06/30/1987 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
JUNE 30, 1987
7:00 P.M. *
I. JOINT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DISCUSS A
FREEWAY ZONING CLASSIFICATION
II. REVISIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE
III. DISCUSSION RE: LOCATION OF AUTOMOBILE SALES DEALERSHIPS
IV. FINALIZE LOCATION OF "PARADE MODEL HOMES"
V. INFORMAL DISCUSSION RE: KNOX LUMBER
8:30 P.M.
VI: "OPT -OUT" LEGISLATION
VII. DISCUSSION RE: COST AND SCHEDULING OF PROJECT #507
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
* The Director of Public Works will give a tour of the new
Public Works Garage at 6:15 P.M.
a
� ti-
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JUNE 26, 1987
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A special City Council meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., June
30, 1987 to meet jointly with the Advisory Planning Commission
for the main purpose of discussing a new zoning classification
entitled "freeway zoning". In addition to this item, if time
permits, a discussion regarding revisions to the zoning ordinance
and a brief concept review regarding location of automobile sales
dealerships is recommended. The joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting is scheduled to adjourn at approximately 8:30
p.m., allowing the City Council to convene and review several
other agenda items pertaining to Council business. The City
Planner would like an opportunity to finalize the location of
model homes that were recently requested by various developers to
comply with the Parade of Homes. Also, the City Planner and City
Administrator would like to update the Advisory Planning
Commission and City Council regarding Knox Lumber. Please note
that the Director of Public Works will be at the new public works
garage at 6:15 p.m. to provide a tour for any and all members of
the City Council and Advisory Planning Commission that would like
to see the new facility prior to the joint meeting. The tour
will last no longer than one-half hour, allowing travel time to
the City Council chambers.
Freeway Zoning
As a part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan update, a paragraph was
added that reads as follows:
"The City Council and Advisory Planning Commission have
directed staff to prepare criteria that will be used' in
establishing a freeway development (FD) land use
designation is the Comprehensive Plan." It is expected
that the designation will be used at certain locations
along freeways in order to promote quality development
and protect freeway interchanges from traffic
congestion."
The City staff has met on several occasions, including one
meeting with representatives of Trammel Crow and Opus Corportion
(a copy of that memo is enclosed). A subsequent meeting was held
with members of the City planning department in the City of
Bloomington to discuss freeway zoning and, more recently,
meetings were held with the City Attorney, consulting planner,
City Administrator, and City Planner to develop an ordinance for
review and consideration by both the Advisory Planning Commission
and City Council. A copy of that ordinance is enclosed for your
review. Also enclosed is a map showing a concept of areas that
could be designated as freeway zoning districts.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PAGE TWO
The consulting planner, Mr. John Voss, and City Planner Dale
Runkle will provide background information regarding the purpose
and type of uses envisioned for the freeway zoning districts.
The City Attorney has addressed the implementation of freeway
zoning in a memo which is attached for your review.
This meeting is not regarded as a public hearing; however, it is
designed as a workshop for the purpose of reviewing further the
concept of freeway zoning and the information that the staff has
compiled to date. If the City Council and Advisory Planning
Commission would like to continue further with a freeway zoning
classification, it would be required that a public hearing be
held before the Advisory Planning Commission which would allow
for public input and a public hearing process according to the
City code regulations.
Revisions to Zoning Ordinance
The City Attorney has prepared a letter addressed to this office
that recommends consideration of a complete update or total
revision to the current zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance
has not been revised since 1975, with the exception of certain
amendments. Please refer to the attached letter entitled "Eagan
Zoning Ordinance" as prepared by the City Attorney. It is
recommended that the Advisory Planning Commission and City
Council discuss the possibility of considering a minor or major
overhaul of the current zoning ordinance. Recently, the Supreme
Court ruled 6 to 3 to enable property owners to be compensated
when government restrictions prevent them, even temporarily, from
using their property. This land use ruling is a landmark case
and should be briefly addressed as a part of our discussion
regarding zoning revisions. Enclosed is a copy of a bulletin
from the League of Minnesota Cities.
Location of Automobile Sales Dealerships `
Mayor Blomquist has had conversations with Mr. Jim Lupiant
regarding the location of automobile sales dealerships. Mayor
Blomquist would like to share her findings regarding the short
and long-term planning effort to locate automobile sales
dealerships with the Advisory Planning Commission and City
Council.
Parade Model Homes
The City Planner has received model home requests for the Bridle
Ridge, Lexington Point, Brittany 10th, and Country Hollow
Additions. According to the City code regulations, it is a
requirement that the location of all model home permits be
reviewed by the Advisory Planning Commission.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PAGE THREE
Informal Discussion/Knox Lumber
Knox Lumber Company has contacted the City of Eagan and is
considering the location of a store on Lexington Avenue,
generally described as across the street from the Carson Pirie
Scott wholesale building which is located north of the Eagan Post
Office. The building would be located between Lexington Avenue
and I -35E. This facility would consider warehousing, whole-
saling, and retail. The property is zoned "light industrial"
which allows, as a permitted use, warehousing/wholesaling and
storage yards for building materials. Under a conditional use
permit, an open sales lot and sales yards for building materials
is allowed in a limited industrial classification. The main
issue is the 54,000 square foot retail that would be proposed as
a part of the Knox Lumber facility.
The City staff would like an opportunity to discuss the proposal
on an informal basis with the Advisory Planning Commission and
City Council so that proper direction can be given to the Opus
Corporation and Knox Lumber regarding their request.
There are no other items for discussion regarding the joint City
City Council and Advisory Planning Commission portion of the
meeting.
