City Council - 07/02/1985 R
EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY CQUN SL M NUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1985 7:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson; City Attorney Roger
Pauly; City Attorney Rick Rosow; Finance
Director John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Community Services Director Robert
Lambert; Public Works Director Eugene A.
Dietz, and Acting Recording Secretary Kate
Karnas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
(The following set of Council minutes have been transcribed in the order of
the agenda for purposes of simplicity of the record.)
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Anderson requested the addition of an item to the agenda, Discussion of the
Off-Ramp from Valley View Road to the Topv i ew Neighborhood.
Peterson requested that a time be set for performance review of the City
Manager as August 1, 1985.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Minutes of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 77,, 1�985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of the City
Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 1985, as published and with the following
changes: Page 3, second paragraph be amended to read, "so they might be aware
of the extent of the potential for construction problems;" and Page 7, Item B,
third paragraph be amended to read"reversing the decision of an advisory
Board." Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Set Tuesday, August 6 1985 6.00 PM for a Joint Meeting
w�h" the-l�ar><s a reattn atuu-t T' klel urces omm s- i -soon
I
City Council Minutes 2 July 2, 1985
B. Approve plans and specifications for Preserve Boulevard
improvements and authorize bids to be received August T,
1985, I.C. 52-7571 Resolution No. 8_5-139)
C. Authorize preparation of feasibility report for Technology
Drivebetween Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive, I.C. }
52--_U100 Resolution No. 85 159)
D. Final Plat approval� for Bryant Lake Business Center 2nd f
AdditionResolution No.�1J...-
E. Final 1984 Budget (Resolution No. 8F-167)
F. CITY WEST RETAIL CENTER. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #111-84,
Ong District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial
for 7.29 acres for service uses; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for City West Retail Center; and Adoption of Reso-
lution No. 85-155, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 111-
84 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. (Retail , 200- '
seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas/
station/convenience store). Location: Southeast corner of
Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. i
G. Change Order No. 4 - Grading at Franlo and Eden Valley Park
H. Resolution No. 85-165 Restrictinj Parking on Valley View Road
between SAH T anTWenvale -Boulevard
I. Resolution No. 85-166 Requesting Variance from State Aid
Standards for Valley View Road
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A-I on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Beginning at 7:30 PM)
(NOTE: The following two public hearings were held concurrently and opened
simultaneously by the Council . )
A. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES INC. Request for Planned unit
Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313 acres;
rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District
to a district created specifically to allow the establishment
of a temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently
identified in the Zoning Code by amending the permitted use
section of such district to allow the operation of a temporary
landfill ; Development Stage approval for approximately 313
acres; and authorize an expansion of area to be used for
sanitary landfill purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to
approximately 148.9 acres. Location: Southeast of Flying
City Council Minutes 3 July 2, 1985
Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 4-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-162 - PUD Concept and Development Stage
Approval ) Continued Public Hearing from June 18, 1985.
x
B. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC. to amend Chapter 11 of the
City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres described below
from the Rural District to a District which permits its use
first, landfill , and second, Public-Recreational and
Industrial uses; and to amend the City Comprehensive Guide
Plan to designate approximately 149 acres for Public-
Recreational/Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying i
Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 24-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-163 - Amending Comprehensive Guide Plan)
City Attorney Pauly stated that Item IV. A. was a public hearing continued
from the June 18, 1985, City Council meeting and that Item IV. B. was a
public hearing on an additional request by Woodlake Sanitary Services (WSS) x
relating to rezoning and a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. City Attorney
Pauly stated that he had spoken with the proponents and agreed that these
two matters could be coordinated and heard as one matter and that evidence
and information which was introduced and supplied to the City Council at
their June 18, 1985, meeting could apply to both items. Mr. Dick Nowlin, t
representing WSS concurred with City Attorney Pauly's statement.
Mayor Peterson asked if it would be necessary to differentiate between the
two matters during the the process of the hearing(s). City Attorney Pauly
stated that it would not be necessary.
Mr. Nowlin referred the Council to his letter of June 28, 1985, requesting
that the hearing go forward but that the overall action not be taken on
these items at this meeting due to the confusion created about final grades
and elevations by the Metropolitan Council by their action on June 21, 1985.
Mr. Nowlin asked that the proponents be allowed to return to the August 1,
1985 Council meeting for a final action on these items.
Mr. Nowlin discussed the action of the Metropolitan Council . He stated that
their action created confusion as to how the processed waste and unprocessed
waste restrictions would be incorporated. In terms of volume of each to be
placed in the landfill , Mr. Nowlin stated that it would be difficult to
predict by the dates set by the Metropolitan Council , what the volumes of
these two types of waste would be, and therefore, difficult to determine
what final grades would be for the property. He stated that he felt it was
essential to have a concept for the final grade of the property and a final
"cap" plan in order to a l l ow to the City to review the impacts with some
certainty. Mr. Nowlin noted that the Metropolitan Council had placed a
closing date of January 1, 1996, for the landfill, adding that that date
would be complied with by WSS, resulting in a 10.5 year expansion of the
C landfill use on this property.
Mr. Nowlin stated that, in proponents' view, the use was a public/quasi-
4
I
i
{ City Council Minutes 4 July 2, 1985
public use since WSS was required to accept waste from everyone. He
compared this to a public utility as an example. He stated that there was
no question that a landfill was a construction-like activity and that it had
aspects of an industrial use, which was one of the proponents' reasons for
requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for the property. Mr.
Nowlin emphasized the fact that compatibility with adjacent uses would be
preserved, in particular with the single family residential use to the east .
He noted that the landfill operations would be 900-1,000 feet away from the
closest unit. In addition, he stated that the elevation of the perimeter of
the landfill would be higher than the residential subdivision. He stated
that there was a large distance proposed as a transition to the Hillsboro
neighborhood to the northeast, acknowledging that this did not prevent
impact from the landfill operations upon the Hillsboro neighborhood. Mr.
Nowlin stated that he felt that the regulatory controls which would be
placed on the landfill operation would work to mitigate these impacts. Mr.
Nowlin stated that the proponents intended to prepare a traffic impact
analysis, which would also be dependent upon the final grades of the
property. He stated that until proponents had the final information
necessary to complete the final grading plan, it would not be possible to
predict how many truck loads of material would be brought into the site.
Mr. Nowlin stated that one other issue that proponents would be dealing with
would be property value compensation to the residential neighbors of the
landfill .
Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Nowlin what had happened at the Metropolitan
Counci l 's meeting of June 21, 1985, that was new, or different, to the point
that proponents were asking for continuance of the Ci ty's decision until
after the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) acted, what had occurred to
precipitate a change in the order of the proceedings regarding their
expansion request.
