City Council - 02/06/1990 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard. Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
_ to the City Manager Craig Dawson,
Assistant City Attorney Joe Nilan,
Director of Planning Chris Enger,
Director of Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Robert Lambert,
Director of Public Works Eugene A.
Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb
Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF B- SINESS
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS:
ADD Item IV. L, Eden Service Center. ADD Item X.A. 1, Study
Committee for Location of Daycare Facilities.
Motion carried unanimously.
II . MINUTES
III . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's Liconse Lis
B. CHURCH OF THE JUBILEE by Church of the Jubilee. Request
for Site Plan Review on 9 . 35 acres with variance to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a
3 , 150 square foot addition. Location: 6500 Baker Road.
(Resolution No. 90-19 - Site Plan Review)
C. SUPERAMERICA CAR WASH by Crosstown Investors. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 45-89, Zoning District Change from Rural
to Neighborhood Commercial on 0 . 05 acre and Zoning
District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial
City Council Minutes 2 February 6, 1990
District on 1. 2 acres; Approval. of Supplement to
Developer's Agreement for SuperAmerica; Adoption of
Resolution No. 90-34, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No.
45-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-35, Site Plan Review.
Construction of a car wash addition to existing service
station. Location: West of Shady Oak Road at City West
Parkway. (Ordinance No. 45-89 - Rezoning & Zoning
District Amendment; Resolution No. 90-34 - Authorizing
Summary; Resolution No. 90-35 - Site Plan Review)
i
D. FAQ F2 IELD PHASES 1 THROUGH 6 by Tandem Properties. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with waivers, and underlying
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92 . 7 acres
and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 53 .6 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Fairfield Phase 2 - 6 ; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-29 - Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88 amd Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 1488.2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28
outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of County
Road 4 , south of Scenic Heights Road, east of Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad. (Ordinance No. 59--88-PUD-15-88 -
PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-29 -
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
E. Approval of a Joint (Minnetgnka, Hennepin County, & Edges
Prairie) Analysis and Im-Ract Studyo ownline
Road
F. Volunteers o
America Week (Resolution No. 90-28)
{
G. Award Bid for Renodel ing oC Police 211 CoMMun,ications F
QCn&2r
H. Apyrov2 Contract SuID21ement
(Resolution No. 90-32)
I. Final Elat ARRr!2yal of Chase Point 2nSj Addition (12cated
east of Old Shady Oak Road and sguth 2f Qrosstown Freeway)
Resolution No. 90-33
J. Resolution
Increment Refunding Aonds of 1963_ (Resolution No. 90-36)
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve Item A
through Item J on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
l
City Council Minutes 3 February 6, 1990
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MINNESOTA VIKINGS INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY by Kraus
Anderson Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15 acres with waivers, site
Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-2
Zoning District on 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres
into 1 lot for construction of an indoor football practice
and training complex. Location: 9520 Viking Drive.
City Manager Jullie reported that this item was continued
from the November 21, 1989 City Council meeting and upon
the request of the proponent recommended a further
continuance to the May 1, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item
to the May 1, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. PUBLIC STORAGE by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide
Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1. 09
acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial on 1. 09 acres and from Low Density Residential
to Industrial on 3 . 10 acres, Zoning District Amendment
from Rural to Office on 1. 09 acres, and from Rural to
Neighborhood Commercial. on 1.09 acres and from Rural to I-
2 on 3 . 10 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5. 28 acres into 3 lots and
road right-of-way, Site Plan Review on 5. 28 acres for
construction of 54 , 137 square feet of office, commercial ,
and industrial land uses. Location: West of County Road
18 , south of the Preserve Village Mall .
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been mailed to 83 surrounding property owners and properly
published in the Eden Prairie News.
Peter Beck, representing the proponent, presented a letter
to the City Council from the City of Golden Valley
regarding the compatibility of the Public Storage facility
with residential areas, and a draft of a protective
covenant.
