City Council - 06/04/1991 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
� j APPROVED MINUTES
TIME: 7:30 PM Tuesday, June 4, 1991
LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris,
H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager, Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City
Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly,
Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning
Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works
Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL All Councilmembers present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION
Anderson moved seconded by
Pidcock, to approve the agenda.
Under X.A. Reports of Councilmembers, Pidcock requested addition of the
following items: (1) Award to Eden Prairie Girls' Gymnastics Team; (2)
Action Regarding Local Option Sales Tax request from Hennepin County
Commissioners. Anderson requested the addition of the following items:
(3) Erosion; (4) Eurasian Milfoil. Harris requested the addition of two
items (5) Water Towers; (6) Discussion on Land Acquisition Issues.
Tenpas requested the addition of Item: (7) Special Guest at McDonalds
by Eden Prairie Center. Jessen requested the addition of the following
items: (8) Billboards on Highway 494, (9) Anagram Sidewalk; (10) Portable
Toilets in the Park; (11) Naegele Property and Major Center Area
Discussions.
Jullie requested the addition of item III.I. to the Consent Calendar:
Second Reading for the Rezoning Ordinance for Bluffs West Ninth
Addition.
Motion to approve the agenda as amended approved 5-0.
Eden Prairie 2 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
II. MINUTES
A. Board of Review Meeting held Monday, May 6, 1991
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes of the
Board of Review Meeting held Monday, May 6, 1991.
Motion approved 5-0.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. EATON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION by The Eaton Corporation. Approval of
Developer's Agreement. Location: 15151 Highway 5
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF EATON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION (located
south of T.H. 5 and east of Wallace Road.) Resolution No. 91-111
C. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF BLUFFS EAST 8TH ADDITION (located west
of County Road 18 and north of Bluff Road). Resolution 91-131
D. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF FAIRFIELD OF EDEN PRAIRIE 5TH ADDITION
(located west of County Road 4 and south of the Proposed Extension
of Scenic Heights Road). Resolution No. 91-132
E. ABATEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET ASSESSMENTS
ADJACENT TO STARING LAKE PARKWAY
F. RESOLUTION No. 91-135 RELATING TO FINANCING COMPLETED
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR WHICH BONDS HAVE NOT YET BEEN SOLD
G. RELEASE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTRE% REAL
ESTATE FOR SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD THROUGH FAIRFIELD OF EDEN
PRAIRIE 3RD ADDITION
H. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
I. SECOND READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE FOR BLUFFS NINTH
ADDITION.
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Consent
Calendar as amended. Motion approved 5-0.
Eden Prairie 3 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RIVERSEDGE ADDITION by Tushie Montgomery Associates. Adoption of
Resolution No. 91-115, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Planned Unit Development District Review on 55.5 acres with waivers
within the Rural Zoning District; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-116,
Preliminary Plat of 55.5 acres into 4 single-family lots, one outlot and
road right-of-way to be known as Fransen Addition. Location: 9901
Riverview Road. (Resolution No. 91-115 - PUD Concept Review;
Resolution No. 91-116 - Preliminary Plat)
Jullie said notice for the public hearing was mailed to ten property
owners in the project area and was published in the May 23, 1991
issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Gary Tushie, representing Tushie-Montgomery and Associates, said
that the issues in the staff recommendation were addressed at
meetings with the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Commission. He explained the project by the use
of maps and drawings. He said the project consisted of dividing a
55-acre lot owned by Fransens into three residential lots. One of
the lots would remain as the Fransen residence, with one 5-acre lot
to the east and one 13-acre lot to the west. The owners were
negotiating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to sell the outlot
on the floodplain to this agency. The area also included a
conservancy area as recommended in the staff report to retain the
vegetation both on the river valley side of the property and on the
Purgatory Creek side.
