City Council - 04/17/1990 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
8500 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: 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, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director
John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris
Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director
of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Roberta Wick
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
r
Tenpas moved to approve the agenda as published and amended.
Seconded by Pidcock.
Harris added two items to the agenda: 1) Watering restrictions; and 2) a
letter about extending the MUSA line.
Pidcock added under Councilmembers Report on: 3) changing address
numbers on Cedar Ridge Road; 4) Letter from Bill Frenzel re: Highway
212; and, 5) letter to Shirley Kratochvil thanking her for the third
graders' video.
Jullie added the following: To Page 3 of the Agenda, VI, A, Ordinances and
Resolutions, a Resolution 90-117 regarding Sale of the Parkway
Apartments Project; To Page 4, Item 10, B, 1, Report on Liquor Store
Building Program; To Report of Director of Public Works, Item X. F, 5,
Concern Regarding the I-494 Corridor Study.
Anderson added (6) Special Projects under Councilmembere Reports.
Motion to approve the agenda as amended carried 5-0.
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday. October 3. 1989
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve minutes of October 3.
Approved 5-0.
City Council Minutes 2 April 17, 1990
B. City Council Megtinx held Tuesday March 13, 1990
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve minutes of March 13.
Mr. Lambert said page 23 the third paragraph should read "40-acre
park" instead of "30-acre park," and on page 25 the fourth
paragraph, 11th sentence, should read "boat launch from the
northern location." instead of "docks from the northern location."
Peterson said on Page 9 the fourth paragraph should read "trail be
placed on the property", and on Page 11 of the minutes, fourth
paragraph should read "from the Eden Hills homeowners Association
to the City which outlined its concerns."
Minutes approved as amended 5-0.
C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 20, 1990
Pidcock moved to approve minutes of March 20, seconded by Harris.
Approved 5-0.
D. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 3. 1990
Pidcock moved to accept minutes of April 3, seconded by Tenpas.
Approved 5-0.
j III. CONSENT CALENDAR
l A. Clerk's License List
B. Overnight Policy for Outdoor Center
C. Resolution No. 90-114._Givintt A proval to a Chanste of Name of Grantee
from Rogers Cablesys, ems of the Southwest. Inc. to KBL Cablesystems
of the Southwest,_Inc. D/B/A Paragon Cable and lot Reading of
Ordinance No. 19-90 C, ansti „g Nagle of Grantee
D. Apiprove Plans StId g2!tcfficationsW to
of T.H. 5 and East of Dell Road) I.C. 2-.79 (Resolution No. 90-107)
E. Approve Supplement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 for Final Design
Services (Ss,P. 102-44 and ,2701-28 (T.H. 5). I.C. 52-135 (Resolution No.
90-109)
F. Receive 100% Petition for Streets and Utilities in the Burnett and
Nelson Additions and Qrder Preparation of Plans and SDecificat=ons.
I.C. 52-199 (Resolution No. 90-110)
G. Approval of Final t of-Alvii2e Two, future s'
Chi-Chi's Restaurant (located at the N.W. corner of Commonwealth
Drive and Prairie Center Drive) (Resolution No. 90-105)
H. Consider reduction of Special Assessment at 6268 Chatham Way
City Council Minutes 3 April 17, 1990
I. COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION by Coffman Development. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 48-89, Rezoning from the Rural District to the R1-
13.5 District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Country Glen 2nd
Addition; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-94, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 48-89, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary.
Location: East of Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross Way and
Country Road (Ordinance No. 48-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-94 -
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
J. CENTURY BANK BUILDING by KKE Architects, Inc. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90, Rezoning from the C-Reg District to the
PUD-3-90 C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Century Bank Building; Adoption of
Resolution No. 90-95, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 8-90-
PUD-3-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of
Resolution No. 90-96, Site Plan Review. Location: Southeast corner of
Viking Drive West and Highway #169. (Ordinance No. 8•-90-PUD-3-90 -
Rezoning and PUD District Review; Resolution No. 90-95 - Authorizing
Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-96 - Site Plan Review)
K. EDEN SQUARE (TOWER SQUARE BANK) by Robert Larsen Partnership,
Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, Rezoning within
the C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Tower Square Bank; Adoption of Resolution
No. 90-97, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-
98, Site Plan Review. Location: Highway *169 and Prairie Center
Drive (Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 - Rezoning and PUD District
Review; Resolution No. 90-97 - Authorizing Summary and Publication;
Resolution No. 90-98 - Site Plan Review)
L. Pr9!qlamation ProclaimingApril 30, 1990 as Gene Schgrmana in Eden
Prairiig (Resolution No. 90-116)
M. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90, Rezoning from the Rural District to the
RM-6.5 District and PUD District Review; approval of Resolution No.
