Loading...
10/30/1978 - City Council Special M0UTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETI1?G OF THE )?-A('--AN CT T Y COUNCIL AND THE EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSIGN EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 30, 1978 A special joint meeting of the Eagan City Council and the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on October 30, 1978, 7 p.m. at the City Hall. Those present were: Mayor Murphy, Councilmembers Wachter, Parranto, Egan, and Smith. Als^ present were Planning Commission Chairman Harrison, Planning Commission members Hall, Blomquist, Roszak, Hedtke and Sperling. Member Dembroski was absent due to a death in the family. Also present were Joanne Ellison of Rosemount ISD, City Administrator Hedges, Public Works Director Colbert,City Planner Voss, City Zoning Administrator Runkle and City Attorney Hauge. Park Director Schmidt arrived later in the meeting. Mayor Murphy opened the special joint meeting, which had been called to discuss a number of issues that affected both bodies and stated that no official action would be taken at the special joint meeting. ORDINANCE NUMBER 16 - SIGNS. There was considerable discussion by the members of the Planning Commission who were concerned that the Council was not following recommendations of the Planning Commission members in particular regard to the square footage and distance between pylon signs under Ordinance No. 16. There were suggesti: that there be some revisions to the Ordinance with the possibility of double signs, more signs on one standard, and possibly excluding signs that do not directly benefit Eagan businesses or residents. The size of the billboard on Highway #13 at Blackhawk Road was discussed and it was noted that two signs have been removed by Naegle Sign Company and one permit for billboard had been granted. It was suggested that the APC review the sign ordinance and prepare proposed amendments to the ordinance for further review by the Council. DAYTON - HUDSON PROPERTY. City Zoning Administrator Dale Runkle reviewed a proposal submitted by Pentom-Laukka Development Company which has an option from Dayton Hudson Properties for 500 + acres consisting of the property 048t was Page 2 October 30, 1978 formally designated for community shopping center at the Northeast quadrant of High- trays 449 and #55. The proposal would include 270 acres of single family, 90 acres of townhouse, 50 acres of condominiums and apartments and 20 acres of commercial with a maximum of 2000 residential units on the property. There were questions from the members present concerning the ability of the developers to consistently develop the entire acreap.,e as planned and it was noted that the regional shopping center had beer the designated use by Dayton - Hudson Properties some years ago and it was zoned for that purpose. Members further stated that it would be important to be consistent in the objectives for the use of the property and not sgitch with changing marketing der.-. from time to time. There was also discussion regarding the possibility of the resi- dential area being developed prior to commercial and expected objections from residen- tial neighboring owners to the inclusion of commercial development in the future. There did not appear to be a positive commitment from Dayton - Hudson Properties and no action was taken, The Members of the Planning Commission and Council present did, not appear generally in favor of the proposal without further information. CONTINUING AND TABLING MOTIONS. Several Planning Commission members discussed their concern regarding action being taken by the City Council after the Planning Commission has tabled a motion. City Council members indicated that they would not consider a motion that had been tabled by the Planning Commission. In addition, other issues that were discussed were as follows: A. The Planning Commission in certain instances will move to continue a public hearing on an application for additional information. In those cases the continuance would be made until a specific subsequent meeting. B. Tn certain instances the Planning Commission has taken no action on a specific application and the issue then moves to the City Council for its review. It appeared that the general consensus was that action should be taken by the Planning Commission vote in favor or against a proposal to offer the Council some direction as to the Page 3 October 30, 1978 Planning Commission's recommendations. C. In the event that an applicant request a continuance of an application, the general consensus of the Planning Commission was that the applicant would then be told that at a subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission would act upon the appli- cation. This would avoid cluttering the agenda without cause unless there are speci fic reasons for the continuance. D. There was further discussion whether it was technically possible to use a reason for granting or denying an application that the proposed use would create competition for an existing comparaple use in the area. City Attorney Hauge reviewer several cases in the Minnesota Supreme Court including a recent case decided in July of 1978 regarding an action for inverse condemnation in Pipestone, Minnesota. Although economic considerations should not be relied on solely as the basis for a decision, it appears that the issue can be used as one ground for the decision provided that there are guidelines established by means of ordinance, resolutions precedent and within the motion itself. DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC USE - SCHOOLS, FIRE STATION SITES, ETC. An issue recently committed by Bea Blomquist, a member of the Planning Commission, recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council review the possibility of requiring a sub- divider to dedicate land to the City for public purposes including schools, fire station siteg, and other community uses including park and recreation purposes. Current state law permits a municipality to require dedication for park and recrea- tion and ponding purposes. It was suggested that negotiations could be entered into between the developer and the City or school district regarding the acquisition by purpbase or donation of land for purposes noted above. City Planner John Voss indicated that in the comprehensive planning process there will be suggestions for location of future sites for fire station purposes and other community uses. Discussion also revolved around dedication of park land and cash contributions Page 4 October 30, 1978 including the possibility of requiring park dedication in the cases of newly platted industrial and commercial areas. Park Department representatives will discuss the issues further with the Planning Commission. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. Doe to the submission of a recent application for planned unit development approval for an 80 acre parcel intended to be used soli for single family purposes, the question arose as to whether such a single purpose use which would include variances from lot sizes, frontages, etc., is the intended purpose of a planned unit development. There did not appear to be precedent in the City for the use of PUDs in such cases. There was discussion as to whether there may be unique natural features such as terrain, ponding, etc., that would justify allowing variances from the minimum ordinance requirements under a planned unit development. A memorandum dated October 23, 1978, from John Voss regarding planned unit developments was discussed and there were concerns about the need to review PUDs in the future including more comprehensive annual reviews and possibly shorten the length of the planned unit development contracts. The purposes for the planned unit developments include better adaptation to physical and esthetics settings, economic feasibility and benefit to the community at large, were reviewed by the members present. Future precedent and the Metro Council's concern that lower middle income families be given opportunities for acquisition of single family homes smaller than minimum lot sizes, were issues discussed. VARIANCE PROCEDURES. Councilmember Parranto suggested that a review be made of the variance procedures to provide for a summary method to review variances that need only routine consideration by the decision bodies. Technicalities and minor items, he suggested, could be handled more expeditiously by a review board so as to give an applicant the right to proceed with his development or construction without nanecessary delay for review of a variance request. It was noted that the variance procedure had been revised under Ordinance No. 52 within the last two years and APC Page 5 October 30, 1978 members indicated that further review will be made of the matter. ADJOIJR MENT. The special joint meeting of the Eagan City Council and the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Dated: October 30, 1978 PHH CITY CLERK