City Administrator
TLH/mc
cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner
MEMO TO: DALE RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
JOHN VOSS, PLANNING CONSULTANT
FROM: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 20, 1987
SUBJECT: FREEWAY ZONING CLASSIFICATION
A special workshop session has been scheduled by the City Council
for March 31, 1987, to discuss 1) senior housing report, 2)
proposed transportation study, 3) freeway zoning classification,
and 4) other business. The purpose of this memo is to request
your coordination of certain material for discussion purposes at
the March 31 meeting as it pertains to the proposed freeway
zoning classification. It is not necessary to have a draft
ordinance at that time; however, some ideas and information to
stimulate discussion and direction by the City Council is
desirable.
For your information, the following is a list of notes I recorded
in a meeting the three of us attended at City Hall on March 13
with Gary O'Brien from Trammel Crow, Bob Worthington of the Opus
Corporation, Paul Hauge, Steve Schwanke and Jon Hohenstein.
* Freeway interchanges should serve regional clientele.
* Primary uses are hotels, restaurants, and corporate office
buildings.
* Bloomington Ordinance was reviewed and the purpose of the
ordinance is good; however, the uses were considered to be
broad.
* Important to define transition from freeway development to
next zoning use.
* Importance of considering a land inducement kit to create
a sound image along the freeway.
* Development agreements for freeway zoning should impose a
series of convenants before any City approvals are given.
* Important and essential to define all uses by development
agreement.
* Type of frontage road is important, such as, utilization
of a double loaded frontage road on one side.
* Creat a prime/concentrated area for freeway zoning using a
large circular effect of concentration around the
immediate interchange. This area is then bridged by a
conservation area to the next interchange providing an
open space buffer for residential and/or other types of
development. Typically housing and institutional uses are
good land uses in these areas. A frontage road should not
connect to intersections if a conservation area is to be
designated adjacent to the interchange.
* Require performance and landscape standards.
* Visibility is key for high tax base users within a freeway
development.
* Establish three (3) freeway categories including: I as
Dense; II - Less Dense and III as Residential.
* Attempt to limit the type of uses while committing as much
land, such as, three acres per integrated user. There
should be no small lots and an effort made to restrict as
few buildings as possible in a freeway zoning
classification.
This concludes my notes and best memory of the meeting on March
13. I hope you find this information helpful while constructing
further documentation for review by the City Council at the March
31 meeting. I would suggest some overheads and various concepts
so we can proceed on with the development of an ordinance
following that workshop session.
rkvm-n�
City Administrator
cc:' Paul Hauge, City Attorney
LJ,oh Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant
TLH/kf
n
CITY OF EAGAN
(Potential Zoning District)
A. Purpose
6/24/87
To oroyide for a limited mixture of land uses made mutually
compatible with controls and high standards; to encourage and
accovTodate comn`ercial uses in freeway locations convenient to the
Metr000litan area; to provide for integrated roadside business areas
desin:ed to offer a group of essential services to the motoring public
in compact and convenient locations; and so far as may be possible, to
Qrctect the freeways from congestion by proper location of high traffic
generators.
B. Permitted Uses
Within any "F.D." District, no structure or land shall be used
except for one (1) or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar
by the City Council:
1. Agriculture;
2. Electronics, research and development where the use conducted
is customarily considered to be an office use and does not involve
retail sales;
3. Office and office buildings;
^
4. Government facilities where the use conducted is customarily
considered to be an office use;
5. Research laboratories where the use conducted is customarily
considered to be an office;
S. Motel or hotel of a minimum of one hundred (100) units;
7. Medical and dental clinics and offices;
S. Athletic clubs.
Page 2
C. permitted Accessory Uses
!. Car rental accessory to motels provided the cars are stored
in the reqular motel site off-street parking area without occupying
space otherwise required by ordinance for motel parking and provided
there are no exterior signs, except traffic signs, for reserving
oarking;
2. Li?ht nianufacturing and processing when conducted as an
accessory use in conjunction with an electronics or research and
develooment office;
3. The following, in buildings primarily occupied by offices,
business ana professional, and within the principal building of hotels
or motels:
a. Sa-ber and beauty shops;
b. Floral shoos;
C. Camera and optical shops;
d. Men's apparel;
e. Women's apparel;
f. Branch post office;
0. Financial Anstitutions;
h. Jewelry shops;
i. Boutiques;
J. Shops which include and are limited to the sale of
tobacco, candy, books, magazines, newspapers, gifts,
cards, stationery and office supplies;
k. Pharmacy and sundry items;
l. Utility collection;
M. Travel bureaus; ^
n. On -sale liquor when included within a motel/hotel;
o. Restaurant or coffee shop; `
p. Art gallery;
Q. Banks and savings and loan;
4. Essential public service structures except for elevated
tanks, electric owner substations, and transmission towers.
D. Conditional Uses
Within any "F.D." District, no structure or land shall be used for
the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council, except
through the granting of a Conditional Use Permit:
1' Service stations providing a minimum of two (2) service bays
and with no retail sales of food items, except from vending machines;
2. On -sale liquor in conjunction with a restaurant;
Page 3
3. Class I restaurant only of a minimum of 10,000 square feet of
gross floor area;
4. Banks and savings and loan as a free-standing building;
5. Transit pickup station;
6. Any building over 35 feet above average grade in height with
setbacks and parking requirements to be determined by the City Council
as a part of the approval of the conditional use permit.
