Loading...
12/05/1995 - City Council Regular MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE IS EAGAN, CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota December 5, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, December 5, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Egan and Counclimembers Wachter, Awada, Masin, and Hunter. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Community Development Director Peggy Reichert, Director of Public Works Tom Colbert, Finance Director Gene VanOverbeke and City Attorney Jim Sheldon. Hunter moved, Wachter seconded a motion to approve the agenda. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Councimember Hunter requested an amendment on page 7, dealing with the temporary on-street parking request, that the fee may be waived 'administratively'. Awada moved, Hunter seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Councilmember Wachter requested an amendment on page 3, where he says he favors more use of concrete. He would like it changed to state that he favors use of decorative concrete, brick and stone. Hunter moved, Awada seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Craig Jensen was sworn in as new Fire Chief of the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department. Dale Nelson, former Fire Chief, thanked the Fire Department, officers, past and present staff, and his family. He congratulated Craig Jensen as new chief and thanked city staff he has worked with and counciimembers. f..,:....... , : 5 Administrator Hedges noted it Is being requested that the Chic Arena update be continued for two weeks. Wachter moved, Masin seconded a motion to continue this to the December 19, 1995 Council meeting. A. Personnel Items Item 1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Steve Taylor as the Parks Maintenance Supervisor. Item 2. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Greg Martin, Kent Knutson, Ray Sped, Eric Hansen, Jason Schwamb, Mark Cleare, Laura Hampton, Shane Johnson, Jason Lay, Ben Koenke, Jenny Nelson, Michael Kremenak, Jennifer Ervasti, Mindy DeBates, Nathan Hauenstein, Troy Johnson, Jason Ponsonby, and Allison Johnson as part-time seasonal Winter Recreation Leaders. B. Plumbers Licenses. It was recommended to approve the plumbers licenses for Bradley Plumbing, Penn Plumbing and R T P Plumbing as presented. C. &12rove Policy for Additions/Decks in Existing Townhomes. It was recommended to adopt the policy as presented. D. Contract 95-15. Well #19. It was recommended to receive the bids and award Contract 95-15 to the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. i11 .0"4 EAGAN CnY COUNCIL. MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 2 E. Contract 96-03. Well No. 19 Pumalng Facilities, it was recommended to approve the plans for Contract 96- 03 and authorize the advertisement for a bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on December 21, 1995. F. Findings of Fact on Denial of Conditional Use Permit for Hoovestol. Inc. It was recommended to approve a resolution denying a request by Hoovestol, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow a truck terminal together with secondary sales and services; and a conditional use permit to allow on-site fuel storage on Lots 17 through 24, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 4. 95.82 G. Award of contract. Schwanz Lake Phase II Ca Improvements. It was recommended to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder for construction of the Hay Lake Extension and south bay modifications as identified In the Schwartz Lake Phase 11 grant contract H. Approve Indeoendent Auditors for 1995. 1996 and 1997. It was recommended to approve the City's Independent auditor for the years ending December 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997 upon the recommendation of the City Administrator, Director of Finance and Assistant Director of Finance. 1. 1995 Budget Adjustment. Holz Farm Roof Reoair. It was recommended to approve an adjustment to the Parks and Recreation 1995 operational budget, not to exceed $15,000 plus $3,500 for contingencies, for repair of the Holz Farm house roof. Hunter moved, Awada seconded a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 1996 Administrator Hedges and Finance Director VanOverbeke gave a staff report, reviewing the revenues and expenditures and how property taxes are determined. Administrator Hedges reviewed the department budgets. Councilmember Wachter requested that the Finance Director explain fiscal disparities to the audience and he did so. Mayor Egan noted that the City of Eagan contributes $10.7 million to the fiscal disparities pool and receives back just over $1 million. Coundimember Wachter stated he feels it Is Important for the taxpayers to understand where that money is coming from and where it is going. Coundimember Hunter added that it Is important for taxpayers to know that so they can let their legislators know how unfair it Is to the City of Eagan. There haven't been any proposals put forth to expand tax base sharing that would benefit Eagan. Mayor Egan then opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Egan dosed the public hearing. Hunter moved, Awada seconded a motion to dose the public hearing and continue this to December 19, 1995. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 VACATE FARM ROAD PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY Director of Public Works Colbert gave a staff report. He noted that the Council needs to continue this due to an omission In the notice for this hearing. He noted that with the approval of the new intersection of Red Pine Lane and T.H. 3, one of the conditions of MnDOT approval was the closure of the Farm Road connection between Dodd Road and T.H. 3. With the elimination of Farm Road as a public street and its reversion to a private access to this residential property, a request for consideration of vacating the public right- of-way was received. It was discovered that the south half of Farm Road was not dedicated as a part of either the Dodd View Addition or the Sky View Addition to the south. The north half was dedicated with the Dodd View Addition. It was discovered mailed notice was not provided to the owners on the south half. Staff has since tried to make phone contact with these people, but weren't suul, which is why this needs to be continued. He noted that Dakota Electric would like to preserve an existing easement which could be done through a condition to the vacation. Williams Pipeline has also Indicated they have an easement that should be retained If the roadway Is vacated. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a need to construct storm sewer facilities from east of T.H. 3 west towards Dodd Road to continue to provide drainage for the area east of T.H. 0018>01 EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 3 3. This area is currently not serviced with sanitary sewer. There is also a possible need to loop a water main in the area, so utility easements should be retained; however, since no utility easements have been obtained other than the right for roadway purposes, it would have to be acquired from the south half of the south 33 feet of this area. Mayor Egan then opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak. Jim Waltman, 673 and 675 Farm Road, Indicated he recently purchased this duplex. He stated he feels he should be entitled to plowing services, for emergency services, ease of access, and garbage and mail services. He was not notified of this vacation and doesn't feel this would present a burden on the city. Director of Public Works Colbert noted that Mr. Waltman is not the owner of the duplex yet. The current owner was notified. The property owner they were unable to locate owns the 33 foot wide parcel along the south side of Farm Road. Mayor Egan asked whether Mr. Waltman will receive direct right-of way to Dodd Road. Director of Public Works Colbert responded that if this Is vacated, the north 33 feet of Farm Road will revert to the adjacent property owners and therefore, his access to public right-of-way will be along Dodd Road along the entire frontage and what was Farm Road will become his private driveway to Dodd Road. Mayor Egan asked how wide the driveway would be and Director of Public Works Colbert responded that it would be half the width of a public street, which Is comparable to a private driveway width. Councimember Wachter stated he feels there is a long distance between Cliff Road and the new Intersection without a cross road. He wondered whether it Is a good move to remove this cross street. Counciimember Hunter noted that removing Farm Road was a condition by MnDOT. The question to be answered Is whether this will revert to a private drive or whether the city will plow it. Counciimember Awada stated she feels it is important that when development is proposed for Carol Street, that the street goes through to Dodd Road. Mayor Egan concurred. Ed Brunkhorst, of Dakota Electric Association, reiterated their request to retain easements. Mayor Egan then turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Awada asked Mr. Waltman whether he understands that the city would be essentially giving him the land. Mr. Waltman Indicated he didn't understand that until tonight; however, he doesn't have the equipment to plow this road. Mayor Egan asked whether there would be a logistical problem with city equipment if Farm Road were vacated. Director of Public Works Colbert noted that their plow equipment Is set up to plow a much larger roadway width. The City does have smaller trucks that are used for cul-de-sacs, but in order to plow this property, it would have to enter private property to turn around. Councilmembers suggested that the possibility of having the plow go in the driveway and back out be explored. Greg Struve, representing Norm Schwendeman, 4895 South Robert Street, verified they would like to have the continuation of the access onto South Robert Street from Mr. Schwendeman's property. Director of Public Works Colbert Indicated it Is understood that Mr. Schwendeman will retain access as long as the use doesn't change. City Attorney Sheldon suggested that when the Council continues this, that adequate time Is allowed to explore all of the possibilities. Hunter moved, Awada seconded a motion to continue this to January 16, 1996. Aye: 4 Nay: I (Wachter opposed.) RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL SUBDIVISION, SODERHOLM ADDITION Administrator Hedges reviewed the history of this request. He noted that a supplemental petition was received in opposition to this development. City Attorney Sheldon further reviewed the history of this EAGSAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 4 subdivision, and noted that on November 6, the final planned development agreement and final subdivision were approved, the development agreement has been entered Into and signed and the plat has been filed. On November 21, the Council agreed to have this matter on tonight's agenda. He feels the Council's has three alternatives. The first Is to do nothing. The City is already