Don Jensen, architect for the proponent, presented aerial
photos depicting the location of the Public Storage
facility in Golden Valley in relation to residential
areas. Jensen presented the plans for the project and
noted that the northern driveway access had been removed
as recommended by the Planning Commission, the exterior
building materials had been changed to comply with City
standards, and the tree replacement calculations had been
adjusted. Jensen noted that the only recommendation of
City Council Minutes 4 February 6, 1990
the Planning Commission and Staff which could not be
accommodated was to adjust the base area ratio from the
0. 3 proposed to the 0. 2 maximum allowed by City Code. He
added that the landscaping and greenspace represented 40%
of the area, the blacktop 30% , and the building coverage
30% . Jensen believed that the project would not disturb
the existing neighborhood. Setback variances would be
required for the office and daycare facilities. Jensen
stated that all activities for the mini-storage facility
would be directed toward the interior of the project, the
lighting had been designed to project inward, and the
amount of traffic generated would be low. He added that
there would be a minimal impact on the intersection at
Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 .
Beck presented a brief history of the Public Storage
Company and emphasized its desire to maintain high-quality
projects in both design and building material. Beck
stated that this was an infill area and this proposal
would provide a unified development for the 5 existing
lots. He noted that the majority of variances had been
eliminated from the original proposal and the setback
distances had been increased between the mini-storage and
the residential areas. Beck stated that the proponent had
met with the neighbors and was aware of their concerns.
He added that the plan had been revised to address as many
of the neighbors concerns as was conceivably possible.
Beck noted that Eden Prairie required Industrial Zoning
for the Public Storage facility, which was not the case in
other cities. He proposed a restrictive covenant which
would guarantee that only the Public Storage and no other
form of industrial use would be allowed on this site. The
covenant would be good for 30 years. Beck believed that
removing the covenant would be more difficult than
changing the Zoning requirements because a court hearing
would be required.
Beck stated that Public Storage would be making a
substantial investment in the building and, therefore,
were designed to be permanent, long-term businesses. He
stated that the proponent agreed with all of the Staff
recommendations with the exception of building coverage.
He noted that originally the B.A.R. was 38% and the plan
had been reduced to 30% , but could not be reduced further.
Beck stated that the parking requirements were low and,
therefore, the parking area required was minimal . Beck
also believed that the permanent drainage easement should
be taken into consideration.
Beck said that the Planning Commission had stated that
compelling reasons for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change
had not been presented; however, he believed that the
following reasons justified the change:
City Council Minutes 5 February 6, 1990
1. The 5 single-family residential lots would be a
non-conforming use. The Comprehensive Guide Plan
does not specifically address these 5 lots, and it
is not site-specific.
2 . The property was not currently served by water or
sewer.
3 . County Road 18, which was originally designed as a
minor arterial road, had significantly changed in
a manner that directly impacted these lots. The
Comprehensive Guide Plan was not a rigid document
and- was designed to be flexible based on changing
circumstances.
Beck believed that this site was not appropriate for low-
density residential and further believed that self-storage
facilities should not be zoned as industrial uses. He
added that self-storage was frequently developed in
residential areas because it served residential needs.
Beck noted that the Prairie Green Center in Eden Prairie
was developed much closer to residential homes than this
project would be. Beck believed that the mixed use for
these lots was worthy of the Council's consideration and
presented an opportunity to solve several problems related
to the development of these 5 lots.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its September 25, 1989 meeting and recommended
denial of the project with a 6-0-0 vote based on the
rationale presented in the Planning Commission minutes and
subject to the Staff recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report dated September 22, 1989. Enger noted that the
proponent had revised the plans to eliminate 1 access and
other changes to bring the project into compliance with
City Code. He added that the proponent had recommended
use of brick for the exterior of the mini-storage which
was not required by City Code. Enger noted that this item
was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission.
Pidcock asked what types of zoning surrounded the facility
in Golden Valley. Jensen replied that there was park and
open space to the south, duplexes and single-family to the
west, and light industrial to the north. Pidcock then
asked how old its existing facilities were. Jensen
replied that the business had started in 1972 and projects
were currently located in 40 states. Jensen added that
only 1 facility had been taken back by the company and
this was due to a freeway condemnation.
Pidcock asked Dietz what the City's experience had been
with the Prairie Green Center. Dietz replied that Staff
had not received any formal complaints. He added that the
facility was a low traffic generator.
City Council Minutes 6 February 6 , 1990
Peterson asked if this would increase traffic problems at
M Anderson Lakes Parkway and the entrance to the Preserve
Village Mall. Enger replied that this was a difficult
intersection currently; however, this project would meet
minimal site distances. Enger added that this project
would only increase the traffic at this intersection
approximately 8 to 10% . Dietz noted that 2 alternatives
were being considered presently for the arterial design of
County Road 18 .
