Loading...
City Council - 04/09/2002APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, David Luse, and Jan Mosman CITY STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Nelson Curielli I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Tyra-Lukens said the Council Forum has been modified as follows. Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesday of the month from 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Please note that this portion of the meeting is off-camera. The Council Forum will consist of two parts: scheduled and unscheduled appearances. 6:30 to 6:50 p.m. is reserved for scheduled participants. If you wish to schedule time to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors, please notify the City Manager’s office (at 952- 949-8412) by noon of the meeting date with your request. The last 10 minutes of the Forum, from 6:50 to 7:00 p.m. is set aside for impromptu, unscheduled appearances by individuals or organizations that wish to speak the Council. IV. PROCLAMATION OF CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH Mayor Tyra-Lukens read a proclamation declaring the month of April National Child Abuse Prevention month. She introduced Pat Holder, who represented Cornerstone, a local agency that serves children who have been victimized by domestic violence. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Mosman added Item XIV.A.2. Butcher added Item XIV.A.3. Request Staff to Address Hillcrest/Alpine Way Improvements. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 2 A. SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 2002 MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve as published the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held March 18, 2002. Motion carried 5-0. B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD MARCH 19, 2002 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to approve as published the Minutes of the City Council Workshop held March 19, 2002. Motion carried 5-0. C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 19, 2002 MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Luse, to approve as published the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held March 19, 2002. Motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER THIRD ADDITION by Glenborough Realty Trust, Inc. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.37 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 0.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Regional Commercial to Office on 0.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 0.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.37 acres into one lot. Location: 7555 Market Place Drive. (Ordinance No. 7-2002-PUD-4-2002 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution No. 2002-63 for Site Plan Review.) C. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP PUD by UnitedHealth Group. Guide Plan Change from Office to High Density Residential on 19 acres, Office to Regional Commercial on 4.2 acres, Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.5 acres, Medium Density Residential to Quasi-Public on 10 acres, and from Medium Density Residential to Office on 5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 72 acres, and Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) on 72 acres. Location: South of Highway 62, east of Shady Oak Road, north of City West Parkway. (Resolution No. 2002-64 adopting the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)) D. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION - PREDATORY OFFENDER REGISTRATION SYSTEM E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-65 DESIGNATING PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO PUBLICLY OPEN BIDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PARK BASEBALL BUILDING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 3 G. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PARK BUILDING AT CRESTWOOD PARK H. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2002 STREET STRIPING, I.C. 02-5560 I. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2002 STREET CRACKSEALING, I.C. 02-5561 J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-66 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRYANT LAKE DRIVE TRAIL, I.C. 00-5514 K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-67 APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION ON EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS, I.C. 01-5541 L. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-68 APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT FOR A SIGNAL AT THE I-494 NORTH RAMP AND PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE INTERSECTION, I.C. I.C. 01-5550 M. APPROVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO MNDOT FOR I-494 THIRD LANE IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 02-5553 N. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WISCONSIN - RADIO FREQUENCY SHORT SPACING MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve Items A-N of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. MARVIN HEIGHTS by Peter Anderson and Virginia Marvin. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.11 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.11 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 3.11 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.11 acres into 1 lot. Location: West of Preserve Boulevard and South of Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Resolution No. 2002-69 for PUD Concept Amendment, Resolution No. 2002-70 for Preliminary Plat.) Jullie said official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 28, 2002, Eden Prairie News and was sent to 47 property owners. He said the project is for one-single family lot located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of Preserve Boulevard. Dan Schaefer, the project builder, addressed the proposal. Tyra-Lukens said she understood the property was originally designed for four twin homes. She asked where those twin homes would have been located on the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 4 property. Schaeffer said they would have had to fill the site in order to build such a project. Case asked if the issue of wetlands is why this piece has taken so long to develop. Schaeffer said he was not sure because the owner had just purchased the property six months ago. Peter Anderson, property owner, said one thing that has come up recently is the request for four feet of fill at the wetland border. He noted it is permissible to fill up to 400 square feet without replacement. He asked to take advantage of that provision to gain some drainage away from the house, in addition to their other requests. Schaeffer pointed out the area to be filled on the project sketch. Dietz said there is a de minimus amount of fill allowed without permit. He said the issue has been discussed with Leslie Stoevring so Staff is aware of the discussion. He said the amount of fill will be less than 400 square feet, and Staff would support the change. Franzen said the Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the March 11, 2002 meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution No. 2002-69 for PUD Concept Amendment on 3.11 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review, and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 3.11 acres; to adopt Resolution No. 2002-70 for Preliminary Plat on 3.11 acres into 1 lot; and to direct Staff to prepare a Developer’s Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions, including granting the request to allow up to 400 square feet of fill at the wetland border. Case said we have had long discussions about carsonite markers to delineate wetlands but not necessarily about Type 3 wetlands. He asked if there were any way we would be marking this area of conservation easement. Franzen said there would be a conservation easement over the wetland easement and wetland buffer. He noted that is a standard part of our developer’s agreement now. Luse asked if the developer’s agreement is put into a title or deed. Rosow said developer’s agreements are not normally filed against the property. Conservation easements that are attached to the developer’s agreement are always filed, as are special assessment agreements. Rosow said the subject of whether developer’s agreements should be filed with the property is a matter of continuing discussion between his office and the City. Luse asked if that might not be a concern with commercial property and if we could start a precedent with single-family property. Rosow replied this is more of a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 5 concern for single-family developments. Luse thought it would be good business to do. Franzen said there would be a reason to include the developer’s agreement if we have a project that has multiple stages where there are very key issues that we want to make people aware of in the future, such as special conditions about buffers next to a City park or in situations where there may be different people developing the property in the future. Franzen noted that small projects are usually built right away. Luse said he was hearing that the issue of recording the developer’s agreement with the title is determined by a project-by-project evaluation. Dietz said over the years we have had a handful of projects for which we should have recorded the developer’s agreement. He said it is cumbersome to do this for everything, but situations such as special assessment agreements and other things that carry over from one owner to another should probably be recorded. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. IX. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Butcher, Case, Luse, Mosman, and Tyra-Lukens voting “aye.” X. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.40 SUBDIVISION 2, RELATING TO ON-SALE WINE LICENSES Uram said the current code requires that a restaurant have a minimum of 75 seats in the dining area in order to get a wine and beer license. He said the state statute requires a minimum of 25. Staff believes that a minimum of 50 seats would be an appropriate compromise to accommodate smaller “bistro” style restaurants such as Punch Neapolitan Pizza. Tyra-Lukens thought it was good to review this ordinance. Butcher asked what criteria were used to establish the 75-seat minimum in the first place. Uram said it was set long before he started to work for the City. Butcher said she also thought it was time to review it. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to adopt First Reading Of An Ordinance Amending City Code Section 4.40 Subdivision 2, Relating To On-Sale Wine Licenses, And Adopting By Reference, City Code Chapter 1 And Section 4.99, Which, Among Other Things, Contain Penalty Provisions. Motion carried 5- 0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 6 XI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REVIEW OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DECISION ON VARIANCE 2002-02, BERGELAND, 7012 WILLOW CREEK ROAD Jullie said on February 6, 2002 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals acted on Mr. Bergeland’s request for the construction of a new house in lieu of remodeling the existing deteriorated home. He said the existing home is 37 feet from the lake, and the new home would be located 55 feet from the lake at the closest point. The Board granted the request. Per the Council’s prerogative, on February 19 the City Council elected to review the Board’s decision. Jean Johnson, City Zoning Administrator, reviewed the Board of Adjustment and Appeals’ action and showed three alternative placements for the structure. She said the Board first reviewed the request at the January meeting, at which time proponent was requesting to keep the new house at 37 feet from the