in a contractual agreement and has a statutory responsibility to the developer that says that the use cannot change for two years unless the city and subdivider otherwise agree. The second alternative is to articulate reasons legally justifiable that would support a move to terminate the planned development agreement, and direct a rezoning of the property. The third alternative is to reapprove the project, which is not necessary since it has already been approved. Gary Gandrud, of Faegre and Benson, 90 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, attorney representing the developers Ray Connelly and Del Einess, emphasized that revisiting this decision has very serious consequences. He noted that top soil has been removed, soil has been compacted, and the sewer and water lines are staked. Construction contracts have been entered into for grading, which is 90% finished; sop testing; and for sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, culverts and ponding. A $298,000 letter of credit has been obtained and deposited with the city; and a $16,500 Inspection fee and a $4,000 grading plan fee have been paid to the city. After Council approval, building plans were prepared, and Holiday and McDonald's have filed their building plans with the city. McDonald's submitted complete building plans and the permit is awaiting issue. These plans include complete architectural, electrical, mechanical, lighting, signage and landscaping plans. Holiday has contracted with architects and engineers to produce a full set of building plans which are complete and have been filed with the city. Regarding the retail component, contracts have been entered into with architects and a full set of plans have been produced. Leasing activity has been undertaken as well, and it is currently 78% leased. The clinic has had leasing discussions, and commitments are secured for the entire space. Regarding Council action, the city has gone through the due process of the law. The preliminary plat was approved in August. State law states that for one year following preliminary approval, the city can't change official controls or affect the use, development density, lot size, outlay, etc. Final approval was given, it was signed, and is on record with the county. The development contract is signed and filed with the county. Due process was followed every step of the way, everyone was given an opportunity to address the Council on this Issue, and the ordinance has been complied with. The Planned Development District is an overlay zoning, which allows the Council to make those decisions. The zoning passed unanimously and they proceeded forward based on that approval. Last week, McDonald's building permit was withheld. With weather constraints, they need to get foundations In immediately, or they are looking at a four month delay. They will not stand idly by and be damaged where there is no justification for IL There is no authority left to change the planned development. The laws are dear and there is a legally binding contract. State law states that after a preliminary plat is approved, no changes can be made. The reason for this is because once preliminary approval is given, hard engineering costs are Incurred by the developer. Dick Peterson, of Doherty, Butler and Rumble, 150 South 5th Street, Minneapolis, representing the Florin's, noted they have had a traffic study prepared. He disagrees with the City Attorney's interpretation of what the Council's options are. According to Robert's Rules of Order, which the Council has adopted, the Council made a motion to reconsider the action that was taken on November 6th and unanimously passed. He feels the action before the Council Is the approval or denial of the planned development. He feels the development plan for Soderholm Addition should not be approved. The location of the three story medical office building is within 300 feet of a residential area which violates city ordinance. He quoted city code sections 11.20, Subd. 15B3(g), and 11.40, Subd. 6C2(d). He disagreed with the City Attorney's opinion that height requirements can be approved by the Council under a planned development. The inclusion of a fast food, Class II restaurant on this site Is not an appropriate exercise of the Council's authority under the planned development ordinance of the city. The authorization for planned development districts requires that determinations be made with reference to underlying zoning districts. This property has historically been zoned and guided as either single family or multifamily residential, and only recently was changed to neighborhood business, guided district. Fast food, Class II restaurants are not allowed as either a permitted or conditional use In a neighborhood business district. Although this is a planned development, the city Is required by ordinance to consider whether or not this is a better, more beneficial use of this property than the uses allowed by the underlying zoning district. He feels the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council have been EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 5 operating with misinformation as to what Is allowed In a neighborhood business district. He referred to what he believes is an error In the staff report dated July 25, 1995 as to what is allowed in a neighborhood business district. The McDonald's restaurant was listed as a 'sit doom' restaurant. A Class II fast food restaurant is neither typical nor permitted In a neighborhood business district. The only district where a fast food restaurant Is a