City Council - 12/13/1988 APPROVED MINUTES
- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HRA MEETING
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and
Patricia Pidcock
}
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J . Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of t
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources a
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
t
ROLL CALL : All members present .
PRESENTATION BY RILEY PURGATORYY CREEK WTTrkRSHED DI STRI!gT OF FUNDING
FOR THE CHAIN-OF-LAKES PROJECT
i
Howard Peterson, representing the Watershed District, presented Mayor
Peterson with a check for $119, 000 for the Chain-of-Lakes project . t
i
I . APPROVAL-OF APPRQVAL- OF AQENVA AND OTHER ITEMg OF BUSINESS g
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS :
Add Item XI .A. 1, Minnesota River . Add Item XI .C. 1, Settlement
on Community Center Litigation.
Motion carried unanimously.
II . AWARD BID OF $9, 800, 000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT BONDS (Resolution No. 88-296 )
Dave MacGillivray, a representative from Springsted, Inc . ,
presented the bid tabulation for the $9, 800, 000 G.O.
Improvement bonds, recommending the award to Prudential-Bache
Securities, noting that MBIA Insurance was requested by the
J
. ty Council Minutes 2 December 13, 1988
bidder at no cost to Eden Prairie. The net interest rate was
7. 008%.
MOTION ;
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . 88-
296 awarding the G .O . Improvement Bonds to Prudential-Bache
Securities . Motion carried unanimously.
III . MINUTES
f
A. Cltv Council et t 8
M03:1 ON;
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes
of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 6,
1988 as published and amended.
CORRECTIONS
Page 15, paragraph 4 should read : Harris commented that
she viewed the ordinance. _ . .
Page 23, Item X.F. 2, paragraph t, should read : owned on
the west side of Prairie Center Drive . . .
Motion carried unanimously.
B . city Counc 13 eet in4 held Tuesday, Se2teMl2er 20, 1988
MOTION :
Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes
of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 20,
1988 as published and amended .
QQRREQTI ONS :
Page 16, paragraph 2, should read: the final design had
not been determined. . . .
Motion carried unanimously.
C . v 8
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes
of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 1, 1988
as published and amended,
:y Council Minutes 3 December 13, 1986
CORRECTIONS
Page 14, paragraph 2, should read : Anderson stated that
as a coach at Bloomington-Kennedy. . . .
Page 14, paragraph 6, should be removed completely.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. SpeciAl gity Council Mgeting held Tgesday. Ngvember 29 ,
1988
MOTION•
Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes
of the Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, November
29, 1988 as published . Motion carried unanimously.
I V. CQNSENT_ ALLNPM_
A . Clgrk ' s Licensg Llst
B . TAx Forfeited Lands
C . AoorpveBids for 4-wheel Dr,ivvg Tracto lSnowblower
D . 2nd Reading of Or!2in;jn,C Ng , 57-88 , Providing
Hodificattions In Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership
of the Clay'* Cagle Commpniggt ions ranchi g &, Pergi,ti-mg
Continuance of Belief to the TransfeXeg of the Franchise
in Accgr.S2ance with this Ordinance
E . PPRAIRIEVIEST II by Curt Johnson Properties, Inc . 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Regional Service Zoning District on 2 . 17;
Approval of Developer ' s Agreement for Prairieview II ; and
Adoption of Resolution No . 88-251, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 43-88, and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary. 12, 658 square foot retail/office use . Location :
North of Plaza Drive, east of the Prairie View Shopping
Center . (Ordinance No . 43-88, Zoning District Amendment;
Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
F. BOULDER PPOINTE (AKA RED ROCK RANCH ) Robert H. Mason Homes,
Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No . 35-88-PUD-9-88, Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres
with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-
13 . 5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approving Developer 's
Agreement for Red Rock Ranch; and Adoption of Resolution
No. 88-203, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No . 35-88-
PUD-9-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 150
acres into 61 single family lots, 5 outlots, and road
:ty Council Minutes 4 December 13, 1988
right-of-way. Location: west of Mitchell Road, east of
Red Stock Lake . (Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, PUD District
and Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-203, Authorizing Summary
and Publication )
G. Approyp. ConnCrtion of Pxoposed ShprvinLfIlliama Building
to n W!gste QontrolFacilities
Located on .E!151za Drive (Resolution No . 88-281 ) x
H . FLnal E!lat &Dproval of Blyesteem Hills 5th Additiq�r )
( located on the wegterly extgns i on of Bluestem Lane. west
Creek ) (Resolution
No . 88-279 )
I . Receive Petition and Order Feasibility Report for the
Extension of the Collector Road through Boulder Pointe
(aka Red Rock Ranch) to CSAH 1, I .C. 52-156 (Resolution
No . 88-282 )
J. Resolution fissuring. MnDot th!2t Eden Prairie will
074 (Resolution No. 88-283)
�S
K.
Gf Anders n .Lake* earkwayt (Resolution No . 88-284 )
L. Rgsglution corrggting Einal Asagsament Roll for, 1288
82ecial Assessment (Resolution No . 88-285)
H!2TT0N :
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A through L
on the Consent Calendar . Motion carried unanimously.
V. PPBL I C HEARINGS
A. C&RDTNA,L CR$FK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson 6 Associates
Company. Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6 . 5
to R1-13. 5 on 1 . 67 acres with front yard setback variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction
of 4 single family lots . Location: 6801, 6855-59, 6871-
75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court . (Ordinance No . 49-88,
Rezoning)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
sent to owners of 33 surrounding properties and published
in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News .
Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, stated that
additional information had been presented to the Council
to establish the benefits to be obtained by the
development of single-family homes versus twin-homes.
Krueger stated that less of the lot would be disturbed by
a single-family home, allowing additional tree savings .
_ `y Council Minutes 5 December 13, 1988
Krueger added that there would be less traffic and parking
problems in the cul-de-sac with single-family homes .
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its September 26, 1988 meeting and noted that
the Staff Report of September 23, 1988 was being carried
forward . The main issue had been the compatibility of
single-family homes adjacent to duplexes . Two
alternatives were presented in the Staff Report with the
Planning Commission recommending that only one lot be {
approved for rezoning. Enger concluded by stating that
the Staff recommendations remained the same . `
4
Bentley stated that when this item had been presented
originally the only reason► given for the request for a
zoning change had been economic and, therefore, he had
opposed the proposal . Bentley now believed that the new
information presented established valid reasons to proceed z
with the proposal .
Scott Anderson, 6825 Stonewood Court, stated that he
wanted to see owners of homes, not renters. The trend on
Stonewood Court was to build cheaper twinhomes because
they did not sell well . Anderson believed that even
though single-family houses might not blend as well as
twinhomes, it was important to the neighborhood to have
homeowners .
Peterson, Pidcock, and Harris all stated that they had
been in favor of the proposal originally and remained in
favor of the project at this time .
Anderson stated that he could not support the proposal
because if the issue were reversed, blending twinhomes in
a single-family residential neighborhood, it would be
considered poor zoning. Anderson added that he had always
been consistent in his vote on zoning issues and,
therefore, could not support this proposal .
No further comments from the audience .
MOTION :
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt ordinance No . 49-88 for Rezoning .
Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "No" .
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating relevant
Commission and Staff recommendations . Motion carried 4-1,
with Anderson voting "NO" .
1
ty Council Minutes 6 December 13, 1989
B . ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION by Zachman Development
Corporation . Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
and RM-6 . 5 to R1-9. 5 on 5 acres with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5
acres into 20 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo
Road and Preserve Boulevard . (Resolution No. 88-276 ,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No . 58-88,
Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-277, Preliminary Plat)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent
to owners of 82 surrounding properties and published in
the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News . z
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that based
on recommendations presented by the neighbors, Staff , and
the Planning Commission, the cluster homes had been
removed from the project to provide a better transition .
The flow-through drive had been eliminated to Preserve
Boulevard and the plan revised to depict a cul-de-sac
accessing to Franlo Road . Another issue raised by the
neighbors was the storm water run-off . Smith added that
the drainage would be collected in catch basins located in
the cul-de-sac and diverted to Preserve Boulevard.
Smith stated that originally 16 variances were necessary
to achieve the R1-9 . 5 zoning. The Planning Commission
believed that the number of variances required was
excessive and recommended the elimination of an additional
lot, which reduced the number of lots to 16 and the number
of variances required to 4 . Smith stated that the density
would be 3 . 2 units per acre, with the average lot size
being 11, 612 square feet . Smith noted that the
Engineering Department had approved the plans for the
overflow and swales .
Smith stated that the proponent would like to request an
early grading permit to allow sand to be brought onto the
site and to move the soil to create the building sites;
however , he noted there would not be mass grading.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its October 24, 1988 and November
28, 1988 meetings and received approval for the 16-lot
plan based on the recommendations as outlined in the
November 25, 1988 Staff Report .
Peterson questioned the number of variances outlined in
the November 25, 1988 Staff Report and if they were to be
based on the final plan . Enger replied that the plan had
been revised to eliminate an additional lot after the
November 25, 1988 Staff Report had been prepared and 12 of
:�y Council Minutes 7 December 13, 1988
the 16 variances had been eliminated .
Bentley asked why fill was currently being dumped on the
south end of the property. Smith replied that this was
fill from another site . Bentley then asked if there was
an outlet for the pond area so that it was not land-
locked . Smith replied that there was an existing catch
basin. Smith added that the pond size and capacity would
be increased and the overflow would be directed to Franlo
Road .
Peterson asked how much attention had been given to egress
traffic during rush hour . Dietz replied that a signal was s
planned for Preserve Boulevard at Prairie Center Drive,
which would create the necessary gaps in the traffic and
added that there was the possibility for a signal at s
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive .
Anderson asked Dietz if the traffic coming out of this
development could be limited to a right turn only. Dietz
replied that if it was warranted a signal or a 4-way stop
could be installed . Dietz believed that this development
would not add a significant amount of traffic; however, he
stated that Staff would watch this intersection .
Pidcock asked Smith to clarify the storm water drainage
for the project . Smith replied that the storm water would
be collected in catch basins in the cul-de-sac and
directed to Preserve Boulevard . Pidcock then asked if the
basement levels would be above the catch basin. Smith
replied the basements would be approximately 2 feet above .
the catch basin . Pidcock stated that she was concerned
with the possibility of water in the basements. Smith
replied that the proponent had changed the plan to
Increase the capacity of the ponding area and redirect the
overflow to the streets to correct an existing problem
with water in the basements .
Dean Malotky, 8687 Kathryn Court, stated that he was in
favor of the improvement in the drainage system and also
favored single-family homes, which he believed to be a
reasonable transition.