Mr. Nowlin explained that it was the fact that the Metropolitan Council had
placed a restriction of using processed waste, only, in the landfill after a
certain point in time. He stated that the potential environmental impact of
processed waste was not known. Mr. Nowlin added that proponents were also
concerned about the coordination of the placement of processed and
unprocessed waste with the phasing plans, which had been incorporated into
the Draft Permit recommendation of the PCA. He stated that the question was
where to place the processed waste, whether it would be better located in
the vertical , or the horizontal , portion of the proposed expansion of the
landfi 11 . Mr. Nowl in noted that it was hi s understanding that the PCA saw
conflict betwean the Draft Permit and the Metropolitan Council
recommendation; therefore, the PCA was intending to recommend a "contested
case hearing" to review this issue.
Redpath asked if there was opportunity for input to the PCA's decision.
City Attorney Rick Rosow stated that the City would have a similar
opportunity to offer information to the PCA as it had to the Metropolitan
Counci 1 . He stated that he had spoken with members of the PCA staff and had
V
r
E
City Council Minutes 5 July 2, 1985
been informed that they would be recommending a "contested case hearing, "
which would take approximately two or three months.
Bentley asked the advice of the City Attorney as to whether the primary
issue before the City Council was land use at this time. City Attorney
Pauly responded that it was. He asked the City Attorney if there was
anything which would occur at the PCA review level that would significantly
change the issue of land use from what had already been submitted. City
Attorney Pauly responded that he did not believe there was anything
significant in this regard.
Mr, Robert Glebs, RMT, Inc., consultant; for the proponents, stated that he
had been retained by the proponents to design a leachate collection system
and landfill liner for the property. He stated that the City should be
aware that all landfills produce leachate and that all leachate liners have
the potential for leakage. There were no 100% guarantees in such an
operat i on. Mr. Glebs stated that the efficiency of any landfill was judged
by how much leachate would be produced and the amount of infiltration of
that leachate which would occur. He pointed out that 95-98% of the leachate
produced by any landfill could be diverted with proper design, but that the
rest would likely leak through the liner of the landfill. Mr. Glebs pointed
out that this leakage would occur very slowly over a long period of time.
Mr. Glebs continued his explanation, stating that there was little run-off
from the site, itself; therefore, almost all the rainwater falling on the
site was forming leachate. He stated that a three-foot thick c 1 ay liner on
top of the landfill would be appropriate to prevent the rainwater from
filtering into the waste material. He also explained that it would be
possible to place a c 1 ay liner on the bottom of a landfill ; however, he '
preferred the liner on top of the landfill as cracks or damage could be more
easily seen and repaired when necessary. Mr. Glebs stated that, with a
three-foot thick clay liner "cap" it should be possible to divert
approximately 80% of any rainfall on the property. He noted that the best
of all possible situations would be to have a clay liner on the top and
bottom of any landfill site.
Redpath stated that he could understand that placing a liner on the bottom
of the landfill prior to fill would be ideal . He asked what would happen in
the case of a staged process. Mr. Glebs responded that it would be
difficult to predict what freezing weather in this climate would do to a
liner which was installed by a phased process.
Mr. Glebs then explained the proposed leachate collection system for the
landfill. It would consist of a series of pipes at a two per cent slope,
collecting leachate in basins, which would be cleaned out on an annual
basis, or more frequently, if needed. Monitors for detection of leachate
would be part of the system, as well .
! Redpath stated that the collection system sounded like a reasonable system.
h. He asked what would happen if the system became plugged after a period of
9
City Council Minutes 6 July 2, 1985
time. Mr. Nowlin responded that there would be a 20-year post closure
bonding requirement for the monitoring system.
Bentley stated that the request of the proponents indicated that
approximately 56% of the total acre feet of expansion was proposed on the
existing site for purposes of vertical expansion, which left 44% of the
proposed expansion to occur in a horizontal fashion. He stated that it p
seemed obvious that the only area which would be covered by such a
collection and monitoring system would be the horizontal expansion area. He
questioned whether it would be possible to have an adequate monitoring
system installed for the existing portion of the landfill , as well as for
the vertical expansion area proposed. Mr. Glebs stated that they could try
to design a system for both areas of proposed expansion.
Peterson asked where the leachate would be located, if it was not in the
fill area. Mr. G1 eb stated that the leachate would then be in the sandy
soils around and under the site of the fill .
Anderson asked where and how the leachate migrated from the landfill. Mr.
Glebs stated that the leachate would migrate through the sandy soils into
the ground water, and then be discharged to the Minnesota River.
Peterson asked if there was data available which proved that the leachate
did, in fact, migrate to the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs responded that the
data available indicated that this was the case. Peterson asked if i t was
possible to measure the amount of leachate which was entering the Minnesota
River. Mr. Glebs responded that the only locations which currently existed
where leachate could be measured were within the wells surrounding the
landfill site. The measurements in these locations would not indicate how
much leachate was entering the Minnesota River, according to Mr. Glebs.
Anderson asked if it was possible that the leachate was reaching the
Minnesota River via springs underground.
Peterson asked if the studies of the landfill available at the University of
Minnesota indicated any data regarding the existence, or migration patterns,
of leachate into the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs, stated that this
information had not been collected.
Bentley asked if the information available had been based on the
gravitational flow of ground water. Mr. Glebs responded that this was the
case. Bentley asked if this took into consideration the impact of unnatural
draws on the ground water flow, such as wells. Mr. Glebs stated that this
was taken into consideration and that the information still indicated that
the ground water flows towards the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs noted that
the deeper City wells penetrated the ground even deeper into the Prairie
DuChein and Jordan aquifers.
t
"s
City Council Minutes 7 July 2, 1985
Bentley asked whether it was true that leachate would continue to work its
way down to deeper and deeper levels of the ground as time passed. Mr.
Glebs stated that this was not the case, but that generally speaking, the
leachate would follow the path of the ground water f i ow. He noted that the
ground water discharge to the Minnesota River was substantial and massive,
stating that the movement of ground water was really a perpetually moving
system.
i
4
Peterson asked who would be responsible for the construction of the liners
for the landfill . Mr. Glebs stated that h i s firm had been hired for the
construction review and phasing of the project. He stated that his firm
would intend to have registered engineers and soils technicians available
throughout all phases of the construction process, in order to document that
the construction was taking place according -io approved plans.
Peterson asked how the consultants would deal with the leachate from the
proposed new portion of the landfill or from the existing portion of the
landfill . Mr. Glebs responded that leachate detection systems would be
installed under the liners. He added that flowage monitors would also be
installed.
Peterson stated that he assumed that there would be some type of material
placed on top of the fill and he asked how damage could be detected through
�. the materials. Mr. Glebs stated that a number of monitoring devices would
be placed within the clay liner for the purpose of detecting cracks,
settling, or any changes in the placement of the liner. Mr. Glebs stated
that a maintenance program would also be initiated and followed. He noted
that the majority of settling, if any, would take place within the first
five years after installation of the liner. Mr. Glebs stated that no
equipment could be allowed on top of the clay liner due to the potential for
damage to the liner.
