Loading...
City Council - 02/18/2014 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Ron Case, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Planner Mike Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All Council Members were present. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION IN THE OPEN TO BUSINESS PROGRAM Getschow said Open to Business is a technical assistance program for small businesses provided through the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), a 45 member association committed to increasing opportunities for small business and entrepreneurs. Rob Smolund, representing MCCD, gave an overview of the program that provides technical assistance and financing programs for small businesses and entrepreneurs. He noted the program served a total of 14 entrepreneurs in Eden Prairie in 2013. Nelson said she has talked to some immigrants who were struggling to set up a small business and asked if the program is limited to financing. Mr. Smolund said they primarily provide technical assistance and help to open a business and to set up the business structure. Tyra-Lukens asked who can use the service and who is using it. Mr. Smolund said for Eden Prairie any resident of Eden Prairie or someone planning to open a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 2 business here can use it. He noted each city in the program has different demographics. Aho asked about the number of staff members. Mr. Smolund said they have four other business advisors; one for Dakota County, one for Scott County and two in Minneapolis. Aho asked if the divisions are geographic, not by specialties. Mr. Smolund replied the advisors work collaboratively as a team. Aho asked where the money for their direct loans comes from. Mr. Smolund said there are a variety of sources including funds from the Treasury Department and the State. They are always looking for new sources of capital as they expand. Butcher Wickstrom asked how a prospective client would find them. Mr. Smolund said they could call or email him. He holds office hours at Dunn Bros on the first Thursday of the month from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M. They have brochures available and have a number of marketing ideas for this coming year. They are open to any ideas to reach out to a group. Getschow said we do promote it quite a bit on our website, but we might want to establish contact with the Chamber of Commerce to see how they could help the program. Nelson suggested they have brochures available at PROP. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2014-24 supporting the City's participation in the Open to Business program and committing to funding one half of the cost or$5,000. Motion carried 5-0. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Butcher Wickstrom added Item XIV.A.1. MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 21, 2014 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, January 21, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 21, 2014 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, January 21, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 3 VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. BLUFFS WEST 13TH ADDITION by Lake West Development, LLC. Approval of the Development Agreement. Location: 11480 Riverview Road (Development Agreement) C. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3-2014 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.06, RELATING TO SCREENING OF GROUND BASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-25 APPROVING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE D. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC (HKGI) TO PREPARE A TOD ORDINANCE E. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP FOR DESIGN AND IN-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE CITY WEST PARKWAY TRAIL CONNECTION F. AWARD CONTRACT TO ADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR PRELIMINARY MODELING AND PLANNING OF NEW DRINKING WATER GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR G. DECLARE POLICE CANINE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-26 DECLARING PROPERTY AS ABANDONED PROPERTY Rosow noted Item E related to the UHG project. MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Aho, to approve Items A-D, and F-H of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve Item E of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Case abstaining. Nelson asked what happens to the police canines when they are retired. Getschow said they place the dog in a good home, usually with their handler. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS Getschow said there are six public hearings scheduled tonight that relate to six different parcels of property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). He said this is part of a process that began in 2010 with a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with MAC. We are currently in the middle of that process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 4 Franzen said the process was begun to establish a mutually agreeable review process for the parcels and to develop regulations to guide development of the parcels. There were public hearings at the Planning Commission and the City Council in September of 2012 to approve the plan to designate Airport Commercial and Airport Office sites. Regulations creating the Airport Commercial and Airport Office sites were approved by the City Council in the first part of 2013. The second part of the process began when the Planning Commission recommended approval of all the proposed rezoning with some conditions at their January 24, 2014 meeting. The concept plans developed for the parcels will represent a couple of ways the parcels might be developed in the future. The third stage of the process will occur when a developer and the MAC work out an agreement for development and then come forward to the City with a development concept. The plan will be reviewed to the performance standards of development in Eden Prairie. Franzen said staff and the Planning Commission determined Parcels 2 and 6 are different from the other parcels. Parcel 2 is located on the west end of the runway, and staff recommended rezoning nine acres of the site, not 39 acres as requested by MAC in the application. Staff felt that size would be a better fit with the neighborhood