Dietz asked for clarification on the purpose of bringing
sand onto the site . Smith replied that the sand was
required for the preparation of the building pads . Smith
added that due to the timing of the season the proponent
wished to have the sand hauled in now and placed along the
boulevard . Dietz then asked if the grading would all be
done at one time . Smith replied that minor grading would
be required on some sites and the top soil would be
stripped and sand placed on the site to create the
building pads .
ty Council Minutes 8 December 13, 1988
Anderson asked if grading had already taken place on this
site without a grading permit . Zachman replied that he
had placed approximately 700 yards of sand on the site
when Krueger & Associates had informed him that he needed
a grading permit to do this . Zachimnan added that he had
stopped hauling the sand at that point and was here to
request an early grading permit to allow an additional 300
yard of sand to be placed on the site to solve the
drainage problem before road weight restrictions. The
sand will be placed along Preserve Boulevard and will not
Interfere with the drainage pond . Anderson believed that
the developer had been working in Eden Prairie long enough R
to know that a grading permit was required and was
disturbed that grading had started on this project prior
to approval by the City Council . Smith replied that this
could have been an error due to the watershed District not
requiring a grading permit for under one acre . Smith
added that the proponent did curtail further grading
immediately upon notification that a permit was necessary.
v
fi
Bentley concurred with Anderson that knowledge of the p
City 's requirements was the responsibility of the
developer; however, in this case no amenities had been
harmed and the proponent had stopped upon notification
that a permit was required .
No further comments from the audience.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-276 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment . Motion carried unanimously.
NOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading .
of Ordinance No. 58-88 for Rezoning . Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION :
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
88-277 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations . Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to grant an early
grading permit with the understanding that the developer
proceed at its own risk .
Anderson asked Dietz what the cost of the grading permit
i
.y Council Minutes 9 December 13, 1988
would be . Dietz replied that the cost was based on cubic
yards and estimated the cost to be approximately $200 .
Anderson then asked if there should not be two permits,
one for what was already done and one for what he proposed
to do at this time . Dietz replied that the permit cost
would include what had already been brought onto the site
in addition to what was proposed .
Motion carried unanimously.
C. E$ RFIELD PHASES 2 THRQUQH 6 by Tandem Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, with
waivers for street frontage and lot size on 118 . 2 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 82 . 7 acres i
and from Rural to RI-13 . 5 on 33 . 6 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 118 . 2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28
outlots, and road right-of-way, for construction of a
residential development . Location : West of County Road
No . 4 , southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis
Railroad . (Ordinance No . 59-88-PUD-15-88, PUD District
34
and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-278, Preliminary Platy
p
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent
to owners of 63 surrounding properties and published in
the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News .
Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented that
final plans for Phases 2 through 6 for the Fairfield
Subdivision . Based on the results of the Southwest Area
Study the phasing had been reconfigured to have Phase 2 be
developed at the time when Scenic Heights Road would be
realigned with the balance of the project to proceed from
east to west following Phase 2 . Ostenson stated that the
courtyard areas would have the architectural diversity as
recommended by Staff and presented the Council with
several of the designs being proposed.
Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its October 13, 1989 meeting and recommended
approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated
November 10, 1988 . Enger stated that it was important
that no further development take place until Scenic
Heights Road was realigned and the improvements to County
Road 04 were completed .
Lambert reported that the Parks , Recreation 8 Natural
Resources Commission did not review this plan beyond the
original review.
Peterson asked for clarification on when this phase of the
project would be constructed and questioned why the
Council was approving a Preliminary Plat in 1988 for
development in 1990 . Enger replied that it was the
proponents desire to present to everyone as firs► an
. ty Council Minutes 10 December 13, 1988
expectation as possible for what would be developed in the
area .
Bentley asked what the proponents grading plan was and if
it included mass grading of the entire site . Ostenson
replied the grading had been completed for Phase I and at
some point in the future the proponent would like to
export fill material from the site . Ostenson added that
at that time the proponent would come in for grading and
mining permits; however, the proponent did not wish to
have this tied to rezoning . Bentley stated that he would
like to have grading be tied to the development phases as
part of the Developers Agreement . Ostenson replied that
ti
some overlapping of grading could occur from one phase to
another . Enger replied that the language in the
Developers Agreement could read such that the grading for
a particular phase would not exceed the proposed grading
plan by over 20%.
Steve Wagner , 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he would
like direction from the Council on what to expect with the
road alignments, what the impact would be to his property, t
will the property be cut in half, where is the proposed
alignment for Scenic Heights Road to be located, and how
are the property owners to proceed while all these issues
r are left undecided . Dietz replied that the road
4 alignments were still in the planning stages . Dietz added
that on December 20, 1988 there would be a public hearing a
on the official mapping of Highway N212 and in January
there would be a public hearing on the Southwest Study
Area Plan. Dietz stated that a feasibility study would be
required for road improvements and specific answers would
not be available until that study had been completed;
however, there would be some flexibility for the alignment
of Scenic Heights Road . Wagner then asked how the Council -
would respond to a development proposal for his property
in relation to Scenic Heights Road . Dietz replied that if
a development proposal was presented a negotiation process
would begin to determine road alignments . Enger added
that if Wagner came to the City with a proposal he would
be told that provisions would be necessary for the
continuance of Scenic Heights Road . Enger added that
there would be some flexibility of a £ew feet to the north
or south for the alignment of Scenic Heights Road . Wagner
stated that he did not believe that he had been allowed to
offer any input as to where Scenic Heights Road would be
located on his property.
No further comments from the audience.
MOTION :_
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance: No . 59-88--
i
_y Council Minutes 11 December 13, 1988
PUD-15-88 for PUD District Review Approval and Rezoning .
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION•
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No .
88-278 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to
prepare a Special Assessment Agreement and a Development
Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations and Council conditions related to grading .
Motion carried unanimously.