E. Special Freeway Development (F.D.) District Requirements
1. Prohibited Uses
Notwithstanding any provisions of the Ordinance to the
contrary, the following shall be prohibited as permitted or conditional
uses within the "F.D." District:
a. Outside sales or storage except of construction
materials during construction;
b. New or used automobile, truck or equipment sales;
C. Fast-food restaurants or Class II restaurants;
d. Outdoor theater;
e. Bowling alleys or similar types of commercial recreation
except athletic clubs;
f. Electric utility sub -stations and elevated tanks;
9. Radio or television transmission towers;
h. Truck stops or car wash;
i. Billboards;
J. Warehousing, wholesale sales or wholesale clubs.
2. Building Materials, Loading Docks and^Refuse Storage
a. No loading docks shall be permitted along street
frontage. Provision for handling all freight shall be on those sides
of any building which do not face on any public street or proposed
public street unless the area is completely screened from public view;
b. All buildings erected on the property shall be of
masonry construction, an equivalent, or better. No building shall be
constructed of sheet aluminum, asbestos, iron, steel or corrugated
aluminum. Exterior surfaces of all buildings shall be faced with face
brick, stone, architectural concrete masonry units, pre -cast concrete
or an eQuivalent or better as determined by the City and all sides
shall be treated as a front.
C. All refuse storage areas shall be located within the
principal building with a direct access from the refuse storage area to
the exterior of the building.
Page 4
P. Setback and Area Requirements
Within any "F.D." District, uses shall meet the following minimum
reruirements except that high rise buildings shall meet minimum setback
renuirements as provided herein by conditicnal use permit:
Lot Area: Minimum 3 acres -except that minimum 1 acre lots may be
approved as a part of a minimum 3 acre Planned Development as
established by the City.
not Width: Minimum 150 feet.
Building Setback: Mininum 60 feet along a oublic street; minimum
30 feet alon7 other yards including freeway boundary line.
oarkinn Setback: Minimum 20 feet along a public street; minimum
10 feet along other yards including freeway boundary.
narkin7 Restriction: There shall be no parking within the sixty
(60) foot setback area between the building and public street along LN -2
one side determined to be the front of the building.
Building Size: Minimum 20,000 sq. ft. gross area except:
a. Class I restaurant minimum 10,000 sq. ft.;
b. Savings and loan minimum 10,000 sm ft.;
C. Service station 3,000 sq. ft.
Parkin; Ramp: Minimum required building setbacks.
Access: Access shall be shared by adjoining properties^where
possible and shall be so desipnated when the F.D. property is platted.
^
PROPOSED .FREEWAY ZONING DISTRICTS
4
Mpls..St. Paul Int. Airport
A- 6 0 A C R E S
B- 6 0 A C R E S
1-49
�1 f
C- 1 0 0 A C RE S 13
0-25 ACR ES
ALL SIZES APPROXII �f
r nvnrn
0 0 5000 ft. EAGAN, MINNESOTA
2000
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
(� PAUL H. HAUGE
,Attorneys at olsaw KEVIN W. EIDE
TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G. KELLER
OR 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M. BELLIN
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E. SCHMIDT
(612) 456-9000
June 26, 1987
Mr. Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Freeway Zoning Implementation
Dear Mr. Hedges:
Our office has been requested to draft a memorandum in regard to the
implementation of the proposed freeway zoning ordinance discussed
June 22 at a meeting with Dale Runkle, John Voss, Tom Hedges, Paul
Hauge and Dave Keller. It is our understanding that the City
Council and Advisory Planning Commission have directed staff to
develop a new zoning district classification tentatively called
"Freeway Zoning" to more carefully delineate uses for certain
property located adjacent to the City's freeways. This process has
occurred as a result of demands for proposed uses and review of
ordinances used by other cities such as Bloomington.
Issue:
Assuming that a freeway zoning ordinance is adopted similar to the
one proposed by the City's consulting planner, what method should
the City use to implement the use of such zoning and comprehensive
guide changes if applicable?
Alternatives:
The alternatives suggested at our meeting were as follows:
1. Adopt a revision to Chapter 11 through the public hearing
process under Code Chapter 11 and M.S.A. 9462 providing for a
freeway zoning district without actually creating specific
districts on the zoning map.
2. Adopt an amendment as described in number 1, and send
letters to the various land owners of proposed freeway districts
advising such owners of the possibility of re -zoning their
property to freeway development.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
June 26, 1987
Page Two
3. In addition to adopting an amendment to Chapter 11, also
adopt revisions to the zoning map indicating the parcels to be
designated as freeway development districts. This would involve
the public hearing process similar to that mentioned above.
4. In conjunction with any zoning changes, it is important that
the Comprehensive Guide clearly provides for freeway use and
also that a public hearing be scheduled to revise the
comprehensive guide use for each parcel to freeway use. Freeway
land use was alluded to in the January 1987 Guide.
Discussion:
1. Merely adopting an amendment providing for freeway development
districts without designating any specific parcels may not create
any disputes relative to land uses throughout the City.
2. Adopting an amendment to the zoning chapter of the Eagan City
Code and advising owners and developers of the potential for this
type of development should avoid any immediate legal action in
regard to re -zoning. However, if future developers and/or owners
refuse to cooperate, the City runs the risk of being accused of
"spot zoning" in attempting to refuse to re -zone or initiate re-
zoning for individual parcels. If a developer were to approach the
City with a plan inconsistent with the City's desire for freeway
development district, it may be hard to overcome the developer's
arguments of loss of profit after investing in such a development
plan and allegations of caprice, arbitrariness or unreasonableness
where the need and plan for freeway development use has not been
clearly delineated as proposed in the third alternative.
3. One concern of the City in attempting to adopt an amendment to
Chapter 11 of the City Code "Land Use Regulation" in addition to
amending the zoning map is that a dissatisfied developer may bring
an action against the City on one or more bases including the
following:
(a). Inverse condemnation. It has been argued that the recent
U.S. Supreme Court case has given developers more authority to
use their land in a manner inconsistent with City planning.