90-99, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90, and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-
100, Site Plan Review. Location: Northwest corner of County Road 18
and Bluff Road. (Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 - Rezoning and PUD
District Review, Resolution No. 90-99 - Authorizing Summary and
Publication; Resolution No. 90-100 - Site Plan Review)
0
N. McD-ONALD by McDonald's Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.
13-90-PUD-7-90, Rezoning within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and
PUD District Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for
McDonalds; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-1010 Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90, and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-102, Site Plan Review.
Location: East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive.
City Council Minutes 4 April 17, 1990
(Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90 - Rezoning and PUD District;
Resolution No. 90-101 - Authorizing Summary and Publication;
Resolution No. 90-102 - Site Plan Review)
O. BOULDER POINT TOWNHON:ES by David Carlson Companies, Inc. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 14-90, Rezoning from the Rural District to
the RM-6.5 District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Boulder
Point Townhomes; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-103, Authorizing
Summary of Ordinance No. 14-90, and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-104, Site Plan Review.
Location: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of
Staring Lake Parkway. (ordinance No. 14-90 - Rezoning; Resolution
No. 90-103 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-
104 - Site Plan Review)
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Consent Calendar.
Approved 5-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1990 AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AND AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 AND 7 (Resolution No.
90-115)
Jullie stated that notice for this public hearing was property
published. The proposal is for an amendment to the Tax Increment
Program for the Major Center Area. The City was able to complete
the original construction projects that were identified several years
ago for upgrading the road system in the Major Center Area at lower-
than-expected cost, and the tax increments generated exceeded
expectations. As a result the City was in a very positive cash flow
situation. All of the bonded debt for the original program has been
retired and $3.3 million in tax increment funds were on hand. If the
Council chose to continue the program the City would be gaining an
additional $6 million over the next four years, yielding a total of
about $9.3 million in tax increments. State laws provide that the
Council could choose to use this money for additional public works
projects provided public hearings were held to accomplish the
desired amendments. The total estimated cost of doing the
improvements contained in the Notice of Hearing was about $12.5
million. The difference between the $12.5 and the $9.3 million in
increments could be made up in the area of special assessments to the
benefiting properties and/or additional City participation. Jullie said
he would anticipate that as a project was considered and authorized,
the City would go through a public hearing process for individual
projects in order to levy any special assessments for improvements.
Jullie further stated that if the Council chose not to go ahead with
the program, it would mean that property taxes could be lowered by
City Council Minutes 5 April 17, 1990
about 5% in 1991. That would drop to 1% in 1992 and less than 1/2% in
1993. The impact in 1991 for a $125,000 home would be about $100;
for 1992, that would drop to only $20; and in 1993, $8. The impact
would be minimal and a reasonable price to continue expanding and
improving the road system in the community. It is recommended that
the Council adopt the amendments.
Pauly said there was a slight revision of Resolution No. 115. The
primary change was that the draft in the packet recited that the
program had been reviewed by the Planning Commission to comment
whether the amended project complied generally with the
comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission had not reviewed the
amended program at this point, so the resolution deleted the
reference to that review raving been made and at Section 2.02,
specifically provided that the program would be conditioned upon the
submission of the program amendment to the Planning Commission and
upon the Planning Commission's finding that the amendment
conformed to the general plan of the development of the City as a
whole.
Pauly also spoke regarding the document prepared by the Dorsey
firm, Exhibit A to the Resolution No. 90-115.
Some corrections in Exhibit A had also been made by Mr. Frane in
reference to PIN numbers and he has corrected those. All of Exhibit
{ A and the various memoranda cited were given to all Council members.
Mr. Jullie said that the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce had also
reviewed this proposal and adopted a resolution in support of the
amendments. It recommended, however, that the Council appoint a
committee to assist in reviewing the list of projects and the priorities
that could be assigned to that listing.
Harris asked if there would be another public hearing if the list of
proposed projects changes.
Pauly replied that would be the appropriate procedure. However,
there were amendments being proposed to the Tax Increment
Financing law and included in those are some restrictions on the uses
of tax increment funds for various projects. Some of the projects
that were eligible now may not be eligible under the laws being
proposed.
Dick Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, addressed the Council for the i
Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the Chamber took a very
strong position in support of the amended Tax Increment District.
The Chamber also saw the opportunity to work with the City in
innovative uses for the funding including additional street systems
that might contribute more to the downtown and the Prairie Center
Drive area. It also looked at using public funding for park
improvements, sewer and water, parking lots, or for amenities within
a park area. The Chamber would welcome the opportunity to work
City Council Minutes 6 April 17, 1990
with the City to maximize the benefit of this desirable source of
funding.