Bentley requested that Staff work with the property owners
on the east side of the project and request that the
proponent meet with the neighborhood residents regarding
the road alignments . Jim Ostensen replied that the
proponent had met with the neighbors and that access had
been provided to their properties . Ostensen added that
the proponent did not have control over the road alignment
between this proposed plat and County Road $4 .
D. TRANgEE 2 OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROLLING INTEREST OF THE
CABLE SYSTEM. (Resolution No. 88-297, Recommending
Approval of the Acquisition of Rogers Cabiesystems of the
Southwest, Inc . , by KBE, Cable Inc . ; Resolution No . 88-298,
Giving Final Approval of the Transfer, and Approval of
Consent Agreement s Guaranty of Performance Document with
3 Exhibits )
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
properly published . Jullie noted that the approval of the
Resolution was recommended by the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission.
Bentley asked what services would change . Jullie replied
that the same operating tears would operate the system.
Jullie added that the parent company's philosophy was that
decisions related to programming would remain at the local
level .
Pidcock noted that the parent company was Houston
Industries, which was a utility company with the
reputation for having long-term investments versus short-
term investments . She believed this would have a
stabilizing effect on the cable system.
No further comments from the audience .
MOTION;
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to dose the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-298 for final approval
}
:y Council Minutes 12 December 13, 1988
of the transfer, and approval of the Consent Agreement and
Guaranty of Performance Documents ( including 3 exhibits) .
Motion carried unanimously.
E. AMENDED .HOUSING PLAN FOR PRAIRIE V I T L&DE APARTMENTS
(Resolution No . 88-293 )
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
properly published .
There were no comments from the audience . 2
9
MOTION :
R
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 88-293 to amend the
Housing Plan for the Prairie Village Apartments. Motion
carried unanimously.
w
a.
AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED ITEM VIII . B. '
F. EIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates . Request for a Zoning
District Amendment within the RM-2. 5 Zoning District on
8 . 36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8 .36 acres into 3 lots for
construction of a 64-unit senior housing development .
Location: west of County Road No. 4, east of Mitchell
Lake . (ordinance No . 56-88, Zoning District Amendment;
Resolution No . 88-275, Preliminary Plat ) Continued from
11/15/88
Jullie reported that the proper notices had been mailed to
the affected property owners.
John Miller, representing Elim Homes, presented that plans
for a 64-unit senior citizens housing project . Miller
stated that 9 variances had been requested with 6 being
approved and 3 being denied by the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments . He added that two of the variances dealt
with the height of the building and the third related to
setback requirements from Mitchell Lake, which had been
withdrawn . A Corps of Engineers grading permit had been
Issued.
Enger reported that the plan had been reviewed at the
November 28, 1988 Planning Commission and had received
approval based on the recommendations outlined in the
November 25, 1988 Staff Report . Enger noted that the plan
was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission .
. -y Council Minutes 13 December 13, 1988
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No . 56-88 for
Zoning District Amendment . Motion carried unanimously.
MOT T ON.
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No . $
88-275 approving the Preliminary Plat . Motion carried
unanimously.
x
MOT I Q1V:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations .
Anderson asked that the consideration of the color of the
brick and the roof design be incorporated in the
Developers Agreement . Bentley suggested that an earth
tone color would be appropriate due to the colors of the
surrounding homes . Enger recommended that the proponent
provide color samples for the brick, trim, and shingles
prior to 2nd Reading .
Motion carried unanimously.
G. ELIM SHOREg . (Continued from 11/15/88 ) Resolution No .
88-294, Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores
MOTION :
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item
to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting . Motion
carried unanimously.
H . ELIM SHORE6 . Tax Increment Financing Plan (Resolution No.
88-295)
MOTION'
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item
to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting . Motion
carried unanimously.
VI . PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION :
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of
Claims No . 46969 through No. 47564 . ROLL CALL VOTE:
Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, Peterson all voting "AYE" .
Motion carried unanimously.
4
i
ty Council Minutes 14 December 13, 1988
VII . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No . 88-266.. regarding State Funding of
Minneapolis and St . Paul CoMbined ,Sewer Overflow
Separation Project (continued from 11/15,188 )
Peterson stated that he would vote against the proposed
resolution . Peterson added that he supported the program
mandated by the Legislature and that Eden Prairie was not
automatically opposed to what the legislature determined
was good for the core cities.
Bentley stated that the core cities had already received
forgiveness for $32 million and were now requesting an
additional $49 million because federal money which had a
been pledged was not forthcoming. Bentley did not believe
action by this Council would change the outcome; however,
it did give Eden Prairie a chance to voice its opinion.
MOTION : ?
P
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution
No . 88-266 supporting the position of the Suburban Rate
Authority. Motion carried 3-2, with Peterson and Pidcock
voting "NO" .
B. waft O_ r_ dipange regarding .Recrgational Vehicles
MOTION'
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct staff to
redraft the proposed ordinance to include the
recommendations from the Planning Commission .
Simon Root, 7286 Topview Road, stated support for the
ordinance . He encouraged the City to act as quickly as
possible as the ordinance had been vith Staff and the
Council for sometime .
Bernadine Moser, 7263 Topview Road, asked why the process
was taking so long and why it seemed that the Council and
Staff were hesitant to make a decision . Peterson replied
that Staff and the Council would be taking a major step
with the motion made by Councilmember Bentley. Peterson
added that the ordinance would have a significant impact
on the residents of Eden Prairie and believed that it was
appropriate to allow sufficient time to allow residents to
comment . He concluded by stating that this was a careful
process .
