Loading...
City Council - 08/16/2022 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2022 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL Mayor Ron Case, Council Members Mark Freiberg, PG Narayanan, Kathy Nelson, and Lisa Toomey CITY STAFF City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Community Development Director Julie Klima, Police Chief Matt Sackett, Fire Chief Scott Gerber, and City Attorney Maggie Neuville I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Case called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Council Member Narayanan was absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE PROCLAMATION Case read the Proclamation in full. Joy Bodin thanked the Council for the partnership and explained Hennepin Technical College would like to continue working together for many years together. B. ACCEPT CONTRIBUTION FOR MOVIES IN THE PARK FROM DENTAL SPECIALISTS ORTHODONTICS (Resolution 2022-89) Lotthammer explained this item is to accept a donation for the Movies in the Park program from the Dental Specialists Orthodontics. Case explained the City appreciates this donation because it makes tax dollars CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 2 go further. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Toomey, to adopt the Resolution 2022-89 accepting the contribution in the amount of $250 for Movies in the Park from The Dental Specialists Orthodontics. Motion carried 4-0. C. ACCEPT CONTRIBUTION FOR ARTS IN THE PARK FROM HEALTHY KIDS RUNNING SERIES (Resolution 2022-90) Lotthammer explained this item is to accept a donation for Arts in the Park from Healthy Kids Running Series. The City started a partnership with them this year and oversaw programming to promote running with kids in the community. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Toomey, to adopt the Resolution 2022-90 accepting the contribution in the amount of $250 for Arts in the Park from Healthy Kids Running Series. Motion carried 4-0. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Case added Item 14A. Council Member Report regarding panhandling. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 4-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022 MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, July 12, 2022, and the City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 12, 2022, as published. Motion carried 4-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TRICAM INDUSTRIES by Plan Force Group. Second Reading of Ordinance for Planned Unit Development Amendment on 3.24 acres, Resolution for Site Plan Review on 3.24 acres (Ordinance 15-2022-PUD-9-2022 for PUD District Amendment, Resolution 2022-91 for Site Plan Review, Development Agreement) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 3 B. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-92 APPROVING PARTICIPATION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HCHRA) IN EDEN PRAIRIE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS C. DECLARE OBSOLETE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS D. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-93 GRANTING COMCAST OF ARKANSAS/FLORIDA/LOUISIANA/MINNESOTA/MISSISSIPPI/TENN ESSEE, INC., A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE EXTENSION E. AWARD CONTRACT TO SURFACE PROS TO SEAL FIRE 1 APPARATUS BAY FLOOR WITH A QUARTZ POLYUREA COATING F. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF MILLER PARK LIGHTING EQUIPMENT FROM MUSCO LIGHTING G. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH DE NORA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, FOR CHLORINE SCRUBBER MAINTENANCE H. AWARD CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT, CONNECTIVITY, AND SUPPORT TO TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION I. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE AND UPFITTING OF TWO POLICE VEHICLES FROM GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY J. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AND SOLAR EASEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND SOLAR EASEMENT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER SOLAR GARDEN PROJECT K. RECEIVE RESOLUTION 2022-94 FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON WILLOW CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS L. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH VALLEY PAVING, INC. FOR 2022 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT M. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH VAISALA INC. FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ROAD AND WEATHER INFORMATION STATION MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve Items A-M on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 4 IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. EDEN PRAIRIE MULTIFAMILY by Ryan Companies. Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on 7.01 acres, Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.01 acres, First Reading of Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 7.01 acres, Resolution for Preliminary Plat, Resolution for Findings of Fact in Support of Park Dedication Fees (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, Resolution for Preliminary Plat, Resolution for Findings of Fact in Support of Park Dedication Fees) Getschow stated the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 211-unit multifamily apartment building on a 7-acre property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road. The property is currently undeveloped. The site has rolling topography, a wetland area, and wooded areas. Surrounding uses include commercial to the west and south, a church and single family residential to the north and single family residential to the east. Getschow explained the project is guided Office and zoned Rural. The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the property to Medium High Density Residential and a rezoning from Rural to RM-2.5. The proposed density of 30 units per acre is consistent with the requested Comprehensive Plan designation. Getschow noted the proposed building is 5 stories with one level of underground parking. The project also includes some surface parking. The proposal includes alcove units, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. In addition, there are interior amenities such as a club room, fitness center, game room, co- working space and exterior amenities such as a pool, outdoor dining areas, fire pit lounge, bocce ball court, dog run, etc. Getschow pointed out the Planning Commission voted to recommend the proposal with one no vote and abstention. The discussion there focused on parking issues and traffic impacts. Staff also has parking concerns and has laid out some options and conditions. Tony Barranco, President of Ryan Companies North Region, thanked Community Development Director Julie Klima and Staff for their support and assistance throughout the process. He noted there are other representatives of the applicant present. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 5 Mr. Barranco noted the priority in the business community is having the best people to hire, while the priority of the best people to hire is housing. The team reflected on the Aspire Eden Prairie 2040 Plan and its emphasis on creating housing opportunities. Currently, most of the unmet housing needs are for those between 40 percent and 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI). The proposal would go a significant way to alleviate Eden Prairie’s and the metro area’s housing burden. Mr. Barranco added the site is complicated and comes with several natural conditions they have considered. He invited Josh Ekstrand, National Director of Design for Ryan Companies, to continue the presentation. Mr. Ekstrand showed an overview map of the site. They are proposing 211 units, 272 parking stalls, and about 1.3 stalls per unit. There are a number of soil conditions, wetlands, and trees which made the site difficult. He then showed graphs showing the traffic impact and noted apartment buildings have fewer unique trips per day in comparison to office buildings. Mr. Ekstrand showed a few slides with proposed exteriors and layouts for the site. He noted they have tried to create an intimate setting and spread out the amenities throughout the site. He showed a proposed design for parking spots and unit layout along with a few elevation depictions. Mr. Ekstrand noted there have been concerns about the height of the building. He explained the height measurement is the midpoint of the roof. There is a tremendous amount of fall throughout the site, and the building is sunken down considerably. He showed photos of the current site. Mr. Barranco explained the developers believe there is adequate parking for the proposal. First of all, they are never 100 percent full of tenants. Also, about five to ten percent of their tenants don’t own cars and use alternative forms of transportation. They researched similar projects on Valley View and found almost half of their parking spaces are open during prime parking times. The developers would prefer to preserve green space. Mr. Barranco added there was concern about overflow parking going into the nearby neighborhood, but it would be very unlikely due to the terrain and lack of sidewalks. There are also backup options should there be need for additional parking down the line. Toomey stated she has concerns about the traffic impact and the difficulty in navigating the turn-around area. The building is too big and too tall along with too little parking. She asked if the applicant would be willing to do a building which is one or two stories shorter. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 6 Mr. Barranco stated they are not able to build a smaller project and have it be financially viable. The best route for Council Member Toomey’s traffic concern is to circle to the south around Plaza Drive for a typical traffic pattern. There was laughter from the audience. Toomey stated the intersection needs some work. Case asked for the audience to be respectful of the process and acknowledged there are lots of feelings on both sides. Mr. Barranco added there is an option for a U-turn movement for those who would prefer that option. As for the public response, it is a surprise to the applicant. They conducted neighborhood outreach efforts and have found support in the community. There was also a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The developers are excited to hear from more neighbors. Toomey stated the County is not willing to do a cut-through from Valley View. She asked if the developer would be willing to pay for that as it would be important for emergency vehicles. Mr. Barranco stated their preference would be for through access. They will