lake. The Board continued the item to the February meeting and, after discussion at that meeting, the Board supported a revised plan that showed a 55-foot setback from the southeast corner. She said Staff believes the plan is a reasonable use of the lot. Case asked what the square foot totals were for the three footprints. Johnson said she was not sure but the original house was close to 5000 feet on three levels. Mr. Bergeland said his current proposal is 48 feet by 68 feet. Uram said that would be approximately 3200 square feet for the footprint. Rosow reviewed the background of the plat revisions for the property. He noted the discussion begun by Councilmember Luse during the Marvin Heights’ review earlier this evening would have been appropriate for this property; however the developer’s agreement was signed but filed against into the property until after Lot 2 was sold. He said Mr. Bergeland came in with a request to remodel portions of the home. Because the developer’s agreement was not an encumbrance on the property, the City looked at the nonconforming use ordinance and determined this was an enhancement of a nonconforming use and was not allowed. Rosow said Mr. Bergeland took this decision to the District Court, and the Court disagreed with the Council’s decision. He noted at this time Mr. Bergeland has not done any of the work allowed by the District Court. He said Mr. Bergeland then came back in July 2001 with another variance request to enhance and add on to the structure. The Board of Appeals agreed to all but the add-on for the structure, and Mr. Bergeland chose to not appeal the one exception. Rosow said Mr. Bergeland has not acted upon the 2001 variances and, if they are not acted on within a year of the granting of the variances, they expire. Rosow said Mr. Bergeland came back to the Board asking for the 37-foot setback, and the Board ultimately granted a 55-foot setback. Mr. Bergeland has said he will take the variances approved last year if the new structure is not approved. Rosow noted this is a complicated decision because it impacts the development of the other CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 7 lots to some degree. Rosow noted the developer’s agreement has now been filed against Lots 1 and 3, but not against Lot 2. Luse noted several Councils have been involved in making decisions on this property, and the current Council brought this item back to make the best decision we can on it. He said this is a very complex issue, and we are taking a tremendous amount of time in order to make that decision. He noted the Council and the City have only a few mechanisms to deal with issues, and precedence is one of those mechanisms. He thought the issue of precedence would be critical in this particular decision. Bergeland noted this has been a long process, and he came into the middle of it. He bought the home in 1999, and is still living in the same home with mold on the ceiling and leaky roofs. He said he has worked with the City quite a bit to make this project work and has spent a lot of money for architects. He displayed some pictures of the structure he proposes to build. Luse asked if the picture is at 37 feet or 55 feet from the lake. Bergeland said the house was revised to get to the 55-foot distance requirement. Luse then asked what would be the variance based on the sketch, since he was concerned about setting precedence for the future in this decision. Rosow noted the District Court said Mr. Bergeland could replace the siding, windows and roof on the existing structure, but did not address the granting of variances to build a new structure. Luse said his question was what variances would be needed to build the sketch into the existing foundation. Bergeland said the home represented in the sketch is larger than the existing foundation. He said the current sketch is built to have a very minimal impact on the hill. He said the developer told him it would cost $200,000 more to remodel the existing structure than to rebuild. He wanted to work out what the City was looking at and what the property restrictions are. He said the property is, in effect, a corner lot. Luse asked if the footprint on the sketch is bigger than the existing footprint. Bergeland said he was not sure how much bigger it is. Luse noted we have to take care of Mr. Bergeland but also must take care of all the other residents. Luse said he understood that Mr. Bergeland wants to build a bigger house in either of the locations. Bergeland said he thought that would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Luse said he could support a 75-foot setback because we have some precedence for that. He thought there was no precedence that he knew of to rebuild a home bigger than the existing footprint at a 55-foot setback. Case said he was waiting to hear the hardship piece of this request. He said that is the part that helps us with the issue of precedence in years to come. He thought the structure could be built at a 75-foot setback, and he needed to hear why Mr. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 8 Bergeland would not build it at that distance. Bergeland said it would decimate the hill if it were set back 75 feet. He asked if it would be right to sacrifice the hill and trees to build the home. He said they are already scraping off the top of the hill with the septic system that will be used by two homes, and there will be two driveways along side the hill. Franzen said, when Staff was evaluating whether to change from the 1998 plan, there were three different sketches. One of the sketches had a 100-foot setback, and one was at 75 feet. He said they moved back to 75 feet because the 100-foot setback cut off the hill. He said the western portion of the hill would be shaved off for the septic system and would probably take out more trees that we would require to be replaced. Case asked if all of the height of the hill would