Loading...
City Council - 01/17/1989 APPROVED MINUTE+ EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, F Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas 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 Public works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I . OVAL._.0 -AGE14—D AN.� .QTHER IT MS OE BLjSij1jM$ MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda . ADDITIONS: Add Item X .A.1; Neighborhood Meetings, add Item X .A. 2; Public Record on Biodegradable Cups. Remove Item III .D, Sherwin-Williams development proposal . Motion carried unanimously. II . MIkjUTES A. City C MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes of '? the City Counc i 1 Meeting held Tuesday, October 4, 1988 . CORRECTIONS : Page 9, Item C, paragraph 5 should read : Farris complimented the Planning Commission — Page 9, Item C, paragraph 6 should read : a street light be placed at bath entrances. . . City Council Minutes 2 January 17, 1989 Page 11, paragraph 4 should read : asked Enger why the project { was being presented . . . Page 11, paragraph 5 should read : Bentley asked Patton if Chennault Way would . . . . Page 15, paragraph 3 should read : determined to be too costly. . . . Page 15, paragraph 5 should read : Harris asked Smith if both outlot . . . . dedicated to the City and would include approximately. . . e Page 17, Item v, paragraph 3 should read : for the same items . . . Page 23 1 should read : q , Paragraph h g p appropriate action for rel ie f . . µ Motion carried unanimously. IZI . �ON$,BN CAGFNDAR A . glef'k ' s License- List B . han e e N 2-0 7 W n h K o C. Change 9-rder No . 3s I 52-102, liddeep_�C��n 3rd Addition D . SHERWIN-. IU _J t by Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, Inc . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No . 54-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1 . 01 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approval of Developer ' s Agreement for Sherwin-Williams; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-289, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No . 54-88, and ordering Publication of Said Summary. 1. 01 acres for one lot for construction of a retail paint store . Location: Along Plaza Drive in front of Menard ' s Center . (Ordinance No. 54-88, Rezoning; Resolution No . 88-289, Authorizing Summary and Publication) (REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA) E . C RDINA, CREEK 3812 Ap IT ON by Gustafson & Associates Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 49-88, Zoning District Change from RM-6 . 5 to R1-13 .5 on 1 .67 acres for Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition; Adoption of Resolution No. 89-09 , Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 49-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location : 6801-05, 6855-59, 6871-75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court . (Ordinance No . 49-88, Rezoning; Resolution No . 89-09 , Authorizing Summary and Publication ) F . EPFV_.. RKf=.K by JMS Equities, Inc. Adoption of. Resolution No. 89-13, Denying 2nd Reading of Ordinance No . 32--88 for City Council Minutes 3 January 17, 1989 Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 6. 6 acres, and Supplementary Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 1 . 9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6 . 6 acres into 10 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way . Location: Southeast of County Road No . 4, across from Mere Drive . (Resolution No . 89-13, Denying Request ) MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A through F on the Consent Calendar . I TEM 8 Tenpas asked Dietz why it was necessary for the $1, 000 change order to move equipment . Dietz replied that the contractor had difficulty getting the work to proceed on schedule . He said the change order was for storm sewer Installation on Dell Road which required soil corrections { and extra soil brought in for surcharge . Dietz stated that the contractor had to remove the equipment from the site and then bring the equipment back because of the scheduling problems . ITEM C `�- Tenpas asked Dietz why it was necessary for a change order for the project . Dietz replied that the changes had been requested by the Developer . ITEM I? City Manager Jullie reported that Item D should be removed from the Consent Calendar . He stated that Staff had indicated there were major changes being proposed for the expansion; therefore, 2nd Reading would not be appropriate at this time . MOT 10 __ Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to amend the Agenda and remove Item D from the Consent Calendar . Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously. Iv. PVD Q H I tjSad. A. Out Ide StorAge_g�RsgxgatIonal vehicles - Amendment to C1 g (Ordinance No . 22 8g ) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the January S. 