The Council discussed the procedure for appointing an advisory
committee. Each council member is to nominate one member, plus two
or three at-large.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION
Harris moved that the public hearing be closed and that Resolution
No. 90-115 be adopted amending the development program and tax
increment financing plans. Seconded by Pidcock.
Anderson said he was very much in favor of this form of financing
for the City. Tenpas also said he believed this to be a good vehicle
to k aep tax dollars in Eden Prairie to go to Eden Prairie projects.
Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved that the Council appoint a task force of seven members
to make recommendations and consult with the City staff on
implementation of the public improvements, with names submitted for
appointment at the next Council meeting. Seconded by Pidcock.
Approved 5-0.
B. TREE ORDINANCE. lst Reading of Ordinance No. 17-90, Amending City
Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" by adding
an Environmental Preservation Regulations Section which will regulate
tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other
things.
Jullie said notice of this public hearing was published in the April 4 '
issue of Eden Prairie News.
Enger stated that this Ordinance had been developed in a three-year
process. The policy was brought to the Developers Form in March
1988 and there was a period of time that the City worked with the
Developer's Forum. Suggestions were made for changes in the policy
and changes were made. One change was a reduction in the bonding
requirement which was originally 250%, another was an increase in ,
the threshold and a decrease in the tree multiplier from 60% to 75%,
resulting in a decrease in the multiplier for deter-mining tree
replacement. At that time there was a 10% reduction in the number of
trees that were estimated within the building pad area of a
subdivision. Because of concerns and suggestions made by the
development community that no credit was given in the policy to allow
for custom building, a 10% reduction was given in that policy. The
City Council Minutes 7 April 17, 1990
policy had been endorsed by 16 local developers individually and the
by the Developer's Forum.
As the Council had directed the policy to be brought to it in an
Ordinance form, the staff had worked with representatives of the
Developer's Forum review the Ordinance in its current form.
Constructive criticism had been made on the Ordinance.
Information had been assembled on the average amount of tree
replacement, the average cost per lot, the impact that the tree policy
has had, and what was expected from implementation of the
Ordinance. In residential projects, there was an average coat for
replacement of $623 per residential lot. For the commercial
properties, there was approximately 184 caliper inches replacement
per project.
Developers suggested that a tree inventory be done and that
construction Iimits be drawn. Any trees removed within the
construction limits would not be subject to the tree policy, but trees
within a road right-of-way would be subject to the policy or one 3-
inch tree would be required for every lot platted, whichever was
greater. In looking back on the history of 50 projects, the one 3-
inch tree per lot would be a greater requirement. On the 41
residential projects where the City has administered the policy,
12,551 caliper inches of trees would be planted. Under the
Developers Forum proposal of January, if every one of the single
family subdivisions platted during the time the tree policy was being
administered had a 3-inch tree planted, there would have been 5,334
caliper inches planted. Before the tree policy was utilized, there was
close to a 50% tree loss in residential subdivisions. Now there was
about a 26% tree loss.
Tree replacement was a tool allowed to the development community as
a substitute for different types of approaches to a project. For
example, the City Code contemplated the use of the R1-44 Single
Family District as the district to be utilized when natural features are
involved, such as steep slopes, woods, wetlands. Developers have
chosen to use the R1-44 District only once since it has been adopted-
on the Timber Bluffs project. Smaller lots have been pursued, the
R1-22, and most predominately the R1-13.5, the 1/3-acre lot size. In
some cases there was a substantial amount of tree loss, but given the
alternative of one-acre lots as a method of saving many more trees,
the development community has chosen to enlist the tree policy as a
tool for mitigation and to go forward with the smaller lots and higher
tree replacement. .
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed ordinance at a
public meeting April 9, 1990 and recommended approval unanimously.
The Park and Recreation and Natural Resources Commission met on
this April 16, 1990 and recommended it unanimously. Members also
indicated that if there were changes between the first and second
reading, they wished to see the changed form of the Ordinance.
i
City Council Minutes 8 April 17, 1990
Pauly said that this Ordinance was in the form of an amendment to
the Land Alteration portion of the Code. Land alteration included any
grading, filling, removal of earth of more than 100 cubic yards, or
any alteration of land more than one foot from the natural contour of
the ground over a contiguous 200 square feet of ground, or any
cutting, removal or destruction of 10% of trees on any land within a
period of five years or any disruption of vegetation on an area which
was equal to or greater than any parcel of land. This trigger for
requirement of a Land Alteration Permit then triggered the need for a
tree inventory and the tree replacement portion of the Code.
Pauly also pointed out that the criteria on which the Council can base
a decision as to whether or not to grant a permit for a land alteration
had been expanded. In addition to the amendment to the Land
Alteration portion of the Code, which was part of the Zoning
Ordinances in Chapter 11, there was an amendment to the subdivision
ordinances in Chapter 12 of the Code which incorporated those same
criteria.
Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, introduced Lisa
Burban, who presented her paper on the value of trees. She
discussed the physical and ecological benefits, the aesthetic values,
the economic and social benefits of trees. A copy of her paper was
distributed to all Council members.
Jim Ostenson of James Development Company spoke on behalf of the
Eden Prairie Developer's Forum. He said it had met several times as
its own developer's group as well as with the City staff. Six or
seven areas in which they have reached agreement or proposed
changes had been identified.
Regarding the tree inventory, Mr. Ostenson said he thought this field
work had done a lot to reduce the loss of trees and they supported
the need for this measure. They have a question regarding the
timing of the Land Alteration Permit. According to the proposed
ordinance it would take a separate Council action for that to be
approved. He would propose that this permit be granted at the same
time as the preliminary plat. The reason for this is that with the
preliminary plat, will have been submitted a tree inventory and a
grading plan and the tree loss could be calculated at that point. It
would be best to know if the tree loss would be a problem at this
point.
The third concern was bonding which could work well for the y
developer and the City in getting trees replaced. The current
bonding requirements were 150% of the cost of tree replacement. He 3
proposed that it be reduced to 125% because that is what the rest of
the bonds are on any other subdivision improvements. Once the new
trees were planted, he proposed that the bond be reduced to 40% As
it now stands, a 150% bond is placed and a developer will replace all
the trees that died. At that point the developers have paid for the
8
City Council Minutes 9 April 17, 1990
replacement trees 2-1/2 times--150% on bonds and 100% in
replacement cost. Because it was difficult for developers to get
bonds today, they were providing letters-of-credit or cash escrows
which are taken out of the operating capital of a company. The 40%
suggestion was based on discussions with nursery people who said
that the average tree loss of nursery stock is 5-10%. Mr. Enger has
indicated that the City's experience during the last two years was a
higher rate of failure than and staff was open to further discussions.
Whatever number is used, he suggested that the bond be reduced at
the time of the replacement planting and that the bond be removed
entirely one year later. This was how the proposed ordinance reads.
Concerning "wilding" trees, if there were trees on a site that might
be suitable for moving and leaving on the site, he suggests the
landowner or developer be given credit for moving those trees.
Since there was a risk in so doing, he proposed that the same 125%
bond be required, and that it remain in place for a full year and not
educed at the time of planting. At the end of one year, any trees
that are dead would be replaced with nursery stock. The bond could
be removed at that time.
In the existing Ordinance it's requested that replacement trees be
put at entrance monuments, outlets, common areas or steep slopes.
No mention is given to front yards. He proposed replacement trees
also be allowed to go in front yards. Developers thought this greatly
improved the streetscape of a neighborhood.
He also said that there are certain situations where the tree policy
became a hardship for a landowner. If a small project with a small
number of lots has a lot of trees are taken down, it can be a financial
burden. His proposal was that language be incorporated in the
ordinance that would allow for leniency in certain hardship
situations. It should be a percentage over the average. Measures
that could be included would be moving roads, reducing lots,
increasing lots sizes, etc. It's possible for a land owner to do all of
those and still have a large amount of tree loss. In 28 projects this
would have come into play in about four or five.
Regarding commercial, industrial or multi-family property,
landscaping requirement already exists for these projects. It was
their opinion it would be desirable to have a blending of the tree
replacement requirements and the landscaping requirements. This
would not a factor very often as most industrial land is open land.
But sometimes this would not be the case and the tree ordinance 1
could become very difficult to work with both from a practical
standpoint and a financial one.
Developers ask further that everyone work together on saving trees.
They asked that landowners or developers receive additional
consideration when proposing cul-de-sacs, for instance, in order to
save trees or when proposing steeper grades on short sections of
roads, or using a differently-shaped lots, in order to save trees. He
City Council Minutes 10 April 17, 1990
asked that everyone recommit themselves to greater flexibility in site
planning.
Enger commented that all parties agreed on the importance of the
tree inventory. On Item 2, timing of the Land Alteration Permit, it
was the staff's desire not to duplicate efforts, here so there was
agreement on this point. On wilding trees, it was a change in the
ordinance when the staff suggested that wilding trees not be allowed.
Both the developers and the City have had very bad luck with
moving wilding trees especially during the drought. Mr. Fox
developed some criteria which made the wilding trees much more
comparable to nursery stock. If those criteria were to be used, they
would be a self--policing because it would be rare to find 100% of the
trees in the wild that could be moved according to those criteria.
Staff's suggestion was to limit this type of tree to 25% and if they
died, they would be replaced with nursery stock. The final form of
the ordinance did not differentiate between wilding trees and
nursery stock.