Anderson asked how the City could be assured that heavy equipment would not
be operated on top of the l iner. Mr. Glebs responded that WSS would be the
responsible for seeing that this did not happen. He stated that WSS would
be required to correct any mistakes in this regard. Anderson asked how the
City would know whether any mistakes had been made. Mr. Glebs responded
that changes would be detected in the monitoring systems. He stated that it
would not be in the best interests of WSS to let mistakes go uncorrected
because they would be making a very large investment in this system.
Anderson stated that the amount of money WSS invested was not a matter of
concern, as, eventually, they would vacate the site. He stated that he felt
it would be the City that would be left with any problems created. Anderson
stated that he felt the City, or possibly the Pollution Control Agency,
should be involved in inspections of the liner to guarantee compliance.
Pidcock asked if there had been studies conducted showing how much leachate
there was in existing wells near the landfill currently. Mr. Glebs stated
that this would be done in the future through the monitoring process. It ti
would be a continuous study.
City Council Minutes 8 July 2, 1985
Pidcock asked why the City had not seen any data on what had happened so far
in terms of amount of leachate migration, etc. Mr. Nowlin responded that
part of the information that was available had been submitted to the PCA and
part of it had been used in preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). He stated that the information in the EIS regarding
leachate was summarized from the original data collected.
Redpath concurred with Anderson regarding the need for guarantees in
monitoring of the landfill . Mr. Glebs stated that his firm had suggested to
other communities in these situations that they have someone present for the
first few days of the operation of the landfill and then on a regular basis,
who would report back to the City directly.
Anderson stated that the City had received over 200 complaints regarding
noise, litter, and odors from the existing landfill . He stated that WSS was
now asking the City to accept their intentions of "good faith" in terms of
handling these issues in the future, but that there had been no evidence of
WSS being able to handle the complaints they had received so far. Anderson
stated that he did not feel he could accept the "good faith" intentions of
WSS and be a responsible member of the City Council , knowing how the
complaints had been handled in the past by WSS.
Pidcock stated that the 200 complaints Anderson mentioned were the ones
which had been documented. She questioned how many had not be documented,
and she concurred that the City should look for stronger guarantees from WSS
in terms of monitoring of the landfill .
Mr. Nowlin stated that WSS was guilty of not responding to the extensive
list of complaints. He stated that WSS believed it was doing the best job
possible. He added that WSS was not simply asking the City to trust them.
He pointed out that the PCA would be requiring a separate, independent
monitoring agency to monitor the landfill operations for them. Mr. Nowlin
stated that WSS would welcome the presence of a City inspector. He added
that under similar circumstances in the city of Medina, the Medina had hired
an inspector and a hydrologist strictly for the purpose of monitoring the
landfill operations and reporting to the City.
Pidcock asked what the estimated payback period would be for the investment
WSS would be making in this proposed landfill expansion. Mr. Nowlin stated
that he could not respond.
City Attorney Pauly asked about the proposed design of the new portion of
the landfill . Mr. Glebs responded that the design was done based on the
best available information in the country. City Attorney Pauly asked
whether it would be preferrable to first determine the specific direction
and location of the ground water flow prior to locations, or expansion, of a
landfill . Mr. G1ebs responded that this would be the best possible case.
Pidcock asked how much time it would take to build the proposed liner. Mr.
i`
City Council Minutes 9 July 2, 1985
Glebs responded that it would take between 30-60 days, depending upon
weather and the location of the clay necessary to build the liner.
Peterson asked how many acre feet of fill, or capacity, had been approved
for the existing landfill . Mr. Nowlin responded that WSS had received
approval for 5,621 acre feet. Peterson asked how close WSS was to meeting
that level of fill . Mr. Nowlin responded that they were very close, but
that he would not be able to answer specifically how close until a set of
aerial photos, which had been taken recently, were analyzed. He stated that
WSS estimated that the capacity would be reached some time in July, 1985.
Mr. Nowlin added that WSS would be applying to the PCA for a permit
expansion of the landfill on a temporary basis until this matter was
settled. He stated that the problem was being created by the inordinate
amount of time this process was taking; what should have taken one year had,
so far, taken four years to this point in time. Mr_ Nowlin stated that WSS
was trying to respond to all requests for information as promptly as
possible.
i
Peterson asked if it was the intention of WSS to operate beyond the j
permitted capacity currently approved for the landfill . Mr. Nowlin stated s
that it was their intention to apply for a permit to do so.
City Attorney Pauly stated that records indicated that the applicant first
applied for expansion in 1982; however, during the process of that
application being considered, it was determined that the total area which
was filled had already exceeded the permitted capacity of the landfill . Mr.
Nowlin stated that he disagreed that the permitted capacity had been
exceeded previously.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Rosow reported that he had asked Mr. Nowlin
the same questions about the PCA permit. He stated that Mr. Nowlin
responded that WSS would continue filling after the capacity was reached.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that he then asked the PCA what would
happen if the permitted capacity of the landfill was reached prior to
issuance of a permit for expansion. The response of the PCA was that a
temporary permit could be applied for by WSS. Assistant City Attorney Rosow
stated that he asked what regulations, or rules, existed which would allow
for this. He stated that he was told that he would have a response to that
question by July 23, 1985. Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that he had
asked the same questions of Hennepin County regarding the permit required by
their agency. He reported that Hennepin County staff informed him that they
would not issue another permit; however, they did not expect WSS would
discontinue filling when their permit with Hennepin County expired.
Anderson stated that there had been more than the expected number of heavy
rainfalls in the past few years. He asked how much rainfall the cap would
be designed to handle at any time. Mr. Glebs responded that the cap was
designed to handle a 100-year storm. He noted that, under the worst
conditions, the cover over the cap may become slightly damaged by the
rainfall , but that the cap should remain safe, in place, and not be damaged
( City Council Minutes 10 July 2, 1985
by any rainfall . The cover could be repaired, if, and as, necessary.
Anderson asked if Mr. Glebs was aware of any such landfills located on
slopes similar to those of the Minnesota River banks, adjacent to the
existing landfill . Mr. Glebs stated that he was aware of landfills located
near 2-to-1 slopes. He pointed out that maintenance would be necessary, and
that part of his firm's responsibility was to work out a maintenance plan
for such situations.
Ms. Judy Giddings, 12510 Sandy Point Road, expressed concern about leachate
in the Minnesota River and asked how it could be prevented. Mr. Nowlin
stated that it was a requirement that WSS institute a monitoring program for
this purpose in this area, according to the recommendations of the EIS.
Mr. Shaun Sikrani , 12055 Oxbow Drive, asked if WSS was planning to come up
with an end use for the landfill . He expressed concern, also, about a small
creek running behind his home and asked if leachate was infiltrating to the
creek, northeast of the landfill , as well . Mr. Glebs responded that it did
not appear that leachate was migrating to the northeast based on the data
available. Mr. Sikrani asked who would pay for an inspector for the
landfill , if one was hired. Mr. Nowlin responded that the citizens would
pay for such an inspector.