City Attorney Pauly wished to address the recommendations
of the Planning Commission. Pauly stated that the
Planning Commission had requested that grandfathering
provisions be limited to specific vehicles . Pauly added a
�y Council Minutes 15 December 13, 1988
that the grandfathering as currently described provided
for continuance of the uses that were legal at the time of
the adoption of the ordinance . Pauly believed that
limiting the grandfather policy to specific vehicles could
not be allowed . Pauly recommended that the applicability
of a grandfathering clause would need to be determined on
a case-by-case basis . The recommendation that a vehicle
was required to be in a safe and operable condition with a
current license had already been addressed clearly in the
current draft. Pauly requested clarification on what the
Planning Commission had considered for the height of a
recreational vehicle and the recommendation to minimize
storage in the front yards . Enger replied that the
Planning Commission had requested that the restriction
referenced in the Nebraska draft relating to parking
across sidewalks and/or trails be included in the
ordinance , that a minimum sideyard setback be provided,
and that as the 7-foot height restriction might not be
appropriate, further study should be done . Enger added
that the Planning Commission believed that the ordinance
would be clearer if a specific time limit was set for the
abandonment period.
Anderson stated that a van was 7 feet in height and a
pickup with a topper was lower in height than a van .
Anderson was concerned about the number of times the
residents had been to the Council meetings and had not
been heard until late in the agenda and, therefore,
recommended that when the public hearing regarding the
ordinance was held that it be at the beginning of the
agenda . Anderson believed that the residents had been g
patient and that the process was taking a long time .
Forrest Colston, 7215 Topview Road, stated that he had a a
recreational vehicle which was an 11-foot Winnebago.
x
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS A C9MMUNICAU M
A . MUCH OF CLASS--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No . 88-51 .
Kate Halverson, believed that the letter dated November 7,
1988 presented the rationale for the variance request .
Halverson presented additional facts which had not been
presented to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments .
Halverson stated that several meetings had been held with
the Shelard Group related to the development of the
property. She added that a finalization for the purchase
of the adjacent property was near completion and,
therefore, the entire parcel would be developed .
Halverson noted two other cases in the vicinity where the
Council had been flexible related to siding. Halverson
_ may Council Minutes 16 December 13, 1988
` believed that the requests were realistic and reasonable .
Peterson stated that this was a transitional area, the
property had been well maintained since it had been
changed to commercial use . Peterson noted the reason for
the requirement of a brick or better exterior material for
commercial buildings was to provide easy maintenance .
Peterson did not believe it was the intent of the
ordinance that all commercial facilities conform
immediately and recommended an extension of the time
period to conform to three years or until such time as any
contiguous property was developed . Peterson added that if
a contiguous property developed Touch of Class would be k
notified to appear within 30 days to determine
conformance .
x
Pidcock believed it would create undue hardship on the
property owner to use a brick exterior when the state of
the surrounding properties had not been determined .
Harris concurred that the property had been well
r
maintained; however, she preferred to delimit a time for
review.
Bentley believed that a conditional use permit should be
utilized in this type of situation and added that the
ordinance was designed to create conformity, not to cause
undue hardship for the property owners. Bentley
questioned the long-term existence of the buildings in
their current state . Bentley added that the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments had not acted improperly and had
performed correctly based on its interpretation of the
City Code .
MOTION :
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the Board of
Appeals decision related to Variance Request No. 88-51,
that the reversal be for a period of three years and
reconsideration take place when the property was sold or
significant alteration of the property took place . Motion
carried unanimously.
B. ELIM SHORES--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No. 88-57 .
Enger reported that the Board of Appeals was concerned
about the Shoreland setback variance and the building
height variance . Enger stated that the proponent was
prepared to withdraw the variance request at this time for
the Shoreland setback . Enger noted that the original plan
for the building was at a height of 57 feet. The
Shoreland Ordinance allows for a height of 30 feet. Enger
said that approximately one year ago a variance was
y council Minutes 17 December 13, 1988
approved on this property to allow a height in excess of
the 30 feet based on the rationale of the difference
between a flat roof and a pitched roof, with the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments believing that a pitched roof
would be more appropriate adjacent to a residential area .
The proposed 57-foot height consisted of a 4-story
building with a walk-out and a pitched roof . The Board of
Appeals and Adjustments heard testimony from residents
that believed this height would be out of character with
the existing structures in the area and that sufficient
evidence had not been presented for a hardship case .
Therefore, the request was denied by the Board of Appeals '
and Adjustments .
Enger reported that the proponent had revised the plan to
depict 3 stories by changing the mix of the units to
retain the 64 units originally proposed . The proponent
wished to maintain the walk-out and the pitched roof .
Enger noted that the walk-out would not affect the height
of the building. Enger stated that Staff concurred with
the proponent that a pitched roof would be more compatible
with the existing neighborhood .
Bentley asked what the ,proposed height of the building was
at this time . John Miller, representing Elim Shores,
stated that the height of the building presently would be
37 feet from grade to the peak of the roof on three sides .
Miller added that if the walk-out were retained the height
would be 47 feet For the front of the building facing the
lake . Enger replied that the variance request at this
time was for 47 feet if the walk-out were retained .
Harris stated that the walk-out area would include the a
service areas and asked if the services would be
eliminated if the walk-out were not possible . Miller
replied that- extensive berming and landscaping was being
proposed to mitigate the height of the building. Miller
added that with the elimination of one story, the units
had been compacted, and the dining room, kitchen, and
service areas had been moved to the lower level . Miller
believed that the kitchen and dining area needed natural
light to make it a useable space.