However, our review of that case, in addition to older cases
regarding downzoning, (see Memo of April 25, 1986) indicates
that an action for inverse condemnation will not be successful
where the re -zoning does not deprive the owner of all reasonable
use of his property or at least causes a very substantial
diminution in its value. Thus, it is unlikely that any zoning
change, if indeed it is downzoning, from some commercial
designation to freeway development district will create a viable
action in inverse condemnation.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
June 26, 1987
Page Three
(b). Perhaps a more serious concern is that a developer may
bring an action for declaratory judgment rather than damages
alleging that the re -zoning was unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. The concern of the court then becomes: Is the
existing land use pattern consistent with the proposed zoning;
Is there a comprehensive plan; Was there a preliminary land use
study; Does the proposal fit with some sort of overall
recommendation as to the development of the community and of the
area within which the re -zoned property is located; Was there a
land use assessment establishing some rational basis for the
change in the use prescribed by the re -zoning? When assessing
re -zoning, it is important to have accurate professional
knowledge regarding the facts and consequences relating to both
specific re -zoning as well as the entire community. There
should be planning support and factual data to back up any re-
zoning determination.
Conclusion:
While alternative 2 described above may result in less dispute and
litigation in the short run, the City must consider the prospect of
the enforceability of freeway development districts in the future
where handled on a parcel by parcel basis which may be susceptible
to challenge on the basis of equal protection, discrimination and
spot zoning. On the other hand, the likelihood of litigation is
certainly increased. However, the case law suggests that where
there is substantial planning support and valid reasons for re-
zoning, the re -zoning, whether or not it constitutes downzoning,
will be upheld. It should be noted that much of this opinion is
based on the assumption that the re -zoning of property to freeway
development will be interpreted by the owner,and/or developer as a
restriction on its use and loss of valuation. Consideration should
be given as to whether or not this is true.
Sincerely yours,
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Da 'd G. Keller
DGK:jjm
cc: Dale Runkle
John Voss
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Allorneys ai 1,au-
TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200
1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD
EAGAN, NIINNESOTA 55123
(612) 456-9000
June 26, 1987
Mr. Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Freeway Zoning Implementation
Dear Mr. Hedges:
PAUL H. HAUGE
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
LORI M. BELLIN
DEBRA E. SCHMIDT
Our office has been requested to draft a memorandum in regard to the
implementation of the proposed freeway zoning ordinance discussed
June 22 at a meeting with Dale Runkle, John Voss, Tom Hedges, Paul
Hauge and Dave Keller. It is our understanding that the City
Council and Advisory Planning Commission have directed staff to
develop a new zoning district classification tentatively called
"Freeway Zoning" to more carefully delineate uses for certain
property located adjacent to the City's freeways. This process has
occurred as a result of demands for proposed uses and review of
ordinances used by other cities such as Bloomington.
Issue:
Assuming that a freeway zoning ordinance is adopted similar to the
one proposed by the City's consulting planner, what method should
the City use to implement the use of such zoning and comprehensive
guide changes if applicable?
Alternatives:
The alternatives suggested at our meeting were as follows:
1. Adopt a revision to Chapter 11 through the public hearing
process under Code Chapter 11 and M.S.A. 5462 providing for a
freeway zoning district without actually creating specific
districts on the zoning map.
2. Adopt an amendment as described in number 1, and send
letters to the various land owners of proposed freeway districts
advising such owners of the possibility of re—zoning their
property to freeway development.
A
Mr. Thomas Hedges
June 26, 1987
Page Two
3. In addition to adopting an amendment to Chapter 11, also
adopt revisions to the zoning map indicating the parcels to be
designated as freeway development districts. This would involve
the public hearing process similar to that mentioned above.
4. In conjunction with any zoning changes,.it is important that
the Comprehensive Guide clearly provides for freeway use and
also that a public hearing be scheduled to revise the
comprehensive guide use for each parcel to freeway use. Freeway
land use was alluded to in the January 1987 Guide.
Discussion:
1. Merely adopting an amendment providing for freeway development
districts without designating any specific parcels may not create
any disputes relative to land uses throughout the City.
2. Adopting an amendment to the zoning chapter of the Eagan City
Code and advising owners and developers of the potential for this
type of development should avoid any immediate legal action in
regard to re -zoning. However, if future developers and/or owners
refuse to cooperate, the City runs the risk of being accused of
"spot zoning" in attempting to refuse to re -zone or initiate re-
zoning for individual parcels. If a developer were to approach the
City with a plan inconsistent with the City's desire for freeway
development district, it may be hard to overcome the developer's
arguments of loss of profit after investing in such a development
plan and allegations of caprice, arbitrariness or unreasonableness
where the need and plan for freeway development use has not been
clearly delineated as proposed in the third alternative. ,
3. One concern of the City in attempting to adopt an amendment to
Chapter 11 of the City Code "Land Use Regulation" in addition to
amending the zoning map is that a dissatisfied developer may bring
an action against the City on one or more bases including the
following:
(a). Inverse condemnation. It has been argued that the recent
U.S. Supreme Court case has given developers more authority to
use their land in a manner inconsistent with City planning.
However, our review of that case, in addition to older cases
regarding downzoning, (see Memo of April 25, 1986) indicates
that an action for inverse condemnation will not be successful
where the re -zoning does not deprive the owner of all reasonable
use of his property or at least causes a very substantial
diminution in its value. Thus, it is unlikely that any zoning
change, if indeed it is downzoning, from some commercial
designation to freeway development district will create a viable
action in inverse condemnation.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
June 26, 1987
Page Three
(b). Perhaps a more serious concern is that a developer may
bring an action for declaratory judgment rather than damages
alleging that the re -zoning was unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. The concern of the court then becomes: Is the
existing land use pattern consistent with the proposed zoning;
Is there a comprehensive plan; Was there a preliminary land use
study; Does the proposal fit with some sort of overall
recommendation as to the development of the community and of the
area within which the re -zoned property is located; Was there a
land use assessment establishing some rational basis for the
change in the use prescribed by the re -zoning? When assessing
re -zoning, it is important to have accurate professional
knowledge regarding the facts and consequences relating to both
specific re -zoning as well as the entire community. There
should be planning support and factual data to back up any re-
zoning determination.