continue to work with the City and County for an emergency route and plan. They are open to full movement if preferred by the City and County. Case thanked the community for their presence at the meeting. The City makes a lot of effort to communicate with its residents. When no one goes to the Planning Commission hearing, it is a surprise to both Staff and the developer about the response from the residents. Nelson asked if the building is five stories of residences or four stories of residences with parking. Mr. Barranco stated there are five stories of residences with below grade parking underneath. Nelson stated the building is almost six stories. Mr. Barranco stated it is five stories along with a basement underground. Nelson agreed the site is interesting. There are a lot of wetlands, and it has been dry for a few years. She asked if a more wet time period has been taken into consideration. She noted Mr. Barranco stated there would be a 21 percent encroachment on the wetlands, but a 10 percent encroachment is normal. Nelson asked how they would handle the water runoff or flooding of the parking lot. Chad Lockwood, Associate Director of Engineering for Ryan Companies, explained they would go through watershed approval, and they have made a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 7 drainage plan which takes the wetlands into consideration. There will be no net increase in flow or pollutants off the site. As for the garage, the elevation is set above the wetlands. They are nine feet about groundwater, so they do not have concerns about flooding. Mr. Lockwood added they are proposing a permeable layer of granite chips and filter options to minimize the encroachment. Nelson asked if they can handle the occasional one- or two-inch rain which would run through the site. Mr. Lockwood stated the hillside to the north does not drain through their site. Any runoff is being collected in catch basins routed to the stormwater sewers. There is also a filter bench. Volume is held on-site through means of infiltration. Nelson noted there are a lot of variances. She asked how they propose to deal with visitors in terms of parking. Mr. Barranco stated they intend to have guest parking on surface at grade. There tends to be an ebb and flow of those visiting and those leaving the site. There is an office parcel to the west where residents may have the option to use should there be a need for overflow parking. Nelson stated there is also a variance of density from 17 to 30. There is a signage change, and they never allow for larger signage on the walls. There are also variances on the wetland setback. She asked how the soil remediation is working and how it works with the wetlands. Mr. Barranco stated some soils would need to be reinforced to allow for construction. Mr. Lockwood stated the soil remediation would be considered soil corrections for the site. The site is comprised of organic deposits which are not conducive of supporting a structure. The approach is to excavate those soils and replace them with soil more conducive for construction. Nelson stated there is no play area on site. They have found, especially during COVID-19, the need for a park on site. The closest park is too far of a walk for children and passes an unsafe road. Mr. Barranco stated they have a large number of amenities on site such as a pool, bocce ball, and green space. They chose amenities which would be most appropriate for who they would expect to reside in the building. Nelson asked if all of the lighting is compliant and if any light would encroach on the neighborhood. Mr. Lockwood stated the lighting would be downcast fixtures with cutoffs were needed to meet City ordinances. The light will stay on the property and be dark sky compliant. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 8 Nelson asked why there wasn’t an environmental assessment with the poor soil and the wetlands. Mr. Lockwood stated an environmental assessment (EAW) was not triggered by the State’s current guidelines. Klima confirmed an environmental assessment was not required for the project, but there was an environmental review appropriate for the size of the project which was reviewed by City Staff. Nelson asked if there are electric car plug-ins. MaKinnah Collins, Civil Designer at Ryan Companies, stated there are 89 electric vehicle capable stalls, and there would be four ready for use. Nelson asked if there will be solar panels on the building or if the building would be solar capable. Ms. Collins stated the building is not set up for solar panels. Nelson stated solar will be necessary down the line. It would be important for the roof to hold the weight and have the required electric connections. Freiberg pointed out he has walked the property multiple times. The applicant thinks the parking is appropriate, but if they are wrong, they will lease spots from a neighbor who already needs the 315 spots of his own to comply with the City Code. Projects should be self-contained. Freiberg agreed the site is challenging. However, the height variance of 20 feet, which is almost 50 percent of the current allowance. As for the U-turn, those are not casual and easy. He noted he attempted a U-turn there the other day, and he was almost hit by another car. Freiberg stated the drainage issues are also something to consider. Case pointed out the Council comes to the meeting with an