Enger continued with discussion of location of replacement trees. It
was not the intention to preclude replacement trees from being
allowed on individual lots. However, staff wanted first to emphasize
areas other than individual lots, mostly because if the trees were
planted in an entrance portion of a subdivision, they could be
consolidated as an early part of the project and be maintained more
easily. Quite often buffers were required as transitional land uses.
As a part of slope or restoration area it made a lot of sense also.
From the developers' perspective, they wanted the option of seeing
the trees as part of the amenity of the lot and the City didm't
disagree with that.
On bonding, Enger stated that staff understood the concern of the
development community. Staff much preferred the letter-of-credit,
cashier's clieck, or cash escrow. It was much easier to get to the
money if necessary to cause the planting or replacement of the trees.
The difficulty with bonds was the same for each party. It was
difficult for developers to get them because the bond would not be
removed until all trees had survived one year. This put a bond
company in liability possibly for several years until all trees
survived. Due to the high risk associated with these bonds, very few
companies provided them. The City also had trouble cashing in on
the bond for non-performance because court action was usually
needed to get the bonding company to pay the money. This was
time-consuming and expensive for the City. As an alternative, the
City tried to work with the bonding company and the contractor or
developer, but held the bonds until there was performance on them.
One alternative would be to eliminate performance bonds as a method
a
to guarantee plant material; the letter-of-credit or cash escrow could
perhaps then be less than 150%. However, it would be difficult to
eliminate performance bonds because some companies still prefer them
because they cost less. Mr. Pauly said the City shouldn't
City Council Minutes 11 April 17, 1990
differentiate between methods of surety, i.e., asking for a bigger
performance bond.
Enger continued that staff did not see much sense in reducing the
150% to 125% when the industry standard was 150%. Reducing the
bond after planting made sense, but the experience of the City that
the 5-10% suggested as normal for nursery stock was not what the
City had seen in tree replacement. A number of projects had 50%
loss, and even 100%. A concession would be to release the bond after
the replacement trees had been planted.
Enger discussed hardship cases. The developers' proposal was that
the ordinance should allow leniency for certain hardship cases in
which the developer had taken all measures to sensitively develop a
site and yet a large amount of tree loss still would occur. Perhaps
there should be a top cap. However, "taken all measures" should be
clearly defined. This should include utilization of the R1-44 District
in treed areas. Density transfers should be considered as well as
variances on the City's part from setbacks, lot sizes, different
architectural types, and special forestry practices.
Lastly, he discussed eliminating or blending tree preservation for the
commercial and industrial and multiple family projects. Before the
adoption of the tree policy, the City was finding that on projects that
had larger buildings, the amount of landscaping required by the City
to screen the parking and loading areas didn't do anything to
l address the size of the building in terms of the buffering of it or
providing scale. So the City adopted an addition to the landscape
code which proportioned the amount and size of tree material to the
height and mass of the building. The City has not yet had the
situation where the landscaping and tree preservation had been
onerous and where the site is too small for the amount of plant
material required. The average amount of tree replacement required
in these types of projects was 184 caliper inches per project.
Peterson asked Enger if the first reading were approved, would some
modifications be recommended prior to second reading. Enger stated
that he would recommend the tree inventory, the timing and land
alteration, the wilding trees, and location of replacement trees as
modifications.
Pidcock asked what the average cost of bonding was to the developer
in each development. Enger replied that it is $26,000 for bonding.
The average cost of the trees would be $17,600.
Jim Ostenson responded to a couple of points. He said that it was
difficult for a developer to receive performance bonds just on
landscape material. Contractors can be tied to performance, and
therefore they are the ones that can get the bonds. The developer
has to get a letter-of-credit or cash escrow. He said that they would
/ prefer a differential between bonds or letters-of-credit. Tenpas
l asked Pauly if this could or should be done. Pauly said he would
City Council Minutes 12 April 17, 1990
find it difficult to determine what the basis of the difference should
be.
Peterson asked if the City could eliminate bonds. Pauly said he
thought so. Harris asked if it was possible to have alternatives.
Pauly replied that at the current time, all forms of security including
bonds, letters-of-credit, escrow arrangements, are all provided for so
it's the choice of the developer.
Tenpas asked for clarification on the 150%. Was that tied to the
difficulty of collecting or from a historical perspective on what the
losses were. Enger replied it was for both reasons. It may be three
years until a decision that performance had not been done on the
plant material. If there was a low estimate on the amount needed for
the bond, and with three years of appreciation, the cost of the
material with a 100% bond could not be recovered. Enger further
clarified that if at the end of the year 30% of the trees had been
replaced, the City would release 70% of the bond and would retain
30%. The City could release it entirely at that point.