Conclusion:
While alternative 2 described above may result in less dispute and
litigation in the short run, the City must consider the prospect of
the enforceability of freeway development districts in the future
where handled on a parcel by parcel basis which may be susceptible
to challenge on the basis of equal protection, discrimination and
spot zoning. On the other hand, the likelihood of litigation is
certainly increased. However, the case law suggests that where
there is substantial planning support and valid reasons for re-
zoning, the re -zoning, whether or not it constitutes downzoning,
will be upheld. It should be noted that much of this opinion is
based on the assumption that the re -zoning of property to freeway
development will be interpreted by the owner and/or developer as a
restriction on its use and loss of valuation. Consideration should
be given as to whether or not this is true.
Sincerely yours,
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
David G. Keller
DGK:jjm
cc: Dale Runkle
John Voss
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
-llorneys at oeaw
nd TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200
1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123
(612) 456-9000
May 27, 1987
Mr. Tom Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Eagan Zoning Ordinance
Dear Tom:
PAUL H. HAUGE
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
LORI M. BELLIN
DEBRA E. SCHMIDT
I have talked with Eagan Planning staff in recent weeks about the
Eagan Zoning Ordinance particularly in light of some of the cases
that have come out of the Minnesota Appellate Court and also, some
of the cases that the City is involved in and has been involved in
in recent years. Except for certain amendments, the Eagan Zoning
Code has not been revised since 1975 and it would be my
recommendation that the City Council consider a complete update or
total revision to the current Zoning Ordinance. Some of the reasons
and thoughts behind this suggestion are as follows:
1. It is important to be very clear in the preamble to such an
ordinance so that the purposes are updated in conjunction with
the state law as it's revised and also the case law as it
evolves through the court system.
2. The planned development concept continues to change through
the years, and this is an important area for rethinking by the
staff and consultants in conjunction with the City Council.
3. The relation of the Zoning Code to the Comprehensive Guide
Plan should be reviewed from time to time, keeping in mind that
M.S.A. Chapter 462, the Municipal Land Planning Act, and Chapter
479, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, both provide that in
the event that a city zoning code and its comprehensive guide
differ, that the zoning code will supersede the comprehensive
guide plan.
Mr. Tom Hedges
May 27, 1987
Page Two
4. There are certain sections of the Zoning Code that need
reworking which came to light fairly clearly in the Tom Thumb
gas pump/service bay case. The definitions section regarding
class one and class two service stations does not conform with
the provisions of the various commercial sections regarding the
requirement for service bays with the installation of gas pumps.
In addition, the wording of each of the commercially zoned
categories regarding gas pumps and service bays is slightly
inconsistent, which can cause some confusion by applicants
depending on the zone category within which they are applying
for gas pumps. In addition, the Council should rethink its
position regarding service bays, particularly in relation to
convenience stores with gas pumps as an adjunct similar to the
Tom Thumb, as opposed to a large gas pump facility similar to
Holiday or SuperAmerica where gas pumps are equally if not more
important than convenience stores. I say this in light of the
recent Tom Thumb case because, although the safety issues are
primary with the City Council in Yankee Square, and the signed
development agreement in respect to the Cedar Cliff location,
the court could very well declare the ordinance violates the
equal protection clause and has not been applied uniformly
throughout the city.
5. Another area that should have some attention deals with
Conditional Use Permits. It would appear that the Ordinance
could specify criteria required in more detail in order to grant
or deny Conditional Use Permits, and that the Council could rely
on the wording of the Ordinance to implement the action of the
City Council. 4
Very truly yours,
-''HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Paul H. Hauge
PHH:jjm
ELON-11
I I I I Rn
E L
L�U league of minnesota cities
June 23, 1987
To: Mayors, Managers and Clerks
From: Thomas L. Grundhoefer, Staff Attorney
Re: Advisory on Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case Affecting
Municipal Zoning Practices
,p
Cities have new reason to think carefully about municipal
regulations, especially those involving zoning and building
matters. Care should be taken to be sure that regulations are
important enough to justify the cost of defending against damage
claims likely to be encouraged by the case summarized below. It
would be better to make an evaluation of your ordinances now and
eliminate those that are not worth defending, than to change city
regulations in the face of law suits to be expected in the future.
On June 7, 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S.
Constitution requires that a property owner be compensated for
economic losses incurred during the period of time in which a law
or regulation, later found to be an unconstitutional taking, is in
effect. Prior to the decision, municipalities could repeal the
invalid regulation and not have to pay compensation for the
period during which the regulation was in effect.
The case, First En lish Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
County of Los_ Angeles 55 L.W. 4781, involved a challenge by a
church to an interim county ordinance prohibiting construction of
any new building within a flood plain area. When the church was
denied the right to build in the flood protection area, it sued
and sought damages for the period of time during which it was
denied the right to build.
The Court reasoned that temporary takings which, as here, deny a
landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from
permanent takings, for which the constitution clearly requires
compensation. The Court also found no rationale for
distinguishing between regulatory takings and formal physical
takings.
The Court's decision is based on a judicial assumption that the
ordinance denied the church all use of its property for a
considerable period of years, and they held that "invalidation of
the ordinance without payment of fair value for the use of the
property during this period of time would be constitutionally
insufficient."