and would allow more of the site to remain in a natural condition. He said Parcel 6 is on the east end of the runway, and staff recommended the development be concentrated on the upper part of the parcel. The Planning Commission and staff recommended all of Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 7 be zoned commercial as they do not have natural features to preserve. Tyra-Lukens asked why we are doing this at this time rather than waiting for an actual proposal to come in. Franzen replied we are separating the rezoning process from the site plan process in accordance with the MOU with MAC. This process gives us two opportunities to be at the table. We still have an opportunity to come back through the site plan process. One of the constant conditions is that the site plans have to conform to the Airport Office and Airport Commercial Zone regulations. Tyra-Lukens asked if, by going through this process, MAC is willing to go along with all of our requirements for how the buildings look. Franzen said that was correct. Tyra-Lukens asked Mr. Rosow to talk about the legal ability we have to say "no" on these parcels. Rosow said when we started the process in 2010, MAC submitted a seven point proposal for the MOU that provided MAC would seek input from the City and would provide property owners notice of proposed development and an opportunity to comment on it. They would incorporate the City's design standards into the development if those were in compliance with their standards. We met with them and said we needed a process that is akin to our normal process that would go through Guide Plan change, zoning and the development process. MAC was willing to go through that process as a compromise as long as they could get zoning before they had to get a developer involved. They wanted an informal process where they were in charge, and we wanted a public process such as tonight's hearing. In order to get that process, we agreed to pre-zone the parcels, unlike our typical development process. Rosow said in 1992 we asked the Attorney General for an opinion on what the City's authority was in regard to the zoning of airport property. The Attorney General said with respect to property that was put to aeronautical use, we had no zoning authority. As to the property they would propose to develop and lease to private development for non- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 5 aeronautical use, Rosow said he took the position that was a non-aeronautical use of property. MAC has taken the opposite position. He was convinced if we had not developed the process MAC would have told us that we don't have any right to zone their property and would proceed to develop it as they wanted. If there were one or two parcels that the Council had more trouble with than others,he would recommend that the Council take action on the rezoning for those parcels the Council does agree with and continue the hearing with respect to the others so we can sit down with MAC and cooperatively resolve the issues. Nelson asked if all of the parcels are out of the safety zone. Franzen said Sites 2 and 6 are in the B zones. Aho noted there are many different layers of safety zoning so this is a pretty complicated picture. He serves on the Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB). The JAZB had a complicated model that showed all the height and other restrictions involved. Nelson said she assumed anything that gets approved has to comply with those safety zones. Case thought we all understand this is complicated. He understood that if we have serious concerns we should put those items on hold,but he wanted the City to have more than a seat at the table. In a real situation, if we have a problem with a particular zoning category, we need to have a rationale for that. He asked if we have that freedom and flexibility as we go down this road. Rosow said the question is whether we have the zoning authority in the first place. If we do, then we can use all the tools we have available. If we don't have that authority, then they can do whatever they desire in terms of the development. The process was designed to give us a seat at the table and to give us the tools to guide the development in the usual manner. We have not had discussions with MAC staff about what happens if we have issues with some of the six parcels. The Council should continue those parcels that have issues so we can have discussions with MAC and they can hear what the Council concerns are. Case said everyone who is impacted by the potential development needs to understand that the City Council represents the people of Eden Prairie and wants to make sure people around the area are well listened to. However, it is a complicated issue and we also want to keep the City out of court. A. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 2 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Airport Office on 39 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport(Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Getschow said the MAC request for Parcel 2 is to rezone the entire 39 acres from Rural to Airport Office. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended rezoning approximately 9 acres of the parcel to Airport Office. Bridget Rief, Director of Airport Development for MAC, said this parcel is located west of the airfield between CS 84 and Eden Prairie Road. She said the majority of the 39 acre site is not conducive to development. Both of the concepts they developed are focused on the north end of the site. The first of the two concepts CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 6 would have a single story office building tucked into the back of the hill with parking access from Eden Prairie Road. The second concept would be a four story office development on the same size parcel that would not exceed any of the height restrictions around the airport. MAC is asking for zoning from Airport to Airport Office tonight. Trisha Tyson, 9841 Frederick Place, said she lives just south of the proposed development. She was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and asked if there would be a signal light at the intersection. Ellis said at this point it would be premature to make a determination if traffic signals were needed; however, turn lanes might be necessary to accommodate some of the increased traffic. Derek Abbey, 16101 Valley Road, said he was concerned that State guidelines have Safety Zone B as Zone A. Rosow said the JAZB zones have not been adopted. The City, in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Guide Plan, adjusted Zones A and B to conform to the Federal zones. Rosow did not think the Council needs to be concerned that we are adopting anything in violation of State guidelines. Jack Matz, 9752 Cupola Lane, said he understood the people at the MAC say they are going to do what they want to do with the parcel. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Case said he understood that other cities do pre-zoning but he did not know enough about doing that process. He did not feel comfortable that this is just a proposal. He was concerned about what we are saying when we approve the concept. He asked if MAC could come back with a proposal that had big changes. Rosow replied the Council is approving the zoning of the parcel and is not approving anything with respect to the site plan. If the zoning were to be approved and they came back with an actual proposal, that proposal would have to go through the site plan approval process and, according to the MOU, it has to meet our performance standards. The performance standards are part of the MOU. The purpose of the exercise here is to continue to move forward. They have agreed to be bound by the performance standards if we rezone the property. Case said he was concerned we are setting a precedent for a future Council to deal with. Rosow said development must meet the performance standards if they don't ask for variances. The Council is saying "yes" to the zoning but the performance standards are still part of the site plan approval process. Case said he was concerned that we would be giving some potential political power leverage to MAC that could work against a future City Council. Butcher Wickstrom said she wanted to assure our residents that the Council Members are representatives of our citizens. We have heard from some residents and that is what we are here to do. Her sense is that the MAC is wanting to hear a message from the Council on these concepts and hear the feedback we have CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 7 received from residents. She said this is one of the parcels that she was not comfortable with. She would like to table this particular plan because the concept of the four story building is disconcerting to her and she has heard from residents who were concerned about the pipeline and the safety zone. Nelson said she would agree with Council Member Butcher Wickstrom. She would like to table the two parcels in the safety zone. She thought we may be able to clarify the language for Parcels 2 and 6. Those two parcels are different from the others and should be tabled with the purpose of determining that we are correctly handling the safety issues for these parcels. Rosow said the Council can move to continue the public hearings to a date certain. If the item is tabled, it won't come up until a Council Member makes a motion to bring it back, and it must be the same Council Member that made the motion to table it. In either event,he would suggest staff be directed to notice it as a public hearing. There would then be a renewed opportunity to comment on anything that might be of concern. Nelson asked if it could be continued until discussion is finished rather than to a date certain. Rosow said the 120 day review period ends April 8. He suggested the discussion be continued for a month to March 18 and staff be directed to notice that date as a public hearing so people have an opportunity to address the City Council. Aho said we need to remember here that we are not approving a specific project, rather we are zoning the parcels. They have given us concepts about what might be possible. As we have discussed, we still have the opportunity to approve any project that is brought forward, and it would have to meet all the requirements. He thought we are getting too proscriptive and worried about the details. We are not giving MAC carte blanche,just zoning the properties to a particular building type. Everything still has to meet all of our zoning and planning requirements and go through our whole process. He didn't see we are giving up anything by changing zoning. Tyra-Lukens asked if we would continue to work cooperatively with MAC if we rezone this. She was concerned they could put in a gas station once it is rezoned. Rosow said if they have the right to go ahead without our approval that would be correct. Butcher Wickstrom said it was her sense that MAC needs to hear our comments about this. She thought it is our privilege to let them know what our residents have said about it. Aho said we need to bring out what our residents have told us about the parcels. MAC is not coming to us with a proposal at this point,rather a request to rezone. We need to make known what our thoughts are about development. Case said he didn't agree because that would make the assumption that their rules are the same,but they aren't. He was concerned about setting up a potential environment that would limit a future City Council to represent the people. He liked the idea of continuing this for a month. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 8 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to continue the public hearing to the March 18 meeting of the City Council and to direct staff to re-notice the public hearing. Aho said his question is what do we anticipate we will accomplish during that period and who is going to do what. Nelson said she would like to add a requirement that any development proposal conforms to all safety requirements. Aho said a development has to meet all the safety requirements or it could not be put forward. Case said he would like to know from staff what we would expect if this parcel came in as a regular and normal site given the neighboring residential areas. We should have some definition of what we might want to do if this were not a MAC parcel. Ms Rief said the proposal they put together for all of the parcels was done at the specific request of City staff. They did not want to come with any request that was too nebulous,but these designs are just potentials. MAC worked very closely with staff regarding setbacks so the concept designs would be something that accurately reflects what the City's standards would