Pidcock asked what the proponent had done since the denial
by the Planning Commission to mitigate the reasons for
denial. Enger replied that the proponent had made changes
to the site plan; however, the Planning Commission had
stated that the land use was inappropriate, which the
proponent could not change.
Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, stated the following
concerns:
1. Why change the zoning?
2 . Why change the zoning now?
3 . Will residential use ever be appropriate?
4 . What will be the effect on the existing residents?
Ziesman believed that because the current owners of the
property wanted to move and the proponent wanted to
develop the property in the manner presented, it did not
justify a need for a zoning change. He added that because
the 5 existing homes were in non-conformance did not mean
that the zoning needed to be changed to industrial.
Ziesman believed that the argument that residential use
could never be developed on this site because of the
change in use for County Road 18 was not valid and stated
that there were other areas in the Twin Cities where
residential homes were located on frontage roads. Ziesman
did not believe that placing a covenant on the property
was sufficient because covenants were frequently changed
or violated. Ziesman believed that it was too soon to
make a determination that this property could not be
developed as residential and needed to be developed as
commercial or industrial.
Jane Laskowski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that her home
was designed such that her family area would look out over
the root lines of this site. She believed that to change
the zoning at this time would be premature. Laskowski
agreed that there was a need for this type of business,
but believed that other areas were still available in Eden
Prairie which would be more appropriate.
Roy Torgenson, an Eden Prairie resident living along
County Road 18 , asked that the City Council consider the
existing residents. He added that traffic had increased
City Council Minutes 7 February 6, 1990
significantly in this area over the years due to the
increase in businesses in the area.
Linda Sicheneder, 9360 County Road 18, asked the Council
to consider the public needs.
Carol Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, stated that in the 5
years that she had lived in Eden Prairie the residents
were constantly dealing with proposed development of this
site. She noted that the Planning Commission had
supported the neighbors, their concerns, and supported the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Terry Osland, 9545 Garrison Way, believed that property
values would go down for existing homes. She added that
she would not have purchased in this location had she
known that the zoning could be changed.
Anderson stated that the residents were correct in that
this was the third proposal for this parcel in a short
period of time. Anderson did not believed that it was
appropriate to place industrial use next to residential
homes. He added that he could support the office and
daycare use, but could not support the Public Storage
facility. Anderson questioned how far the City wanted to
extend commercial use in this area.
Pidcock stated that she had difficulty with the City's
requirement for an industrial designation for the self-
storage when the use was very passive. Pidcock empathized
with those residents which were attempting to sell this
property and concurred that the cost to develop single-
family would not be cost-efficient at this time for this
area.
t
Enger noted that to develop single-family would be a #
break-even situation or possibly a development at a loss.
Harris asked if multiple-family could be developed. Enger
replied this would not be a prime location for either
single-family or multiple-family.
Peterson stated that he could not make this decision based
on the existing property owners' desire to sell the
property and added that he could not support industrial
use for this site.
Tenpas believed that the office and daycare use would be
appropriate uses for this site. Tenpas added that he did
not foresee this site developing as residential for either
single-family or multiple-family. He believed that some
type of light commercial development was appropriate.
City Council Minutes 8 February 6, 1990
Anderson stated that the Council needed to protect the
rights of the existing residents and was concerned because
some of the homes would be looking directly down into this
site. Anderson said that if the zoning had originally
been industrial or commercial he would not have a problem;
however, the site was zoned Rural.
Pidcock noted that the Council had approved the CPT
project with residential homes directly across from that
site. She added that the public storage use was passive
and would generate less traffic than some light commercial
uses.
Harris stated that she had difficulty supporting the
entire project. Harris believed that the expectations of
the existing homeowners needed to be considered. Harris
stated that even through the Public Storage project was a
nicely designed project and the use was passive,
compelling reasons to change the zoning were not present.
There were no further comments from the audience.
NOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson to close the Public
Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for
Denial with Findings. The rationale noted for denial of
the project was support of the Planning Commission's
findings. Motion carried 2-2-1. Tenpas and Pidcock voted
•'NO", Harris abstained.