Enger said the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at
its May 13, 1991 meeting and approval was recommended on a 5-1-1
vote subject to the recommendations of the staff report of May 10,
1991. The recommendations were as follows: (1) Recommend approval
of the Planned Development Concept PUD District review with waivers
for lot size and street frontage; (2) Preliminary plat of 55 acres
into three lots and one outlot based upon plans dated May 8, 1991,
subject to the recommendations made in the report of May 10, 1991
and subject to the following: (a) Modify the preliminary plat to
depict a 40-foot-wide trail easement; (b) Modify the preliminary plat
to depict a conservancy easement area; (c) Provide information
showing the structural ability of the bridge to accommodate a 10-ton
per axle weight fire truck weight and 10-foot-wide minimum; and (d)
Prior to final plat approval, submit a detailed storm water runoff and
erosion control plan for review by the City Engineer and Watershed
District.
Enger said because of the sensitivity of the area to soil erosion and
its proximity to the Minnesota River, there were also a number of
recommendations to be fulfilled prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to building permit issuance proponent shall provide plans with
Eden Prairie 4 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
the following information: (1) A site plan with the house located
within the proposed building pad area; (2) A grading plan based on
field-verified topography; (3) A plan which includes no additional
retaining walls; (4) No steepening of natural slopes; (5) Walk-out
levels from the house must meet natural grade; (6) No more than
one 20-foot-wide construction area on the downslope side of the
house; (7) Roof drains to eliminate erosion potential from storm
water runoff; (8) Submission of restoration and erosion control plans;
(9) No construction or grading in backyard conservation easement on
the slope; (10) Detailed soil tests to give information on erosion
susceptibility and footing suitability; (11) An engineers design for
footing, foundation, and retaining walls; (12) Payment of the Cash
Park Fee.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
reviewed the proposal at its meeting on June 3, 1991 and
recommended to support the proposal unanimously based on the
planning staff report. The three main issues addressed were the
location of the 40-foot trail easement on the west side of Purgatory
Creek, the final location of the street easement line on the south-
facing slope, and the final status of the outlot to insure that it
would become part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuge. The
Commission was impressed with the property owner's commitment to
develop the site into only three lots and believed the plan for the
subdivision was a good one.
Lambert said there was a commitment to the scenic easement and the
preservation of the slopes, and the intent was to sell the floodplain
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The floodplain was not being
dedicated to the City in this case because such a dedication did not
fit into the developer's plans.
Council members expressed concern that the floodplain was not being
dedicated to the City. Pauly said that there was no way the City
could require donation of property to the City. Donation had been
done by a number of developers because of tax considerations and
other reasons, but it had been strictly voluntary.
Jessen asked what restrictions applied to the conservancy area.
Lambert said the conservancy easement would prohibit anything from
being done to change the natural character of the area of the
conservancy without approval from the City. Jessen asked if the
floodplain area could be protected in the same fray. Lambert said he
believed the conservancy restrictions were stronger than those
applying to the floodplain because up to 10 percent of floodplain
material could be removed without a grading permit, whereas in the
conservancy area, nothing could be done without approval from the
City.
Eden Prairie 5 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
Pidcock asked what would happen if the Fish and Wildlife Service
did not purchase the floodplain area. Mr. Fransen said that the
property was to be part of a 95-acre park and it would be
condemned if it was not sold, so the Fransens had no choice but to
sell it to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mrs. Harold Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, referred to the letter she
had sent to the City. She said she was concerned about the
easement over the Fransen property. She said the Fowler family had
had for 60 years and the easement was the only way to access her
property. She asked if she had access to the property by
prescription if the stipulation about the easement was not in the
abstract. Pauly said if the Fowlers did not have an easement of
record, they would be able to obtain a prescriptive easement because
of the many years they had used the land to access their property.
Tenpas suggested that the Fowlers and Fransens discuss the issue
and settle it between the two parties.
Mrs. Fowler said she was concerned about safety with the area being
public land. Tenpas suggested that staff follow up with the Crime
Prevention Unit and to be sure the area was adequately patrolled.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the public hearing and
adoption Resolution No. 91-115 for PUD Concept Review.
Anderson said that before second reading he would like the
opportunity to review the plans for the creek ownership and trail
corridor. Tenpas said he was satisfied with the easement as
presented.
Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved and Pidcock seconded, to adopt Resolution 91-116 to
approve Preliminary Plat and direct staff to prepare development
agreement incorporating Commission and staff recommendations, and
Council conditions including those regarding the floodplain
conservancy areas and the trail.
Motion approved 5-0.
Eden Prairie 6 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
B. ROUND LAKE VIEW 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS by Zachman Development
Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5
on approximately 10 acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-117,
Preliminary Plat of approximately 10 acres into 29 single-family lots
to be known as Round Lake View 2nd and 3rd Additions. Location:
North of Valley View Road, north and west of Duck Lake Road.
(Resolution No. 91-117 - Preliminary Plat; Ordinance No. 14-91 -
Zoning District Change)
Jullie said notice for the public hearing was mailed to 78 property
owners in the property area and published in the May 23, 1991 issue
of the Eden Prairie News.
Jim Zachman, representing Zachman Development Company, explained
the project with the use of maps and drawings.
Enger said the Planning Commission approved the project at its May
13, 1991 meeting on a 7-0 vote, subject to staff recommendations in
the report of May 10, 1991. Those recommendations were: (1) Prior
to City Council approval, submit an architectural diversity plan for
the double-frontage lots along Rosella Drive to demonstrate the
availability of room for deck construction. (2) Prior to final plant
submit detailed erosion control and runoff plans for review by the
City Engineering Department and Watershed District. (3) Provide a
clear zone easement for that portion of Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, for
the purpose of maintaining a clear zone for proper sight distance at
the intersection. (4) Concurrent with street construction, the
proponent would replace the portion of Duck Lake Road bituminous
curb and trail with concrete curb and gutter and a 5-foot-wide
concrete sidewalk. (5) The proponent shall install a 5-foot-wide
concrete sidewalk along the north side of Pavelka Drive. (6) The
proponent was requested to erect a sign indicating a future through
road at the terminus of Pavelka Drive as part of the second
addition road construction. (7) The proponent would pay the Cash
Park Fee.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission recommended approval of the project on a unanimous vote
at its May 20, 1991 meeting, as outlined in the May 10, 1991 planning
staff report.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, that Resolution No. 91-117 for
Preliminary Plat be adopted.
Motion approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
Eden Prairie 7 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to approve first reading of
Ordinance No. 14-91 for Zoning District Change, and direct staff to
prepare a development agreement incorporating Commission and staff
recommendations and Council conditions.
Motion approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
C. HIDDEN CREEK by Hidden Creek Development Corporation. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.8 acres, and
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.1 acres with variances to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-118, Preliminary
Plat of 6.7 acres into 4 single-family lots, 10 townhouse lots and 5
outlots to be known ad Hidden Creek. Location: East of County
Road 4 at Mere Drive. (Resolution No. 91-118 - Preliminary Plat;
Ordinance No. 15-91 - Zoning District Change)
Jullie said the notice for the public hearing had been properly
published in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 51 property owners
in the project area.
Jim Zachman, representing Hidden Creek Development Corporation,
explained the project with the use of maps and drawings. He said
that the units would be twinhomes with an average value of $150,000.
The project would include the remodeling of several older residences
in the area. He explained that by building attached units, more open
space would be provided. There had been concern from neighbors
about traffic from multi-family housing. The neighbors had also
expressed concerned that the homeowners association for the project
would allow the property to run down, but he said he believed that
homeowners associations were interested in maintaining the value of
the property. He requested Council consider variances on the
setbacks and a private road. He said he believed these variances
were necessary in order to develop the property.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at its May
13, 1991 meeting. On a 5-1-1 vote, the Commission recommended to
deny the request of Hidden Creek Development Corporation for
zoning district change from rural to R1-13.5 on 8.8 acres and from
rural to RM-6.5 on 3.1 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and preliminary plat of 6.7 acres into four single-
family lots, ten townhouse lots, and five outlots to be known as
Hidden Creek based upon the following findings: (1) The proposed
development was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
designation for the property and did not represent the highest and
best use of the land. That recommendation was based on the
Planning Commission's understanding of past Council policy that the
low density areas of the Comprehensive Guide Plan not be utilized
for the R-19.5 smaller lot at a higher density than 2.5 units per acre
Eden Prairie 8 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
and not to be used for attached housing. (2) The proposed
development was incompatible with the existing surrounding
neighborhood uses due to the density of the cluster homes. (3) The
proposed multiple family portion of the development would constitute
a "spot zoning" of higher intensity land use at a density of 3.2
units per acre surrounded by existing development at a density of
1.5 units per acre.