permitted Is the regional shopping center district, and it has to be accessed from the Interior of the shopping center. Any place where there Is a free standing fast food Class II restaurant, it Is a conditional use. He feels all of the deliberations made by the Planning Commission and City Council were made based on incorrect Information In that staff report They feel the Council should deny this planned development because of this, and at the very least denied to allow the Planning Commission to consider correct information at a properly noticed meeting. They have a problem with the service station on the site. It Is permitted as a conditional use In a neighborhood business district, but it Is also not an appropriate exercise of the Council's authority in this planned development. The Council must look at the underlying zoning and be sure that the change is conducive to the benefit of the neighborhood. This will be the 21st service station In Eagan with the fifth largest capacity, which Is not appropriate for this neighborhood center. The ordinance requires that the retail component must be constructed and occupied before a service station can be constructed. The Council changed that requirement to state that they can be developed at the same time. The traffic issue is still unresolved. The county has not allowed Ingress and egress fully from either Lexington or Diffley. There Is still some confusion as what they will allow, and there will be severe traffic problems caused by these uses. There is an undue burden on the families that live on Lexington Way who would have to deal with Increased traffic as a result of this development. The Information provided by their traffic consultant shows significant traffic Issues. Mayor Egan asked whether the Council wanted to discuss traffic Issues at this point. Councilmember Hunter noted that it is very clear that If the City is legally bound to do something, it doesn't matter what the traffic study says. The legal issue needs to be discussed first. Mr. Peterson addressed the state statute referred to by the City Attorney as to why the City is contractually bound to honor its past decisions. The City Council Is subject to Robert's Rules of Order, and a motion was made to reconsider the November 6 action. He believes this planned development violates city ordinances, that approval of the planned development would be outside of the scope of the powers of the City Council, and therefore, such an action cannot be protected by the application of this statute. That statute Is applicable to subdivision issues. They are not challenging the subdivision--they are questioning whether the Council can approve or deny the planned development. Mr. Peterson referred to Mr. Gandrud's letter that referred to a statute on amendment of an official control. Official control Is defined by statute and refers to ordinances. This statute doesn't apply because they are dealing with whether or not the developer and city can comply with the existing ordinances. This is not changing an ordinance; It is simply denying or approving a development plan under the planned development ordinance. It a contract is deemed to exist, he believes the contract can and should be terminated because It was Induced by the mutual mistake of the parties concerning location of the medical office building and description of a fast food Class 11 restaurant as a permitted use In a neighborhood business district. He believes the developer has an obligation to comply with the citys ordinances and has not done so. As to the developer's argument about the amount of work that has been done on the site, he sent letters to the Council and developer as soon as the reconsideration motion was passed, notifying them of their position that Issuance of building permits would be Inappropriate until the Council reconsidered this, so any work done subsequent to that was at their own risk. Mayor Egan asked City Attorney Sheldon to address some of the arguments made. City Attorney Sheldon, In reference to the height of the medical building, reiterated that the statute refers to meeting a number of conditions, unless otherwise approved by the City Council In a planned development agreement. That Is Ez. EAGAN CRY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 6 what the Council has done when they received the elevations for this project. The height of the building does not relate to the planned development or subdivision approval, it relates to the Issuance of building permits. In response to the Issue of the Class II restaurant, Community Development Director Reichert explained that this Is guided neighborhood business. There is no underlying zoning of neighborhood business. The underlying zoning Is probably agricultural, but there really isn't an underlying zoning because it was an old planned development that is now being changed to this new planned development. Staff often refers to the zoning district that would be similar to it as a baseline to give some comparison, and In the staff report, they tried to talk about the kinds of uses that would normally be permitted, and normally be conditional. Staff did not address In the staff report whether McDonald's would or wouldn't be a permitted use. However, it was a discussion point with the Planning Commission. They dearly knew what the uses would be on this property, and the uses were approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mayor Egan asked about expired planned development Community Development Director Reichert responded that it had no specific plan, but