remain. Franzen said the height would still be there. Butcher said in the past we have granted variances on the basis of benefit to the neighborhood or to the City. Luse was very concerned about setting a precedent of less than 75 feet, and asked if there is a way to enlarge the home without setting precedent. Tyra-Lukens asked if he was comfortable with the 37-foot setback. Luse said he would be as long as it did not set additional precedence. Rosow noted that if the house burned down, it would have to be built 100 feet back or get a variance. Regarding the issue of precedence, he hadn’t found any cases that would tie the Council’s hands because of precedence. He thought we would be very able to distinguish this situation from any other one that came before the Council. Luse said he would like to avoid a 55-foot variance. He thought there were two options, either rebuild; or get back 75 feet and allow a larger footprint. He thought the issue will come up again, and he asked if there are any examples of going less than 75 feet. Franzen said there have been negotiated variances on a lot of projects involving shore land. He said we did that in exchange for larger lots or preservation of trees on the property. He said the issue involved in granting a waiver from the code has been what is beneficial to the property, the neighborhood or the City. He said we have always had some environmental purpose for granting the waiver. Bergeland said some of the remodelings on Bryant Lake have 50-foot setbacks. He said he is looking to retain as much integrity of the property and lakeshore as possible. Luse asked if there was a compromise between 55 and 75 feet. Bergeland said the Board of Appeals did not want to discuss his suggestion to move closer to the 15- foot easement side. He said it might work at 60 feet, but it would be closer and he would have to trim back the house a little. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 9 Mosman thought the Council shouldn’t be pressured by the fact that Mr. Bergeland has spent $40,000 on architects. She said there have been other houses in that area that have been remodeled. Luse asked why Bergeland didn’t want to build it to the original size at 37 feet. Bergeland said it is less expensive to tear down the structure and build a new one than to remodel the existing structure. Case said he didn’t believe Mr. Bergeland had the option to take the house down to the foundation and rebuild it. Butcher thought building a new house is a totally new thing. She thought we have to think about what is the best for the neighborhood if he is building a new house. Luse noted we can’t satisfy everyone, but he understood there were several neighbors who are saying don’t bring it closer to the lake. Butcher said she would be comfortable with a new house built at 75 feet as a compromise. Case did not feel Mr. Bergeland had made the case that he couldn’t build it at 75 feet. Staff believed it could be done in 1998. He thought the hill could be saved if it is important to Bergeland for the purpose of screening. He thought as a City we are best served by preserving lakeshore. He would be comfortable granting a 75-foot variance tonight. Bergeland said he didn’t have an architect’s rendering at 75 feet. He noted he still has the right to build at the 37-foot setback on the current spot. Tyra-Lukens asked Bergeland to clarify what he meant by remodeling. Butcher noted that remodeling is different from building. Bergeland said he made compromises with the Board of Appeals, and they ended up at 55 feet. Luse thought the Board did a great job in reaching a compromise, but the Council does not have that luxury. He suggested that we stay with the 75-foot setback because he did not think we have any tools available to vote any other way. Tyra-Lukens was not convinced that this house could not be built at 75 feet. Rosow said the Council could move to overrule the Board’s decision, modify the decision to establish a 75-foot setback, or affirm the decision at 55 feet. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to modify the action of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to provide for a 75-foot setback on one side and a 100- foot setback on the other, based on the fact that no hardship has been shown and only the size and placement of the house was used to justify the 55-foot setback. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 10 MOTION: Case moved seconded by Butcher, to recess for ten minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens reconvened the Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. Rosow recommended that an amendment to the previous motion be made to include findings in support of the motion to modify the Board’s decision. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to include the following findings, conclusions and order as part of the motion: FINDINGS: 1. A request for Variance 2002-02 was made by the applicant Nathan D. Bergeland for the property located at 7012 Willow Creek Road. 2. Nathan D. Bergeland (“Bergeland”) is the owner of Lot 2, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights (7012 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie) the “Property”. There is situated on the property a house. With Var. 2002-02 Bergeland desires to remove the existing deteriorated house and replace it with new house construction. The new house construction would be at a 55 foot setback from Bryant Lake’s shoreline on one side and a 100 foot setback from the other shoreline. The City’s Shoreland Code requires structures to be 100 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level. The existing house is 37 feet from the lake. 3. Prior to Var.2002-02, Bergeland applied for a variance in the year 2001. Var. 2001-07 was to enlarge the existing house. That variance was granted on July 12, 2001. Mr. Bergeland has not yet proceeded with construction of the additions or remodeling of the existing house. 