Enger related individual Commission member's beliefs about the
proposal. Hallett stated that he would vote for the denial of the
project with several reservations. He added that more trees would
be removed if developed as all single-family. Hallett stated that in
this case he would not have a problem approving a cul-de-sac in
this area. Kardell believed that compelling reasons were necessary
before rules should be bent to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Norman believed that the development was nicely laid out; however,
the density was too high. Sandstad stated that he had mixed
feelings. He added that he could see the need for this type of
housing. Sandstad believed that the topographical issues could
justify a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Hawkins believed that
the residents had stated a clear preference for single-family
housing. Hawkins further believed that a zoning change from R1-22
to RI-6.5 was too dramatic. Hawkins believed that it was important
to balance all the issues. Ruebling stated that was concerned with
the high density and believed approval would be spot zoning.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
reviewed the proposal at its May 20, 1991 meeting, and voted to
support the request. The issues it addressed were creek protection,
tree preservation, and trail connection along County Road 4. The
Commission discussed whether the outlot should be owned by the
City or the homeowner association. It was pointed out by the
developer that the portion of the creek valley down to the floodplain
was mowed by the existing property owners and the City would not
have access to it. If it were owned by a homeowners association,
the association would maintain it. Therefore the Commission
suggested it not be a City-owned outlot. Vote for approval was 5-0.
Tenpas said he believed that it was necessary for the City to
develop property that was already surrounded by homes in a way
that would require the least amount of variances. He said he would
like to see consistency on such developments.
Enger pointed out that most of the projects approved over the last
two or three years had been "in-fill" sites where the utilities
surrounded the development project and there were some existing
houses on the site. He said this particular project was unique
because of its shape, width and depth, location of existing houses,
were located, and high number of the trees on the site. He said
that there were not a lot of sites of this type in the City.
Eden Prairie 9 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
Mike Reutter, 6602 Rainbow Drive, spoke in opposition to the project
because his property would be surrounded by roads on three sides
if the project were to be developed with the present plan. He also
said he did not like so many houses on the site, and asked whether
there could be a shared driveway for several units. He requested
that Council consider the financial situation of property owners in
the area if they chose to develop their properties later.
Peter DiBona, 15809 Park Terrace Drive, objected to the drastic
change in zoning proposed by this project. He encouraged a
gradual change in zoning. He also expressed concerned about the
project generating more traffic which he said was already heavy in
the area. He also encouraged Council to require saving as many
trees as possible on the site.
George Grantier, 6626 Rainbow Drive, spoke on behalf of David and
Gail Beno. He read a letter from the Benos which stated their
objection to the change in zoning because they believed it would
adversely effect on the neighborhood and the property values. They
also objected to the denser zoning of the twin-family houses.
Attached to the letter was a petition signed by homeowners in the
area requesting the Council to reject this proposal. Grantier said he
objected to the project as well because he believed there was danger
of a precedent being set for other properties of this type in the
area. He said he also believed it would be detrimental to the wildlife
area in the Purgatory Creek area.
Richard Norell, 16184 Terracewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the
project because he believed it was too dense for the size of the
property. He said he also believed the project would detract from
the value of the houses on Terracewood Drive. He was also
concerned about the increased traffic in the area and tree loss
because of the development.
Ed Sieber, an Eden Prairie resident and real estate agent, said it
had been his experience that the only way to sell the property
owned by the Stodolas was to sell it for development purposes. He
encouraged the Council to consider this aspect.