open mind, but they are very prepared for such presentations. They have read all of the relevant emails, spoken on the phone with residents, walked the site, and discussed concerns with Staff. The project would require a unanimous vote to move forward. He noted there are 20 people who have asked to speak and encouraged the commenters to consider wrapping up their comments around three to four minutes as there are many voices to hear from. Maria Ringsmuth, 13166 Beehive Court, stated Council Member Toomey shared all of the concerns she has about the project. Council Member Nelson also shared many more concerns than she herself was aware of. Additionally, Council Member Freiberg was almost hit by a car while surveying the site. She explained people do not listen to texting laws. Ms. Ringsmuth directed a comment to Ryan Company and stated the proposal looks like a prison. She added she went door-to-door to one hundred homes CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 9 and reached 60 of the neighbors. She told Ryan Company has created an abhorrent proposal. David Ringsmuth, 13166 Beehive Court, noted the City Code requires two parking spaces per unit. The height variance and parking spot variance are important. The neighbors moved there with the expectation of any nearby buildings meeting Code requirements for height. Charles Gibson, 7343 Ann Court, explained he drives through the area regularly. They recently turned the left turn on Valley View and Top View to be more difficult to make a left turn during rush hour. Mr. Gibson added he has concerns about the size of the proposed structure and the impact on the water table. Mr. Gibson added the parking may be fine for now; it may not be down the line. He drives an electric car as do some of his neighbors. All of the electric vehicle charging stations are underground and would likely require an additional fee to park there. Mr. Gibson noted there is a large hill with a lot of runoff. Additionally, it is not safe in the winter for a lot of cars to be going through a stoplight up the hill. Patricia Mallow, 7253 Gordon Drive, noted her agreement with previous comments. She stated the blue is very ugly, there is a lot of traffic, and the parking is a concern. Jack Mallow, 7253 Gordon Drive, pointed out there are a number of roads that feed into Valley View Drive. The site would encourage U-turns and increase car accidents. The hill also makes it difficult to navigate the area in the winter safely. Linda Rotshafer, on behalf of 7455 Scott Terrace, stated she lives on the west side of Eden Prairie, but her son lives near the site in question. Her son is unable to attend the meeting. The apartment seems to be targeting millennials with the amenities. However, her son and any of his friends in the same age group do own cars. Ms. Rotshafer asked if the people would have to pay extra for underground parking as that would impact where people park on the surface lot. Ms. Rotshafer pointed out there is dangerous traffic on the nearby streets. Traffic coming from the east on Valley View is coming from a corner, and there is now a proposed U-turn. Roberts is likely to become a through street with the proposed changes, which is not equipped for additional traffic. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 10 Ms. Rotshafer added mailings only went out to people living within 500 feet of the site, of which there are very few people. There was nothing shared online. Also, if the Planning Commission meeting was the proper forum to express concerns, it was held only one month ago and wouldn’t have had much impact on Ryan Companies’ time and effort. She would have liked to attend the Planning Commission hearing to ask why they wanted to move the project forward. Case confirmed the Council is aware of concerns regarding the traffic, the hill approach, redirected through traffic, and parking. He asked if there are any more issues for the Council to consider. Anne McMahon, 7251 Topview Road, noted they emailed their comments to the City, but it is comprised of similar concerns raised by other residents. She explained her son just got a driver’s license and is a skittish driver in the area. John McMahon, 7251 Topview Road, explained they are troubled about the variances requested for the projects. Variances don’t respect what the community is entitled too. Todd Pennington, 13566 Kerry Lane, noted the Eden Prairie website says zoning regulations ensure land in the City is being used efficiently and appropriately as well as avoid overcrowding. It is meant to meet community standards. Approving the variances would set a poor precedence for future projects. The project doesn’t fit in the particular spot. Tony Morimoto, 7214 Topview Road, explained the Council is very principled. He shared an example of a fence project at Olympic Hills where a compromise was found. The Council can find a way to make the project work without such extreme variances. Wendy Klute, 7333 Ann Court, explained she chose to move to Eden Prairie when she joined law enforcement there. She has since chosen to stay because she loves the community. The City has high standards of building, such as the minimally orange Home Depot. The proposed project is dangerous, and she trusts the Council to uphold the City standards. Eric Vinson, 12771 Villa Lane, stated his property backs up to Roberts, which is just north of the