1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 [61 2] 227-5600
In terms of analyzing the potential impact of the case on future
land use planning or other regulatory practices, it is important
to recognize what the case does not stand for. The case does not
stand for the proposition that all interim or permanent flood
plain ordinances constitute a taking of property requiring
compensation, nor does it establish a standard that would indicate
when a regulation results in a taking. To the contrary, the Court
acknowledges that the the county might avoid the conclusion that a
compensable taking had occurred by establishing the denial of use
was insulated as part of the States authority to enact safety
regulations. Further, the Court stated mere fluctuations in
value during the process of governmental decision making, absent
extraordinary delay, are incidents of ownership and consequently,
not a taking. Finally, the Court stated, "we limit our holding to
the facts presented, and of course do not deal with the quite
different questions that would arise in the case of normal delays
in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances,
variances, and the like which are not before us today."
The three dissenting justices stated that their major objection to
the majority's holding is that the decision fails to establish a
workable standard for distinguishing between everyday regulatory
inconveniences and those so severe that they constitute a taking.
They also have trouble working with the majority's distinction
between non-compensable "normal delays" and delays that rise to
the level of a taking. The dissent suggests that the test for
regulatory takings requires an inquiry into the duration of the
restriction as well as its scope and severity. The dissent simply
sees the need to provide a workable standard, a standard that is
so conspicuously absent from the majority opinion.
What Should Cities Do?
Cities as always should make make findings to demonstrate that
their decisions are supported by legitimate health, safety and
welfare concerns. Zoning and other regulations should continue to
be reviewed to assure that they do not deny landowners all
reasonable use of their property. Caution should be exercised to
be sure that regulations are important enough to justify the cost
of defending against potential claims likely to be generated by
the decision. On those rare occasions when a city adopts
regulations prohibiting all construction, the city should make
sure that such regulations are founded on sound public safety
concerns. Finally, the decision seems to say that cities are
protected from allegations based on normal delays in the planning
process. In this regard, care should be taken to make sure that
regulatory and planning activities do not become dilatory.
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JUNE 26, 1987
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 30, 1987, PART II
The following information is provided for the four (4) additional
items to be discussed immediately following the Joint Advisory
Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 30, 1987.
OPT -OUT LEGISLATION
At a recent City Council meeting, the City Administrator
discussed recent legislation that has placed a sunset provision
on a municipalities to "opt -out" and provide transportation
services to the City of Eagan separate from the Metropolitan
Transit Board. There did.not appear to be enough interest at
that time to pursue the matter of "opt -out" any further. Since
that meeting, the City has received a letter from Jim Borgschatz,
Pastor of Easter Lutheran Church, who is a member of the DARTS
board and also a letter from Ed Kranz who is a regional transit
board member, suggesting that the City of Eagan at least give
further consideration to the "opt -out" alternative for providing
mass transit opportunities to the community. Since our
consulting planner, Mr. John Voss, will be present at the meeting
on Tuesday, he has asked for a moment to provide information to
the City Council regarding the status of DARTS, the "opt -out"
legislation and discuss the return of revenues to northern Dakota
County communities if the cities of Eagan, Apple Valley,
Rosemount and Burnsville should elect to "opt -out" of the
Metropolitan Transit Commission. Enclosed for your review are
copies of the letters from Mr. Kranz, Pastor Borgschatz and a
brief summary sheet entitled MTC transit that disucsses the
financial aspects of "opt -out."
PROJECT #507
The Director of Public Works and City Administrator would like
the opportunity to discuss the cost and scheduling for Project
#507. This project includes the design and eventual construction
of Wells # 10 and 11. The Director of Public Works will also
provide a brief update on plans to construct a new reservoir in
1988.
UPDATE ON GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The City Administrator and Director of Public Works would like an
opportunity to discuss general development policies involving
developer's requests for model home permits, grading permits,
foundation permits and other types of development steps prior to
final platting. Specific direction has been given to the City
staff in recent months, however, at the last City Council meeting
on June 16, there were five (5) development requests unscheduled
on the City Council agenda that were presented and considered for
action. The Director of Public Works and City Administrator
would like a moment to discuss further a policy that insures
proper development procedures while maintaining staff efficiency
and economic development in the best interest of the development
community.
OTHER BUSINESS
The City Administrator would like a moment to close the meeting
to discuss one (1) personnel item. Also enclosed is 1) a copy of
a letter alerting members of the City Council to an informational
meeting that will be held in the City Council. chambers on June
30, to discuss the Blackhawk Road improvement projects with that
neighborhood and 2) a letter from the Dallas Development
Company regarding their sensitivity to advertising that is
occurring by a private school who is planning to locate in the
Phase II Silver Bell Plaza project which has not been approved by
the City Council.
/S/Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
June 23, 1987
Ms. Bea Blomquist, Mayor
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Dear Ms. Blomquist:
The cost of providing transit service to metropolitan communities
has been discussed at various political levels over the last
several years. Lack of service within communities like yours has
been discussed in the past. Other than regular route services to
downtown, transit service within your community is non-existent.
Terms like "feathering" and "opt out" are words that have evolved
and affect the cost of transit in your community as well as the
type of transit your community may desire to see. As you know,
the term "feathering" reduces the amount of property tax levied
for transit in your community. "Opt out" is a term that permits
your community to provide replacement service to the current MTC -
provided service. I have included copies of the amount of tax
levied on property in your community for transit. This also
reflects the amount of "feathering".
In 1984 your community submitted a letter of intent to "opt out"
and as of this date your community has not taken steps to do so.
Some communities in the metropolitan area have elected to "opt
out" and have provided replacement service. These "opt out" com-
munities have essentially restructured the type of service pro-
vided their community. They have been able to do this by
utilizing up to 90 percent of the property tax colleGtedtw thi..n.
their community to provide this service. No additional revenues
were necessary. In all cases they have improved.the level of
transit service provided their residents without losing the regu-
lar route service to Minneapolis or St. Paul. The reason they
have been able to do this is very clear; it is because the pro-
perty tax currently paid for transit in communities like yours
totals much more -than the amount of service received. This was
the purpose of the "feathering" legislation.