Gerald Kimmel, 6610 Rainbow Drive, spoke in opposition to the
development because he believed it would change the nature of the
area with the rezoning. He was also concerned about increased
traffic.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION
Harris moved to close the public hearing, table the item, encourage
the proponent to ;,cork with City staff in developing a revised plan
Eden Prairie 10 June>_-4, 1991
City Council Minutes Ag}pr_oved
for the area, and return to the Planning Commission with the =revised
plan for its review. Seconded by Anderson.
Tenpas said that he believed the Council would be open to variances
on this particular parcel and asked for a recommendation from;staff
on what variances would be appropriate.
Enger reminded Council that in a preliminary plat situation,
concurrence from the proponent should be gained for any actRun
taken unless it was an approval or a denial because, under Sty
law, no action within a certain time period after making an
application constituted an approval.
Anderson said he was concerned that rezoning was not fair to; ttihe
surrounding landowners and that the action on this project ccmild set
a precedent.
Harris said she would like the staff to investigate whether theme was
a plan that could minimize the number of variances and at the-: Esame
time provide a viable financial investment for development of the
parcel.
Tenpas asked if the developer would concur with action to tabl -- the
item. Zachman agreed.
Motion approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
D. VACATION 90-09. Vacation and Drainage and Utility Easements With
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Edenvale 15th Addition (Resolution No.
133)
Jullie said this was a hearing relating to easements which were no
longer necessary in the Edenvale 15th Addition.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the public hearing
and adopt Resolution No. 91-133 for vacation of drainage and utility
easements with Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Edenvale 15th Addition.
Motion approved 5-0.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve payment of claims.
Eden Prairie 11 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
Payment of claims approved with Jessen, Pidcock, Harris, Anderson, and
Tenpas all voting "AYE".
Motion approved 5-0.
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 17-91 CONTROLLING WEEDS AND
GRASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9
SECTION 9.71, SUBDIVISION 1
Jullie said the current ordinance limiting the height of grass and
weeds to 12 inches did not clearly indicate that property owners
were responsible for mowing out to the curb line. The ordinance
amendment would clarify this responsibility.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve 1st reading of
Ordinance No. 17-91, controlling weeds and grass on private
property, amending City Code, Chapter 9, Section 9.71, Subdivision 1.
Jessen asked what the City was doing to enforce violations of this
ordinance. Lambert said the City must receive a complaint before
the ordinance would be enforced. Pidcock asked if police or
building inspectors or other City employees who were moving about
the City on a regular basis could report violations. Jullie said
often it was a matter of priority and the City was attempting to
concentrate its resources where people had a major concern, and
this was the reason for the complaint process. Jessen suggested the
City could write a letter or postcard to the homeowner when a
violation of the ordinance was noted, and asking the homeowner to
take care of the situation.
Motion approved 3-2 with Anderson and Harris voting Nay.
Later in the meeting Jessen reopened this item with the following
motion.
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to reconsider the Ordinance No.
17-91 and adopt the ordinance as recommended.
He said that Anderson and Harris had believed that the previous
vote was to request the police department issue tickets rather than
a vote on the ordinance itself.
Motion to approve first reading of the ordinance as passed, 5-0.
Eden Prairie 12 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. REQUEST OF ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE
SLOPE EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO MITCHELL ROAD (Resolution No. 91-
136)
Alan Gray, City Engineer, explained the need for sloping easements
on Mitchell Road with the use of drawings and charts. He said the
reason for choosing sloping easements over a retaining walls was
that the retaining wall was much more expensive. Estimated cost for
sloped construction was $15,000; estimated cost for a retaining wall
was $65,000.
Shirley Larson, 15380 West Sunrise Circle, and Mr. Dowain LaCourse,
15982 West Sunrise Circle, said because they were concerned about
the slope easement creating more traffic noise on their properties,
they would favor a retaining wall. Dietz said the City's position was
that the slope easement was the least expensive way to handle the
situation. He said the cost of obtaining the easement would be
$5,000 and the property owners would receive fair value for the
easement on their property.