Peterson asked for clarification on the mention of
residents being "Christian" over the age of 62 . Miller
replied that the facility would be nondenominational, with
the average age of the resident expected to be 75 years .
The units would be privately subsidized by Elim Shores and
Elim Hoses . Twenty-five units were pre-registered at this t
time . Peterson stated that the wording was not intended
to be restrictive in any way. Miller replied that this
was correct .
~y Council Minutes 18 December 13, 1988
Hill Scholz, 7924 Island Road, read into the record a
letter from the Timberlakes Homeowners Association which
stated obJection to the 48-foot proposed building height .
Scholz noted that this request would represent
approximately a 60% increase above the existing 30-foot
requirement . Scholz stated that the second obJection
related to the fact that existing homeowners had purchased
their property with the knowledge of the present zoning
restrictions and believed that a precedent would set which
he believed could pose a negative effect on the resident 's
faith in the zoning system . Scholz believed that the
variance should not be approved. Scholz presented a slide {
presentation viewing the existing neighborhood both from
the lake and the land proposed to be developed . Scholz
was ccncerned not only with the height of the building but
also the total mass size of the structure . Scholz added
that this size of a building did not blend well into a
single-family area . s
Colleen Pe tree, 7906 Island Road, stated that she would be
able to see the building from her back yard. She believed
the building would appear extremely large and added that
the 30-foot height restriction should be maintained.
i
Charles Kuvaya, 7902 Island Road, stated that he applauded
the purpose for providing senior housing; however, he #
opposed the design. Kuvaya believed this structure would
have a negative effect on the property values of the
existing homes . He added that he had invested over
$200, 000 for his home and had planned to live out his life
in this home, but if this facility was allowed to be built
his view of the lake and the whole appearance of the
neighborhood would change . Kuvaya believed the 30-foot
height limit should be upheld .
Dwight Harvey, a member of the Board of Appeals, stated
that while he appreciated the proponents reducing the
height from 57 feet to 48 feet, he believed that the
Shoreland Ordinance was designed for a reason . Harvey
added that the highest portion of the building would face
toward the lake and the. Shoreland Ordinance protected the
view of the lake . Har,iey asked the proponent if nursing
services would be provided . Miller replied that there
would be home health care services . Harvey then asked if
the beauty shop would be a commercial shop and if this
were allowed in a residential area . Peterson replied that
it would be allowed, but only for the residents of the
facility, not the general public.
Brian Foltz, 8008 Island Road, concurred with Mr . Harvey
that the Shoreland Ordinance existed for a reason, and
although great strides have been made by the proponent to
revise the plan, he believed that the 30-foot height
restriction should be respected and upheld.
.y council Minutes 19 December 13, 1988
Kermit Hansen, 8002 Timber Lake Drive, stated that he
recommended approval of the project . Hansen added that
other alternatives for development of this property could
be worse . Hansen stated that if a flat roof were used on
the building it could meet the 30-foot height restriction;
however, he concurred that a flat roof would not fit in
with the character of the neighborhood . Hansen stated
that Elim Shores had spent a considerable amount of time
and effort in the design of the building and the
landscaping plans to try to conceal the buildings view
from the lake . Hansen concluded by stating that he
believed that the plans as presented by Elim Shores were
the best that could be expected for this parcel .
Anderson asked Enger if site elevation comparisons had
been done . Enger replied they had not . Anderson then
asked if this development would be higher or lower than
the homes along the youth shore as shown on the slide
presentation by Mr . Sholz . Enger replied that he did not
have the exact elevation; however, he believed this
facility would be lower than the homes to the south. The
proponent stated that the height of the building would be
similar to the existing homes. Miller added that due to
access available to the facility it would be difficult to
lower the elevation further without redistributing the
[ parking area .
l
Jack Pointer, member of the Northbay Homeowners
Association, stated that this property had been stagnant
for sometime and believed that development of the property
would improve the existing property values . Pointer
believed that other alternatives for development would be
less desirable . Pointer believed that this was a quality
project . Pointer noted that the single-family homes on
Island Road were multi-story with walk-outs, which would
be similar in height to what was being proposed by Elim
Shores . Pointer stated that the property was zoned multi -
family and believed that any structure to be developed on
this site would be larger than the single-family homes .
Pointer concluded by stating that the Board of the
Northbay Homeowners Association had recommended approval
of the project .
Bob Holt, 7970 Island Road, stated that there were reasons
why the Shoreland ordinance was written and questioned
what criteria were used to determine if a variance should
be allowed . Holt said that he did not object to the
quality of the project or its intent, however, what he did
object to was the physical size of the building. Holt
believed that the color of the brick could help to mask
the size and asked if a definite color had been
determined . Miller replied that the color had not
established and added that it would work to have the color
be compatible . Pauly replied that the answer related to
. ty Council Minutes 20 December 13, 1988
the criteria for a variance was proof by the applicant
that an undue hardship was being placed on the property
due to the ordinance .
Charles Kuyava, 7902 Island Road, believed that because
this and another project were meeting opposition at the
planning stages of development, that possibly the property
was incorrectly zoned and could the zoning be changed at
this time. Kuyava believed that the proponent had done
the best it could to development a quality project;
however, he wished that another type of project could be
considered for this property. Peterson replied that it `
would be unlikely that a developer would consider down
zoning this poperty and added that if a project were
brought before the Council , which met all the City Codes, s
the Council could not deny the developer to proceed .