require of them without the promise of what it is going to look like. A developer would have to come through the City's site plan process. MAC would never propose anything that exceeds safety requirement. Ms Rief said MAC representatives were here tonight to hear the Council's concerns. This is meeting number five in a series of nine potential meetings. She said the pipeline runs all along the northern edge of the airport property, and they are not looking to relocate that. She was also interested in learning who would be responsible for doing what if the public hearing is continued. Butcher Wickstrom thought what we had to say might provide MAC with some additional information about what a proposal might be as it would come forward. Ms Rief said the action requested tonight is the zoning of the parcel and has nothing to do with the actual site plan review. Hearing the concerns of the residents and the Council is a little premature because MAC is only asking for the zoning tonight. Rosow said the question that he thought the Council was asking is: If we granted the zoning would MAC comply with all the performance standards including those related to a variance if one is requested by the developer. There could be discussion about that during the next month, and staff would bring information back to the Council on March 18. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. Aho asked that staff follow up with this and have a plan going forward between this meeting and March 18. Case said he would like to get some kind of a written response to know if MAC will abide by the normal process including the process for variance requests. We need to know if they are willing to go on record they will abide by our process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 9 Rosow said the MOU states if the City rezones each development parcel MAC agrees not to dissent to the City's zoning authority, and the architectural design review process set forth in City code will be followed with respect to any specific development proposed. Case asked what would happen about a variance request. Rosow said the only difficulty is that either party has the right to terminate the agreement. Nothing they have demonstrated shows anything other than they want to develop the parcels in compliance with City standards; however,he thought a little more conversation about this is appropriate. Nelson asked if all of the parcels should be continued. Rosow said the Council could do that and then take them all together. However, if there are no concerns about the other parcels,he thought approving those is a good step to take to show MAC that you want to continue to move forward. B. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 3 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural & Public to Airport Commercial on 3.04 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Ms Rief said this parcel is located at the corner of Pioneer Trail and Mitchell Road and offers the best opportunity for development. Access to the parcel would be off the road into the athletic fields. They have a retail and a convenience store concept for the site and have worked with staff on setbacks and overall looks of the structure. They tried to reduce the impact to the residents across the street with landscaping and other screening options. She noted MAC worked with City staff on the improvements to Mitchell Road, and the site has City sewer and water. They are requesting a rezoning from Airport to Airport Commercial. Nelson said this one seems to make sense, and she would be willing to go forward with this one in good faith. Case thought we would take issue with a gas station coming in if this were a normal zoning situation. By releasing this to commercial it gets into the question of fully utilizing the property. He asked if we can say "no" and what power are we releasing. Butcher Wickstrom said she feels comfortable with this. We have heard there is a deficit of gas stations in the area. She would like to hear comments from our residents. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1 st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Rural and Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 3.04 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 10 C. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 4 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 4.53 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Ms Rief said access to this parcel would be from the existing stoplight that allows access into the athletic fields. There are some similarities in these concepts to those of Parcel 3. They would ensure this parcel is accessible by the public, and would also make sure airport security is retained. Butcher Wickstrom said she felt similarly about this parcel as Parcel 3. It makes a lot of sense, and she would be comfortable with either of the uses. Case said he was treating these requests as if they were normal requests. He was probably more comfortable with this than the other parcels. He wanted to make sure screening and any negative impacts would be mitigated. He thought this is a pretty clean type of commercial project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1 st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 4.53 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5-0. D. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 0.45 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport(Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Ms Rief said this parcel is very small and is not conducive to development. They want to tie this to Parcel 7 and use it as a drainage outlot for Parcel 7. Case asked where it is located. Franzen said it is in front of the SuperAmerica site in the northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Pioneer Trail. Case said if this is contiguous with the Barney property there was a potential burial site in this area. Tyra-Lukens asked how it would ever be used, given the shape of the property. Ms Rief said they were interested in having it tied to Parcel 7 to use as a supporting function for drainage issues. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1 st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 0.45 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code with the granting of a waiver or a variance to the lot size requirement for the A-C zoning district. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 11 E. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 6 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural & R1-13.5 to Airport Office on 20.02 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Getschow said this is the other office parcel and is a request to rezone the entire 20 acre parcel from Rural to Airport Office. City staff and the Planning Commission recommend that we rezone only 10 of the 20 acres in order to concentrate development on the northern 10 acres. That would fit in better with the neighborhood and minimize the impact to natural areas. Ms Rief said some areas of the parcel are not conducive to development. The existing wetland and flood plain areas of the site are located on the southern portion of the parcel, and they would not allow development in that area. They have two different concept plans that show the buildings tucked into the side of the hill with a more residential look and feel. The southern portion of the proposed concept would require some additional grading and some significant costs for parking. The expectation is that,because of the topography on the site, there aren't a lot of options to develop. They would like to have the entire 20 acre parcel available for a developer to make a decision. Case asked about the land to the west of the parcel. Ms Rief said the radar site comes with a protective zone around it out to 1000 feet. She said the runway protection zone and Zone A would limit the development. The location of the VOR was selected as the only location that wouldn't impact non-MAC property. This VOR serves 64 paths for the MSP airport in addition to the Flying Cloud facility. John Fedora, 9820 Tree Farm Road, said that everything previously discussed about Parcel 2 applies to Parcel 6. This parcel directly touches about 14 residential properties with another five or six separated by a small piece of park land. As a resident he did not want to be harmed in the process nor to have his property values diminished. He thought the separate rezoning process and development proposal doesn't make sense. He would be open to going through the normal process. He would like them to develop the other parcels first because they would learn a lot through that process. He thought this is the least desirable property with the greatest negative impact to the residents. He wanted to wait until there is a real developer with a real plan as this action leaves them in a huge uncertain area. Dan Sheehan, 9836 Tree Farm Road, noted there have been five fairly recent plane crashes at Flying Cloud field in the safety zones. He asked why we would be shortening the safety zones for the benefit of MAC. Tim Conners, 9823 Tree Farm Road, said it is good to see that MAC is willing to listen. Parcel 6 is the only one that truly abuts residential property. Prior to purchasing their homes, all of the residents there understood that the property behind their homes would not be developed, and they are the ones that have the most to lose with a decision. He asked why we are compromising the safety zones CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 12 because there have been accidents on the ends of the runways. MAC has indicated Parcel 6 is the least desirable for development. He thought Eden Prairie has made every effort to maintain natural habitat, and this area has a lot of wildlife that would be compromised by development. Robin Kleinert, 9772 Tree Farm Road, said she understood MAC owns the land and has the ability to do what they want with it;however, she wanted the City Council to consider the residents there. They were told there would never be anything built behind them. Once building begins behind them their lots are not as valuable. She encouraged the Council to leave Parcel 6 off the development list because it is so close to residential land. Sarah Sheehan, 9836 Tree Farm Road, said this particular parcel sits right next to the homes, and she thought it was important to consider how this will impact the whole community. She was strongly against zoning the parcel commercial. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Butcher Wickstrom said she was not comfortable with either Parcel 6 and Parcel 2. To develop in this area would cause huge heartburn for our residents and would have an impact on all the things mentioned. Over the years she has served on the Council she has heard from a lot of the neighbors in the area about airport noise and the landfill. Even though those things are a part of their everyday lives the residents have chosen to live there because they have a beautiful view. It would be very difficult to locate a development in that area and take away the thing they cherish. She would like to continue this to March 18 as we did Parcel 2. Case said we know nothing is forever and even though government may promise something, the next generation can change that. He thought it is up to the people in government at the moment to be faithful to pledges made in the past. He believed we really thought that area would stay open as airport land and didn't see this coming. Looking at it from his rationale, if this parcel were not airport land,he was not sure we would ever permit something to be developed that would be a four zone separation. The houses are zoned R1-13.5 and this zoning jumps four zoning levels to go to office development. We are shoehorning development into this parcel. He thought the Council Members need to stand up for the neighbors, and he will not vote for any development on this parcel. Aho asked if the VOR could be moved to the west to reduce the crowding. Ms Rief said the VOR is not relocatable. It is sited based on the proximity to the runway. The technology may become obsolete at some point,but it is tied very closely to the municipal airport. Nelson asked why they were not proposing residential development for this parcel. Ms Rief said the site lies in a potential Zone B and that does not allow for residential development. Nelson said it doesn't make sense from a development point of view to have an office development set that far back from a roadway. