Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/01/2007 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. City Planner Michael Franzen was absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION Mayor Young read a proclamation proclaiming May 5, 2007, as Arbor Day in the City of Eden Prairie. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Neal said he will add an item under Item XIV.B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES A. TOWN HALL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY,APRIL 10, 2007 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the Town Hall Meeting held Tuesday, April 10, 2007, as published. Motion carried 5-0. B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD ON TUESDAY,APRIL 17,2007 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the minutes of the City Council Workshop held Tuesday, April 17, 2007, as published. Motion carried 5- 0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 2 C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 17, 2007 MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 17, 2007, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Neal introduced Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Chair Betsy Adams and Staff Liaison John Goertz. Chair Adams reviewed the purpose of the HPC. She said the National Park Service approved Certified Local Government(CLG) status for the HPC in 1991 which gave the City access to CLG grants drawn from federal historic preservation funding. Since 1991 we have received 14 grants for a variety of projects, including a resource survey, a historical property inventory, local and national register documentation, and educational projects. In addition to providing access to grants, CLG status provides annual training sessions for commission members at state-wide preservation conferences. Chair Adams reviewed the Commission's 2007 projects, including rehabilitation and improvements at the Glen Lake Children's Camp, a property reuse study of the J. R. Cummins property which will be affected by the expansion of Pioneer Trail scheduled to start in 2008, and education/outreach efforts that will include two more permanent interpretive panels, a traveling kiosk, an enhanced presence on the City's website, and the reprinting of Helen Anderson's book, Eden Prairie: The First 100 Years. Mayor Young thanked Adams and Goertz for the presentation. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. LOCK UP PUD AMENDMENT Second reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.11 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 2.11 acres. Location: Hennepin Town Road & Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance No. 13-2007-PUD- 2-2007 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution No. 2007-54 for Site Plan Review on 2.11 acres) C. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2007-55 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF STARING LAKE CORPORATE CENTER D. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 14-2007 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.32 RELATING TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY ISSUE CITATIONS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 3 E. AWARD BIDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF MILLER PARK SOCCER FIELDS #12 AND#13 TO REHBEIN COMPANIES F. AWARD BIDS FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER PRE-FAB CONCRETE AND BASEBALL FIELD FENCING AND NETTING G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-56 ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-57 DECLARING PROPERTY "ABANDONED" I. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2007 STREET STRIPING TO UNITED RENTALS, I.C. 07-5696 J. APPROVE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM THE CITY TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K. APPROVE ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED BY THE CITY FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION TO RJM CONSTRUCTION L. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-58 ADOPTING AMENDED TIF PLANS AND BUDGETS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 12, 14, 15, 1617 AND 18 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Duckstad, to approve Items A-L of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. The motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Butcher, Duckstad, Nelson and Young voting "aye." XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE Neal said the Council recently approved forming a Community Technology Task Force to study issues related to broadband services in Eden Prairie. The goal is to appoint up to 15 members that represent a broad cross-section of the community including residents, large and small businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 4 School District, HTC, and Hennepin County Library. He listed the names of 11 individuals who have committed to serve on the Task Force and recommended those 11 individuals be appointed this evening. He noted the group represents a good cross-section of larger business, home-based businesses, and retail companies. There are six other potential members who have been contacted,but have not yet committed, and he hoped to bring recommendations for the remaining positions to the May 15 Council meeting. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to appoint Scott Otis, Steve Sandness, Matt Thomas, Gary Hansen, Mike Schnapf, Kiran Mysore, Heather Peterson, Marc Soldner, Ron Woods, Jodi Russell, and Rich Miller to the Community Technology Task Force. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. May 15 Workshop Neal said his annual performance review is scheduled for the May 15 Council Workshop, and the consultant who was hired to coordinate the review has not received all of the input. He asked Council Members to submit their input via email by Friday, May 4, so it can be included in the review. C. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Mayor Young said there are two separate items regarding the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives on tonight's agenda. The first item is a proposed resolution regarding the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW). The public hearing on that item is closed, and no public discussion will be heard. The second item is the selection of the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative and, while it is not a public hearing, the Council will accept public comment. He asked that comments be limited to 3-5 minutes in length, and said he will alternate between those for and those against the proposed roadway. Nelson said she will not participate in nor vote on the first item because of a possible conflict of interest. She said she will reserve the right to participate in the discussion of the second item on Prospect Road. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 5 1. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW (Resolution) Dietz reviewed the background of why a discretionary EAW was completed for the roadway. He noted the EAW was not done to determine if the area surrounding Eden Prairie Road should be developed because that decision was made with the 1990 decision to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line. He said the discretionary EAW was done because of the concerns about environmental issues raised in the summer of 2006 during the hearing process for the Hennepin Village at Oak Creek project. In order to obtain additional information on the environmental impact, the City Council authorized a Discretionary EAW at their October 3, 2006 meeting. Dietz said the Hennepin Village concept plan was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2001. That resulted in a Developers Agreement executed in 2002 that included a map showing a general alignment for Prospect Road. He said City staff recommended Prospect Road be constructed from Spring Road to Eden Prairie Road at the time of the initial development. The developer was not able to control the land on Site B until after the development of Site A, so the decision was made to build Prospect Road in two phases, the first with Site A and the second with Site B, and with the caveat that the Site B phase could be delayed until utilities were available along Eden Prairie Road. Dietz said this was a very large 250-acre project that will ultimately include over 70 acres of open space dedication that allows the higher density clustered in Sites A, B and C. There was a lot of negotiation and compromise during the approval process. He said the road connection designed by the developer was put as far south as possible without chasing grades in the construction. He said the main question regarding the environmental impact was the impact it would have on Miller Spring. Environmental Coordinator Leslie Stovring reviewed the draft EAW, the revisions made to bring it to the final format, and the comments received regarding the document. She noted the final document is available on the City's website. She said the EAW is a screening tool to determine if a full Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is required or if additional environmental review is required. The worksheet is a set of questions prepared by the State that we go through and answer in a particular format. Stovring said there were a number of comments received and those that were directly related to the EAW were included in the revised EAW to make it more complete. She reviewed the revisions made to Sections 11, 17, 21, 25 29, and 30 of the EAW. She said the Summary of Issues (Section 30), which includes recommendations for additional analysis that would be done based on the selected alternative, was expanded and clarified. Stovring said the General Comment Summary includes over 140 comments that were not incorporated into the EAW. She noted all the agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 6 comments have been responded to in the letter. She said there were a number of comments received that did not relate to the EAW including comments about financial considerations, alternative selection, Prospect Road, and miscellaneous and editorial comments, and those comments were included in a separate section. Young said he wanted to reinforce Mr. Dietz's explanation. He noted this is the conclusion of an 8-10 month voluntary process that was begun because of a staff recommendation. He said comments critical of the level of staff effort on the EAW are unfair. He thought Staff should be commended for recognizing the issue and bringing it to the Council's attention. A lot of time has been spent by staff and the Conservation Commission to gather and review the information, and the question tonight is whether we know enough to make a decision. Butcher thanked all the residents who have spent time thinking about the EAW and the impact to the environment they live in. She thought this is an example of a process of good government where we collect information, listen to comments,hear what people have to say, and explore possibilities when there are ideas that come forward. She said she had concerns particularly about Miller Spring when the environmental issues were raised last summer;however, it turned out Miller Spring would likely not be impacted at all. There were other things of concern such as the kittentail grass,but we can make alterations to the roadway to accommodate that species. She thought the points of concern were all answered, and she would support that the EAW is complete and an EIS is not necessary. Duckstad concurred with Council Member Butcher's comments. Young agreed we do know enough to move forward and the EAW was complete. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, to adopt Resolution 2007- 59 finding that the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW is determined to be accurate and complete and that there is a finding of no significant impact. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Nelson abstaining. 2. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternative Selection Young asked Dietz to highlight two issues in his review of the item, the safety concerns for Prospect Road and the issue of secondary access. Dietz said there are five primary deficiencies for Eden Prairie Road that are all safety related. It is less than 25 feet wide and the standard is 28 feet. The street grade is 14% on the south end, and we strive for a maximum of 8%. There are horizontal curves that do not meet design standards in an urban system. The sight distances are poor, especially because of the horizontal curves. The landing on Highway 212 is very short and the speeds on Hwy CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 7 212 are 50-55. There should be 50-100 feet of flat landing with a 1-2% grade in that situation. He said, while part of the discussion is our concern about secondary access for Site A, we are also trying to provide secondary access for the 300-400 houses that will surround Eden Prairie Road. Dietz displayed a topographical map of the area showing the alternatives presented in the EAW and the location of all the burial mounds in the vicinity. He reviewed Alternatives 1-5, noting all of the alternatives provide secondary access for the houses that surround Eden Prairie Road,but they do not provide secondary access for the homes on Site A. He said Alternative 6 has the least grading impact of all the alternatives. It is also the only alternative that provides secondary access to Site A, and it is the only one that is funded and does not require the sale of homesteaded property. Dietz said Staff is recommending a culvert be put in for the creek crossing rather than a bridge because a bridge would create a space where water or storm sewer pipes could not be run to the east side of the creek. A culvert would allow storm sewer to be run into the ponding areas that were created with Site A grading, thereby minimizing the amount of disruption for ponding on the west side of the creek. He said staff has quite a bit of experience with creek crossings since there are a total of 38 creek crossings for the three creeks in the community. Fire Chief George Esbensen said public safety access is his primary issue. When the original project came about, the Fire Department was very insistent on having two ways in and out of Site A as well as the other side of Riley Creek. He said it is bad public policy for 200 homes on a cul-de-sac to have only one access route. The buildings on Site A are very close to each other, and most of them do not have fire sprinklers in the units. He said they will also need two-way access for the other development on Eden Prairie Road, and they do not allow their equipment to use the southern part of Eden Prairie Road during the winter months. He said it is very important from the standpoint of public safety to have Prospect Road built to provide access through to Eden Prairie Road. Dietz said they did additional traffic volume analysis and determined Prospect Road will not be a high volume street. Most traffic will flow north from this area rather than east on Prospect Road. He said the intersection design at Prospect Road and Spring Road was prepared by the developer's consultant, reviewed by City staff and by Hennepin County, and the sight distances were determined to be okay. He said there may be a traffic enforcement issue and that can be addressed with the Police Department. He said Prospect Road was designed as a local connector road with no driveways entering onto it. He reviewed traffic volumes on similar local connector traffic roads in the City. Aho asked if, along with Alternatives 1-5 that addressed two-way access for CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 8 Site B, we did anything to address alternative access to Site A. Dietz said they did look at one,but there were steep grades,it was close to the existing access point, and it didn't resolve the issue of secondary access for the Eden Prairie Road area. He said there was some discussion of using a gravel road on the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)property,but late this afternoon MAC rejected that alternative. The grades in the area south of Prospect Road are all too steep to accommodate a connector road in that area. Butcher asked why we do not have an overall comprehensive transportation plan for the southwest section of the City. Dietz replied we do and this is it. He said the bluff is a significant impediment for roadways. We talked about keeping this area as five and ten acre lots until the decision was made to bring it into the MUSA line in 1990. Prospect Road was a compromise,but it was a solution that provided some kind of an urban roadway system in this area. Butcher asked if Eden Prairie Road were a cul-de-sac and it didn't have a connector would there be the same safety issues that we discussed about Prospect Road. Dietz said that was true. He said there is very light density at the southern end of Eden Prairie Road, and most of the density will be in the Site B area and in the Wuttke property. They will try to make a loop system through Site B and the adjacent properties,but that area will also depend on Prospect Road for secondary access. Duckstad