Anderson said he would like a report on all costs involved such as
purchasing the land, cost of replanting, cost of grading, cost of a
possible berm, and whatever other cost might be involved before a
decision was made on the project. Pidcock agreed. Tenpas
suggested having staff put together a plan for sloping the property
which would not affect the value of the property.
Jessen asked Dietz who would eventually pay for this improvement.
Dietz said the City would pay the initial cost and assess that cost
back to the developer who requested the improvements, in this case
Mason Homes. It would be the City's responsibility to maintain the
retaining wall.
MOTION
Pidcock moved to request staff to continue negotiations with Mrs.
Larson and Mr. LaCourse regarding an plan that would be acceptable
to both the City and the property owners. Seconded by Harris.
Harris said that she would like to see a projection of the
maintenance cost to the City.
Motion approved 5-0.
Eden Prairie 13 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
(Council agreed to move Item X.C.1, Consideration for a 2nd Ice Rink at the
Community Center, to this point in the meeting because of the large number of
people present who had interest in the item)
X. Reports of Officers
C. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
1. Consideration for 2nd Ice Rink at the Community Center
Lambert reviewed the history of the need for a second ice rink.
This item had been put on a 1987 Park Bond Referendum which
had failed. The item failed again in 1989 on a Park Bond
Referendum. Recently a number of members of the Hockey
Association had reiterated the need for a second ice rink, citing
the inability for the Hockey Association and the Figure Skating
Club to expand with the growth of the community. Lambert the
M.A. Mortensen Company had provided a detailed report on the
cost estimates which would be between $1.6 million and $1.8
million depending on whether or not the second rink were to be
a regulation size or an Olympic size.
Lambert said a survey was done of other ice arenas in the state
to determine what the trends were for expanded use of ice
arenas. From that survey it had been determined that the
demand would continue to increase with population growth. Staff
at the Community Center was asked to estimate the operating
costs for a second ice rink. He estimated that 1,666 hours would
be available for sale at $90 an hour in the period October
through March. $150,000 was estimated to be generated the first
year. It was also recommended that there be a $2.50 per hour
increase per year; this was taken into consideration in the
calculations. The annual cost of the arena for operations was
$94,000. He said another $30,000 could be generated toward
operating costs, leaving approximately $60,000 a year as
operating expense to the City.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 20, 1991 meeting
and voted unanimously to support the concept for a second rink
and agreed that there was a need for it.
Pidcock said that she believed there was a need for a second
rink but believed that consideration of this item should be
balanced with the needs of other organizations in the community,
such as baseball associations having lights for the baseball field.
She said she would like to have information on when the second
rink would be obsolete and when a third rink would be required.
She also requested information on hoar many cities in the area
had two ice rinks.
Eden Prairie 14 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
Lambert said there were a number of cities in the metro area
which had two ice rinks and mentioned Minnetonka, Bloomington,
Edina, and Burnsville. He said there were approximately 550
young people in the Hockey Association and 24 young people in
the Figure Skating Club, and these figures had been the same
for a number of years. The reason for the lack of expansion in
participants was because of the lack of ice time. He said there
were about 1500 young people in the Baseball Association and
their needs were for more fields, and particularly lighted fields
at Miller Park. This would be a $3.5 million project.
Harris said she was sympathetic to the needs of skaters and was
also concerned that buying of ice time out of the City was
taking revenue out of the City that could be used to support
such a facility. However, she believed that the request for a
second ice rink would need to be considered along with all the
other needed facilities which would be discussed in the Capital
Facilities Workshop.
Harris asked Lambert about the reference to the need to buy out
the North Stars' lease or add locker rooms. Lambert said the
design and the numbers in the report assumed that the team
locker rooms for the second rink would be built within the North
Stars lockerroom space. Last year, the North Stars had asked if
the City would be willing to buy its lease. That portion of the
building the North Stars use was constructed by the North
Stars, owned by the City, and leased back to the North Stars for
20 years. There was also a buy-out clause in the agreement
which would cost $240,000 if the City were to force them out.