C. 7AMESTOWN PLANNED UN13: DEVELOPMENT by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5.59
acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 12 . 16 acres, Planned Unit Development 9
Concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development
District on 60 .78 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6. 5 on
12 . 16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on
37 . 65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60. 79 acres into 17
townhouse lots, 60 single-family lots, 2 outlots and road
right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on
60 . 79 acres. Location: South of Highway #5, east of West
184th Avenue. (Resolution No. 90-20 - Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 90-21 - PUD Concept Review;
Resolution No. 90-22 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No,
90-23 - Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review;
Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD-1-90 - PUD District Review and
Rezoning from Rural to R-22 and RM-6. 5 on 12 . 16 acres, and
Rural to R1-22 on 37 . 65 acres. ) Continued from January
16 , 1990
I
City Council Minutes 9 February 6, 1990
Jullie reported that the City Council had been given the
main presentation for this item at the last meeting and
would be updated this evening on the changes which
occurred since that meeting.
Ostenson stated that an agreement had been reached with US
Homes regarding the location of the frontage road.
Enger reported that at the last meeting a question had
been raised regarding the placement of Dell Road and the
potential tree loss. It was confirmed that 605 caliper
inches of tree loss would occur if Dell Road were located
as presently planned, with the primary loss being oak
trees. Enger noted that Staff had looked at moving Dell
Road to the west, which would be physically possible. He
added that this move could result in the saving of between
150 and 200 caliper inches of trees.
Dietz reported that Staff had looked at moving Dell Road
50 feet to the west; however, this would be devastating to
the BDD development. An alternative would be to shift the
road 15 feet; however, a significant berm had been planned
by BDD. Dietz added that if the berm were redesigned the
affect to the BDD parcel would be approximately 10 feet
with an additional 5-foot reduction to take place in the
median. The approximate savings for the trees would be
300 caliper inches.
Pidcock asked if Staff had discussed a possible shift in
the road to the other direction with the City of
Chanhassen. Dietz replied that Staff had not talked with
the City of Chanhassen at this time.
Ostenson stated that all of the trees were located on the
Eden Prairie side of the road.
Feerick stated that BDD had been informed of this possible $
change in road alignment yesterday and added that a 50
foot shift to the west would result in the loss of 15
lots. Feerick stated BDD's willingness to continue to
work with Staff regarding a possible realignment; however,
at this time it could not support a proposal of even a IS-
foot shift in the road alignment.
Peterson believed that the realignment was under
consideration and was not officially part of any proposal
at this time.
Anderson stated that he had brought up the issue at the
last meeting and had suggested consideration of a
realignment to mitigate the significant tree loss.
Anderson added that his intent was to ask the proponent to
work with the City to save additional trees. Feerick.
replied that the proponent was willing to work with the
City Council Minutes 10 February 6, 1990
City Staff and respected the City's concern regarding
saving the trees.
Peterson asked if approval of the motions for this project
would bind the City to a specific alignment of the road or
could negotiations between the 2 developers and the City
continue. Enger replied that the developer relied on
approval of the preliminary plat to make more specific
plans and every step taken would lessen the amount of
flexibility allowed.
Enger stated that Staff was not talking about saving the
entire 600 caliper inches. He added that with careful
placement of the bike path 150 caliper inches could be
saved and the realignment of the road would make this
savings easier to accomplish.
't
Peterson stated that the information being presented did
not have a direct effect on this project, but rather on a
previously approved project. He added that Staff was
responding to a request for additional information from
the Council . Enger replied that the issue regarding the
trees loss was part of this proposal ; however, it was
determined that nothing could be done on this proposal to
save the trees and a recommendation was made to consider
realignment of the read. Enger added that the result was
an affect on the BDD proposal for which a preliminary plat
had already been approved. Enger noted that it was
possible to look at alternatives for the BDD proposal
prior to the final plat approval . Enger added that at
this time the realignment of the road would not affect the
proposal under discussion at this time.
Ostenson stated that he would be willing to be part of the
discussions referring to the location of the bike path.
Feerick stated that BDD Development would continue to work
with Staff on this issue.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MtOTZON
's e Pidcock moved, seconded by Harri toc 10 se the
Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-20 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MQTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-21 for PUD Concept Review. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 11 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-22 for Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-23 for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION•
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD-1-90 for PUD District Review and
Rezoning and direct Staff to prepare a Development
Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations and the following conditions : Prior to
2nd Reading for this item a report be presented to the
City Council regarding the discussions between BDD,
Jamestown, and Staff regarding possible methods to save
the trees. Motion carried unanimously.