Mr. Sikrani asked about the cap for the landfill and whether it would be for
the existing portion of the landfill, or the proposed expansion. Mr. Glebs
responded that a cap would be designed for both areas, but that a landfill
liner would be designed for the proposed expansion area.
Mr. Sikrani asked about compensation to surrounding property owners. He
stated that he would like more information about this from WSS. He
suggested that the Council consider restitution as a requirement of any
action taken on the landfill .
Mr. Tim Holmes, 10391 Greyfield Court, stated that he did not feel the
proposed plans adequately protected the ground water in the area. He
expressed concern about land use of the property, as well . Mr. Holmes noted
that the expansion of this landfill may eliminate the need for the
Washington and Anoka County landfills proposed for the future, which were to
be designed based upon new requirements. He stated that he did not feel it
was appropriate for this landfill , not designed to meet current standards,
to be expanded, or continue in operation.
Mr. Holmes noted that there had been four major fires in the existing
portion of the landfill. He stated that the wells on the property did not
have enough capacity to handle the fires and expressed concern about the
safety of this situation. Mr. Holmes expressed concern about the number of
trucks that would be occupying the site, removing soil from the landfill
property. He stated that he felt this would cause alot of noise and
traffic. Mr. Holmes also questioned whether the proposed 15 ft. high berm
around the proposed expansion area of the landfill would infringe upon any
City Council Minutes 11 July 2, 1985
solar rights of the residents adjacent to the landfill.
Mr. Holmes stated that the Freeway Landfill had not been approved for
expansion due to its close proximity to the Minnesota River. He questioned
why this landfill was even being considered for expansion, based on its
proximity to the Minnesota River. Redpath stated that he was aware that the
Freeway Landfill was subject to flooding from the Minnesota River, which was
not the case with this landfill .
Mr. Matt Tofanelli , 12400 Jack Pine Court, asked about leachate production
from the existing portion of the landfill and what was being done to take
care of it. Mr. Glebs responded that installation of a cap on the landfill
would eliminate approximately 80% of the leach ate production from this
portion of the landfill . He noted that the remaining 20% would continue to
migrate through the bottom of the landfill .
Mr. Gerald McGraw, 12115 Oxbow Drive, stated that he was concerned about the
construction of the liner. He stated that the noise at the landfill
currently was loud enough to keep his family awake. He asked if
construction would be allowed to take place at night. Mr. Nowlin responded
that work would not be allowed at night. He stated that he was aware that
the City had certain requirements for the times of day that construction
could take place and that WSS would operate within those requirements .
Mr. Pete Sydowski , 12094 Chesholm Lane, stated that he was concerned that
WSS was stating that they would ignore existing regulations and continue
filling after expiration of their existing permit.
Mr. Andrew Detroi , 10395 Greyfield Court, suggested that there may be other
areas for this use that were not in such close proximity to existing
residential areas. He expressed concern that WSS was seemingly changing the
rules at this point in time, pointing out that the residents expected that
the landfill would have been closed in 1982.
Bentley stated that the City had not yet heard from the proponents why the
issue of land use currently before the Council should be continued, instead
of acted upon, at this point in time. Mr. Nowlin stated that the action of
the Metropolitan Council regarding the type of waste to be allowed in
various portions of the landfill , existing and proposed expansion areas, had
caused confusion as to what the final grades would look like for this
property. He stated that City Staff had been requesting a final grading
plan in order to determine what the highest and best end use of the property
would be. Mr. Nowlin stated that, based on the action of the Metropolitan
Council , it would be difficult to determine what the final grades would be
and, therefore, difficult to inform the City what final grades they would be
working with in terms of an end land use for the property. He stated that
WSS was asking for more time to determine the impact of the Metropolitan
Council 's action on the final grade of the landfill property, which would
then be provided to the City for consideration along with WSS's proposal for
an appropriate end use. Mr. Nowlin stated that it would be possible that,
( City Council Minutes 12 July 2, 1985
after ten years, there would be a depression in the topography of this area
based on the requirements of the Metropolitan Council .
Bentley stated that it was extremely difficult for the City to deal with
this issue with the "wait and see" attitudes that appeared to be coming from
the proponents, the Metropolitan Council, and the PCA. He pointed out that a
these parties all wanted decisions from the City based on inadequate and
incomplete information, and that he did not feel it was fair that the City
was being asked to act without this information. He stated that it would be
the City that would be left to deal with the final results of what was
approved on this site, not the proponents, the Metropolitan Council, or the
PCA.
Bentley expressed concern that the Metropolitan Council was not backing its
own policy regarding expansion of landfills only for processed waste, but
rather changed its policy when this request for landfill expansion was
presented to it. He added that the siting committee of Hennepin County, of
which he had been a member, had determined, also, that any request for
expansion of a landfill should only be considered based upon the same
criteria as siting of any new landfills, which was not being followed
through in this situation.
Bentley asked for pros and cons relative to granting a continuance at this
time. City Attorney Pauly stated that, if the proponents had a request for
continuance supported by showing that the proponent would produce further
evidence, or relevant materials, regarding the land use question, then the
continuance may be in order. He continued, stating that, if the Council did
not feel the proponents could produce such information, then action on the
item, instead of continuance, may be in order.
Peterson asked if cap elevations and proposed vegetation on top of the cap
would be part of any information provided in the future by the proponents.
Mr. Nowlin responded that he would make sure that information was available.
City Attorney Pauly stated that the question remained as to why these issues
were not addressed earlier. He pointed out that the City had been placed in
a position of having to act expeditiously and had done so. Mr. Nowlin
stated that with the original application, proponents felt they knew what
the final cap would look like. He stated that the change was that the
action of the Metropolitan Council was such that the design of the final cap
elevations may be significantly different than originally thought of by the
proponents. City Attorney Pauly asked Mr. Nowlin if proponents felt that
this revision of the final cap plan would be reasonably likely to have an
effect on the end use considerations of the property. Mr. Nowlin stated
that he felt the end use would likely still be recreational, but that the
type of recreational uses may significantly change. He added that it could
have a greater impact on off-site surrounding uses in terms of traffic,
noise, dust, litter, etc.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked Mr. Nowlin if he was suggesting that the
City Council Minutes 13 July 2, 1985
impact could be worse than what the EIS suggested in its "worst case"
scenario. Mr. Nowlin stated that he did not think this was the case.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if it was anticipated that the cap would
reach a higher elevation than 923. Mr. Nowlin responded that this may be
the case in some spots around the landfill property.