However, he believed that since the North Stars had requested
the buy-out, the cost could be negotiated for less.
Anderson pointed out that a Park Bond Referendum had not
passed since 1980 and the population had doubled since that
time. He said he favored the ice rink and would like to discuss
the matter on June 18 when Council had scheduled the Capital
Facilities Study meeting.
Jessen said he would like to know how the ice rink was
performing today because users of ice arenas tended to pay
more of the real cost than any other sport. He said that the
way it was structured it was much less a capital facilities
problem than it was an operating budget problem.
Tenpas said he believed the community should be able to absorb
the cost with population growth without affecting the existing
tax rate. He believed there would be a benefit to the City by
having a second ice rink but also believed that the project
needed to be balanced with other needs in the community. He
would like to see Council direct staff to get actual cost
Eden Prairie 15 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
information for operation and construction of a second ice rink.
and provide that information at the meeting on Capital Facilities.
He said he would also like to hold a public meeting on the
subject.
MOTION
Jessen moved to accept the report of the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Report and staff, direct staff to develop more
detailed information on capital costs and financing options, and
an operating schedule for a second ice rink. Seconded by
Pidcock.
Motion approved 5-0.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, & COMMITTEES
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
1. Award to Eden Prairie Girls' Gymnastics Team
Pidcock said she had gone to the high school to award the team
with their honor, and was disappointed that it was held in the
practice room with only team members and the coach present.
She suggested that perhaps in the future recognition could be
made at the Council meeting or in another public place where the
award would get more recognition.
2. Action Regarding Local Option Sales Tax Request from Hennepin
County Commissioners
Pidcock said at the A.M.M. meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 1991
those present were given information on an omnibus tax bill
regarding the $.005 sales tax that the County had been asked to
levy. If the County would choose not to levy the tax, it and the
City would lose a considerable amount in State aid money over
the next two years.
Jullie explained that the purpose of the tax bill was to add a
half-cent on the six percent sales tax. The Legislature had
allowed the counties the option as to whether or not the half-
cent tax would be effective in their jurisdictions. If the county
supported the levy, the cities which represented a majority of
the population in the county would have an opportunity to
Eden Prairie 16 June -1, 12-3I
Gity Council Minutes ,Appro%-?d
override the decisions The other major part of the tax bill was
that the highest tier of residential property valuation had been
reduced. This had been done by injecting more money into the
system by way of the sales tax so the loss of the reduction
would not be passed on to the lower-valued properties. He said
Hennepin County had asked the City to be supportive of the
additional sales tax, and noted the City of Minneapolis would be
faced with losing $86 million in State aid. He said a commission
had been set up to determine a new LGA formula.
Harris said she believed there were so many unanswered
questions as to how the system would work, she would not be
willing to vote in favor of the 1/2-cent tax.
Jessen asked what the basis for the voting was and how many
votes would each City have. Jullie said those cities which
constituted a majority of the population in the county could
override the County's decision. Jessen said he would not favor
taking an position at the present time. He said he did not see
this as an optional sales tax because the penalty for not taking
it was so severe. He viewed it as a plan for the state to re:-:rn
taxing responsibility to the local units of government.
Tenpas said he would not vote the tax because he saw it orgy as
• a tax shift around on the part of the Legislature and not .as any
kind of tax reform. He believed this to be a bad decision on the
part of the Legislature.
MOTION
Jessen moved that no action be taken on this item at the present
time. Seconded by Harris. Harris asked the staff to monitor the
situation very closely and bring additional information to Council
as it became available.
Motion approved 5-0.
3. Erosion
Anderson expressed concern over the erosion situation because
of heavy spring rains. He believed there should be a reasonable
amount of time allowed for developers to repair silt fences and
correct erosion problems. He asked staff to make a
recommendation on the matter. Dietz said Council would receive
a report on the situation very soon.