Dave Orlowsky, 7920 Timber Lake Drive, believed that this
was the highest quality project that had been proposed
over the years for this property. He added that the
developer had worked cooperatively to try to develop a w
project which would fit in with the existing neighborhood
and to protect the property values of the surrounding y
properties . Orlowsky was concerned that if the height of
the building were reduced the length and width would be
Increased, which he believed would be more detrimental to
property values for the adjacent properties .
There were no further comments from the audience . E
a
MOB'I ON
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the decision
made by the Board of Appeals .
Bentley believed that in essence what was being approved
was the equivalent of a three-story building due to the
fourth story being buried and the site heavily landscaped
and bermed . The pitched roof which added to the height
added quality to the building and helped to blend in with
the surrounding properties . He stated that the developer
was providing subsidized senior housing which had been
mandated by the Metropolitan Council . Bentley concluded
by stating that because the height of the building had
been reduced after the Board of Appeals decision he would
support the motion to reverse the decision of the Board of
Appeals .
Harris stated that she understood the concerns of the
residents; however, an extra effort had been made on the
part of the developer to give this project a residential
character . Harris believed that if the height of the
building were reduced and the length and width increased,
the result would be less desirable . Harris added that if
i
- �y Council Minutes 21 December 13, 1988
a flat roof were proposed the developer would be closer to
the required height; however, she believed that the
pitched roof would be more attractive . Harris supported
the motion.
Peterson believed that undue hardship had not been proven.
He said that the developer had stated that the project
could be constructed with one less story and, therefore,
would not support the motion.
Motion carried 4-1, with Peterson voting "NO" .
Pidcock stated that she believed the City had a moral
obligation to provide housing for the elderly in Eden
Prairie .
MOTION•
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to recess the City
Council meeting and proceed with the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. Reouest for EXterlor Chan99,g to Eden Plairle Center
Pidcock asked what the building materials would be . Larry
Johnson, architect, replied that the exterior would be
stucco with brick peers . The facia would be curved with 5
horizontal reveal bands with 518" red neon tubing. The
new Eden Prairie logo would be placed on the reveals . The
columns would be enlarged, wrapped with steel, and
possibly illuminated . The canopy would also be made of
steel with a Teflon sleeve, which would be illuminated .
The purpose of the exterior renovations was to make a
grander statement and to draw attention to the entrances .
A slide presentation was made showing the proposed
entrances and the other interior renovations taking place
at the center .
Bentley asked if the proposed neon lighting and signage
would be allowed within the City's sign ordinance
criteria . Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, replied
that the signage had not been formally reviewed . She
added that discussions had taken place regarding what
would be necessary and what might be allowed in the
future . Larry Johnson replied that the intent was to have
the Council review the preliminary plans so that the
project did not progress only to find out it would not be
permitted . Bentley believed that if any action were taken
by the Council tonight it should be to review the sign
proposal and its compliance with the City' s sign
ordinance . Jean Johnson stated that the Eden Prairie
Center signage had been approved as part of the original
PUD in 1976 and was part of a total sign package . She
ty Council Minutes 22 December 13, 1988
added that the plans that were reviewed by Staff would
meet the code requirements and the proponent would be
returning to the Planning Commission and the Council with
an overall signage plan .
Peterson believed this proposal should be presented to
Staff and the Planning Commission before any Council
action.
D. Reguest from Foxtlgr & Associatesn Permit on
the EcddoK property lQc!2ted at the N .E.
n
Rgad and T.N . 5 for Site Grading and Coastruction of a
gavel Acceas Rgga
Dietz reported that based on an onsite inspection by Staff
It was recommended that the request be denied due to the
fact that the reasons presented for the request were
determined to be unfounded .
Darrell Fortier, representing the proponent, stated that
Highway #5 would be upgraded at sometime in the future .
He added that currently the land was leased and being
farmed : access on the property was limited by the gravel
road and an existing stricture . The proponent wanted to
eliminate the draw to provide a smooth contiguous road .
Fortier stated that the request was in compliance with the
requirements of the Land Alteration Permit; however, he
did not disagree with Staff that the same results could be
accomplished with less grading . The other alternative
road alignments were not favorable to the proponent at
this time .
Bentley stated that Land Alteration permits were not
typically granted without the review of a development
plan. He added that allowing speculative grading was not
a policy of the City of Eden Prairie and, therefore, could
not support the issuance of a Land Alteration permit
without a specific proposal being presented to the
Council .
Peterson asked what purpose the road would serve . Fortier
replied that the road would provide access to and from the
property and the farm land . Fortier added that there was
nothing in the ordinance which referenced the requirement
of the plan . Dietz asked Fortier if Staff had informed
him that a development plan was not necessary. Fortier
replied that Staff had advised him of what information was
necessary to receive the Land Alteration permit and upon
receipt of the information requested the issue of tree
removal was brought up: there had been no reference by
Staff that a development plan was required . Fortier
believed that this was not speculative grading . Bentley
recommended that the proponent work with Staff to resolve
the issues .
i
--y Council Minutes 23 December 13, 1988
r Peterson believed that this same parcel had been before
the Council within the last 2 to 3 years for rezoning
without a development plan . Enger replied that there had
been a request for rezoning and a hypothetical plan had
been presented . Enger added that the problems then were
that the plan was only hypothetical and that parts of the
plan were in conflict with City ordinances .
Dietz stated that the fact remains that significant
grading was being requested without sufficient rationale .
Peterson believed that adequate access was provided for
farming at this time. Fortier replied that the proponent
was currently trying to market the property and wished to
be able to drive a car on the road surface .
Pauly concurred with Councilmember Bentley's
recommendation to refer this item back to Staff . He added
that there was not sufficient information provided in the
Staff Report to determine if all the criteria had been met
to meet City Code .
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to refer the request
for a land alteration permit back to Staff . Motion
carried unanimously.
I X. EERQBTS QF hQV I,SORY r.OMMI SS IOISS
X. APEOI NTMENTS
A.
Commission
MOTION;
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to nominate Mayor
Peterson for the 3-year term to the Southwest Metro
Transit Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
MQT I ON
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the
nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot . Motion
carried unanimously.
XS . REPQRT.S QF QFFICERS,, BOARDS _& COMMISSIONS
A . Re p.Qrjs of CoUnr,11 M!Cml2rr E
1 '
Anderson stated that there was a bill before the
j
:y Council Minutes 24 December 13, 1988
Legislature which would give national park status within
the metropolitan area on the Mississippi River . He added
that upon further investigation he believed that the
Minnesota River could be included in the Hill to be
presented to the Legislature . The State of Minnesota and
the DNR were currently in the process of trying to clean
up the Minnesota River and Anderson believed that the City
of Eden Prairie should support, this effort and request
Staff to investigate further the possibility of including
the Minnesota River in the Hill to be presented to the
Legislature as part of the Durenberger plan .
moTr0m=
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to
investigate including the Minnesota River in the .
Durenberger plan to be presented to the Legislature .
Motion carried unanimously.
H . Re ort of City Mana9cr
1 . Tempgrary Funding for the Caoh Ege eark jm2rovemcnt
Fund
// MOTIQN•
�! Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the
transfer of funds as outlined in the Staff Report . Motion
carried unanimously.
C. RCyoXt of Gity At&orgy
1 . ftt Agrgementn
MOT ION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to accept the terms
outlined by the City Attorney and abide by then. Motion
carried unanimously.
D . Re2grt QfD,irecfor of Planning
E . Direct
1 . Re9.ueat front Foxiet Swim Club
David Goble, representing the FoxJets, believed that the
Foxjets pay rental fees approximately twice that of other
teams in the metro area . Goble stated that currently the
Foxjets were paying $22 for b metered lanes and added that
the request was to have the fee be in line with what other
teams are paying . He said that staff 's contention was
that if this reduction was granted, other teams would also
be requesting reductions .
-y Council Minutes 25 December 13, 1988
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission 's recommendation was to continue with
the existing rates . The purpose of the fees was to pay
for the operational costs of the Community Center . It was
further recommended that the Foxjets continue to pay on
the $4, 000 debt, and that the rates not be increased but
remain the same .
Anderson stated that the original intent was that the
operational costs of the facility would be paid for by the
users of the facility. Lambert replied that the original
theory on rates had been for the City to meet operational E
costs as well as be in a comparable range with other r
areas . Lambert added that compared to other municipal
facilities Eden Prairie was competitive; however, compared
with the rates charged by schools, the Community Center
was higher .
Peterson asked how many of the Foxjets were residents of
Eden Prairie . Goble replied that currently 80% are Eden
Prairie residents .
Lambert commented that Staff believed that the operational
costs to operate the pool and the ice arena were similar .
He added that the charge is $72 per hour for ice and only
$28 per hour for the pool. Lambert stated that the pool
costs were being subsidized.
Bentley stated that the original intent of the Community
Center was to provide a facility which would be open to
the public the majority of the time; however, the majority
of the time the Center currently was occupied by organized
groups which infringed on the public use of the facility.
Bentley believed that the City' s operating philosophy
could not Justify a reduction in frees unless there was a
correlating change in membership fee .
Goble noted that the Foxjets did not use the entire pool
at any given time . He added that the Foxjets would be
willing to extend the time and reduce the number of lanes
used at any time .
Anderson stated that athletics had changed over the years
and the costs had become dramatic.
Goble concluded by stating that the request was to receive
similar rates as other communities and noted that the
Foxjets did utilize extensive fund raising programs.
MOTION ::
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the request by
the Foxjets based on the Staff Memo . Motion carried
unanimously.
. ty Council Minutes 26 December 13, 1988
( 2 . Recommendation on Revised Cash Park Fees
Lambert reported that it was the recommendation of the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to
further study this issue .
Anderson recommended that a certain percent of the Cash
Park Fee be set aside as a trail fee . Lambert replied
that would require an additional fee . Lambert added that
County Road #4 and County Road 01 were the only missing
links in the trail system and believed that a referendum
would be the best way to receive the funds to complete the
trail system . Anderson stated that recommendations for
trails along County Road #4 and County Road N1 were made
back in 1975 and added that because of lack of funds there
were still unsafe areas within Eden Prairie . Lambert
believed that Eden Prairie had one of the best trail
systems in the metro area .
MOTION :
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to draft n
a memorandum with recommendations for the 1989 Cash Park
Fees and to include the consideration of an additional
amount to be utilized for trail systems . Motion carried
unanimously.
3 . Janikula Property
��_
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to withdraw the
request for the purchase of the Janikula property. notion
carried unanimously.
4 . Naming Park on Red R,gck Lakc
MOTION •
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to name the new park in
the Boulder Pointe Subdivision, Red Rock Lake Park .
Motion carried unanimously.
1"D SON :
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to have a contest to
name the old Red Rock Park, considering the top three
recommendations . Motion carried unanimously.
F . Report of Director of public Works
�^ G . Report of Fin!QncO 121Yector
XII . NEW BUSINESS
:y Council Minutes 27 December 13, 1988
XIII . ADJQURt!H,ENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 35 AM.
S
1
C