City Attorney Pauly asked if one of the alternatives the proponents would
consider would be to use the excess soils from the property to shut down the
vertical expansion of the landfill currently proposed. Mr. Nowlin responded r
that proponents did not know, now, what materials would be necessary from k
off the site, based on the action of the Metropolitan Council .
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if the current landfill was In a
condition such that, upon reaching the permitted capacity for the landfill ,
it could have a cap placed on it and the commitments to the City could be
fulfilled. Mr. Nowlin responded that WSS would try to fulfill its
commitments to the City. He noted that the closure plan would require
importing a substantial amount of material .
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if WSS would be willing to cap the
existing landfill in accordance with the state of the art type of cap
discussed at this meeting. Mr. Nowlin responded that it would be to WSS's
advantage to do so because they would not want to be in the position of
having to clean up any ground water contamination that may occur.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, at the last meeting, proponents had
mentioned that they would be producing additional evidence about surrounding
land values and information about mitigation of this problem which may be
caused by the landfill . He asked Mr. Nowlin if WSS contemplated some
proposal regarding mitigation of any potential diminution of value of the
surrounding properties. Mr. Nowlin stated that WSS had maintained all
through this process that they would be willing to work out this problem,
and they would continue to do so. He stated that part of the request for
continuance would include a request for time to provide additional
information in this regard, as well .
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that the City's consultant on the EIS,
GME, Inc., had recommendations to offer regarding the request for expansion.
One of the recommendations was for clustering of the wells. He asked if WSS
would be willing to install clustered monitoring wells now until the new
Draft Permit was ready from the PCA. Mr. Nowlin stated that he was unable
to commit for WSS In this matter. He stated that WSS did agree that wells
were needed.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that in 1973 there had been an
agreement signed by WSS wherein they had agreed not to ask for any rezoning
until such time as the site was serviced by public utilities. He asked if
there was a land use reason why that agreement should not be honored at this
time. Mr. Nowlin responded that one of the recommendations of the EIS was
that WSS provide public water to the site. He stated that he was unaware of
`t
City Council Minutes 14 July 2, 1985
the agreement mentioned and asked that a copy be forwarded to his office.
City Attorney Pauly asked how long of a continuance WSS was requesting. Mr.
Nowlin responded that proponents would like to try to present the
information at the August 6, 1985, meeting of the City Council .
Bentley asked for the City Attorney' s opinion as to whether a continuance
would give a clearer picture of the land use question, or whether it would
simply belabor the matter. City Attorney Pauly stated that City Staff had
been requesting some of this information regarding the cap for some time,
and that it appeared that the proponent recognized the significance of that
information. He stated that he felt a continuance may be warranted. He
added that there were some conditions that needed to be worked out.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, under PCA rules, the City Council was
required to have acted within 90 days of the completion of the EIS.
Currently, that deadline had been extended to July 16, 1985. He stated that
the City would ask for an extension of that time to a point beyond the
August 6, 1985, meeting, extending some time into the Fall , 1985. He
pointed out that City Staff would need adequate time to review any plans
presented by the proponents and to formulate a recommendation to the City
Council . City Attorney Pauly suggested extension to October 1, 1985. He
pointed out that this did not mean that it would have to take this long, but
that it would provide flexibility for adequate review time. Mr. Nowlin
stated that this would be acceptable.
City Attorney Pauly stated that City Staff would like to have the plans for
the final contours by August 1, 1985, if the proponents would want to be
continued to August 6, 1985, or to have to option to postpone the item to
another meeting for purposes of allowing adequate time for review. Mr.
Nowlin stated that they would endeavor to meet this deadline.
Peterson asked why October 1, 1985, was suggested as a time for extension of
the deadline for the City to act. City Attorney Pauly responded that City
Staff felt it may be necessary to have the additional time, depending upon
when the revised plans were received and to allow for determination of how
the information provided may impact the City. City Attorney Pauly stated
that this would only require a motion to continue to August 6, 1985, at this
time, since Mr. Nowlin had agreed to the October 1, 1985, extension of time
for the City to act.
Redpath asked if it would be necessary to return this item to the Planning
Comnission for additional review. City Attorney Pauly stated that it would
not.
Anderson suggested that it may be wise to set a special meeting in order to
provide adequate public forum for this item and in order to provide adequate
public forum to any other items which may be scheduled for the August 6,
1985, meeting on a regular basis.
City Council Minutes 15 July 2, 1985
MOTION was made by Redpath, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to a
special meeting of the Council to be held August 13, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0-0.
C. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM ?
WALLACEROAD TO CPT, I.C. A esolution
Public Works Director Dietz explained that there had been an error in the
public hearing notice for this item. He noted that corrections could be
made in order to hold the public hearing on August 20, 1985.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue the public hearing
regarding improvement to Technology Drive to the August 20, 1985, City
Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST BY PARKWAY APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP FOR MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000,500 Resolu-
tion No. 195-164)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and referred to information provided Council members regarding the
( offering prospectus.
Bentley asked about the $115,000 allocation for equipment. He noted that
the City had not previously included items with a life span of less than
fifteen years in such bonding approvals. He stated that he was concerned
that the City have a fall-back position, if necessary.
Mr. Ron Kellner, representing proponents, stated that the majority of the
equipment involved in this sum included heating plant equipment and
equipment for elevators. He noted that washers total $35,000 overall for
the project, and that the remainder of the $115,000 was for other equipment.
Mr. Kellner stated that the developer would be including $2.500.000 of their
own money, which was satisfactory to the bankers involved in the $19,500,000
project.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience.
There were none.
Redpath asked about changing the line item on the application to reflect the
equipment for heating, air conditioning and elevators, taking it out of
construction.
Pidcock asked if clustering the costs was the usual way to handle these
matters. Finance Director Frane stated splitting the costs would also be
appropriate, eliminating this from the construction line item.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution #85-164,
` adopting a housing bond program for the issuance of multifamily housing
!� City Council Minutes 16 July 2, 1985
revenue bonds for the Parkway Apartments project and authorizing submission
of same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Motion carried
unanimously.
E. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for toning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat for 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North
of Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance No. 23-85 -
Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-157 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Mr. Tim Erkilla, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing proponents,
reviewed the proposed development with the Council . He noted that no more
than twelve trees over twelve inches in diameter would be removed from the
site by the proposed grading plan. He also noted that the existing house at
the southwest portion of the property would be remaining.
Planning Director Enger reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation from
their meeting of April 22, 1985, noting that the major concerns included the
impact upon future development by neighbors to this development. He stated
that the request had been reduced to 23 lots in order to allow for larger
lot frontages and to preserve more trees. Planning Director Enger noted
that one of the most significant items of concern for this project was the
access point at Rowland Road. It had been determined by Staff that adequate
sight vision distance did not currently exist; therefore, proponents would
be working with City Staff to realign Rowland Road in this area.
