Loading...
City Council - 05/17/1988 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, _MAY 17, 1988 7: 30PM0 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: - Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock. CITY C MNCI� STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Asst. to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson, City Attorney Roger Paul, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Recording Secretary Deb Rdlund. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. PRESENTATION OF FIRST CHECK ,^FQR THE STkRINQ LAKE-PARK ib"kRITHEATCR EQR THZ ARK11 PRAIRIE LIONESS CLUB Director of Community Services, Lambert made a brief presentation of project and introduced Marilyn Web, President of the Sden prairie Lioness Club, and Lou McCoy. Mrs. Lieb presented Mayor Peterson with the first installment toward the $15,000 pledge for the Staring Lake s Park Amphitheater. Mayor Peterson thanked -the- bloness Club for the contribution and to its on-going commitment to the betterment of Eden Prairie . I . APPROYAL OF_AGNNDA AND QTHIR_ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the agenda as published and amended. Items added to the agenda: Resolution 88-88 under ITEM VI .B. Under ITEM X.A1 Peterson requested discussion on Garbage. Under ITEM X.A2 Pidcock requested to discuss a Resolution for an Ordinance to bury future utility lines . Under ITEM X.A3 Harris requested to cake an announcement. Motion carried unanimously. r t , i. r City Council Minutes 2 may 17, 1988 II . MINUTES A. Special City Qoungil Meeting hieldThuXgdAy. April 28. 88 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Thursday, April 28, 1988 as submitted. Pidcock questioned the status of the minutes . City Manager Jullie answered that due to staff changes, the minutes are behind a couple of meetings, but will be available soon. Motion carried unanimously. Ill . CQUENT CALENDAR A. Clerk to License List B. Ilse of Forfeiture Funds C. Xomtth Scholarship Program D. AQVr9vAl of 1-424 joint Poyern authorization for Mayor and City Mana98r to exggUte on behalf of the QIty S. Study. I .C. ,52-144 (Resolution No. 88-82) F. ,t Fire Statl.Qn No. 4 G. (Resolution No. 89-44) z H. FAITH CHURCH OF THE NAI&RIlME. Adoption of Resolution 888- 78, Denying 2nd Reading of Ordinance 823-87, Rezoning from Rural to Public of 5. 87 acres and Denial of Platting of 5. 87 acres lento one lot for construction of a church. Location: South of County Road #1, east of Blossom; Road . (Revolution 888-78, Dental of Project) y I . ALPINE ESTAXES 2WQ ,aQ ITI CW by Red Rock Heights Partnership. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 86-88, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Alpine Estates 2nd Addition; and ADoption of Resolution 888-790 Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 86-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 8. 4 acres into 14 single tautly lots and road right-of-vay. Location.:- just of Alpine Trail., South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St . Paul i Pacific Railroad. City Council Minutes 3 May 17, 1988 (Ordinance N6-88, Rezoning; Resolution #80-79, Authorizing Summary and Publication) t J . SEA8,6 GARDEN STORE by Sears, Roebuck and Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 818-88-PUD-4-88, Rezoning within the C-Regional District and within the Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development District on 87 .75 acres; Approval of Developer 's Agreement for Sears Garden Store; and Adoption of Resolution #88-80, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance M18-88-PUD-4-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 87 . 75 acres with variances for exterior building material, for the construction of a 1,000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center . Location: Eden Prairie Center/Sears. (Ordinance /18-88-PUD-4-88, Rezoning and PUD Amendment; Resolution 888-80, Authorizing Summary and Publication) K. Reaueat for Grading Permit fgr, Charles Webber . 17249 valley Road L. Q9n*trugtiQn Change hu&horizallon M. fftgueot f rQm &Ion&- Schooner Daya N. Request for Grading permit.,by tjnQOT jo construct an MI'C Park a Ride at the Soj1thNezt Corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Shady OAk goad Y O. to expand the parking lot at the bus garage lgcated at Scenic Heights Road east 4f Eden prairie Road R. Rental Fees for Outd22K Ceo&er tQTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve items A-R on the Consent Calendar. Harris requested clarification on .Item ; how was the derivation of the percentages of participation for individual cities under the Joint Powers Organization. determined? Peterson replied that the basis was anticipated traffic volumes produced by each of the cities by the year 2010 . Bentley stated that he would vote N0 to Item D relative to the fact that it includes expenditure of funds . Pidcock asked if City Attorney Pauly had reviewed the NSP materials for Item F and if Pauly was in agreement, as it van drawn up by NSP 's attorneys. Pauly stated that he reviewed a document last winter and assumed this was the same one. City Manager Jullie commented that Assistant City Attorney, Ric Rosow had reviewed the agreement.. City Council Minutes A May 17, 1988 Peterson questioned Item i in regard to the times for truck hauling. Dietz replied that the project would not be: completed while children are in school . The project would take place during the summer months. Bentley asked Enger about memo stating that the Developer was not in favor of this proposed restriction . Enger replied that the form in the information packet still contains the restrictions for not hauling while children are in school . The Developer believed the hours to be ■ore restrictive than oziginally anticipated . The Developer had requested the restrictions be removed. if the Council would like hourly restrictions in the development agreement, restrictions could be added . As the agreement was signed now, it did not contain restrictions . Bentley requested to hear from the Developer . The Developer stated that the project was weeks away from starting and school would be out. Developer 's main concern was the speed of trucks. Peterson questioned how long the project would take. Developer replied approximately two months. Peterson commented that the speed limit was at 20 MPH. Developer stated favoring the speed limit. Enger stated the 20 MPH speed limit was currently part of the agreement; however the time limit was not part of the agreement at this time. a Peterson questioned if Council should consider what hourly restrictions would pertain if the project continues until the fall . Dietz replied that the hourly restrictions could be a condition of the grading permit. Anderson questioned if the speed limit could be lower than 20 MPH. Anderson suggested 15 MPH, but questioned if it could be enforced . Dietz replied that the speed limit could be part of the grading permit; however the road could not. be posted and enforced with a 15 MPH speed limit. If the speed limit were part of the grading permit, the permit could be revoked if compliance was not met. Bentley believed the speed limit could best be enforced through the grading permit. Bentley stated that Item 0 had not