Pauly clarified that this Ordinance had had many revisions, and the
current form with reference to the security said that the security
would be maintained for one year after the date that the last
replacement tree has been planted. Then upon a showing by the
developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that
portion of the security may be released by the City equal to the
estimated cost of the trees replaced and are alive and healthy at the
end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be
released at the end of such year shall be maintained and secure the
developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which
are not alive or unhealthy at the end of such year. Upon completion
of the planting of those trees, then the entire security may be
released. The current form of the ordinance did provide for release
of the security after the one-year period and after the dead or
missing trees had been replanted.
Peterson asked if there was a condition that replanting/replacement
be guaranteed nursery stock. Pauly replied that the trees to be
replanted have to be certified nursery stock. This was only the
"replanted" trees that were planted after "replacement" trees have
died. Replacement trees can be either wild or nursery stock. Pauly
said he thought it would be helpful to put in parenthesis or quotes
"removed tree." A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall
be planted in place of the "removed tree." A new healthy tree of the
same size and species shall be planted in place of any replacement
tree missing one year after such date, and be referred to as the
"replanted tree."
Tenpas said if the developer has guaranteed nursery trees, maybe
some consideration should be given on the amount of the surety.
Enger said that it was often difficult to collect on a nursery
City Council Minutes 13 April 17, 1990
guarantee. That's why when the City has trees planted it requires
the nursery to provide a performance bond.
Peterson said that it seemed the only item subject to some debate is
Mr. Ostenson's suggestion to reduce the bonding to 40% when in fact
it's eliminated after the first year. For that reason he would stay
with the 150%.
Tenpas asked when the last time was that the City went through the
Developer's Forum. Enger replied that it first spoke with it in March
1988. Recently he was instructed not to go to the Developer's Forum
with the ordinance. The Developer's Forum had a subcommittee
working on the Ordinance recently, however, he had responded to its
concerns during that process.
Peterson suggested that there be more discussion prior to second
reading. Enger emphasized that he recommended the 150% surety
requirement.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION
Anderson moved that the public hearing be closed and adopted the
first reading of Ordinance No. 17-90 which would add to the
f Environmental Preservation Regulations Section of the City Code and
with the recommendations made by staff and by the City Attorney.
The motion specifically included the 150% surety requirement. Harris
seconded.
Pauly noted that the material which the Council has had for
consideration in this matter included Pages 1002 through 1.00211 of the
agenda materials as well as Minnesota's Community and Urban Forests
Opportunities and Recommendations, a report to the Legislature by
the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and a letter from Lisa
L. Burban.
i
Peterson expressed appreciation to Mr. Ostenson, staff and others
who have brought this to fruition.
Motion approved 5-0.
C. OF $2,740,000.00N REFUNDING
INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP.
MOTTO
Pidcock moved continuation of the Refunding Bonds to May 1.
Seconded by Tenpas. Approved 5-0.
City Council Minutes 14 April 17, 1990
D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
Pidcock moved the payment of claims, seconded by Tenpas.
Peterson requested clarification on Page 1003E, Item 59026, Northern
States Power, asking if that was an unrecoverable City expense.
Jullie replied that it was for burying some power lines. Peterson also
requested clarification on Item No. 59072, the Stars Restaurant
Expenses. Jullie replied that it was meeting expenses at Flagship for
the Landfill Advisory Committee.
Roll Call vote: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all
voting "AYE
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Parkway Apartments Project. Resolution No. 90 117
Jullie said that the present owner of the Parkway Apartment Project,
which was the First Bank System, had asked to change the
assumption agreement by which the First Bank System assumed
ownership of that project and allowed the sale of the project to
Equity Financial Group. The Bank was now asking the City's
permission to change the buyer to Welsh Companies, Inc. The City
Attorney's office had reviewed and approved the document. Adoption
of this resolution was recommended to effect this change.
MOTION
It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Harris, that Resolution No.
90-117 be adopted. Approved 5-0.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS.
A. Human Rights & Services Commission - Report on Child Care Center
Siting Criteria.
Jullie introduced Peter Iverson and Bette Anderson from the Human
Rights and Services Commission. Ms. Anderson said there was i
nothing wrong with the relative concentration of daycare centers up
to this point. She stressed the importance of having daycare centers
in convenient locations and having safe access. Mr. Iverson spoke to
the need to reduce child care costs. They would like to look at
employer-sponsored and corporate-sponsored child care centers,
centers sponsored by consortiums, as well as City funds and church-
sponsored programs. He stressed how this need touched the whole
community, and they wanted support and encouragement from the
Council
City Council Minutes 15 April 17, 1990
MOTION
Pidcock moved that the Human Rights do Services Commission continue
to study the affordability of daycare and other issues that need to be
addressed by that commission. Seconded by Harris.