D. ORDER IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, - (Extension Mitchellad
throucth Boulder Pointe to C.S.A.H. #1 j Resolution No. 90-
30
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
properly published.
t
Dietz reported that feasibility reports were presented to
the affected property owners. The road would be 32 feet
wide to County Road 1. The cost of the project for
sidewalks, streets, and sewer would be approximately
$517, 000. Having the road shifted to the south would
benefit the Boulder Pointe project and, therefore, the
entire project could be assessed. The storm sewer would
be located in the 40 acre parcel at the northwest corner
of Boulder Pointe. A pond would be developed in Outlot C,
which would result in the reduction of the pipe size. The
sidewalks would be a continuation of the existing
sidewalks and would be included in the street costs.
Dietz reported that the sanitary sewer would cost
approximately $191, 000. The City's portion of the cost
would be approximately $105 , 000 and the assessable amount
would be $86, 000. The assessment would be calculated at
$27 .83 per front foot. The City would absorb the cost of
the oversized pipe which could be reimbursed to the City
when the southwest area was developed. Dietz stated that
the watermain cost would be approximately $ 116, 000.
City Council Minutes 12 February 6, 1990
Dietz reported that a spring start was anticipated with
substantial completion by Fall 1990. The project
assessment roll would be provided for the Special
Assessment Hearing in the Fall 1991. Dietz presented a
letter from Ron Krueger and Associates regarding a method
of assessment.
Bob Nelson, 9041 North Sunrise Circle, was concerned that
his property would not have access from Mitchell Road.
Nelson stated that he had talked about developing his
property; however, this would not be possible if access
were not provided. Dietz replied that Mitchell Road was a
collector and driveways onto Mitchell Road would not be
considered good planning.
Peterson asked if Nelson would have access from either
Mitchell Road or Sunrise Circle. Dietz replied that
Nelson would probably have access from Sunrise Circle in
the event that he wished to subdivide the property.
Pidcock asked why Mitchell. Road was only 32 feet wide if
it was considered a collector. Dietz replied that 32 feet
wide was the City standard and because no state aid would
be used for its construction, this width would be allowed.
Dietz added that if state funds were used the road would
be required to be 36 feet wide. Pidcock then asked if it
would be possible to get state aid for construction.
Dietz replied that he did not believe that would be
feasible.
Anderson asked if there would be enough width available
for this road to become a 4-lane roadway. Dietz replied
no. Anderson stated that other suburbs were constructing
4-lane roads, where Eden Prairie was still developing 2-
lane roads. Anderson was concerned if the roads would be
able to handle the traffic in the future, especially with 3
the southwest area developing. Dietz replied that the 2-
lane road would be able to handle the traffic.
Peterson stated that he would not like to see traffic
attracted into residential areas with a 4-lane road.
Dietz replied that the 2-lane system had been investigated
extensively.
Pidcock believed that the traffic volume would be
significant in this area . Dietz replied that the arterial
system available would be able to handle the traffic
volume.
There were no further comments from the audience.
City Council Minutes 13 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-30 ordering the
improvement and preparation of plans and specifications.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. EDEN PLACE CENTER (Frank's Nursery & Crafts) by Prairie
Entertainment Associates. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 15. 2 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15. 2 acres with waivers,
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning
District on 6.42 acres, Preliminary Plat of 6 . 42 acres
into two lots, and Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres for
construction of a 25, 742 square foot building addition to
the commercial site. Location: West of Glen Lane, south
and east of Eden Road. (Resolution No. 90-24 - PUD
Concept Amendment; Resolution No. 90-25 - Preliminary
Plat; Ordinance No. 5-90-PUD-2-90 - PUD District Review
and Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been sent to owners of 24 surrounding properties and
published int he January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
John Winston, attorney for the proponent, stated that the
proponent's desire was to construct a first-class
facility.
Paul Strother, architect for the proponent, stated that 3
main issues were considered when developing the plan for
this project:
1. The site was visible from 3 sides.
2 . The need for Frank's Nursery to operate its type
of business adequately. x
3 . To have the architecture design of Ciatti 's
continued.