yet been considered by A the Southwest Metro Transit Commission in terms of compatibility with the total system and possible federal funding conditions . Bentley asked Jullie why this had come up again. Jullie replied that per his conversation with No . Miller, the Commission 's plan had not City Council Minutes 5 May 17, 1988 incorporated this Park a Ride site . The focus was being placed more on the Wallace Road and Highway 5 area . MOTIONS Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to continue Item N to the next Council meeting. !lotion carried unanimously. Regarding Item O, Pidcock stated concern about grading that had already taken place at the School Bus Garage, about flattening the area and tree loss . Dietz commented that the spruce trees could be transplanted . Pidcock stated that there will be tree loss and questioned if another alternative was possible . Dietz answered that the School District could put in an extensive retaining wall systea. The District was reluctant to spend a lot of money on something that may not be permanent, because of the Highway 212 alignment. Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer 6 Associates stated that the oaks would not be removed; only the spruce would be and they would be transplanted. Pidcock stated that the City would not allow a private developer to do this, and questioned why the Council would allow a public body to do this. Bentley commented that a tree replacement formula had not been submitted that would be consistent with City guidelines. Schoenbauer stated willingness to work with Staff if additional screening to requested. A fiber blanket would be utilized to stabilize the slopes to prevent erosion. Anderson questioned if a tree inventory had been done . Lambert confirmed that a tree inventory had not been done. Anderson stated that the City requires a tree inventory of any development, along with a tree replacement plan based on City policy. Jullie reported that he had talked with Dr. McCoy and that he had agreed that the District would adhere to City requirements for tree replacement. Pidcock questioned the reasoning beh ad the severe alteration of the hill . Jullie replied that the District needed a large amount of soil for soil correction work at the new middle school. Pidcock stated that the City had a record for not allowing hills to be altered or removed without City approval and requested sore information regarding the District's plans before going ahead with this project . Pidcock was also concerned about drainage problems. •Bemtley suggested a continuance until the next aeeting to ( allow the District to provide a tree inventory, submit City Council Minutes 6 May 17, 1988 plan for the tree replacement, along with a review of the drainage situation. Schoenbauer commented that he had met with the Watershed District and it did not have concerns relative to drainage . Schoenbauer was concerned about continuing this item because with the high banks, there was a potential hazard if a significant rainfall occurred . . Bentley was concerned that existing grading had been done without adequate permits . Dietz replied that the issue tonight was for the issuance of a grading permit . Bentley stated that extensive borrow had taken place and the permit was being applied for after-the-fact. Peterson asked if the Council would approve this item subject to Staff review and approval . Pidcock and Bentley were not in favor of this. Harris said she was struggling with the fact that the same rules should apply to public bodies as private ones; however,given the current status of the site she would support allowing the Staff to review and approve the permit. Schoenbauer said that he was willing to work with staff, would do a tree inventory, but would like to move forward tonight to eliminate the problem. Anderson questioned what stance the City would take if this were not the School District. Jullie replied that because of the potential hazard the City needed to move quickly. The school administration had apologized . The District was now aware of the City requirements and this would not happen again. Pidcock questioned how the District did not know the requirements and where were the City inspectors . Jullie replied that the inspectors had noticed the grading and asked the District to get a permit and plan put together. It took longer than it should have. Bentley stated that there never should have been allowed such a dangerous situation to occur. The Council could continue this matter and at the sane time request to see Immediate correction of the area and erosion control taking place . Public bodies are under the same requirements as private bodies relative to grading and tree replacement. The proper documents had not been properly submitted to the City. Bentley stated that he would agree to continue, but not to approve the plan tonight. Peterson asked. Pauly if the City had authority over the School District on this matter . Pauly replied that 3. b City Council Minutes 7 May 17, 1988 Bentley vas correct. The School District was required to follov the same rules. Harris questioned the benefit to delay item beyond the tree replacement . Anderson asked where the Council drew the line . Harris commented that the City should have one standard for both public and private bodies, but what the Council had to deal with now was issuing a grading permit in the midst of an almost-completed project. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to amend the previous motion and Continue Item O to the next regular Council Meeting. Peterson stated that he would vote against the motion. Peterson believed that the School District representatives had demonstrated good faith at this point and believed that the Staff was competent to make sure that the District conformed with the City policies . Anderson asked if the Council would like to decide if the project should have a graded bank or retaining walls . Anderson believed that if this item were to be passed the Council would be saying go ahead do what the District wished . Peterson replied that he had stated upon Staff review and approval . Anderson stated that -at this point the Council had not given Staff any direction. Peterson stated that he did not wish to see the School District to spend money on something that may not be permanent because of the highway. a Anderson stated that he could vote against the motion to continue if the Council could be guaranteed that no oak trees would be lost. Schoenbauer replied that no oaks would be taken out and the spruce will be transplanted. Snow fence could be placed around the oaks to further protect them. Dietz believed that the plan could proceed as proposed with the guarantee of the oaks being preserved and also proposed a 2-1 slope and use a grass cover. Bentley stated that the point was if this were a private developer it would be treated differently and a degree of consistency needs to be establLaherd. Harris believed that there was sufficient cause to issue 3 the permit given certain guarantees . Motion failed with a 2-3 vote, with Bentley and Pidcock voting in favor . City Council Minutes 8 May 17, 1986 MOTION• ( Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Item O with the following conditions : 1) Consider reducing the slope to a 2-2. 