4. Eurasian Milfoil
Anderson asked about the situation with Eurasian milfoil in
Bryant Lake. Lambert said that marker buoys had been put up
C Eden Prairie 17 .Tune _i, 19T�
City Council Minutes Approved
at both Riley and Bryant Lakes to marl: the area where milfoil
had been discovered. The DNR had been contacted and it had
not allowed the boat launches to be closed. However,, people
were not staying out of the area and water skiers had been
observed using the buoys as slalom markers. He said the lake
would be treated on June 10,, but no one knew at this time how
f r the moil had spread. Ander sore asked if the City could
Dass an ordinance to hold boat owners responsible for
transporting njilfoil. Lambert said he believed this legislation
was passed two years ago but would check on it. He said the
Park, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had
recommended the City spend money for treatment.
Tenpas requested staff to check with the County and DNA about
working on controlling access to the lakes to prevent the spread
of milfoil. Tenpas said staff could make a decision within the
next two weeks for a permanent solution. Council agreed.
MOTION
At 11:00 PM Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue the
meeting for 30 minutes. Motion approved 5-0.
5. Water Towers
Harris suggested that Eden Prairie's water towers be decorated
with the City's logo. Dietz said that originally the specification
for the towers had required the logo, but he had decided
against the idea for the sake of making the towers
inconspicuous. It was the consensus of the Council to leave the
water towers as they were.
6. Discussion on Land Acquisition Issues
Harris said the Popham Haik law firm had what appeared to be a
good workshop on the constitutional issues of the taking of land,
and she suggested that a similar workshop might be useful to
the Council.
7. Special Guest at McDonalds in Eden Prairie
Tenpas said that Chris Burke from the TV program, "Life Goes
On," would be at the McDonalds by Eden Prairie Center on June
17, 1991 and asked if Council wanted to recognize his
appearance. Pidcock suggested presenting him with a key to the
City. Harris suggested giving T-shirts that said "Eden Prairie
Loves its Kids." Staff was directed to come up with some ideas
and Councilmembers were encouraged to attend the event.
Eden Prairie 18 June #, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
8. Billboards on Highway 494
Jessen asked how the investigation on the billboard situation
along Highway #494 was progressing. Pauly said he was working
on an analysis of the options.
9. Sidewalk on Anagram Development
Jessen asked what Anagram's decision had been on the sidewalk.
Enger said that Anagram had more tree replacement required
than could be placed on the property, so the City had agreed to
allow Anagram to plant fewer trees and in return, Anagram
agreed to build the sidewalk.
10. Portable Toilets in the Park
Jessen said that the portable toilets in Round Lake Park were in
deplorable condition over the previous weekend.
11. Naegele Property and Major Center Area Discussions
Jessen said that he had spoken with Mr. Naegele. Naegele and
his financial and legal advisors were investigating options for
the property. A meeting had also been held with Bruce Bermel
and Kelly Doran which was less encouraging regarding
proceeding with a Wal-Mart development. Bermel and Doran did
not express an interest in the larger picture for the properties
" in the Major Center area. Enger said the Naegele group had
talked about potential interest in the City Hall proposal.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Capital Needs Study Session, 6:00 PM, June 18, 1991
Councilmembers agreed to this date.
C. Report of the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
(See pages 13-15 of minutes)
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award Contract for Recreational Trail Seal Coating, I.C. 52-230
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to award the contract for
recreational trail seal coating, I.C. 52-230, to Quality Seal, Inc. as
the low bidder in the amount of $6,896.86. Motion approved 5-0.
Eden Prairie 19 June 4, 1991
City Council Minutes Approved
2. "Adopt A Street" Program
Gray explained the "Adopt A Street" Program to Council. This
would be for public streets only and would be modeled after the
State of Minnesota's program. The City would provide interested
groups with safety vests, garbage bags, acknowledgement signs
and literature. After discussion, it was the consensus of the
Council to go ahead with the program without the signs as
Pidcock and Jessen objected to posting more signs in the
community. Groups participating in the program would be given
recognition in the City's newspapers and in the City newsletter.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn at 11:25 PM. Motion
approved 5-0.
i
i