Community Services Director Lambert noted that the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the plans at their meeting of June
17, 1985, and recommended approval per the Planning Staff report. He noted
that the majority of the discussion at the meeting involved the proposed
trail . He stated that the Commission concluded that additional trails would
not improve the design of the project and would also involve the removal of
more trees from the property.
Community Services Director Lambert stated that there was also concern about
access to the park north of the Carmel neighborhood, located to the west of
this site. He noted that the only access currently available would be via
Rowland Road, then through the Carmel neighborhood . He pointed out that the
County did not have a trail system which would aid this connection, either.
He added that the Commission had recommended that there be wide shoulders on
the road, once constructed, with an eight-foot wide asphalt trail along one
site to provide for access to Bryant Lake Park. Community Services Director
Lambert stated that the possibility of these improvements taking place was
likely slim because it the road would not be upgraded to more than a rural
section for some time.
Redpath asked if there was any way to substantially improve the access to
City Counc i 1 Minutes 17 July 2, 1985
the development from Rowland Road. Planning Director Enger stated that by
moving the road alignment approximately 100 ft. to the northwest, the sight
vision distance problem would be corrected.
Bentley asked who would be responsible for implementation of this
realignment . Planning Director Enger stated that this would be the sole
responsibility of the developer, at the developer's expense. Bentley asked
if this would require closing the road. Planning Director Enger stated that
it was not anticipated that the road would require closure, but that it was
possible. These issues would need to be settled by the time of second
reading for this development.
Anderson asked if any plans had been submitted reflecting a change to the
entrance to Bryant Lake Park. Community Services Director Lambert stated
that there had been no such plans for several years. He noted that the
access to the park would be across from the access point to the proposed
development_
w Anderson asked if the City Staff had reviewed the trail development plans
for this area with Hennepin County Staff. Community Services Director
Lambert stated that this had not been done recently. Anderson suggested
that this be done soon, considering the amount of development taking place
in this area.
Planning uirector Enger pointed out that the access points for Bryant Lake
Park and for the Garden were not directly across from each other, but offset
by approximately 100 ft. at this time by design. He stated that it may be
possible that the County would alter this in the future and directly align
the park access across from the access to this development. Anderson asked
if the City was likely to be consulted about an amendment to the access
point in the future, if this was the County's desire. Planning Director
Enger stated that the City would probably be asked for their preference as
to location of such an access.
Anderson questioned how soon upgrading of Rowland Road would be required
based upon the amount of development taking place in this area. City
Manager Jullie stated that the City had requested that the County consider
the upgrading of Rowland Road in its future Capital Improvements Programs.
Public Works Director Dietz stated that the upgrading of the road had not
been included in the County's financial planning at this time.
Anderson asked if there would be trails provided along any upgraded portion
of Rowland Road. Planning Director 'Enger stated that it was a possibility,
but that it would likely require that the trails be located on Park Reserve
property.
Anderson stated that he would like to see any plans available for upgrading
of the road.
Peterson asked if it was feasible to locate the trail along the north side
s
i
City Council Minutes 18 July 2, 1985
of Rowland Road. Community Services Director Lambert stated that this would
be difficult due to the topography along the north side of the road.
a
Redpath stated that it would be difficult to require trail dedication from
this development when it had not been required of the other developments
located along Rowland Road to the east and west of this property.
Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, expressed concern about coordinated
development of the entire neighborhood, stating that he did not feel it was
appropriate for each parcel to be developed independently from the others in
this area.
Redpath asked Mr. Farber if he had been able to work out the "land swap"
which had been discussed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Farber stated that
this arrangement had not come to fruition.
Redpath asked Mr. Cliff Bodin, adjacent land owner to the north, if he had
been part of any "land swap" discussions, or considerations. Mr. Bodin
responded that he had not taken part in any such discussions, but that he
agreed, in principal , with the idea of planning for the entire area, not
separately for each individual parcel . He pointed out that a portion of his
property would become completely landlocked, if access to it was not
provided somehow from this development, or from the property to the Farber
,. property at some point in the future.
Redpath asked Mr. Farber if he felt a solution could be reached between the
parties involved, if the Council were to postpone action on this item for
30-60 days. Mr. Farber stated that he was willing to try.
Mr. Erkilla stated that Mr. Torjesen had informed him that, in the absence
of any one developer who would collect the parcels and develop them as one
piece, or in the absence of any collective plan for the area upon which all
parties could agree, he would ask that the Council take action on this item
at this time. He stated that two such delays had proven unproductive at the
Planning Commission level ; therefore, he did not expect that additional time
at this point in the process would be beneficial .
Peterson asked what types of controls the City would have to maintain
development of this parcel as shown, should the Torjesens sell the property
to a developer. He stated that he was particularly concerned about tree
preservation. Planning Director Enger stated that the developer's agreement
would contain strict provisions for tree preservation, along with penalties
for tree removal in unauthorized areas, noting that the agreement was
transferrable to all future owners, assigns, etc. of the property.
Mr. Ed Seiber, 11792 Dunhill Road, expressed concern that the proposed
development was being allowed at a higher density than the development to
the west, where he lived. He stated that he felt more was required of his
development in terms of lot sizes, dedication of park property, etc. , than
was being required of this development. Mr. Sei ber stated that he was in �
j
_.I
t
City Council Minutes 19 July 2, 1985
favor of the plan, overall .
Bentley stated that he felt that unless the proponent was willing to
continue the item and negotiate, then further discussion along those lines
would be superfluous. He stated that he felt the proponent had a right to a
decision by the Council, based upon the merits of the proposal
Anderson asked for the opinion of the City Attorney regarding this issue.
City Attorney Pauly stated that the conclusions about proponent having a
right to a decision by the Council were correct. He stated that, in order
to continue the matter, there had to be a reasona'le need for additional
information. It appeared that this was not the case for this item.
Bentley noted that this was only the first reading for the ordinance to
rezone this proposal ; therefore, should the neighbors have additional
information, which was significant, they would be able to contact the City
prior to final action by the Council on this item.
Peterson asked about the storm sewer situation in this area. Public Works
Director Dietz stated that the City had reviewed this in detail . He stated
that, while the storm sewer for this entire area was a matter of concern to
the City, the current situation would not be aided, nor hindered, by the
development of this 10-acre parcel at this time. He noted that Staff was
working on a storm sewer plan for the entire area and would continue to do
SO.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and
to give 1st Reading to Ordinance #22-85, rezoning. Motion carried 4-1-0,
with Anderson voting against. Anderson stated that he felt there were
unanswered questions with respect to storm sewer, trees, upgrading of
Rowland Road, and trails. He stated that he was also concerned about the
"Piece-meal" fashion of development that was taking place in this area.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-1.56,
preliminary plat approval. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Anderson abstaining.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a
developer's agreement per Council , Commission, and Staff recommendations,.
Motion carried 4-0-1, with Anderson abstaining.