2 ) All trees removed from the site be relocated within the site . 3) No impact on oaks. Motion carried 4- 1 with Bentley voting "No". Anderson stated that he had to make a decision tonight that he did not like, believed that the School District put the Council on the spot, and hoped it would not happen again. Motion carried to approve the Consent Calendar with Bentley voting "No" to Items O and D. IV. I!L!BLIC HEARINGS A. PETITIOpf EOR SIDEWALK ALONGSOUTH SIDE OF BQXD. AVENUE (Resolution No. 88-75) Continued from May 3, 1988 Jullie stated that this is not an official Public Hearing. The property owners were notified that the Council would be discussing the request for a feasibility study. Steve Schatz, 7001 Boyd Avenue, stated opposition. Two gentlemen petitioned for the sidewalk originally, a majority of the residents on Boyd Avenue did not want the sidewalk and believed the issue would be dropped . Schatz stated concern about traffic speed and children playing in the streets, but was not sure a sidewalk was the answer . Schatz commented that Mr . Dietz had come to a neighborhood meeting and suggested alternatives. A curve sign was put up and the speed limit reduced to 20 ,MPH. Schatac felt there would be more of a hazard going from level sidewalk to sloped driveways . Schatz stated that some properties would need retaining walls because of sloping. Schatz concerned about assessment being split evenly. Judy Kvilhaug, 7109 Boyd Avenue, stated opposition. Safety was an issue, but she did not feel the neighborhood had done its homework to find other remedies other than a sidewalk. She felt there wan not a legitimate concern at this time. The speed on the street is not in excess of 30 MPH. She felt the neighborhood was wasting the Council 'a time. Bob Woxland, 7081 Boyd Avenue, favored the sidewalk. He stated that the street has 39 children presently, 24 of which were on the south side of the street. There is a bus stop, but no gray to get to it excopt by the street. The children were riding their bikes in the middle of the street. The safety of the children was his main concern. City Council Minutes 9 May 17, 1988 Marc Cabot, 7033 Boyd Avenue, stated opposition . Cabot felt that the back yards were wide open and were a safe place for children to play. Pat Schatz, 7001 Boyd Avenue, stated that the bike path did not go to the school, and the foot path in the park was not shoveled in the winter . This was why the children took the bus to school . Janice Cox, 7065 Boyd Avenue, favored the sidewalk . She felt that a sidewalk would be a better alternative for biking, walking and skateboarding than the street . She said that never will the neighborhood be in 100% agreement . . Cox believed that if only one child was protected the sidewalk would have paid for Itself. Dan Donovan, 7093 Boyd Avenue, favors the sidewalk. He stated that a sidewalk would provide an alternative to the children playing in the street. He felt the sidewalk would not totally solve the problem, but the children would be safer. Pat Frandle, 7057 Boyd Avenue, stated opposition. She felt that the slanting driveways and flat sidewalk were more of a hazard than the street. She stated that the children can be seen for quite a distance, but felt that the speed of the traffic should be addressed. Frandle commented that there are very few sidewalks throughout Eden Prairie . Norm Cox, 7065 Boyd Avenue, favored the sidewalk . Cox stated that he was the one who initiated the proposal for a sidewalk. He said that at first they did not realize the costs involved. Cox recommended a feasibility and cost study. Joy Case, 7025 Boyd Avenue, stated opposition. She questioned who was liable if someone fell on the sidewalk because it was not shoveled . City Attorney Pauly replied that the sidewalk would be in the boulevard and ultimately the responsibility would be the City's, but if someone left, for example a skateboard, on the sidewalk and someone was injured the person vho left the skateboard would be liable. Pauly further commented that unless an ordinance vas passed requiring residents to shovel the sidewalk the City would be liable. Harris believed that a need for more neighborhood support would have to be present before moving toward a feasibility study. Anderson stated disappointed in the development of trails In this area . Umloseen estimated a savings of approximately $30,000 if the children could walk to t City Council Minutes 10 May 17, 1988 school . Peterson asked how the trail related to this sidewalk . Anderson replied that the trails have never been extended. Boyd Avenue is a main transportation route to the park and the school . Harris understood that trails were not being proposed to connect even if the sidewalk were constructed . Dietz replied that trails were not being proposed now. WQTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley that the City not undertake a feasibility study at this time. Bentley commented that the City and the Council did care about children and about safety. Bentley believed that the City and the majority of the residents were not ready for the costs necessary to put sidewalks throughout the City. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote with Anderson voting "No" . B. 6TARRI NG LAKE 2ND ARQ1 10" by Red Rock Heights Partnership. Request for Preliminary Platting of 8 . 3 acres into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 District . Location : North of County Road it between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake 1st. Addition. (Resolution 088-67, Preliminary Plat ) Coattnued from { May3, 1988 5 r Jullie stated that this Item was continued from the May 3, 1988 meeting. Mr . Gilk made a presentation of project, stating the main concerns of the Planning Commission to be the storm drainage, if lot M 5 was on the cul-de-sac, and the frontage on lot N 13 along County Road • 1 . Gilk said that the cul-de-sac could be modified if necessary for lot 8 5 and was proposing a 20' easement for a driveway for lot N 13 . Gilk stated that after looking at several options to correct the storm drainage problems, he was now proposing to pay for a storm never pipe system to be. installed. Dietz stated that the primary issue that was out of the developer 's control was the storm sewer situation. Dietz said that what was being proposed was a drain field system similar to what was in a farm field. The pipe would be a straight pipe going through the backyards and r could be permanent . The solution as proposed by the developer would work and the developer would bear the. cost . The alternative would be an expensive assessment process with costs in excess of $150, 000. City Council Minutes 11 May 17, 1988 Peterson questioned if the proponent had permission from the affected property owners. Gilk replied no. Pat Hartell, 9140 Staring Lane West, questioned where drainage would be outletted to, how much land would be disrupted, and if the pipe was necessary with Mason Homes coming into the area soon providing sewer and watermains . Hartell stated major concerns to be increased erosion problems and the disruption to the current neighborhood. Kathy Schwank, 9090 Staring Lane Nest, stated that the proposed pipe would go right through her property. The property already