Approved 5-0.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reworts of Councilmembers
1. Watering Restrictions
Harris brought up the issue of alternate-day watering. Although
the ban on watering had not been lifted from last year, she
believed that some reinforcement of that ban was needed. She
suggested something on the water bill, for example. Dietz
suggested that this be discussed with Mr. Frane.
2. The MUSA Line Change.
Harris said she received a communication relating to the acreage
/ currently excluded from the MUSA and would like to have it
brought up for reconsideration.
MOTIO
Harris moved that the Council have a re-examination of the MUSA
Line issue. Seconded by Pidcock.
Enger said he had information on it. Council decided it was best
that the Council receive the information in a packet.
Mr. Feerick spoke to the issue and said that he appreciated
working with the Council and staff on this project and thanked
the Council for its consideration. f
i
Motion approved 5-0.
3. Address Changes on Cedar Ridge Road
y
Pidcock said she received communication from a number of
residents on Cedar Ridge Road about their address numbers
being changed. A lot of them did not like this.
Jullie said some of the residents claimed there was confusion with
the street numbering so emergency vehicles going in have
trouble finding an address. The City thought that there was a
consensus in the neighborhood that it should be changed but
City Council Minutes 16 April 17, 1990
heard from others when the changes began to be implemented.
He had asked the Inspections Director to hold a neighborhood
meeting before anything was implemented. The best system for
drivers of emergency vehicles was a sequence of numbers that
they were accustomed to seeing.
4. Communication from Congressman Frenzel.
Pidcock said she had received a letter from Bill Frenzel saying
that he supported the City's request for $12 million demonstration
money for Highway 212 and that he requested Congress to fund
the project to facilitate the design and construction of remaining
segments not yet completed by MnDOT. She said the City should
know by October if the funds will be appropriated.
5. Neighborhood Concern.
Pidcock had also received communication from residents of
Williamsburg Court and Coachman's Lane that there were vehicles
parked there all the time, making it impossible for emergency
vehicles to get in. There was apparently one house that had all
the cars. This house also had a boy with a BB gun that upset
some of the neighbors.
6. Special Projects.
On the item on special projects, Anderson said he realized the
extra burden put on staff when extra projects are requested. He
suggested hiring outside people for these special projects. He
cited how other cities do this and he would like to have this
budgeted for next year. The current Earth Day project is a good
example. Harris asked if the City Manager had discretionary fund
for this. Jullie said this could be allocated out of the reserve
fund, but it is best to have a Fine item. Jullie was instructed to
keep this in mind for the next budget cycle.
B. Revort of City Manager
1. Liquor Store Building Program.
Jullie reported on the options on the Municipal Liquor Store and
at this point. He recommended that the Council direct staff to
proceed with some bids on the Prairie Village Mall facility and
also that staff be directed to renew the lease at Preserve Village
Mall for three more years. He also said that the City should be
looking for a site to own over in that area.
Pidcock asked when the lease expired. Frane replied that the
Preserve Village Mall store expired at the end of May and the
Prairie Village Mall lease expires the first of September. Pidcock
suggested getting a study committee to see if the City should
stay in the liquor business. 3
City Council Minutes 17 April 17, 1990
There was then discussion on whether or not this matter should
go to a referendum. Frane said that the Council could choose to
get out of the liquor business if it wanted to without a
referendum. In fact, the City must get out of the liquor business
if a license is given to a private individual.
Anderson said before anything was changed, it was his opinion
that a referendum should be held on the subject. Tenpas
suggested moving out of The Preserve location because of the
competition from MGM Liquors. Harris said she agreed.
Discussion was held on the possibility of negotiating a shorter
lease. Frane suggested that the City could get a one-year lease.
Pauly suggested going to a lease with 90 or 120 day notice. The
length of time the lease would run could be indefinite. Tenpas
suggested a month-to-month lease because it would give the City
more flexibility in considering options. Tenpas said it would be
good to get the issue resolved by January for budgeting
purposes. He also suggested that the Council consider if it
wished to remain in the liquor business and have a study session
on this subject or put it on the Agenda as a separate item.
MOTIO
Anderson moved that Mr. Frane be directed to negotiate a lease
on the Preserve location for not longer than a year, or the
shortest possible time. Seconded by Pidcock. Approved 5-0.
C. Revort of City Attorney
D. Revort of Director of Planning
E. Revort of Director of Parks. Recreation and Natural Resqurces
i
I. Riverview
SP.rina.
MOTION
Harris moved that this spring be sealed. Seconded by Tenpas.