had R-4 type uses. Counciimember Masin expressed some concern that if McDonald's and the Holiday station are normally not permitted uses, then a variance should have been required. Councilmember Hunter noted it wasn't necessary because this is a planned development, which Is more flexible than straight zoning. Councilmember Awada stated this is much more Intense than neighborhood business, and that was never discussed. Mayor Egan stated that this was never treated as neighborhood business zoning. It is a planned development. The development rights were created by the planned development zoning that was considered this summer and fail. Several years ago, the Council undertook a study of this area and others to try to rezone them because it was felt they were not appropriate as high density residential. They were advised that because there were contractual and development rights existing on this property, they couldn't rezone ft. There have been several proposals for rezoning of this property, and it was finally accomplished in 1994. There were public hearings held, public notices both in the newspaper and mailed, and the rezoning was approved unanimously. The same process was followed this summer on this subdivision and planned development People attended the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings and addressed this issue. The Florin's attended all of these Council meetings as well. He questioned whether it Is appropriate to raise these Issues after the final subdivision has been approved, the subdivision has been signed and filed, and construction has begun. Mr. Peterson clarified that the first meeting his clients attended was the November 6th meeting, and that was after having been told by staff that there was nothing that could be done about this development. Al the November 6th meeting, Lauren Florin did raise an Issue with it. The reason they hadn't done anything was because on September 29, when they first became aware of it, they spoke to Planning staff, and were told it was a 'don deal'. They decided that from that point forward, they would start attending Council meetings. Counciimember Hunter stated he feels the issue is whether it Is legal to rescind approval at this late date. One of the questions Is whether the City has the right to do the flexible zoning under a planned development agreement. He is convinced the city can do that; It is what has been done for 20 years. It is the reason the planned development zoning is In the code and he feels it is dear that the city has the flexibility to change and modify uses within a planned development agreement. Another question Is whether a motion to reconsider automatically rescinds approval, and that was answered at the last meeting. The City Attorney advised the Council that the motion to approve stands until the Council takes specific action to reverse approval. Therefore, the developer had the right to proceed with their development after the motion to reconsider. The City's normal notification procedures were followed, and the city is looking at expanding those procedures to include posting a sign on property proposed for development. There was a lot of deliberation on this project, and several conditions were placed on this subdivision. Questions were raised as to whether some of these conditions were met, and these Issues have been researched and answered by staff and the conditions have been met. He feels it is very dear that it is against state law to rescind approval after it has been granted. It Is also clear that the developer would be damaged If this were rescinded, and he feels the city would face a lawsuit from this developer. Mayor Egan concurred. He feels the people in this neighborhood were misled as to what their rights are at this point. The developer has absolute rights to move forward, and the Council is being asked to take rights away from this developer. He cannot see one basis in the law that gives the Council the right to deny this application at the present time. The untimely nature of this request is Sam& EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1m • PAGE 7 unfortunate. There were people at the Council meeting that live on Lexington Way that spoke In favor of this application. The pastor of Sts. Martha and Mary Church, who lives across the street, spoke In favor of this application. Councilmember Masin asked whether the developers have received all appropriate approval from the county relative to the access and right-oF-way. Dave Vogt, 4115 Lexington Way, disputed the notification process. He Indicated he was never notified of any of the meetings relative to this project. He lives on Lexington Way, but was outside the legal notification area. The ordinance states that notification is required for those within 350 feet of the development, or directly affected by the development He lives on the street and he feels he should have been notified. Councimember Hunter reviewed the notification procedure, and reiterated the Council's intent to expand that. However, if the Council decides to go beyond the 350 feet, a question arises as to where to draw the line. He feels this process has worked In the past; however, the development that is left In Eagan Is In-fill development, and he feels the procedures need to change. Mr. Vogt expressed concerns about the disregard of the safety and privacy of a quiet residential street. The traffic on that street will Increase dramatically. Lexington Way was changed from a thru street to a cul-de-sac for safety reasons. He expressed a concern about decline In