4. Prior to Var. 2001-07, Bergeland applied for a variance in 2000. Var. 2000- 07 was a request to remodel and repair the existing house. The variances were denied by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mr. Bergeland appealed the decision to the City Council. The City Council affirmed the Board’s decision. The City position was that the extent of repair and remodeling proposed by Mr. Bergeland exceed routine maintenance and repair contemplated for non-conforming uses. Mr. Bergeland appealed the City Council decision to Hennepin District Court. Judge Ginberg ruled in favor of Mr. Bergeland. 5. Variance 2002-02 was heard by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (“Board”) on Jan. 10, 2002. The item was continued to a meeting on Feb. 6, 2002. Mr. Bergeland represented to the Board that the house is in such a deteriorated and dilapidated condition that it is unhealthy due to significant mold. Mr. Bergeland requested approval to remove the existing home and construct a new home at the same location on the lot. Said location would be 37 feet from the lake. The Board’s action granted approval to construct a new home 55 feet from the lake. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 11 6. The Board proposed construction of a new house 55 feet from the lake on one side and 100 feet from the lake on the other side and unanimously granted approval to such variance. 7. The construction of a new house will require the installation of a new septic system that will minimize the impacts on the lake from the current septic system in use for the house located on lot 2. 8. No hardship has been demonstrated justifying a 55 foot setback. The 55 foot setback requested is based upon the size and shape of the proposed home and the desire to avoid further encroachment on the hill at the back of the lot. 9. The 75 foot setback approved by the City Council on July 6, 1999 is appropriate as approved with the plat at that time and is based upon the approvals of both the Planning Commission and the Parks Commission and the reasons articulated by the City Council in its findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order dated July 6, 1999 on Variance Request 99-08 10. The Council adopts by reference the findings, conclusions and order contained in Variance Request 99-08 adopted July 6, 1999. 11. The Council’s motion to approve a 75 foot variance will result in an improvement in the situation currently existing where the home is only 37 feet from the lake. 12. The proposed use of the property is residential and is in keeping with the character of the area. After applying a 75 foot setback, Lot 2 will have as much or greater shore land as the homes in the surrounding area. 13. The property presents unique circumstances in that there is difficulty in creating house pads and lot lines because the property is located at the terminus of a cul-de-sac and the 75 foot setback mitigates those difficulties. 14. The property further presents unique circumstances in that it is characterized by a stand of trees and a grade change from 896 feet to 856 feet representing a grade change of 44 feet and again the 75 foot setback mitigates those unique circumstances to allow the construction of a residential structure on Lot 2 in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The motion of the Council to construct a new home at a 75 foot setback to replace the existing home that is 37 feet from the lake is in keeping with the spirit of the City Code and the granting of a variance. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 12 2. The property is unique in that the narrowness and the topography of the lot at the north end creates difficulties in siting a home. In addition to these factors, the lot has two converging shorelines each with a 100 foot setback requirement thereby restricting the shape and location of a home. The 75 foot setback mitigates against both of those conditions. 3. A home meeting the 75 foot setback can be built in conformance with the size and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The construction of a new house with a new septic system will have a positive impact on the environmental effects that the lot’s septic system has on the lake. ORDER: Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the City Council hereby modifies the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Variance #2002-02 to grant a 75 foot setback from the lake on one side and a 100 foot setback on the other side. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: Motion carried 5-0. VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried 5-0. XII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Tyra-Lukens said she has asked Councilmember Case to fill a vacancy on the FamiLink Board. XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. City Manager Contract Jullie said pursuant to the Council’s direction on March 19, the Council and Staff team developed an employment agreement with Mr. Neal who was selected to be the new City Manager. He reviewed the terms of Mr. Neal’s agreement, noting that the appointment begins on April 29. Tyra-Lukens read the following letter from Scott Neal dated April 9, 2002: “I had discussed with Carl Jullie the possibility of attending this evening’s meeting, but I have a meeting with the City Council here in Northfield tonight that requires my attendance and participation. In lieu of CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 13 attending your meeting tonight, I would like to offer this written statement into the record. I have reviewed the terms of the proposed employment agreement. I have received answers to my questions about the employment agreement from both Carl Jullie and Harry Brull. I believe the agreement is fair to both parties. I accept the proposed employment agreement. I will be ready to start my new position in Eden Prairie bright and early on Monday, April 29, 2002. I look forward to this new challenge. Sincerely, Scott H. Neal” Tyra-Lukens said we are all looking forward to working with Mr. Neal, but we will miss Mr. Jullie. Tyra-Lukens said one of the big issues outstanding is performance review. She suggested that we appoint Councilmembers Case and Luse to design the appropriate review. Case asked that someone from Staff be assigned to assist them. Luse thought all those involved in the hiring process did a terrific job and he thought we found a number of great candidates. He is looking forward to working with Mr. Neal and suggested that we work on a way to introduce Mr. Neal to the residents of Eden Prairie. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve the Employment Agreement for Scott Neal as Eden Prairie City Manager. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Mosman – Yellow Transportation Buttons Mosman noted that all the Councilmembers are wearing yellow Transportation buttons. She said she was part of a group that testified at a conference committee on transportation. This is a difficult time to raise taxes to get more money for transportation, and our representatives have said we need new money to help finance road projects. She said the committee is still meeting on this issue, and she encouraged people to express their concerns about the need to find more money for transportation. 3. Butcher - Request Staff to Address Hillcrest/Alpine Way Improvements CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 14 Butcher asked Staff to respond to inquiries she has received from residents in the Hillcrest/Alpine Way area regarding what is going on with the improvements in that area. Dietz said Mr. Gray just completed a Feasibility Study on this that he has not yet had time to review. He said we are very close to the point of being able to mail it as a final draft to the neighborhood. He said we would set another neighborhood meeting to review it before coming back to the Council as a public hearing. He said their goal is to hold a public hearing in the next six months or so. Butcher said the neighbors were concerned that the roads would just be patched and repatched. Dietz responded that we want to go out and see if we can get as much consensus as possible on the project. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Singletree Lane Land Sale Uram said we have accomplished all the goals we originally set for this site. He said North American Properties purchased the last piece of City- owned property on Singletree Lane on December 20, 2001. He said all proceeds have been deposited into the Major Center Area Construction fund. Originally Staff estimated that the proceeds from the sale would be approximately $6.3 million and budgeted accordingly. He said there is a difference of $400,000 between the total revenues and the budgeted expenditures. Staff is recommending that the $400,000 be used to create an Economic Development Fund. Uram said the goal of the Economic Development Fund would be to assist local businesses. He said we have been able to assist housing projects but have been limited in what we can do for other types of business projects. He said the fund could be used to provide a revolving loan program to help small local businesses by initiating and establishing a small business incubator. Tyra-Lukens thought it sounded like a great idea. Butcher said she loved that we are trying to stimulate economic growth. She asked if we would create criteria and goals for this fund so that everyone is on the same page. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 15 Uram said this is a new step for us. He thought we have the housing piece figured out fairly well. He said Staff’s expects to come back to the Council with a list of programs that would benefit the community, determine how the Council would like to proceed, and then move forward with criteria. Luse noted that development has its ups and downs, and he thought Staff did a great job of pulling this together and ending up with this amount of money. Butcher thought it would be great to roll it out to the Chamber of Commerce once it is better designed. She thought that would be a nice partnership. MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Case, to authorize the creation of an Economic Development Fund to assist local businesses with an initial funding level of $400,000. Motion carried 5-0. E. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Renewal of Midwest Asphalt’s Land Alteration Permit and Addendum A, Covering Operating Conditions Jullie said this is a two-year renewal of Midwest Asphalt’s Land Alteration Permit. He said Staff had identified another issue of stockpiled materials that appeared to be off the site. A recent property survey showed that stockpiled materials have been removed from the adjacent site. Case asked what would happen if we were to turn this down. Jullie said we would have to indicate why it was being turned down. He said the agreement has appeared to help such issues as the crushing operations that were annoying to neighbors. He thought we have worked this out, and it has some positives. Luse said this kind of use is probably a good interim use. He said the question is how do we guide ourselves to redevelopment down the road. As long as the company is a good corporate citizen, he thought it makes sense to renew the permit. Case said he was not sure he views them perceptually as a good corporate citizen. Mosman said she didn’t see anything about dust or smell. Johnson said our code does address dust and odors, so we could control that aspect of the operation. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse, to direct staff to execute a two-year extension of the Land Alteration Permit and Addendum A for Midwest Asphalt Corporation. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 16 F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.