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 13 Ms Rief said this parcel sits farther from the end of the runway than does Parcel 2. She said the Metropolitan Council guidelines state there are areas that are not recommended for residential development but are conducive to other types of development. This is outside of the potential future Zone B, and they don't recommend residential as there would be concerns about access. They have had two different marketing studies done, and both indicated this is a potential development site. MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Nelson, to continue the public hearing to the March 18 meeting of the City Council and to direct staff to re-notice the public hearing. Motion carried 3-2, with Tyra-Lukens and Case opposed. F. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 7 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 3.17 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport(Ordinance for Zoning District Change) Ms Rief said this parcel has some development potential, and they have one building concept for the site. Case said this makes sense to him but the sad issue is that the public gardens are located there. He thought it would be great to find other areas for the public gardens once this property is developed. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve 1st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 3.17 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5- 0. G. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 RELATING TO DISTRICT STANDARDS AND OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE A-C AND A-OFC DISTRICTS Getschow said this amendment adds setbacks, lot sizes, building height, site coverage, parking, etc., requirements for the A-C (Airport Commercial) zoning district and the A-OFC (Airport Office) district. The amendments are the same as other commercial and office zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the code amendment at the January 13, 2014 meeting. He said part of this goes back to Step 1 of the process with MAC. Tyra-Lukens said she looked at some of the specs and did not see any berming. She thought we had regulations regarding that. Franzen said berming is part of CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 14 Chapter 11 where we have screening standards. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to close the public hearing and to approve 1streading of the ordinance amending Chapter 11 Section 11.03, Subd 2 Tables 4 and 5. (District Standards), and Section 11.03 Subd 3. HA (Parking Requirement Use). Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho,Butcher Wickstrom, Case, Nelson, and Tyra-Lukens voting "aye." XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Snowplowing Efforts--Council Member Butcher Wickstrom Butcher Wickstrom said she has received some feedback from residents who applauded the great efforts of our Public Works Director and the leadership of Mr. Getschow on the difficult issue of snow plowing this winter. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY 1. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinances Related to E Cigarettes and Hookah Lounges Rosow said he gave a presentation with respect to e cigarettes and the options available to the City at the last Council meeting. The City Council CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 15 directed staff to bring back the options to consider in a more formal format. He said he had five different options tonight: 1. Approve an ordinance to prohibit smoking of e cigarettes in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air ordinance of 2002; 2. Approve an ordinance to prohibit smoking in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002 and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act; 3. Require a license for retail sale of e cigarettes; 4. Approve an ordinance for a moratorium on retail sales and sampling of e cigarettes 5. Approve an ordinance for a moratorium on hookah lounges and e cigarette lounges. Rosow said State law allows a City to put a moratorium in place for one year. The actual time would depend on how long it takes staff to come back with recommendations. The period can be extended for another six months. Tyra-Lukens said we have been talking about this for a while, and the thing that drives this for her is that we don't know what is in the e cigarettes. She thought people should be able to buy them if they want as long as their use doesn't impact someone else. She asked if there could be a separate moratorium on the sampling of e cigarettes. Rosow said the language could be varied in the moratorium on hookah lounges and e cigarette lounges (Item E) to include the addition of no "sampling" of e cigarettes in retail establishments. Case said he would like to move on this and get ahead of it. He has had some push back from people who say it helps those who are addicted to tobacco products. He would favor passing Items B, C and Item E modified to not allow the sampling of e cigarettes. Nelson said that was what she was going to suggest. E cigarettes are different from regular cigarettes,but they have many of the same issues. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 9.42 adding e cigarettes to the prohibitions against smoking in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002 and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. Motion carried 4-1, with Aho opposed. Aho said, although he does not like e cigarettes,he thought there is a lot less risk to people who are using the product. He thought a moratorium is fine to allow time to see what the State and Federal government do. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 5.35 to require a license for the retail sale of e cigarettes. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 16 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to approve first and second readings of Ordinance No. 4-2014 temporarily prohibiting all hookah lounges, e cigarette lounges and related lounges and the "sampling" of e cigarettes in retail establishments; and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-27 approving publication of the summary ordinance; and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-28 authorizing a study to determine what amendments to City code are required to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to provide for sound planning with respect to all hookah lounges, e cigarette lounges and related lounges and the "sampling" of e cigarettes. Motion carried 5-0. XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:37 PM.