble to upgrade this public access . Anderson added that it was virtually impossible to launch a boat at this time . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to make- a formal request that Suburban Hennepin County Park District put in a concrete landing at the public access for Bryant Lake . Motion carried unanimously. B . RP�azt of City Mangggr C . ReP �.Qff tY � ��Y D . Report of Director of Pla n nc-i E . Dir ct of Parks Recre tJ,_Q�_&_ NgtuXal Resources 1 . nth eti� Field �Q�� LQn i3 .P5?T Lambert reported that Staff would be closing the Flying Cloud Ball Fields this fall for renovation and would be discussing limiting the number of days that a non- irrigated field could be used . Peterson stated that It was important that the Council be Informed of any major change . Lambert replied that he would be talking to all of the major athletic associations . 2 . Re -.ort_..4s '_df�.�4n Re. re d T. Lambert believed that the referendum failed because the golf course became the issue . The recommendation from the Parks, Recreation Natural Resources Commission was to City counri 1 MLn►ates 26 J►iI'le- 6, 1989 come back with another referendum immediately with the removal of Bluff Park and Miller P,ark ' s lighted ball fields . Lambert added that this would not require additional funds from the City for brochures, etc. Anderson asked what the new proposed amount of the referendum would be . Lambert replied $5,945, 000 . Harris asked If the City would be able to purchase any of the Bluff Park land . Lambert replied that the City was looking at requesting land in lieu of park fees in the Bluffs and Riley Creek areas . Lambert added that the City was looking at other creative ways to acquire the land. Harris believed that the land acquisition was very important_ M0T.L?N Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to proceed with the Parks, Recreation & Natural Commissions recommendation to present another. Bond Referendum for $5, 945, 000 to be scheduled for August 8 , 1.989 . Pauly noted that a certain period of time needed to elapse before the same question could be presented to the public . Lambert replied that this would not be the same question . Tenpas believed that there was more public awareness of tax issues . He added that a new City Hall was another issue which needed to be addressed . Tenpas was not comfortable returning to the public right away. Tenpas asked for time for additional public input and further believed that the referendum should be scaled down even further . Harris stated that she was not comfortable that a referendu►n would pass right now. Anderson stated that those that were critical of the referendum have said that If the items were reduced It would be acceptable to bring the referendum back right away. Anderson added that the land acquisition was Important as developers were buying up the land . Peterson concurred with Councilmember Anderson that it would be timely to come back with major modifications . Peterson added that he had heard some of the same comments about the golf course being the issue which caused the referendum to fail . Peterson believed that if the two parks for $400,000 were removed the residents would see a major change Pidcock asked what had been the cast of the Bluff Park . Lambert replied $2 . 9 million . Pidcock then recommended City Council Minutes 27 June 5, 1989 that two questions be presented : ane for land acquisition and one for improvement projects . Lambert noted that this had been discussed at great length at the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting and members had concluded that this would not he advisable . Pidcock commented that she too had heard that the golf course was the main objection of the residents voting "NO". Lambert believed that the golf course issue would not be forgotten in three months .and added that neither the committee nor. Staff had emphasized the golf course use; therefore, it was recommended to eliminate Bluff Park at this time . LkMEVPt EN_T TO Mt3IL ON: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to amend the amount to $5, 545, 000 . Tenpas believed that it would be difficult to get the same people out to vote again . Tenpas believed that there needed to be cooling-off period regarding taxes in general . i Motion to approve the Amendment carried 4-1 . Tenpas voted �scu� Lon on the Orictina_ Motion. Peterson relieved that this referendum reflected a commitment to the park systems . Anderson stated that he realized the mood of the community, but also believed that the Council had an obligation to the Community. Tenpas stated that his concern was that the referendum would fail again and the City would get nothing . Anderson stated that this revised referendum figure would be a bare minimum. original motion carried 4-1 . Tenpas voted "NO" . Pidcock stated that she would like to see two questions presented . Peterson believed that the residents would be upset because they would view this as not being reduced at all , but only being split into two questions . Pidcock stated that she had heard that the residents were upset because they did not have a choice presented to then . Harris believed that by a choice the residents had wanted to pick and chose the projects they wanted to see approved . r.lty (-u!.i ell Minute . 28 E, 1989 F. Rgnort of Direct!�r of Public Works G. R&port oinance4_C? r��tc�,r XI . EW SUSI SS XII . AQJUURNMFNT WTI O Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adjourn the meeting at 1 : 15 AM. Motion carried unanimously. 4W