project. The project would allow for hundreds of people to stare right into his backyard. The elevation depictions shown are entirely inaccurate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 11 Mr. Vinson stated the zoning and building standards of Eden Prairie have been upheld for many years. The residents knew something would go into the space at some point, but the traffic, aesthetics, and parking issues do not align with the area. Lowering the height of the building would reduce the parking issues, overcrowding, and the impact on the area. Mr. Vinson added the left turn lane allows a driver to see oncoming traffic. However, a large vehicle in the way would limit one’s vision, which increases the risk of accidents. He noted he and another resident were at the Planning Commission meeting and expressed their opposition to the project. Megan Bowhal-Osborn, 12789 Vina Lane, noted she was at the previous meeting. The actual height is a little bit over 70 feet, which is a concern. She also has concerns about noise with the pool and fire pits. She asked about time restrictions at the Planning Commission meeting, but she has not received a response. Vicki Koenig, 7239 Topview Road, thanked the Council for listening. She stated her main concern, on top of what was already discussed, is the environmental impact. It is basically all wetland. There should be more screening as well. Richard Skala, 7222 Taffy Way, asked why the variance is being considered. He thanked Toomey, Freiberg, and Nelson for being critical of the project. There is not a shortage of housing, as being claimed by the developer. As for a potential parking agreement with the neighboring business, there will be lots of requirements for snow removal which will impact parking abilities. He added there are people already talking about moving from the neighborhood. Getschow noted he and those sitting to his left are not elected officials, so they are not in a position to comment on the project. Also, one Council Member is absent. Mayor Case stated he would add his comments after the public has an opportunity to speak. Mark McKenzie, 7330 Stewart Drive, asked what the process is going forward. Case stated the Council will share their opinions and views. He explained all land in Eden Prairie is zoned as rural until there is a development, so that is up for consideration. Commercial zoning was pre-guided. The 45-foot maximum refers to the potential for a commercial property. Klima stated the comprehensive plan guides the site for office. Previous projects with a residential building above 45 feet have received a waiver. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 12 Case explained a zoning change requires four votes from the Council, even though Narayanan is absent. All four of the Council present have concerns. The proponent can choose to return in the future with revisions. At that time, it would go through the process again of review by Staff and the Planning Commission. Amy Sheer, 7275 Topview Road, stated she and her husband walk Roberts regularly. People drive on Roberts instead of doing a U-turn. It is already dangerous for pedestrians, and the project would add to that. Peter Rasmussen, 13100 Roberts Drive, stated Valley View and Topview are a mess. Roberts exists to get emergency vehicles into the neighborhood. He asked if there could be a sign or something which would only allow for residents. He added even more electric vehicle charging stations will be needed. Robert Kahl, 7366 Topview Road, asked if Ryan Companies returns with another proposal, would only those within 500 feet be notified. Case stated they would notice beyond 500 feet due to the interest of the surrounding neighbors and the overall community. Karin Keeling, 11447 Anderson Lakes Parkway, explained at a previous meeting she asked if there would be an EAW, and the Council confirmed there would be. However, since then she has heard otherwise. Klima stated there was a question at the Planning Commission meeting regarding an EAW performed for the project. At the previous meeting and the current meeting, the same answer was given that the project did not trigger an EAW. Ms. Keeling stated she clearly remembers everyone said yes to the EAW. Raena Gruber, 7236 Topview Road, stated they just moved to the area from Minneapolis. They moved because her road became a passthrough. As it stands, their neighborhood feels safe and tucked away. She asked if having young people or lower-income people move into the project area may cause more danger. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Case stated he came into the meeting with concerns about the project. Every former project proposed on the site emptied onto Topview Road. The density and traffic are not the problem they fear because they have done traffic studies. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 13 However, it is too intense. Case explained the code allows for an adjusted pitched roof measure because it is more attractive yet taller than a flat roof. The project made sense in concept. Case added something will go into the area eventually. The warehouse buildings like the one to the west generate more traffic. He noted some people believe too many apartments are going into Eden Prairie. The Council doesn’t go out to seek more apartment buildings. Instead, they manage land developments with zoning as a guide. Case stated as for variances, variances are meant to get a better project such as more open space or saving more trees. The market is demanding apartment buildings as the metro area is 20,000 units. By 2030, there will be 75,000 units needed. The metro will grow by one million people in the next ten years. When there is open land, a developer is driven by a market. It may be an apartment down the line, but the current proposal may not be appropriate for the site. Freiberg stated he does not support the variances. There was applause from the audience. Case asked for people to hold their applause until the end. Nelson stated there are too many variances, wetland encroachment, not intended for families, too few electric vehicle charging stations, and it is not prepared for solar. There could be a smaller apartment building which works better with the wetland and is more forward-thinking. Toomey thanked the public for sharing their thoughts. She noted her agreement with other Council Members. Her primary concerns are the traffic impacts, the parking, the height, the soil corrections, and the neighbor’s input. Toomey stated she is sorry the project is not right for the site because the City needs more affordable housing. The project was supposed to be 25 percent affordable housing, which refers to those who are at or below 80 percent of the area median income. In Eden Prairie, it refers to individuals who are making around $70,000 to 80,000 per year. Toomey added the property is privately owned and will be developed at some point. Case agreed with comments of the Council. He stated the removal of the top floor would change a lot of concerns. It is a hard site. Preparing the soil is expensive. There may be a one-story warehouse site built on the space down the line which would have a higher traffic impact. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 14 Case added the perception of affordable housing is different for different people. Affordable housing is structurally subsidized which allows certain portions of the building being rented out at a lower rate to those making less than 80 percent AMI. It could be for people earning up to $75,000 such as police officers or teachers or a majority of the City workers. The Council is working to get affordable units in the market-rate apartment buildings to better serve more people. Case asked what the next steps are. Getschow stated zoning usually requires a simple majority, except for when changing zoning from residential to commercial or industrial. The zoning piece would have required just three votes. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan amendment would require a super majority. According to State law, if the City does not vote up or down on the application, it would automatically be approved. Therefore, it would be the recommendation for Council to direct staff to prepare findings of fact for denial, unless the applicant withdraws their application. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Freiberg to direct Staff to prepare findings of fact for denial. Motion carried 4-0. Case thanked the public for their care and concern for the City. Mr. Barranco noted they usually have the opportunity to respond to public comment before a decision is reached by the Council, but he will discuss process with the City Manager. He stated the region is in a housing crisis, and there could be an upcoming housing failure. Mr. Barranco added as for Code, it is written with variances. The developer has the goal to deliver the best project possible with as few variances as possible. He agreed they would like to see better traffic conditions in the area, and Ryan Companies is looking to invest in and improve Eden Prairie. Mr. Barranco explained he is taken aback by the process. There was a failure of process across the board. Neighbors could have been notified and engaged earlier by the City. The development team has invested thousands of hours and dollars to improve the tax base of Eden Prairie and provide additional housing. Staff has continued to encourage the process, but it was shocking to see additional input. The developers want to serve the neighbors well, and it has been a failure of process. Mr. Barranco stated they could have taken direction from the Council to consider if adding solar or more electric vehicle charging stations is viable. They could double check the slopes, research family-friendly amenities, or adding a sign requiring access on Roberts be limited to residents. The CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 15 developers look forward to continued conversations with the City, but he does not see a feasible way to reduce the project by one story, although they will consider some options. Case stated he knows there are feelings on both sides. The Council and Staff will talk about ways they can better inform the community of projects. He stated he likes working with Ryan Companies as they do good work, and he hopes to see future projects with them in Eden Prairie. B. 2021 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) Getschow stated the 2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) evaluates the City’s accomplishments toward meeting goals defined in the Consolidated Plan, as required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for communities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Karschnia stated CDBG provides