F. HAGEN SYSTEMS. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review
on 2 auras, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 3.02
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres into one lot and two
outlots for an office building. Location: East of City West
Parkway, West of Highway #169. (Ordinance No. 23-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-157 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
City Council Minutes 20 July 2, 1985
Mr. Dave Broesder, KKE Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the j
details of the proposal with the Council . Mr. Al Hagen, Hagen Systems,
explained his business to the Council , stating that he currently had 65
employees, which he expected to double within the next few years.
Mr. Broesder explained that soils were poor in the area originallyroposed
P pP
for the structure as part of Primetech Park ; therefore, relocation of the
structure, and reorientation of the site plan was necessary. He also
explained the phasing of the project, which would be a corporate
headquarters for Hagen Systems. Mr. Broesder discussed the right-in, only,
access to the site.
Planning Director Enger discussed the right-in, right-out access, stating
that he felt the proponents and Staff could work out the final details of
this situation prior to second reading.
Bentley asked what the angle of the slope was on the north hill . Mr.
Broesder responded that it was approximately 3-1.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions from members of the audience.
There were none.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 23-85, rezoning. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 85-
157, preliminary plat approval . Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to prepare a
developer's agreement per Council , Commission, and Staff recommendations.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service for 2.69
acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a
hotel . Location_ West of Highway #169, South of Valley View Road, t
East of Highway #5. (Ordinance No. 24-85 Rezoning)
City Manager Jul lie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
One of the concerns of Staff was that of separating the site from its
required parking spaces. City Code required parking to be located on the
same site as the structure. However, proponents were showing a cross-
parking arrangement with the Residence Inn, with parking for the Hampton Inn
being located across the access drive to both sites. 78 parking spaces were
Cshown, 52 of which were on the same site as the proposed structure.
Planning Director Enger stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
r
City Council Minutes 21 July 2, 1985
P
s
approval of the development, with variances to be reviewed before the Board
of Appeals. He noted that the Commission was concerned about additional
placement of large plant materials on the west side to break up the massive
look of the structure from the highway. It was also recommended that the
easterly entrance to the Hampton Inn be an "out" condition, only, in order
to allow for proper stacking distance from Highway #169.
Mr. Axel Russell , arcitect for the developer, reviewed the plans in greater
detail. Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., discussed the parking arrangement. He
reviewed the ownership of the various parcels of property, including the
Residence Inn, the Hampton Inn, and a proposal for Perkins Restaurants,
potential owners of the middle parcel. The middle parcel was shown to be
split by the access road, thereby dividing a portion of its parking from its
structure, as well . City Attorney Pauly asked if the proposed Perkins
development would require the property on the west side of the access road
to meet floor area ratio requirements of the City Code. Mr. Hustad
responded that they would not.
Public Works Director Dietz stated that there could be a technical problem
in terms of review of any subdivision at this time, as the Planning
Commission did not review any such request. Planning Commission review was
required by City Code.
t,.
Bentley stated that he felt it was difficult to determine how much property
was being requested to be rezoned at this time. He asked if the same party
owned all the remaining parcels. Mr. Hustad responded that this was the
case, adding that a subdivision could be forthcoming with the Perkins
proposal .
Redpath stated that he was concerned that this may not be the highest and
best use of the property. He noted that, originally, this was to be a site
for a restaurant, or office. Peterson concurred.
Mr. Ed Bosio, proponent, discussed the proposed site plan in greater detail ,
explaining the architectural elements and materials.
Bentley reiterated concern about the specifics of ownership and how much
property was being requested to be rezoned. He questioned whether the site
across from the access road was part of the Hampton Inn proposal, or not.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, in order for Perkins to own the lot on the
west side of the access road, the property would need to be subdivided,
which would require review by the Planning Commission.
Redpath asked for an explanation of the proposed retaining walls along
Highway #169. Mr. Bosio reviewed the sight sections and explained the
purpose and materials of the retaining walls.
Bentley discussed the type of hotel the Hampton Inn represented as shown by
the Hampton's literature. He asked if the architecture shown in the
r
City Council Minutes 22 July 2, 1985
brochures was representative of the proposed building. Mr. Bosio responded
that there would be differences.
Mr. Hustad stated that, as property owners, they had previously discussed a a
hotel use for this site. He stated that restaurants and offices had been
looked at for this site, but that such users had told the owners that the
site was not conducive for such uses.
Redpath stated that he was concerned about the use proposed. He noted that
it neighboring use, the Residence Inn, was visible from I-494. He suggested
that perhaps the City should wait longer for the appropriate use to be
proposed for this site.
Mr. Mitch Anderson, Eden Prairie Hotel Investors, stated that proponents had
been looking for a land luse that would be about half of the cost of the
Residence Inn, in order to provide for a complementary hotel use in close
proximity to the Residence Inn. He stated that this site could not support
a hotel/convention center, due to its size. He noted that there would be
alot of landscaping around the hotel .
Pidcock asked if the Hampton Inn was considered a budget hotel. Mr.
Anderson stated that the prices would be approximately $40.00 per night.
Peterson expressed concern about a budget-type hotel being the highest and
best use for the property. Mr. Anderson stated that a similar facility in
Bloomington was charging more money than this development was proposing.
Pidcock stated that she felt this area needed more "up-scale" restaurants.
She questioned whether more negotiation with restaurants might be in order
by the owners of this site in order to obtain the highest and best use of
the property.
Mr. Hustad stated that he did not feel it would be fair to ask the owners of
the property to wait several years to use this site. Mr. Anderson stated
that he felt there were other sites better suited for restaurants in the
area.
Redpath stated that he disagreed, adding that this was the most prominent
site in the area, visible from many locations throughout the City. i
Pidcock stated that she felt that other hotels would follow, if a large
hotel was proposed, as happened in the City of Bloomington. She suggested .
that the City should wait for this to happen on this property in order to
obtain the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Anderson stated that
there was not enough property available at this location for such a use.
Pidcock asked why a restaurant would not then be appropriate. Mr. Anderson
stated that the land owners had been trying to interest a restaurant in the
( site for over one year.
Bentley asked Mr. Anderson what his first choice for a use on this property I
i
a
Y
Z
I
3
City Council Minutes 23 duly 2, 1985
would be. Mr. Anderson responded that he would prefer a restaurant to be
located on this site, because of the Residence Inn.
Redpath stated that he did not feel the City should be reacting to a land
owner finding a client to purchase the property, but should only approve the W
highest and best use for any parcel within the community.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience.
There were none.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance #24-85, rezoning. Motion failed,
Bentley and Anderson voted in favor, Peterson, Pidcock, and Redpath voted
against.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing,
and directing Staff to prepare a resolution of denial with appropriate
findings. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 21085 - 21340
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, RE UESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Marie Wittenberg, member of Historical &
Cultural Commission to change terms to ears rather
than 3 years
City Manager Jullie explained Ms. Wittenberg's request to the Council ,
referring to the letter within the agenda packet. The Council discussed the
matter in greater detail .