asked if it was correct that Alternative 6 is the least costly. Dietz said it is the least costly and it is the only one that is funded because the developer is obligated to pay for it. Duckstad asked about the cost estimate. Dietz said the last estimate he heard was $600,000. Aho asked if there was anything else we could do in terms of design and construction of the road to mitigate the safety issues rather than just relying on police enforcement. Dietz said he thought enforcement is the most important piece. Prospect Road will have neighborhood traffic primarily and can be self-enforcing with some help from the Police Department. He said we can look at the issues at Prospect Road and Spring Road,but he thought the design of Prospect Road was good in terms of horizontal curves and sight distances. Mayor Young opened the meeting to public comment. Jack Rhode, 15859 Porchlight Lane, said Alternative 6 will result in significantly increased traffic through Summit Oaks. There are 450 new homes planned for the area, there are usually two cars at each home, so 900 cars will be traveling to and from work and, unless Eden Prairie Road is improved significantly, they will use Prospect Road. In addition there are 144 units in Summit Oaks that are generating traffic. He said Summit Oaks is a family neighborhood, and Prospect Road would jeopardize the safety of CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 9 children who live in the area. He thought the real problem is Eden Prairie Road where the new development will occur. He was also concerned about having another creek crossing, particularly in the pristine parkland area where the crossing is planned. He was very concerned about diminished property values in Summit Oaks if Prospect Road is completed. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, thanked staff for a wonderful job in this difficult process. He believed the EAW was adequate for the decision on Prospect Road but was not adequate for the other alternatives. He thought the issues regarding Prospect Road are minimal or solvable; however, he thought an EIS should be done if any of the other alternatives are selected. Jerry Pitrick, 9322 Overlook Trail, said he serves on the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission did not pass a specific motion regarding approving Prospect Road. There was an informal polling with four commissioners in favor and three opposed. He was concerned about the process used to evaluate options to the extension of Prospect Road. He thought Alternatives 1-5 were not real options because they do not address the fundamental issue of fire safety for Summit Oaks. He thought an appropriate course of action would be to direct staff to re-engage in discussions with the developer to identify real options to Prospect Road. He said since 2001 the developer has made many changes to the actual development as conditions have evolved, therefore the developer should be open to developing one or two real options to Prospect Road. Norma Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, said the whole development at Hennepin Village is being developed as a family in different phases. She said she did not know why people from the 400 units in site B would even use Prospect Road to get to Spring Road when they could use Eden Prairie Road to go north. In addition she thought the residents of Site A would find it useful to have another entrance for their homes from Eden Prairie Road. Brad Pester, 15889 Porchlight Lane, thought this is a scheme that is beneficial to a few but detrimental to many. He thought there are a few homes on Eden Prairie Road that will benefit from the closing of the road at Hwy 212, but the many people living in homes in Site A will suffer from the greatly increased traffic volume on Prospect Road. He thought the issue isn't about the six alternatives,rather the issue is how to get people north out of the southwest section of the City. He was also concerned about the safety of children going to the pool. Jan Rod, 17170 Beverly Drive, said Prospect Road is not the last road that will be built in the southwest quadrant. The road was planned for when the Hennepin Village project was approved and it is needed now. She did not like the other five alternatives. She would like to have Eden Prairie Road kept open rather than dead-ended in order to keep the traffic flow. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 10 David Carroll, 9776 Cupola Drive, said the only true alternative to Prospect Road was suggested by citizens rather than City staff. He showed a slide displaying two alternatives to the extension of Prospect Road. He was concerned about the possibility of an accident shutting down the intersection of the new Prospect Road extension and Eden Prairie Road that would close emergency access to over 400 homes. He said one of the two alternatives displayed would be an improved road for emergency vehicles from Spring Road on MAC land that would connect Spring Road to the existing Prospect Road. He thought the developer would be willing to fund this. Dennis Doyle, 9924 Dell Road, said he thought the process has gotten out of hand. He said the rules from the City staff were clear when they built their home and he thought the rules need to be applied to everyone when we look at the five alternatives to Prospect Road. He said a lot of time has been spent looking at the issues. The original issue for the EAW was about Miller Spring, and the EAW determined it will not be affected by a culvert at Prospect Road. He said none of the other alternatives address the issue of secondary access for Hennepin Village, and he thought staff has made a compelling case for Prospect Road. Young said we have received a lot of good input,but