Strother stated that the berm would be continued to screen
the back of Ciatti's, the trash areas would be enclosed
for both Ciatti's and the retail center, all electric and
gas meters would be enclosed to the best of their ability,
and the loading areas for Frank's Nursery would be
enclosed and screened. He added that a masonry wall would
be constructed along the back side of the facility and to
the north side to screen the view of the storage area.
Strother noted that the national prototype architecture
for Frank's Nursery had been significantly modified to be
compatible with Ciatti's.
Winston stated that the proponent had been loot responsive
to all of the City's requests .
City Council Minutes 14 February 6, 1990
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its November 13 and December 11, 1989 and January
8, 1990 meetings. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the project at the January 8 , 1990 meeting
based on the Staff recommendations outlined in the January
5, 1990 Staff Report.
Harris stated that the enclosure of the refuse areas would
be a significant improvement. She then asked how high the
masonry wall would be. Strother replied that the wail
would be 14 feet high. He added that this had been
discussed with Mr. Teman.
Peterson asked what the view would be from the opposite
side of Eden Road. Strother replied that only the top of
the wall would be seen and added that the sight lines
would be good from all areas.
Anderson asked what type of plantings would be placed on
the back berm area. Strother replied pines and Black Hill
Spruce.
Peterson asked if the berm would be irrigated. Strother
replied yes. a
Pidcock asked how the employees would get to the trash
enclosure. Strother stated that because of the location
of the kitchen, the employees would need to go outside of
the building to get to the trash enclosures.
Harris was concerned that because the employees had to go
outside the building to reach the trash enclosures, the
trash would not get into the enclosed area.
Winston believed that the trash issue would be difficult
for the proponent to police.
Peterson believed that it was important that the developer
solve an existing problem before further development was
approved.
Peterson did not believed that this was an acceptable
resolution to the present problem and requested that this
issue be resolved prior to 2nd Reading.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission recommended approval 6-0-0.
There were no further comments from the audience.
City Council Minutes 15 February 6, 1990
f MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-24 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to adopt Resolution No.
90-25 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve lst Reading of
Ordinance No. 5-90-PUD-2-90 for PUD District Review and
Zoning and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement
incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and
Council conditions as related to the trash enclosure.
Anderson stated that he was concerned with the upkeep and
maintenance of the project. He added that he did not want
to see pallets or old, dead shrubs to be v4.sible. Winston
replied that Frank's Nursery believed that this would be
its finest store to date. Anderson emphasized that it was
important that the Council not be bothered with
maintenance issues and complaints from neighbors.
t
Peterson believed that the screening proposed would
adequately address Councilmember Anderson's concerns.
Tenpas stated that there would actually be two walls, one
inside the other, which would adequately screen the
operations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Harris requested that further discussion regarding outside
trash storage in Eden Prairie take place at a special
meeting. Peterson recommended that Staff look into this
issue and report back to the Council .
F. MERMAID CAB WASH, Esberg Corporation. Request for Zoning
District Change and Site Plan Review. Location: Prairie
View Center ('Ordinance No. 6-90 - Zoning District
Amendment)
Jullie reported that the proponent was requesting a
continuance to the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting.
City Council Minutes 16 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item
the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
G. R. G. READ & COMPANY. INP. by R.G. Read & Company, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2
Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.82 acres for
construction of a 39,080 square foot office/warehouse.
Location: Northeast quadrant of Corporate Way and Martin
Drive. (Ordinance No. 7-90 - Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
mailed to owners of 17 surrounding properties and
published in the January 24, 1990. issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
Bruce Schmidt, representing the proponent, was available
to answer questions.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended
approval with a 4-0-0 vote.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the Public
Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 7-90 for
Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
R
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
H. CMN,Tt,TRY BANK BUILpING by KKE Architects, . Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109. 68
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers, Zoning District Change from C-Reg to C-Reg-Ser,
and Site Plan Review on 2 .48 acres for construction of a
33 , 653 foot building. Location: Southeast corner of
Viking Drive West and Highway #169 . (Resolution No. 90-26
- PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 - PUD
District Review and Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
mailed to 8 surrounding property owners and published in
the January 24 , 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
I
If
I
t
City Council Minutes 17 February 6, 1990
Ron Erickson, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a bank building. The proponent was requesting a
right-in only access from Highway 169. The parking would
be enclosed under the building. The exterior material
would be brick, stone and accent material of rockface
brick.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8, 1990 and recommended approval 4-0-
0. Enger noted that the traffic would need to be balanced
throughout the remainder of the PUD.