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie x City council Minutes 4 January 17, 1989 News and had been mailed to residents which had expressed an interest in the ordinance . Jullie stated that the Ordinance had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and that the final draft of the Ordinance outlined setback and location regulations for the outside storage of recreational vehicles regardless of height . Jullie noted that the Ordinance stated that no more than two recreational vehicles could be parked or stared outside . He said that they must be parked on the driveway or at least 10 feet from the lot line and at least 15 feet from the traveled portion of the street. Simon Root, 7286 Topview Road, stated that he supported the Ordinance; however, he did have technical questions . Root asked why a pickup with a topper as noted in previous drafts had been deleted . Root asked if the City currently had a code or law regarding the storage of motor vehicles, such as abandoned vehicles . He asked what the City considered to be a definition of a driveway. Root was concerned that unless a driveway was defined that this would be a loop-hole in the Ordinance. Root stated that he would prefer to have the 7-foot height restriction returned to the Ordinance . Jean ,'ohnson , Zoning Administrator, replied that the City had a provision in the city Code that a vehicle not licensed or operable was not permitted to be parked outside . Johnson commented that the City did handle several abandoned vehicle violations every year . Pauly replied that there was not a k legal definition of a driveway and that this would be a case-by-case determination . Tom Moser, 7263 Topview Road, stated that unless a driveway was defined, the ordinance could not help in the case which had precipitated his request. Moser stated that he supported the 7-foot limit . Peterson explained to Moser that the vehicle in question would be grandfathered In and would not be affected by the Ordinance being considered tonight . Moser questioned what the point would be in an Ordinance if this particular vehicle would be covered by grandfathering. City Attorney Pauly explained the grandfather ing law to Moser . Peterson explained that the Ordinance would not have an affect on violations in existence before the passing of the ordinance . Mike McCosky, 7251 Topview Road, asked why a pickup with a topper had been removed from the Ordinance . He stated that he would like to have the 7--foot height restriction for vehicles within 10 feet of the lot line and anything over 7 feet could be parked in the driveway only. McCosky asked if a driveway was defined in the building codes used by the City. He concluded by stating that he believed vehicles under 7 feet were tolerable; however, over 7 feet he considered to be an eyesore . Jullie replied that a driveway was not defined in the building code . City Council Minutes 5 January 17, 1989 Tenpas stated that he would like to see a height { restriction and a time limit restriction placed on the vehicles . He suggested the possibility of limiting the number of consecutive days and limiting the total number of days per year . Tenpas stated that he sympathized with the residents present . Peterson questioned how a time limit restriction could be monitored. Tenpas replied that the monitoring could begin after a complaint was filed . Tenpas added that he believed that a point of reference was necessary to correct problems such as the current one . Pidcock questioned what the City was accomplishing by passing the ordinance . Pauly replied that the Ordinance would designate where residents could park recreational vehicles . d Tenpas believed that the problem was going to be large mobile homes and boats . Jullie replied that the Bloomington ordinance did have a 7-fooc height restriction; however, he believed it would be difficult to monitor . Tenpas stated that he would like to see the Ordinance modeled closer to the Bloomington and Edina ordinances . Peterson stated that he was sympathetic with the residents present and wished that there had been an ordinance in place to prevent this boat from being parked in their neighborhood; however, the issue before the Council tonight was to draft an ordinance that would be meaningful and manageable . He said that he had not received any phone calls from residents on either side ofthis issue and questioned if it was timely to pass such an ordinance . Peterson said that because the Ordinance would not address the problem at hand, he would not support the proposed Ordinance at this time . He said that residents have the freedom to use their own property. Peterson did not believe that a need had been demonstrated for this level of property protection . Pidcock stated that good neighbors were ones that were considerate of one another . Pidcock believed that an Ordinance was needed and that height and time limits were necessary. Tenpas stated that the Council would be making an ordinance for the future . He reiterated his support for the model in the Bloomington ordinance . Harris stated that she preferred this draft to any presented thus far . She said that she had not received any calls pro or con; however, after taking a drive through Eden Prairie she found that there were several existing cases where an ordinance would be beneficial . Harris believed that the ordinance would not accomplish City Council Minutes 6 January 1.7, 1989 the purpose for which it was originally cone-idered . Harris said that the needs of the City in 10 to 15 years from now should be considered; consequently, it was appropriate to impose such an ordinance at this time . Anderson believed that the City of Eden Prairie currently had a problem regarding parking of recreational vehicles and said that over the years on the Council he had received at least 10 calls . Anderson believed that as the City grew the problem would increase . He said that all of the neighboring communities had ordinances regarding the parking of recreational vehicles and believed it was time for Eden Prairie to have a form of control . Anderson stated that he would like a height restriction . Anderson questioned how much right a neighbor had to restrict the natural view of his neighbors . Anderson stated that he was in favor of an ordinance . Peterson believed that the ordinance was placing another level of control on the population . Peterson commented that this was an issue of conflicting rights . Harris asked Anderson if he would consider looking at a recreational vehicle differently than looking at a semi- truck or a construction vehicle . Anderson replied yes . Jullie replied that the City had a restriction on the size l of commercial trucks which could be parked in a residential area . Tenpas Suggested approving the ordinance as written, directing Staff to determine an appropriate height restriction within 30 days, and then amending the ordinance at 2nd Reading to include the height restriction. Tenpas believed that it was important to get an ordinance on the books in some form. Anderson concurred with Tenpas and recommended the vehicle height restriction be the average height for a motor home . MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and approve lst Reading of Ordinance No . 22-88 to establish regulations for the outside storage of recreational vehicles and that a height restriction be established by 2nd Reading . Motion carried 4-1 with Peterson voting "NO" . V. P�XMZL4T OF eLAI_M5 MOTION ; Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of Claims No . 48182 through 48395 . ROLL CALL MOTE; Tenpas, Pidcock, Harris, Anderson, and Peterson all voting "AYE" . City Council Minutes 7 January 17, 1989 VI . ORDINANCE &_BtUQj,�gTIONS VII . PETLTLQN,$_,__REQUESTS a C0MMVNI_f�AjI0NS A . R±Zqj4e _t f o r W jn4t _Lj Q- u t� MoTig-0• Harris moved , seconded by Pidcock to approve the request for a liquor license for Mango ' Grill & Carry Out, dba Pepper ' s Grill . Motion carried unanimously. for the Courtyard by Marriott Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the request for an on-sale and Sunday intoxicating liquor license for the Courtyard by Marriott . Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock asked If the criteria had been established for further Issuances of liquor licenses . Jullie replied that Staff would have the criteria prepared within approximately 30 days . V III . R _QF_&QY_j_!!0 tY A . um. n Riahts & Services, Commission - No Fault Grievance Process Bill Jackson, Chair of the Human Rights & Services Commission, introduced Gall Leipold and Kent Barker to give the presentation of the No-Fault Grievance Process . Leipold stated that the goal of the Human Rights & Service Commission was to Increase the awareness of the community and businesses In Eden Prairie regarding the No-Fault Grievance Process . Leipold outlined the Commission ' s plans to communicate its goals to the public. Leipold explained to the Council who would be utilizing the process and the reasons for which a grievance could be filed . Leipold presented the four options available : 1 ) File a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights . 2 ) File a civil suit . 3 ) File a No-Fault Grievance . 4 ) Take no action . Kent Barker stated that the No-Fault Grievance Process had been developed by the State as a neutral and voluntary process; however, if the process failed the individual still had the other 3 options to pursue . Barker said that the No-Fault Grievance pro-cess, opened up a communication process where no notes were taken and no 'cult assessed . Barker said that the attraction for the No-Fault process City Council Minutes 8 January 17, 1989 w.ati that the individual would not lose time from work and the process was started by simply filling out a form. He said that after the form was filed a mediation process began with all parties involved . Barker stated that the Human Rights & Services Commission was requesting the Council 's permission to place a press release in the newspapers , and to write letters and talk to organizations In the community to let them know the program existed and how It functioned . Harris commented that she had seen a program like this work effectively. Harris stated that she was pleased the Human Rights & Services Commission had taken the initiative to develop the No-Fault Grievance Process . Harris stated that based on current trends the No-Fault Grievance Process could relieve the court calendars of unnecessary litigations . Pidcock believed that the No-Fault Grievance Process should be used to the utmost . MOT I.O N_ Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Human Rights & Services Commission request to proceed with the No-Fault Grievance Process communication plan as outlined in the memo dated January 13, 1989 . Motion carried i unanimously. XI . APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Two Consumer Representatives to serve on the South Hennepin Hujj4r Services ouncil for two-year terms coMmenc i na January 31, 1929 N_aTLON: 1. Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to appoint Pat Nash and Melanie Voris to the South Hennepin Human Services Council . Motion carried unanimously. Tenpas asked if a resume could be included in the Council ' s packet . He said that he did not know many of the individuals personally and wot.ld find a resume helpful . X . REPORTS..,QF OFFI,CEES, _BQ & pfjtU t�I�[ A . Reps t s o. �Cou_rt Me Viers n-g,g; Tenpas stated that he had attended two neighborhood meetings and at both meetings the residents had a City Council Minutes 9 January 17, 1989 misce-)nception regarding the zoning of property and what could be developed in their neighborhoods . Tenpas asked if a formal process could be developed to let property owners know what could potentially be developed in their neighborhoods . Anderson stated that the City's Guide Plan should be looked at when an individual was considering buying property. Tenpas believed that if more information were given out about the Guide Plan it could help in avoiding conflicts . Pidcock stated that the City had asked for properties and. streets to be posted prior to development to give neighbors an idea of what would be developed around them. Peterson stated that the Council had budgeted for a part- time Communication Coordinator , and perhaps one of the tasks would be to inform new residents or possible residents of the Guide Plan and how it works . x Enger stated that the average resident only stayed in Eden Prairie for 4 years, and even if a Guide Plan were sent out every year there would still be problems because the developers can request Guide Plan changes . Enger believed that the posted signs had helped the situation . Enger said that the neighborhood meetings were helpful in getting communication started 5etween the residents and the developers; however , he was concerned that residents may not come to the appropriate Commission meeting to voice there opinions to the City as part of the formal review process . Peterson concurred with Enger and cautioned that the Planning Commission or the City Council may not hear all sides of the issues if a resident concludes that the Neighborhood Meeting was the final forum. 2 . cq 1 Rgcord Pidcock stated that she wanted to ensure that the minutes of the January 3, 1989 meeting would show that the Council had decided that when styrofoam cups presently in stock were gone, the City would not purchase any in the future . 3 . Ch-4_lnqj_A.'s St tement Regarding The Youth Drpg_.ergbIgm Anderson stated that Channel 4 had given out figures regarding the drug and alcohol use by the youth of Eden Prairie . Anderson questioned where the figures had come from and why the City had not been informed that this Information was to be released . Anderson believed that the School. District and the City should have better City Council Minutes 10 January 17, 1989 communication about the youth drug problem in Eder, Pra it ir . Jullie stated that the City had not given out the figures . He said that the School District had conducted a survey approximately a year ago and that the figures had been given out by the School District . Jullie believed that the City should have been informed of the information and Its release . Peterson stated that he was very disturbed with the School District for not sharing the information from the survey with the City and not being informed of the release of the information to the press . Peterson believed that closer attention needed to be given to communication with the School District . P Harris believed that being informed on the 1--,sue was not i enough and wanted to know what preventive measures could be utilized by the City. B . Report o CJ. Man�a,ge� 1 . Set •1 Spec#a �Cit_y noun _il Mee, ina to Interview Res i pnts or Boards and Commis ions MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to schedule the Interviews for Board and Commissions for February 15, 1989 at 6 : 30 PM. Motion carried unanimously . 2 . Set._. gting for � d�f 1�89 Eden Prairie Board of Revigw fgr Thursday, April 27,E 1989 MOTION - Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to schedule the Board of Review meeting for April 27, 1989 at 7 : 30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. C . Re.L9rt. _r ,I&vAttorney Pauly stated that he had sent a memorandum to the School District regarding notification of School Authorities of possible drug offenses . Anderson stated that the Eden Prairie School would be in compliance with the State law February 1, 1989 . D. Repprt of Directgr of P njn_q f E . D i.r e.c t o r.,o f--.Q a K K s.._-vR P 'd, City Council Minutes 11 January 17, 1989 r F . Re.p.ort of Direc or of Pub21S Work.. \ G . tegrt �u Finance Director XI . NEW HUaINESS XI I . h..j-QURN 1KN Meeting was adjourned to an executive session at 9 : 20 PM .