property value as a result of this. He asked the Council to make the traffic problems the developer's problem, not the residents'. The residents are not opposed to commercial development there, but they are opposed to using Lexington Way as a primary access. Mayor Egan stated he feels the use of Lexington Way is a separate Issue and he Is willing to work on that. The Council will be changing its notification system to Include posting of signs on property proposed for development. He cautioned, however, that it is still not an absolute guarantee that all Interested people will be notified. There Is no foolproof way of notifying everyone. Although the current system Is similar to what most other communities do, the city is trying to Improve on that system. Normally, if there Is opposition to something, it comes up In a timely way. Mr. Vogt reminded the Council that people were told there was nothing they could do. Councilmember Wachter emphasized that the city followed the legal notification procedure, and he feels the city fulfilled its obligation. The Council tries to satisfy everyone when an issue comes before the Council. The Council did not have to reconsider this. He Indicated that Mr. Vogt was not notified because he was outside the 300 foot notification area and that Is the only reason he wasn't notified. Councilmember Hunter concurred, noting that staff followed proper procedure. It Is up to the Council to change policy and they are planning to do so. Mayor Egan stated he will continue to work with Mr. Vogt to mitigate any traffic concerns. Mr. Gandrud clarified the issue of access points, noting that Dakota County approved those access points when the final subdivision was accepted and fled. The access permits have been applied for and paid for. Councimember Masin asked whether major adjustments will be needed on Lexington Avenue to accommodate this development. Dave Hoeschen, of Holiday Stations, reviewed the access points. Councilmember Masin stated she has heard that Dakota County has not signed off on the access points. Dave Zech, Dakota County Highway Department, noted that access permit applications have been received, and according to the plat, the locations have been fixed; however, the exact layout of the driveway accesses has not been approved. They do have an agreement for the access on Dfffley Road, but they don't have an agreement for access on Lexington Avenue. It may be modified to a right in/right out only. Councilmember Masin Indicated a concern that this Is a major change to that road and will affect the church as well. Mr. Zech stated it may or may not. Since they haven't issued the permit yet, they have not established any conditions. They Intend to Issue a permit because the access points were established as part of the plat; however, it doesn't mean that people are entitled to full left In/left out, right In/right out access. It may be restricted; however, it hasn't been determined yet. Councilmember Masin noted that the main concern of the Council had to do with traffic. She feels there are some new traffic concerns and she doesn't feel it Is appropriate for the developer to go forward when the traffic concerns haven't been resolved, especially when the Council raised specific concerns about it. She asked whether there are any legal procedures that can be followed to stop this IF there are major changes to the roadways. Perhaps the minister from Sts. Martha and Mary Church would not have testified in favor of this if he thought this development would Impact his church negatively. Rev. George Martin, of Sts. Martha and Mary Church, indicated he was told today that there might be an Impact on their access to Lexington Avenue. He looked at the plans early on, but since it fit with the zoning Issues and EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAIGE 8 was going through the proper chamois, he didn't feel it was his place to question it other than as to size and scope, which he did do. He was concerned about the traffic Issue, and when the Diffley Road project was being done, he felt they had a firm agreement with the county that they would have a left In/left out from their property, and he assumes that agreement stands. If the county Is not willing to honor that, he is deeply concerned about that. Mr. Zech responded that access has not been restricted to the church; however, there is no guarantee at any Intersection or driveway location that access will remain the same forever. As traffic patterns change and problems arise, there may be a need to restrict certain turning movements if a problem develops. Safety Issues have to be considered. They don't want to restrict access to the church. One of the proposals may restrict access to the Soderhdm Addition as a right in/right out. Councilmember Wachter stated that the Council felt that a right In/right out on Diffley Road would have alleviated a lot of the pressure on Lexington Way and Lexington Avenue. He feels it Is Improper for the county to place additional restrictions on these developments after the City has made its decision. The property owner has rights and the neighbors have rights. If access to the church is restricted, it Is an entirely different matter and it affects the entire area. He feels this Is Improper. The Council has made Its decision and now, the access is still In question. He feels the Council has been misled. Councilmember Masin stated she has a problem with this process. She feels it makes more sense for the county to raise any concerns before the Council makes their final decision. Mr. