Loading...
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