additional public comment will be limited to a total of five minutes. Jack Lankus, Cupola Lane, asked if the Planning Commission and the City Council knew Prospect Road would have a 10% grade when they voted in 2002 and if they knew Eden Prairie Road would be closed at Hwy 212. He thought proper barriers should have been put up on Charlson Road to separate it from Prospect Road. Robert Smith, 9765 Sky Lane, said he was concerned this process has devolved into mudslinging. He said there was a series of events that took a developer's problem and transferred it to other people who did not intend to develop their properties. He thought we have exhausted the discussion on this, and Prospect Road is the only viable alternative. He thought it was important to remember there will be a park built at the intersection of Riley Creek and Eden Prairie Road, and the primary beneficiaries of that park will be the residents of Hennepin Village. Prospect Road will be essential to provide access to the park. Young concluded the public comment period. Nelson said she will abstain from the discussion of this item. Butcher said she helped to shape the goals and guidelines for the development of the southwestern part of Eden Prairie several years ago before Hennepin Village or anything was put in place and before the MUSA line was put in place. The Council spent a lot of time discussing what that CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 11 portion of the City should look like and what our priorities for development were. One of the things decided was we would try to preserve as many of the natural resources in this area as possible, including the Riley Creek valley. Another priority was to have higher density in that area so there could be a density transfer in order to swap for some of the natural resources. She said they were able to do that in 2001 with the plan for Hennepin Village that was approved with the stipulation there be a road to connect the two areas. Today we are talking about completing the last portion of the road, a subject that always causes people who live in the vicinity to get upset. Butcher said because we had the agreement with the developer, he agreed to give the City 28% of the land he purchased, which is almost all of the Riley Creek Valley. We would not have had that land if we had not made the agreement with the developer. Through the years the City has spent time looking at alternatives. She agreed with the neighbor who said this won't be the last road built in this area. She thought it was essential to hear from the Fire Chief and hear his perspective about the impact on public safety. She thought his views are pivotal. She said, based on where we come from and where we will be in the future, she supports staff in their recommendation to build Prospect Road to connect Site A and Site B in Hennepin Village. Aho said this is a tough issue because not everyone will be happy with the decision made tonight. The Council has to look at what is best for the community,both for those in Hennepin Village and for those in the community at large. He said the safety of residents has to be our utmost concern. He agreed the other five alternatives do not provide another egress or entrance to the Hennepin Village area, so he does not view them as viable alternatives. We have learned that MAC will not support the alternative through their property as proposed by one of the residents. We have asked staff to look at other possible options to provide the secondary access, and they have not been able to find one. He thought the access of Eden Prairie Road to Hwy 212 is a separate issue and we don't have to make that decision tonight. The main consideration tonight is how to get in and out of Hennepin Village, and he thought the best alternative is the extension of Prospect Road. Duckstad said it is apparent from all of the information we have received there is no perfect alternative that exists in this area. He thought Mr. Dietz and Ms Stovring did an excellent job of presenting in a clear manner what their recommendation is and why the recommendation was made. Based on that presentation,he plans to support their recommendation for Alternative 6, the extension of Prospect Road. Young said he was grateful for Council Member Butcher's comments because she served on the City Council at the time the original decision was made on the project. He said we need to remember an alternative was chosen at that time and the issue before the Council is whether there is CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 1, 2007 Page 12 anything that exists now that would warrant reopening the Developers Agreement and changing the previous decision. He thought that should be a very rare occurrence, and what we have done over the past few months is unprecedented in terms of time spent by staff and commission and time spent listening to input on the issue. He thought the issue has been fully vetted,however he felt nothing has come up that would warrant changing what was agreed upon. He thought the practical lesson is the road should have been built five to six years ago,but it wasn't because the Council and staff were trying to be accommodating at the time. He believed Alternative 6 is the best alternative under the circumstances, and he would support the extension of Prospect Road. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to approve construction of Prospect Road utilizing a culvert crossing as the selected alternative from the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW analysis. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Nelson abstaining. F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5- 0. Mayor Young adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.