Anderson objected on the grounds that it was a historic
landmark. Pidcock asked why Lambert was suggesting
improvement of the Miller spring and not this one. Lambert said
the City owned about a half-acre of land on Miller Spring. The
Riverview spring was different in that it was in an 18-inch pipe
in a ditch that was below the road level; fluctuated up into the
nine parts per million nitrate level and, with runoff, it was
subject to other contaminants; and the City did not own any land
by the spring. When the State sent a letter like the one the City
has received now, there was not a lot of choice about keeping it
City Council Minutes 18 .April 17, 1990
open. A sign telling people not to drink the water would not stay
in place, judging from past experience. The City was liable right
now.
Pidcock asked if it were possible to get a strip of land from
someone around there and develop it. Lambert said this is a
possibility but it has to be made so it is not accessible for
drinking water.
Anderson said he would like this brought before the Historical
Commission before it was shut down.
Tenpas identified the two separate issues: One of the drinking
water and one of the historical site.
Lambert suggested that staff come back in a couple of weeks with
some design alternatives along with costs.
Harris withdrew her motion and staff was requested to come back
with proposals.
F. Report of Director of Public Works
4. Peterson requested that Item 4 be handled first, Discussion of
( Alternatives - Graffiti Bridge.
R. Bob McCluskey spoke for the Historical Cultural Commission. He
said it had asked for a deferment of the decision until the first
Council meeting in May, because there were a couple of
alternatives that members would like to be considered.
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to defer decision on
alternatives for Graffiti Bridge until May.
Peterson asked Dietz if this decision would hold up progress on
Valley View Road. Dietz said there would be no problem. Dietz
added that he has spoken with Hennepin County and it was
"adamantly opposed" to having anything that would interfere
with light rail transit sometime in the future.
Motion approved 5-0.
1. Award Contract for 1990-91 M&teriala Bid (Maintenance MAtterials
and Water Treatment Chemicals), I.E. 52-191 (Resolution No. 90-
111)
Dietz pointed out two things on the bids for various chemicals for °
the coming year. On the Class 5 aggregate, the City received a
bid that met specification from Midwest Asphalt but it was for
recycled asphalt material. Thia material was to be used for
City Council Minutes 19 April 17, 1990
resurfacing gravel roads and the expectation was for virgin
material, not recycled material. In the interest of using what is
needed for the project, he recommended awarding the contract to
the J. L. Shiely Company. The price difference is 57 cents a ton.
Dietz said the recycled asphalt met the particle gradation size
and is useful in some places, but it is not good for gravel roads.
The ferric sulfate bid from the low bidder had a contingency. Its
low bid was $211.30 a ton. The second bid was $213.73 a ton, but
the low bidder had a contingency of adding $7.50 for a pallet
charge per ton.
Dietz recommended the various contracts as shown on Resolution
No. 90-111 be approved.
MOTION
Pidcock moved Resolution No. 90-111. Anderson seconded. Motion
approved 5-0
2. Award Contact for 1990 Bituminous Seal Coating, I. C. 52-192
(Resolution No. 90-112)
Dietz said the low bid on this project was from Asphalt Surface
Technologies Corporation of St. Cloud. Its bid was $187,002.92.
This company was recommended by other communities and he
recommends them.
MOTION
Pidcock moved Resolution No. 90-112. Anderson seconded. Motion
approved 5-0.
3. Award Contract for 1990 Strut Stripingt. I. C. 52-193 (Resolution
No. 90-113)
The bid was expected to be over $15,000 and that is why it was
bid. He recommended that the award be given to AAA Striping
Service in the amount of $14,458.80.
M93:1!2N
Pidcock Moved Resolution No. 90-113. Seconded by Anderson.
Motion Approved 5-0.
5. 1-424 corridor Study
Dietz said the City was a party to an agreement with several,
Hennepin County, and State agencies, to do the Environmental
Impact Statement for the I-494 improvements. One of the things
done early in the study, in the scoping part, was to determine
that light-rail transit in a circumferential configuration following
City Council Minutes 20 April 17, 1990
I-494 was not viable. It would not take enough traffic off of I-
494 to be cost effective. The project management organization of
the I-494 study group determined not to study LRT in the EIS
process. As a result, the County Board, acting as the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority, had taken the step to recommend
that Hennepin County pull out of the EIS agreement and remove
its financial support for that process. The City had been
requested by members of the PMO to try to get some political
support from the County Board members and ask them to stay in
the EIS process.
Tenpas asked about the costs of this action. Dietz said Hennepin
County& portion was over $100,000, the City's was about $45,000.
Tenpas asked how much more it would cost to include light rail
study as part of the EIS. Dietz replied around $120,000.
Dietz requested that the Council contact the County a
Commissioners and try to get support for the EIS. ;
3
s
MOTION
Pidcock moved that the Council send a resolution to the County
Board supporting Dietz's position. Seconded by Tenpas. Motion
approved 5-0.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Pidcock motioned to adjourn at 10:41 p.m. Seconded by Anderson. Motion
approved 5-0.
1