had drainage from the roadway. She was concerned that now the water from the development would drain into her land and overburden the property. She hoped the Council would deny this project until sever and water can be provided . Peterson asked Gilk to address the questions presented by the affected property ownerao Gilk replied that the proposed pipe would go into the Mason property. The pipe would only be for emergency situations, not every time it rained. Peterson stated concern about the effect on Mason property. Gilk answered that the piping was designed to connect to the sewer when the Mason property was developed Peterson questioned the timing on water and sewer from the northwest . Dietz replied the sewer and water would probably come from the north and be served by Mitchell Road sewer, but it would be difficult to determine the exact location because future lot lines are not known. Bentley asked Gilk where the ponding would take place when the tile system was utilized. Gilk replied the water would flow north. The intent was not to dump the problem onto another property. Gilk stated that there would be a month of inconvenience, at the most, to current property owners. Pldcock commented that unless the proponent could get an agreement from the property owners involved, it was premature to be dealing with the proposal . The Council could not give the developer permission to cross private property. Gilk •eplied that the piping solution was being proposed as a condition of approval . Gilk com ranted that If this solution could not gain approval then he would have to come back to the Council and ask for a public improvement project and have the City put the storm sewer In. City Council Minutes 12 May 17, 1988 Bentley asked Pauly where the City stood regarding potential approval on a preliminary plat with conditions that would be subject to the final plat . Pauly replied that the State statue permits imposition of conditions on a preliminary plat . Frequently rezoning proposals are heard in tandem with preliminary platting. The Developer 's Agreements reflect platting as well as rezoning . Conditions need to be ones that the City has the authority to impose . Pauly believed that arranging for storm sewer drainage would fall in the City's range of authority. Bentley asked it this meant subject to the proponent reaching acceptable arrangement for the construction of the storm water run off to the north. Pauly replied that the conditions need to be spelled out In the record and the Developer 's Agreement. Dietz commented that the Council needed to consider the two alternatives : 1) Proponent pays for entire system; or 2) Special assessment for the project . Anderson believed that the project was premature . There were too many problems: water and sewer not in, storm water drainage, one lot not approved . Anderson commented that two to three years down the line changes were going to occur in this area . The water and sewer would be in, the Mason project would be on line, and many of the problems would be solved. Peterson asked Dietz when a projection for the water and sewer would be available . Dietz replied that what was currently proposed was that the water would come in with the Mitchell Road project . The sanitary sewer would not . be proposed until possibly Kest Staring Lane had petitioned for sewer . Dietz said that sewer would be available through the Mason Property, but the problem would be how to get it through the developed and undeveloped property to the north. Anderson questioned how far the Mason trunk line would be from this project. Dietz replied that the connection would have to come from the north, but did not know the distance. Gilk stated that originally an enlargement of the pond was proposed to handle additional run off . Oilk also commented that the project would need City water . Peterson questioned if Staff were in favor of ponding. Dietz replied that the City policy had always been to make certain an outlet was provided for all ponding basins. The pipe would probably not be used often. Dietz recommended against a landlocked pond. No further comments from the audience. City Council Minutes 13 May 17, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution 88- 67, Preliminary Plat, contingent on satisfactory resolution by the proponent of storm water system access across properties to the north . Motion carried unanimously. C. = �QGY PARK PHASE IV by Technology Park Associates . Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 41 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning. District Chang* fman Rural to 1-2 on 13 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by- the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 41 acres into i lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162,860 square feet of industrial use in two buildings . Location: hest of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek, east of Smetana Lane . (Resolution #88-73, PUD Concept; Ordinance 819-88-PUD-3- 84e Zoning District Change to I-2-PUD-3-88; Resolution 088-74, Preliminary Plat ) Continued from May 3, 1986 aye e t i ng. Jullie stated that this item was continued from the May 3, 1988 meeting and that Staff has had several meeting with the proponents. A revised site plan was received late this afternoon. '1. Mike Gair, representing Hoyt Development, presented what had transpired in the last two weeks. Hoyt has a signed E agreement with Mr . a Mrs. Ed Smetana with regard to access to their property and the permanent paving of the driveway to their property with snow removal and maintenance . Brad Hoyt and Gary Lally had set with Staff to discuss access from Golden Triangle Drive. Gair addressed concern of access to the Cherne property. An access easement was being proposed to the Cherne property and the construction of a 32-foot-wide roadway allowing access over a forty-foot-vide easement over the Hoyt property to the western portion of the Cherne property. At this time an agreement between Hoyt and Cherne had failed to move forward. Brad Hoyt commented that now the project is such closer to existing grade . Hoyt had condensed the project, while at the same time maintaining the driveway spaces to coda and have not foreclosed the future extension of 76th Street. Hoyt would dedicate a 40' easement to the City. Bill Cherne believed that the proposed road alignment would bisect the Cherne property and preclude development of a corporate headquarters project. Cherne favored the t west 76th Street option. Cherne stated that he had tried City Council Minutes 19 May 17, 1988 without success to obtain an easement from Royt 's to the northeast section of his property. Cherne believed the access being proposed was a 32-foot truck alley and was concerned about the traffic if a corporate headquarters would be developed. Cherne was concerned about the 8601 elevation being proposed . Cherne also commented that if the proposal goes through as is, he will not have the desire to work w.