Recent legislation, copy enclosed, has put a sunset provision on
your ability to "opt out". You must submit an application to
"opt out" by July 1, 1988 if your community desires to pursue
this venture. Prior to this legislation there was no deadline.
Considering the amount of tax your community is paying for tran-
sit, you may want to look into this issue.
June 23, 1987
Page 2
I would encourage you to contact the City of Plymouth, the South-
west Metropolitan Transit Commission (Eden Prairie, Chanhassen
and Chaska) or the City of Shakopee and review how they have
addressed transit in their communities. I would be happy to
assist you in setting up a meeting with representatives of these
communities and regional transit board staff planners if you are
interested. I have enclosed information on the topic that may be
of interest to you.
If I can assist you in this matter, please contact me at
333-4500.
Sincer, y,
Edward J: Kra
Regional Tra it oard Member
L.1-2
REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD
SCHEDULE OF 1986/87 TAXES BY OPT -OUT COMMUNITY
EXISTING OPT -OUT PROGRAMS
Shakopee
$ 299,601
1986/87 TAXES
$ '229,382
Plymouth
Gross Tax
Less Feathering
Net Tax
OPT -OUT COMMUNITY
951,808
237,162
714,646
Apple Valley
$ 534,989
$ 129,017
$ 405,972
Burnsville
1,0995736
265,210
834,526
Eagan
781,351
188,429
592,922
Lilydale
23,371
5,636
17,735
Maple Grove
562,997
140,282
422,715
Medicine Lake
12,690
3,162
9,528
Mendota
3,902
941
2,961
Prior Lake
212,544
49,815
162,729
Rosemount
127,514
30,751
96,763
Savage
124,309
292135
95,174
Subtotal
$3,483,403
$ 842,378
$2,641,025
EXISTING OPT -OUT PROGRAMS
Shakopee
$ 299,601
$ 70,219
$ '229,382
Plymouth
1,196,113
198,690
997,423
Eden Prairie
951,808
237,162
714,646
Chanhassen
182,414
27,226
155,188
Chaska
165,285
37,004
128,281
Subtotal
$2,795,221
$ 570,301
$2,224,920
TOTAL
$6,278,624
$1,412,679
$42865,945 �
Based upon estimates prepared by the Regional Transit Board
November 17, 1987
MF0004
RTBTXI
a
OPT -OUT COMMUNITIES
The following communities are under contract to the RTB to provide replacement
service: .
- Shakopee
- Plymouth
- Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska (joint powers authority formed
under the name: Southwest Metropolitan Transit Commission)
The followina communities have submitted letters of intent to opt -out but
have not taken the next step: completing a transit study and submitting an
application to the RTB.
- Apple Valley
- Burnsville
- Eagan
- Lillydale
- Maple Grove
- Medicine Lake
- Mendota
- Prior Lake
- Rosemount
- Savage
12
H.F. No. 1043
1 council may approve or disapprove in whole or in part. The
2 council may disapprove only for inconsistency with the policy
3 plan of the council.
4 Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.388,
5 subdivision 2, is amended to read:
6 Subd. 2. [REPLACEMENT SERVICE; ELIGIBILITY.] The transit
7 board may provide assistance under the program to a statutory or
8 home rule charter city or town or combination thereof, that:
9 (a) is located in the metropolitan transit taxing district;
10 (b) is not served by the transit commiz_ion or is served
11 only with transit commission bus routes which begin or end
12 within the applying city or town or combination thereof; and
13 (c) has fewer than four scheduled runs of metropolitan
r 14 transit commission bus service during off-peak hours defined in
15 section 473.408, subdivision 1.
16 Eligible cities or towns or combinations thereof may apply
17 on behalf of a transit operator with whom they propose to
18 contract for service.
19 The board may not provide assistance under this section to
20 a statutory or home rule charter city or town unless the city or
21 town,
22 (i) was receiving assistance under Minnesota Statutes 1982,
23 section 174.265 er by July 1, 1984,
24 jjjj had submitted an application for assistance under that
25 section b,✓ July 1, 1984, or
26 (iii) had submitted a letter of intent to apply for
27 assistance under that section by July 1, 1984, and submits an
28 avwlication for assistance under this section by July 1, 1988
29 A statutory or home rule charter city or town has an additional
30 twelve month extension if it has notified the board before July
31 1, 1988, that the city or town is in the process of comcletinc a
32 transcortation evaluation study that includes an assessment of
33 the local transit needs of the city or town.
34 Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.39,
35 subdivision 1, is amended to read:
36 Subdivision 1. (GENERAL AUTHORITY.] The council, if
8
Easter Lutheran Church
James P. Borgschatz, Pastor
Thomas H. Johnson, Pastor
June 22, 1987
Mayor Blomquist and City Council:
I understand that you are aware of the provision in the law that
allows cities to opt out of the transportation taxing district
and use those funds to provide public transportation services in
the community separate from the MTB.
I am not advocating that Eagan should get into the transportation
business. Quite on the contrary. However, I believe that
transportation needs will continue to evolve quite rapidly in the
next several years with the kind of growth that we have been
experiencing. And with the provision of law giving a relatively
short periood of time to exercise that option, I believe the time
to act is now.
I propose that Eagan request Apple Valley and perhaps Rosemount
to participate in a study of transportation needs and
possibilities. And the very first thing to do would be to give
notice of Intent to Opt Out so that option can be preserved.