a
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission recommended approval of the project.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No 90-26 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
i
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 for PUD District Review and
Zoning District Amendment and direct Staff to prepare a
Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff j
recommendations . Motion carried unanimously.
i
d
I . INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHAgE II by International School of
Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment
with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres,
Site Plan Review on approximately 38 acres for
construction of a 27 , 640 square foot addition. Location:
South of Crosstown #62, north of Bryant Lake, west of Nine
Mile Creek. (Ordinance No. 4-90 Zoning District
Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was
mailed to 54 surrounding property owners and published in
the January 24 , 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Tracy Whitehead, representing the proponent, stated that
the school was presently operating at full capacity. The
design of the addition would be that which was originally
approved.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its November 27 and December 11, 1989 meetings and
approved the proposal with a 7-0-0 vote.
City Council Minutes 18 February 6, 1990
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission reviewed this item on December 18 ,
1989 and the main issue of discussion was focused on the
trail . Lambert wanted both the school and the City to be
on record as to their intent regarding the trail issue.
The school had gone on record stating that it did not
support the trail and the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission went on record supporting the trail
system.
Peterson understood that originally Hennepin County was to
buy the land for the trail . Lambert replied that Hennepin
County had decided not to go forward with the project and
if the trail were to proceed it would become a City
project.
Peterson asked the purpose of going on record for support.
Lambert replied that it was important to establish the
intent of the City if condemnation were to be necessary.
Whitehead noted that Hennepin County had started
condemnation proceedings at one point and later decided to
reconsider.
Tenpas asked why the school was against the trail .
Whitehead replied that vandalism was a concern. Whitehead
+ believed that the trail should be considered as a separate
issue.
Harris believed that the trail would be an important
contribution to the City and would like to see the issue
of the trail investigated further .
Anderson noted that it had always been the intent to have
a connection of the pedestrian trail system at this
location which would provide access to a county park.
Enger stated there was a requirement to file a Final Plat
which was one year over due. Whitehead stated that she
was not aware of all the details which were involved in
filing a Final Plat; however, it was in the process now.
Whitehead wanted the Final Plat due before an occupancy
permit could be issued.
Peterson stated that the City appreciated the presence of
the school ; however, he asked if the Ci::y could place a
legal condition on this proposal regarding the trail . E
Nilan believed that this would be possible. Whitehead
stated that the school 's attorney had had several
discussions with City Attorney Pauly and did not believe t
that such a condition would be possible. Whitehead added
that the owners were firm in their position of not wanting
a trail through the property. She added that this was a
cultural difference for the Lebanon-based owners.
r
City Council Minutes 19 February 6, 1990
Whitehead encouraged Staff to discuss this further with
the owners.
Pidcock stated that the City's position was also firm.►,
that the City wanted the trail developed as originally
proposed.
Anderson stated that the City had been led to believe that
the County's intent was to construct a trail and now this
may not be true.
Tenpas believed that the trail issue should be discussed
further with the owners.
Gerald Duffy, attorney representing a Mr. Don Poupard,
owner of land to the west at 6251 Beach Road, stated that
he could not believe that the City had allowed this
proponent to go over one year and not file a Final Plat.
Duffy stated that his clients property was lower in
elevation than that of the school's. He noted that the
plan had been altered regarding the access, landscaping
and visual screening which had been agreed after the
Council had approved the plan. Duffy added that drainage
problems were present because of the changes which
occurred from the school's original grading plan. Duffy
believed that Phase II should not be allowed until Phase I
was completed as agreed. Duffy believed that any other
developer in the City would be required to meet City
regulations, yet the school had been allowed to be over a o
year past due to file a Final Plat.
Peterson asked Staff if it was aware of these problems.
Dietz believed that the drainage issue had been resolved.
Enger replied that landscaping was to replace a berm;
because of the grade at the entrance, it was determined
that a berm was not possible. Enger added that Assistant
Planner Kipp had a meeting with the proponent and the
property owner, and at that meeting the proponent had
agreed to relocate 4 trees. Enger stated that the
landscaping was in place; however, it did not screen the
property owner from the headlights.