&th Frank Smetana . Bentley stated that it would not be determined by Hoyt if 76th Street goes through or not, that it would be a City decision. Frank Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane, stated objection to the proposal- based on the same reasons stated at the last Council Meeting. Frank Smetana believed the value of his property would go down when the Hoyt development was constructed . Frank Smetana stated f4v"Inq the connection of Smetana Lane with Golden Triangle Boulevard. Frank Smetana did not believe that the issue of transition had been addressed . Frank Smetana believed that the grade issue which was part of the 1985 PUD was final. Jullie questioned if the best solution would be to refer the matter back to Staff and the proponents to make another effort to work this out . Jullie believed that the 16th. Street access needed more attention as to how it could go through and how it would be paid for . Peterson stated that the resolutions have not cone forward and that it was hard to believe that the three parties could not come to an agreement without getting the Council involved. a Harris stated agreement with Peterson and suggested referring this proposal back to Staff. 4 Bentley stated that this item should be dealt with now, not referred back to Staff . The screening issue had been dealt with. The issue at the Planning Commission was that a road access was not being made available. The access was being proposed through the middle of the property. A restructured plan had been submitted allowing for the potential development of West 76th Street to be constructed. Pidcock asked Enger for his comments . Have the concerns of Staff been addressed adequately? finger outlined two situations: City Staff recommended that there be some fora of public circulation by having an additional outlet from Hoyt development to Valley View Road to provide for flexibility i'n the distribution of traffic to intersections . A public outlet would not be needed to two { adjoining properties and a private drive would be R City Council Minutes 15 May 17, 1988 acceptable . At this time an agreement on the private solution had not come about . Enger stated that the City could impose site planning considerations on the Cherne property when it was developed . Hoyt would provide its half now and when the Cherne property was developed the City would have to resolve this with Cherne at that time . This solution being to defer a decision. Enger stated that the other scenario was that the Hoyt- proposed solution did not accomplish what the Council wanted and did not substitute for a public road circulation . Enger stated that none of the alternatives presented thus far have made all parties happy. Enger believed that if every party would give a little, the problem could be resolved. Pidoock questioned if access for emergency vehicles was being provided as requested . Enger replied yea; however, this was not the only consideration. Enger believed that Cherne had now seen a benefit to his property with the secondary access not just for emergency vehicles. The Staff had recommended the access originally for the Hoyt development to have another way out, but if Cherne did not coptinue -t,he private road on through then the cross- circulation issue would not be resolved . Enger stated that the two proposals that have the most validity are the proposal that Hoyt had made tonight, with the advantages being that it complements the Hoyt development, it provides Ed and Marcella Smetana with access to the east, which is what they desire, allows for Cherne and Frank Smetana to try and work something out with Frank Smetana's property, allows for Cherne and Hoyt to work together for development of the northern portion of their properties. The disadvantages to this proposal made Cherne decide now if the central access point would work for his and at this time he had stated that he was not comfortable with this proposal. Bentley commented that Snger had presented a lose-lose scenario for the Hoyt property. Bentley believed that what was being- said was that Hoyt can not develop until Cherne decides what he wants to do with his property. Enger stated that the Council had alternatives. This was a difficult problem and it has not been resolved. Anderson stated that Cherne van correct that if the hill vent down, the City would be looking at an industrial area. Anderson 's main concern was to maintain some of the natural characteristics of the land, which Cherne believed he could do with a corporate headquarters site. Anderson would like to see more work on this proposal. ,� 1 r City Council Minutes 16 May 17, 1988 Peterson believed that deferring this matter would leave Frank Smetana uncertain of his outcome. Bentleystated that the proposal conformed with the original PUD and allowed for an access to the-- middle or to the north of the property, and screening had been provided. The construction of these buildings was granted in the original PUD. Harris was concerned with public access issue and traffic flow. Brad Hoyt replied that a 32-foot access was the equivalent of a full-width City street. Hoyt believed that any alignment would level the hill. Peterson asked Hoyt if 76th Street eras going to be the through street, would the development of the northern property be as shown on the current plan. Hoyt replied yes . Hoyt stated that he could not solve all the problem3 . Hoyt had a timing problem, as leases had been signed and he had contract payments to make . Hoyt had gone to significant expense and effort to solve the problems. Peterson requested Snger to confirm that an approval of this proposal would not preclude either 76th or 7 4th Street. Lnger replied an approval would not preclude 76th Street. 74th Street would not be involved. �_ �TIu1L i Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-73 for PUD Concept Review. !lotion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No" . S MOT I ON: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve l:st heading of Ordinance No. 19-88-PUD-3-88 for Zoning District change to 1-2-PUD-3-88. Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting nl'IOn. NOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-74 for Preliminary Plat which would include an easement a s City Council Minutes 17 May 17, 1988 over the area agreed to per plan dated May 17, 1988. Pauly asked for clarification if this was to be a private of public easement . Jullie replied that it was intended to be a private easement to be vacated only with City permission and would be maintained privately. The night- of-way did not meet City standards, but would provide the access the City was looking for . The road would not be a publicly maintained . Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No". MQTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations that also would indicate an agreement to build a private road easement as previously indicated in the Preliminary Plat motion and the proponent sign a statement that they would not oppose the construction of Nest 76th Street at some time in the future as part of the Developer 's Agreement. Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No" . D. 6THENT AND UTILeITX IMPROVEMENTS 6QUTH 1/2 QF OECIZON 14, TOY_tISHIP 116, RANDS 22- I .C. 52- 13Z (Resolution No. 88-83) Jullie stated that official notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 4 and May 11, 1988 in the Eiden Prairie News. Copies of the notice together with the Feasibility Report were wailed to all property owners listed on the preliminary assessment zoll . Dietz presented the project, stating the purpose tonight being to discuss the feasibility to construct Franlo Road as it exists today and extending it from Grier Lane to Prairie Center Drive. The catalyst for this project wan the development of the Lund Center. Dietz also presented the possibility of extending Medcom Boulevard as part of this project. Dietz explained that to accomplish this 400 feet of the road would have to be removed due to the grade and two homes would have to be removed or relocated to accoanodate this alignment. Dietz stated that as per the Staff Report, this was not the proper time to extend 20deen MHwlevard. Dietz reported that there were no utilities on Franlo Road and sanitary sewer and water are being proposed. Dietz stated that the estimated costs to be $3500000 with approximately $18,000 being the City cost to install the median at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive . The City Council Minutes 18 May 17, 1988 _ City code requires a four-lane roadway for commercial standards, while the residential standard requires a 32- foot-wide street. A dual assessment rate had been identified: $78 . 33 per front foot for residential and $101. 28 per front foot for commercial . Dietz reported that if the project would be approved tonight it would be possible to achieve substantial completion before winter . Dietz presented a letter from Lee Johnson in which he expressed five points of concerw, primarily having- to do with allocation of costs for the improvements . . Bentley asked Dietz what the width of the road would be. Dietz replied two-lanes 32-feet wide, videning to four lanes at the approach to Prairie Center Drive . Ron Rishavy, 6705 Cornelia Drive, Edina, who owned the corner lot on Franlo Road . Rishavy believed that the timing- did not accoumodate the residents, but did accommodate Lunds . Rishavy believed that the project should wait until the larger areas were developed rather than burden the seven or eight land owners currently owning property. Rishavy believed that few people would benefit from the sidewalk . Rishavy questioned what data would substantiate the necessity to straighten the road at the corner being proposed, and believed that this would only increase the speed of traffic on the road. Rishavy contends that this is a corner, not a curve in the road as stated in the study. Charles Blesener, 8561 Franlo Road, stated that agreement with Mr . Rishavy in that this would be a burden to landowners and that the project was premature. Slesener believed that if Lunds had not been developed at this location this would not be proposed and that the residents should not be burden with the experk" for the commerclel landowners ' benefit. Ken Nygaard, $575 Franlo Road, stated that the property owners have already had three assessments; for storm sever and holding pond, for Prairie Center Drive and then for the extension of Prairie Center Drive . Now the City was proposing another assessment and believed this unfair. Nygaard believed that accidents vlll- inerease with this alignment of the road. Anton Mesterhaus, 8470 Franlo Road, asked Dietz if the City was building the sewer to the grade for Medcom Boulevard in the future . Dietz replied that this would allow for a connection at sometime in the future. Mesterhaus concerned because his house was one that would have to be removed and doesn' t want to wait several years City Council Minutes 19 - May 17, 1988 to find out if his house would be removed . He believed that some type of compensation to the homeowner should be ( made . Bentley stated that this was not an assessment hearing and that if this project were ordered, the Council could direct Staff at the assessment hearing that the deferment opportunity be made available for homestead properties . In so doing the financial impact would not occur until the property owner connected for the utilities. Lee Johnson, stated having mixed feeling about the road . Johnson agreed that Franlo Road did need improvement, but did not believe the assessment as proposed was equitable . Charles Pufahl, 8560 Franlo Road, stated that when the storm drainage was put in for the shopping center the Council at that time had promised that when the sewer and water would be put in the the City would absorb the brunt of the costs . Pufahl did not believe that the other property owners had needed the storm drainage system, but were paying taxes on it for the shopping center 's benefit. Pufahl also stated concern about the speed of traffic on the road. Bill Horn, 11875 Boulder Bay Road, stated that he believed the process was mainly for Lunds and stated objection to the way the assessment was proposed. Horn believed that the sidewalk was not necessary. Bentley stated that Franlo Road needed to be improved } whether Lunds was there or not, and believed that utilities should have been provided before this time and that waiting would only increase the costa . Bentley commented that the City orders in projects that are in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare needs of the residents and if the City deemed necessary the project would go ahead and the properties assessed accordingly. Dietz explained to the residents the alternatives available to them at the assessment hearing. No further comments from the audience. HOT I UN: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 88-83 ordering Street and Utility Improvements to Franlo Road, I .C. 52-132 . Motion carried unanimously. f a City Council Minutes 20 May 17, 1988 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct staff to consider recommendations at the assessment hearing which would provide deferment opportunities for all the homesteaded properties . Motion carried unanimously. E. BLLOSSQM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by G. William Pearson. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 6 . 32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6 . 32 acres into 14 single family lots and road right-of-vay. Location: South of Blossom Road, east of Windsor Terrace. (Ordinance 020-88, Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13. 5; Resolution 088-85, Preliminary Plat)- Jullie reporte3 that notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 4 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 43 property owners . The proponent stated that all ordinance requirements had been met. Peterson asked Enger if this development affects in any way the concerns of Pastor Ronning of Prairie Lutheran Church regarding access to the south. - anger replied that access to the south was being provided. Bentley questioned how would a storm drainage system be paid for . Proponent replied that they would provide the storm drainage. Bentley questioned the development of the storm sewer to be provided in the future for properties to the east and who would pay for this in the future. Dietz replied that the pipe size would be nominal and of no significant expense, but would be continued on by the developers of the properties to the east. Bentley then questioned if there was a pipe from this development to the basin. Dietz replied no, that it has, an outlet at the property line. Bentley questioned if a pipe would be necessary and if it would be part of a road system. Dietz replied a pipe would be necessary and would possibly be part of an adjoining project. twION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve lot Reading of Ordinance No. 20-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. NOT IQN: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution No. 88-85 for Preliminary Plat Approval . Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 21 May 170 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously. F. ANC BEDDOR PR ERTY by Fortier a Associates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to Industrial on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from I-Gen to I-5 on 18.7 acres, and from R1-22 to 1-5 on 19 . 3 acres for construction of a 250,000 square foot industrial building . Location: Northeast corner of Highway 5 and west 184th Street. Enger stated that the developer had requested a continuance for 60 days. Bentley asked if the proponent came back with a completely different project, would the proponent have to wait if there was a denial by the Council . Pauly replied that they would not have to wait, but if there was a significant difference it would have to go through the Planning Commission. • MOT I QN : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public f Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial ( with Findings to be reviewed and considered at the June 7 Council meeting . Notion carried unanimously. G. Kl_NJ�tfA - MOB ! D�TION by Burl Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13. 5 on 7 .96 acres, Preliminary Platt of 30. 03 acres into 14 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: South of Townline Road, east of Dell Road, west of Purgatory Creek . (Ordinance #21-88, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; Resolution #88-86, Preliminary Plat. ) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 4 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 40 property owners. Mr . Patton representing the proponent presented the project. Patton stated that a meeting had taken place with the DNR and US Army Corps of Engineers to address their concerns. A 40-foot pad would be placed on the eastern portion of the property to minimize the encroachment to the wetland area and the DNR had agreed to this solution. The US Army Corps of Engineers was concerned about the western portion of the property and a plan for a 40-foot pad had also been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers . Patton also stated that the tree replacement plan was to plant a tree with a 3" trunk City Council Minutes 22 May 17, 1988 diameter for each lot, along with additional berming and landscaping. Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at the April 25, 1988 meeting and was recommended for approval subject to the Staff Report of April 22, 1988 . Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed this item at the May 2, 1988 meetinq and recommended approval with a 6-0 vote . There were no trail requirements . Dietz stated that it was his understanding that the City had been petitioned for watermain improvements. Dietz asked Patton if arrangements had been made to get watermain through the property and if this had been discussed with adjacent property owners . Dietz stated that the watermain for this project would be contingent on a special assessment agreement with possibly an unwilling property owner to the west. Bentley questioned this being contingent on a special assessment agreement. Dietz replied that it should be a feasibility study and appropriate hearing . Bentley questioned if this was being recommended as a condition of the 2nd Reading. Dietz replied yes. Rose Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Blvd. , Chanhassen, stated that there presently was a lasga- amount of water run off from Hidden Glen. Mingo stated that according to grading plans the proponent intends to fill in 71 on the western portion and Mingo believed this would create another water problem for her property. Patton replied that based on the conversation with the DNR this area would be unbuildable. t Cal Zachman, 18799 Harrogate Drive, stated that he had submitted a petition onk behalf of the homeovners stating that they believed that further development by Burl Corporation in the area of wynda■ Knoll Park on Dell Road should be tabled for a period of two weeks or whatever was necessary for the City Staff and homeowners to re-evaluate the Developer 's commitment to fulfill the past promises for providing a park for the neighborhood. Zachman suggested a meeting be set for Staff, homeowners and the developer to determine a timetable for the parks completion. Zachman further commented that the children were using the streets as their playground and the homeowners were ready to take whatever action necessary to see that the promise .for the playground was fulfilled Lambert reported that negotiations with the developer had been taking place regarding the grading of the park and a Y City Council Minutes 23 May 17, 1988 letter was sent out today stating that the City would accept the park in its present condition and consider the grading complete . A meeting had been scheduled for the next Monday to meet with the neighbors to discuss the plans for a totlot structure . The park would be seeded next week , with the possibility of the nocessity to reseed again in August. Lambert further stated that the park would be usable; however, backstops would not be put up at this tine to discourage play on the ballfields . A rock base would be provided at this time for the parking lot and next year an asphalt parking lot and tennis courts would be installed . Patton stated that they had only taken on the obligation of the park approximately a little over a year ago . Other developers had promised the park and had failed . Patton believed that they had worked in good faith with the City. Pidcock asked Mrs . Mingo if she was concerned about the water and drainage . lingo replied that she still believed this would add further water problems to her property. Patton replied that the low spot and drain swale was developed and would drain into a pond . Bentley was concerned about this project being premature. This project would require sever and water to be ti Installed . There was not a commitment to install sewer and water . Bentley stated that he was not in favor of this project proceeding at this time, but would accept a continuance if the proponent could get a guarantee from the adjacent property owner. Bentley further stated that he did not favor granting a 1ot Rea&ing contingent upon utilities being accepted. Patton replied that the development had sewer. k Anderson asked Patton how long it would take to resolve t the water issue. Patton questioned what van wrong with the feasibility study. Peterson replied the request was for a last Reading, but the project could not go until the feasibility study was complete. The other possibility would be to continue this item until the feasibility study was done. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve lot Reading of ordinance Na. 21-88 for Rezoning. Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to amend the notion as e follows : Contingent upon all appropriate permits required by the DNR, Watershed District, and U8 prey Corps of Engineers . 