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare an
ordinance amendment the City Code to allow for two-year terms for the
Historical & Cultural Commission, rather than three-year terms. Motion
carried unanimously.
a
B. Request by Hagen Systems and Hampton Inn for an allocation
of the C i ty's 1984 1 DR Cap
Finance Director Frane reported that the City had $2,500,000 of its 1985
MIDB cap remaining for allocation, adding that Hagen Systems had met the
requirements for receipt of the allocation.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 85-168,
allocating $2,500,000 of the City's Industrial Revenue Bond Cap to Hagen
Systems (Rialto Investments) . Motion carried unanimously.
i
i
t. City Council Minutes 24 July 2, 1985
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
None.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
None.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
None.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Updating City s Copier System
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson reviewed the information compiled by
Staff regarding the copier system situation in City Hall .
Anderson asked if it would be more advantageous to purchase the machines, or
lease them, considering long-term costs and maintenance needs. Assistant to
the City Manager Dawson stated that both long-term costs and maintenance
costs were less with direct purchase, rather than leasing of the equipment.
Anderson asked if it would be better to lease the machines considering the
quickly changing "state of the art" today. Assistant to the City Manager
Dawson responded that the purchase of the machines brought with it the trade
in value for upgrading to different machines, if it became necessary.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to authorize Staff to execute
lease purchase agreements with IOS, Inc. , for two Canon copiers, including
maintenance agreements, and to authorize Staff to prepare specifications and
to advertise for bids for a duplicator machine to replace the Xerox 7000 at
City Hall . Motion carried unanimously.
2. Off-Ramp for Valley View Road
City Manager Jullie stated that the City had received copies of letters of
concern sent to the Minnesota Department of transportation (MNDOT) regarding
the off-ramp at 1-494 and Valley View Road. He stated that, at the time of
preparation of the feasibility report, a noise analysis had been requested
to determine the impacts of this ramp on the existing neighborhood. The
noise analysis indicated that the noise standards would not be exceeded by
the traffic at this location.
Public Works Director Dietz noted that the state standards, which were more
stringent than national standards, had been met by the design of the ramp.
He stated that MNDOT had informed him that they would, upon written request
j
City Council Minutes 25 July 2, 1985
x
4
of the City, perform additional analysis of the noise situation.
t
Pidcock asked if Staff had investigated the situation. City Manager Jullie
stated that Staff had been in the neighborhood, standing in the front yards
of the neighbors' homes. He stated that it was obvious that much of the
noise problem existed from I-494, not the ramp necessarily. Public Works
Director Dietz stated that it had already been determined that the noise
from I-494 exceeded noise standards. He added that the City would need to
discuss the impacts of I-494 noise on this neighborhood with MNDOT, adding
that he was uncertain what type of funding would be available.
Redpath stated that the walls installed along 35W in the Minneapolis area
had proven to help the neighbors immediately adjacent to the freeway,
however, the noise was found to have "bounced" farther, affecting neighbors
that had previously not been impacted by freeway noise. He stated that he
felt it would be important to determine whether the noise was a result of
the ramp, or the freeway, itself. Peterson concurred.
The Council directed Staff to continue to pursue the noise analysis with the
State and to report back to the Council .
}
3. Performance Review of City Manager
City Manager Jullie suggested that October, 1985, may be an appropriate time
to schedule the review, based upon the work load currently before the City
Council . He discussed the format of the review with the Council, indicating
that the Staff had reviewed formats used by the School District and by the
ICMA.
Bentley suggested that a sub-committee of the Council be formed to establish
a format for this review and to make recommendations to the City Council .
Anderson stated that he concurred, adding that he felt there may be areas
where the School District and City differred.
Staff was directed to collect the information and report back to the City
Council at the July 16, 1985, meeting.
C. Report of City Attorney
John Lie kp a Complaint--City Attorney Pauly reported that the equipment was
still on Mr. Liepke's property and that the complaint was in process at this
time in his office.
Bicycles Riding in Right-of-way--City Attorney Pauly reported that his
office had reviewed the existing legislation regarding the use of bicycles
on roads. He stated that it appeared that bicycle riders had the same
status and rights as vehicle operators under state law. Community Services
Director Lambert stated that he had checked with other communities regarding
how they handled the situation and that he had requested copies of any
ordinances, or policies, available for Eden Prairie to review.
City Counci 1 Minutes 26 July 2, 1985
C
D. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List ( Including Gould Kennel License request
which was continue from June 18, 1985)
Gould Kennel License--City Manager Jullie reported that he had been working
with Mr. Gould in an attempt to mitigate this matter.
Mr. Gould stated that he did not feel he could make arrangements for sale of
the property and moving of the operation in a six-month period of time. He
stated that he would prefer to move the operation, as he felt the business
would be easier to operate from another location. Mr. Gould stated that he d
did not feel he could have another location set up within six months, even
if the current property were sold in that amount of time.
Mr. Gould stated that he had spoken with his neighbors, none of whom
complained to him about his current operations. He added that the kennels
could not be seen in the Spring, or Sumner, because the foilage screened
them from view.
Anderson asked what a reason amount of time would be to accomplish the sale 3
of the property, set up of the new site, and moving of the operation. He
rr suggested 1-1h years.
t. Bentley stated that he had no strong objections to issuance of the license
at this time for a period of one year, with Staff review to take place
within six months regarding the progress of Mr. Gould in meeting his goals
to move the operation. Bentley noted that the Council would retain the
option of revocation of the permit. He stated that he did not feel
revocation should take place unless there was a serious problem, or a
blatant disregard for what had been decided and agreed to at this meeting.
Anderson asked if any of Mr. Gould's neighbors had confronted him directly
with a complaint about the kennel . Mr. Gould responded that the only
complaint he knew about was one in 1975, which had since been mitigated. 1
Finance Director Frane stated that the neighbors had a great deal of empathy
for Mr. Gould, but preferred to remain anonymous about their complaints.
Redpath asked about the numbers of animals present at the site at this time. 4
Mr. Gould responded that there were 21 adult dogs and three puppies at this
time. Redpath noted that the original license for the kennel had been
issued for 18 adult dogs and six puppies.
Redpath stated that he was more inclined to approve a permit for six months,
with an additional six months to be added to the term of the permit, if
progress were shown toward moving the operation.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the request of Mr.
Gould for a kennel license for a period of one year, for 21 adult dogs and
City Council Minutes 27 July 2, 1985
three puppies, with Staff review to take place after six months as to the
progress of Mr. Gould in moving his operation away from this location.
Mr. Gould asked if it would be possible to have his street fixed some time
during the construction season, noting that it had been in disrepair for
approximately three years. Staff was to investigate.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bentley, seconded by Pidcock. Mayor Peterson
adjourned the meeting at 1:40 a.m.
'1
p"�* ,_a ',d'�. R