Peterson stated that there were several unresolved issues:
landscaping, grading, and screening, all of which needed
to be addressed.
Whitehead stated that she had no idea there was a problem.
She added that she had not heard from Mr. Pepard for over
a year and believed the issues to be resolved. Whitehead
stated that the proponent had added 4 additional trees in
lieu of moving them and the sign had been angled. She
added that the driveway design had been changed based on a
recommendation from the BRW and the City.
City Council Minutes 20 February 6, 1990
Duffy stated that during the normal course of development
his client should have been informed of any changes from
the original plan. Duffy questioned what the final grades
would be and if the City actually knew since a Final Plat
had not been filed. He stated that the City should decide
what can be done today, since what was originally proposed
had not solved the problems for his client . Duffy believed
strongly that Phase I should be completed before Phase II
could proceed.
Anderson and Peterson concurred that major issues were yet
unresolved.
There were no further comnents from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting to provide time
to resolve the issues. Motion carried unanimously.
Peterson noted that the trail issue should be dealt with
separately.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this meeting
until 11: 30 PH. Motion carried unanimously.
J. EDEN SQUARE (TOWER BANK SQUARE) by Robert Larsen
Partnership, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development r
Concept Amendment on 9. 58 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 9. 58
acres for construction of a 7, 800 square foot building.
Location: Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive.
(Resolution No. 90-27 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance
No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 - PUD District Review and Zoning
District Change)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been mailed to 31 adjacent property owners and published
in the January 24 , 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for an 8 , 000 square foot, two-story office bank and
office building. He added that the architecture would be
compatible with the adjacent buildings.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended
approval with a 4-0-0 vote.
There were no further comments from the audience.
P
City Council Minutes 21 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-27 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 for PUD District Review and
Zoning District Change and direct Staff to prepare a
Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
K. ALPINE CENTER by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser and
Site Plan Review on 3 . 56 acres for construction of a
29. 700 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast
corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive.
(Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89 - PUD District Review and
Zoning) .
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
L. EDEN SERVICE CENTER, by Rosewood Construction for Aspen
Park Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Office to Community Commercial on 1 . 5 i
acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
approximately 37 acres for consideration of a 3, 300 square
foot Auto Service Center. Location: Northwest corner of
Fuller Road (extended) and Highway 5.
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting.
M��T1
MOTIQN: 5
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
i
Y
1
City Council Minutes 22 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims
No. 57064 through No. 57489.
Harris asked what Claim No. 57232 to Carlson & Carlson Company
related to. Jullie replied that this was part of the employee
assistance program.
Peterson asked what kind of waste Buckingham Disposal dealt
with, Claim No. 57228. Jullie replied that this was for
garbage pickup at City facilities.
Peterson requested a detailed explanation of the legal
services provided. Jullie replied that he would provide the
Council with this information.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and
Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS . REQUESTS 6 COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of seven members to the Landfill Advisory
Committee
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. A2ROintment of sevenWeSk Committee
(l. Councilmember, 1 member of the Parks, Recreations &
Natural Resources Commission, 1 member of the Waste
Management Commission, 1 member from Eden Prairie. ISD No.
272, and 4 at-large members)
Anderson recommended the following individuals for the
Earth Week Committee:
1. Bud Baker
2 . Bonnie Swaim
3 . Howard Peterson
4 . John Lyngdal
5. Stu Fox
6. Craig Dawson
7 . Richard Anderson
8 . Cindy Adalbert
9 . Barbara Westmoreland
9
City Council Minutes 23 February 6, 1990
10.Lynne Forster
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the members of
the Earth Week Committee as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
Pid<:ock requested that the Human Services Commission be
directed to study the locations for daycare centers.
Enger stated that this had been directed previously.
Jullie added that the conclusion had been that sufficient
data was not available; however, a report would be
resubmitted.
B. ReRort of City Manager
1. Set Tuesday. March 13 6: 30 ,PM for General Orientation
with Board and Commission members
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to schedule a special
meeting for General Orientation with Board and Commission
members for Tuesday March 13 , at 6: 30 PM. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. Revort of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Director of Parks Recreation Natural Resources
F. Renort of Director of Public Worka
G. Report of Finance Director
i
XI . ,NEW BUSINESS
i
A
XII . ADJOURNMENT
i
The meeting adjourned at 11: 15 PM.
t
n