Secondly, 1 believe that various groups that understand the
changing shape of public transportation could be brought into
the study. My participation with DARTS has given me a different
perspective, for example.
The two reasons I am requesting your consideration of this issue
are the future benefit of transportation services to Eagan in
comparison with the tax dollar and the rapidly changing shape of
transportation services in the metro area.
Thank you for your consideration.
cerely,
James P. Borgschatz
CC: Church Council
Eagan Ministerium
4200 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122-1822
(612)452-3680
MTC TRANS!"
1986
6/23/87
NET OF TAXES
& REVENUES
EST. COST REVENUES MINUS COST OF
M M!.J!"--i '-'[Y' TAWS --[[J-���COF�_SERVICE
--___COLLECTED_
$559,000
l. It is estimated that Opt -Out would return $1.8 million to the four
conmunities.
2. Same service would oenerate revenues of $805,000.
3. Cost of service by MTC is estimated at $2,137,000.
4. It is estimated that MTC service on a contractural basis could
Wove $46S,000 annually for exoanded service to Opt -Out area.
Soxrce: R9W study prepared for DARTS 1987, ^
�
� \C
`�
of eagan 3 P.Q-7
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121
PHONE: (612) 454-8100
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
PURPOSE: To provide information to residents that are adjacent
posed Blackhawk Road Improvement Project.
PLACE: Eagan City Hall Council Chambers
TIME: 5:00 P.M., June 30, 1987
BEA BLOMQUIST
Mayor
THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A SMITH
VAC ELLISON
THEODORE WACHTER
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Adminisirotor
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
ty Clerk
to t e pro -
This meeting is for those property owners who have property adjacent to the
proposed Blackhawk Road Improvement Project. The meeting is intended to pro-
vide you with an opportunity to review the plans with the project engineer and
to ask questions concerning the project.
The public hearing for this project was held on February 3, 1987 at which time
the City Council formally considered the project and ordered plans and speci-
fications. The next step in the formal approval process is for the Council to
consider the final project plans and specifications and to order the taking of
bids. This is scheduled for the July 7, Council meeting.
This meeting is an informal informational meeting and not a part of the formal
project approval process. It is intended to provide an opportunity for resi-
dents that are most directly impacted by this project to have questions an-
swered and to learn the present status of the project.
We have identified your property as one that will be impacted by the construc-
tion of this project. The impact of the project varies from property to prop-
erty. Generally the issues of concern are driveway reconstruction, grading
and sloping needs of the property, tree removal and right-of-way "and easement
needs.
The construction of this project requires the acquisition of temporary ease-
ments and permanent right-of-way. The legal descriptions for these acquisi-
tions are being prepared and will be submitted to the City Attorney's office
in the near future. Owners of properties requiring easements will be con-
tacted by the attorneys' office to discuss the easement acquisition. Explana-
tion of the project details as they affect right-of-way and easement needs can
be discussed at this meeting.
If you cannot attend this meeting but have questions you can call Jerry Bour-
don at 636-4600 to discuss the matter by phone or to arrange a meeting place
and time.
4623e
THE LONE OAK TREE.- THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
"-zwrence W. & Doneene Wenzel Richard G. & Sharon Hanson
00 Kennebec Drive 4105 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122
Leroy & Sherrie Groff
4195 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Howard & Ethel Groff
4185 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd.
Eagan, MN 55121
Arthur F. Rahn
4100 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
C. McDevitt, Jr. & M. Glattly Michael P. & Debra Eldridge
4165 Blackhawk Rd. 4056 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122
Mario V. & Judy Racelis
1820 Kathryn Cir.
agan, MN 55122
Maynard & Eldoris Ohm
4155 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Hugh Stewart
4106 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Larry M. & Laura Allen
4104 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Donald Scott Lorch
4060 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Richard & Pamela Bestler
4064 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Eric W. & Katherine Laveen
4024 Blackhawk Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Eagan Town Cemetery
Rt. 2, Box 25
Mora, MN 55051
Michael A. & Shelley Olinger Doreen A. Ince
1815 Kathryn Cir. 8163 113th St.
Eagan, MN 55122 Cottage Grove, MN 55016
as
.. r
a81as
11evelopment
Company
June 15, 1987
Mr. Tom Hedges
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
P.O. Box 21199
Eagan, MN 55121
Dear Mr. Hedges:
Real Estate Developers • Investors
The Dallas Development Company has submitted to the City of Eagan a petition
for a planned unit development on the Silver Bell I & II development. This
development is located on the northeast and northwest quadrants of the
Highway 13 and Silver Bell Road intersection.
One of the proposed uses within the P.D. petition is for a 19,000 square
foot private school. This facility will be providing private education for
preschool through third grade. The name of this school will be Tesseract
and will be operated by Educational Alternatives, Inc. Educational
Alternatives, Inc. plan on having this school operational by September 1 in
temporary space in the existing Silver Bell Plaza. A special permit
application has been submitted to the City of Eagan for this temporary use.
Educational Alternatives will be beginning a marketing program for this
facility immediately. This letter is to inform you of these marketing
plans. Educational Alternatives, Inc. and the Dallas Development Company
want to assure you that we are sensitive to the City approval process and do
not want the citizens of Eagan, planning commission, city council members,
and city staff to think we are putting the "carriage before the horse".
Educational Alternatives, Inc. realizes there is a risk in releasing this
marketing program before the approvals have been granted, but feel it is
necessary due to the limited time before September 1. -
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
-�►'�'� O
Bernie Frey
BF/ack
cc: Mr. Frank Martin, Educational Alternatives, Inc.
Mr. Jim Sturm, City of Eagan
• 10369 West 70th Street • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • (6 12) 941-2971 •
• 418 North Main Street, #212 9 Euless, TX 76039 0 (817) 540-2242 9