2nd Reading shall not be held until such �` permits and or plans have been received and reviewed by City Council Minutes 24 May 17, 1488 the City staff . If permits are not received and if changes to the plan are required the proponent shall return to the Planning Commission and the City Council for additional review. Zoning also would be contingent upon a satisfactory completion of the feasibility study for utility installation to the site . Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . 88-86 for Preliminary Plat Approval . Motion carried unanimously. MOXI O.N Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission a@td Staff recommendations and all amendments . Anderson asked Lambert if any scenic easements were required . Lambert replied that on Outlot A there was a portion dedicated to the City, which then would not require an easement. If the proponent would not dedicate this portion then an easement would be required. k Peterson requested that Lambert continue communications with Mr . Zachman regarding the park . z Motion carried unanimously. V. PAXN NT OF gLeh l t MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of Claims No. 42268 to No. 42581 . Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voting "Aye" . VI . ORRINA110ES 4 RKSOLUTIONS A. Draft Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles Jullie reported the outline of the draft as allowing two recreational vehicles to be stored, that those over 7 ' in height could not be closer than 100 from any lot line and that they may be parked only in the driveway in the front yard not closer than 15 ' fron the street . If the vehicle were under 71 it could be starred anywhere on the lot but not closer than 15' from the street . Jullie believed this draft to be consistent with ordinances from other ( communities and could be enforced reasonably. If the City Council Minutes 25 May 17, 1988 `Y Council would approve this draft then a public hearing would be scheduled . F Mr . Bernadine Moser, 7263 'T'opview, stated that the reason for the petition was the large boat being stored only 7 ' from her property line. The boat was covered with a blue tarp and was being stored from September through April . The boat could be seen for several blocks. Moser believed the height to be approximately 15 to 20 feet. Moser also believed that this decreased the value of her property. Moser said that she would like to see the ordinance regulate length, height, length of time stored, and where it could be stored on the lot. Don Bridge, 7272 Gerard Drive, questioned a provision for temporary parking and the reasoning for the 15 feet from the street. Jullie replied that this was to eliminate problems with sight distance and 15 feet vas what Edina had currently. Bridge believed 5 feet would be adequate. Pidcock was concerned about addressing other types of vehicles, such as extra cars in the backyards, etc. Peterson replied that the vehicles have to be licensed to be stored . Jullie started at the current time there was not a restriction on the number of care stored. Bentley requested to have Staff look at current ordinances to see If th_s type of storage was covered under one that the City currently had . Peterson suggested scheduling a special Council Meeting for Council Member discussion before putting this on the agenda for a public hearing . Bentley commented that he liked the language in the Bloomington ordinance. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to have a discussion on this item at the next Council Meeting and to set a public hearing after this. Notion carried unanimously. B. R230jutLgn No. 88-88 MOT IQN: i Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-88. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 26 May 17, 1988 VII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS ReQuest from Minnesota Festival Sf "ysc" MOT I ON: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the recommendation for "A Minnesota Festival of Music. " Motion carried unanimously. VIII . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS I X. APPO� TMBNTS A. AP2Qintmgnt of Council melt= tQ the aggthwest suburban S',Ab&e T.V. Qommiss iQn Bentley nominated Pidcock for City representative to the Southwest Suburban Cable TV Commission. Harris seconded the nomination. Pidcock accepted . MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to cast a unanimous ballot. Motion carried unanimously. X. .RgeORTS OF OFFICERS, ,BOARDS 8 COMMISSIQIIS 1 . Peterson requested a special meeting be scheduled to discuss recycling and set timetables to proceed. 1_4QT 1014 Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for June 7, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Pidcock requested that an ordinance be drafted to bury all future utility lines. - - - !!4►?�OIL s Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to direct staff to draft an ordinance to bury all future utility lines . Motion carried unanimously. 3. Harris reported that Pidcock had been selected as a member of the Chairman•s Advisory Committee by the Chairman of the Regional Transit Board, Elliott Perovich. Pidcock had been selected out of approximately 50 applicants. i City commil Minutes 27 May 17, 1988 a. Report of City Manager I . Yard waste RacypILng Service Jullie reported that bids had been received . This was not In the budget and it would be at a significant cost . Anderson stated that it was late in the year and he would strongly urge that the Council wait, but work to make earlier provisions for a program in the Fall . Peterson stated that for this type of project publicity would be necessary to have it work effectively. NOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to reject both bids and not offer summer program, but be prepared to offer a yard waste recycling program for the fall . Motion carried unanimously. C. iteport ,Of Qty Attorney No Report. D. U221t 9f Directoz of Planning r No Report. l E. ResouggA 1. Cht,d Corn at the CommunLty QgntaA tIOTI ON: Pidcock ■owed, seconded by Harris to continue child care at the Community Center . Harris complimented the Staff for good programing and quality care. Harris stated that this was a new direction and addressed the creativity in the community. Bentley offered a word of caution, hoping that this was not allowed to get out of control . Anderson requested ongoing reports as to the progress of the program. Lambert replied that a report would be available at the end of each season. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 28 May 17, 1988 F. Report of Director of Public Work�_ L. Equipment Maintenance Staffing Changes Bentley asked Jullie what was the status of the disability plan, not just workmen compensation. Jullie replied that the City had a disability plan that is co-ordinates vith the other benefit programs. Bentley Questioned if the employee had been collecting on this plan and what the waiting period was for short-term disability. Dietz replied that the employee was on the job and now had a 30-pound lifting restriction. HQ'I ON: Bentley Moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 0. geoort of Finance Director ~ No Report. XI . Raw BUSINESS XII . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1 : 18 AM.