communities with resources for a wide range of unique community development needs. The City of Eden Prairie became an entitlement community in 2006. The CDBG funds local housing and public service activities and are subject to Federal oversight. The CAPER assesses how CDBG was used in the previous year. Karschnia explained a portion can be used for public service programs and administration, but the majority is used for housing programs. The housing programs are focused on populations in need of additional support. Karschnia added Eden Prairie follows a mandated timeline for the CDBG program. She showed a flow chart with the timeline information. Karschnia stated CDBG funds in the amount of $372,000 were used in 2021 in areas of rehabilitation, affordable housing, public service and administration. She offered to answer any questions. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Toomey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Freiberg, Nelson, Toomey, and Case voting “aye.” CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 16 XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 16-2022 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 5.79 RELATING TO EDIBLE THC PRODUCTS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE 2022-95 FOR PUBLICATION Getschow stated in 2019, the Minnesota legislature legalized the sale of certain products containing nonintoxicating cannabinoids extracted from hemp, commonly known as CBD. The legislature recently amended the law, Minnesota Statutes Section 151.72, to specifically legalize certain “edible cannabinoids” derived from hemp containing a small amount of THC, the main psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant. The law now permits the sale of products containing THC that are intended to be eaten, commonly known as “edibles,” as well as beverages containing THC. These products may contain no more than 0.3% of any THC total, no more than five milligrams of THC per serving, and no more than fifty milligrams of THC per package. The law prohibits the sale of these edible THC products to anyone under the age of 21. Getschow stated many cities are moving to license or regulate sales of THC as there is no overarching legislation. The next session is likely to include legislation addressing THC, which would later need to be implemented into any City ordinances. Getschow stated the ordinance would allow Eden Prairie businesses to obtain a license from the City, similar to the process for tobacco or alcohol. The purpose is ensure retailers are selling these products only in accordance with state law and to provide safeguards to ensure they are not being sold to anyone under 21. The proposed ordinance also provides for compliance checks to ensure all requirements are being followed. He added some other cities are going the route of moratorium. Getschow stated the purpose of both readings is to move the process along. If there are not enough votes, it would be brought back at a future meeting for a second reading. MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the first and second reading of an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 5 by adopting a new Section 5.79 relating to edible THC products. Case asked what the plans are to inform businesses of the ordinance. Getschow stated Staff will inform all tobacco stores and any other stores which CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 17 may be selling THC. It will also be on the City website. Case asked what the penalty is for violating the Ordinance. Neuville stated the penalty is a simple misdemeanor. Case asked if there is a grace period for those who may not be aware of the new ordinance. Getschow stated Staff would be understanding with those who are awaiting application approval. If businesses continue to sell without applying for a license, Staff will reach out to them directly. There still needs to be an ordinance published. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 4-0. XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Panhandling —Mayor Case Case stated he had a resident share a concern with him regarding panhandling. Anyone can stand legally on any public space at any time. The City has some leverage that no one can be endangering themselves or drivers. If a panhandler crosses traffic to obtain goods, it is very dangerous. Case added there are strict requirements where they cannot implement an ordinance outlawing panhandling. There could be an ordinance restricting signage or the width of the median. However, they do not want to go that direction. Instead, they could ask law enforcement to concern themselves with the safety of both drivers and panhandlers. Nelson noted if panhandlers are acting aggressively, that is a situation where law enforcement could intervene. Case stated they don’t want to get so precise as to define aggression, but the Council wants the public to know they will not eliminate panhandling while law enforcement is more proactive in ensuring the safety of all people within Eden Prairie. Case added Staff employees or PROP have responded to panhandlers to offer any services which may be helpful to them. XV. OTHER BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 16, 2022 Page 18 XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Case adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Katie O’Connor, Deputy City Clerk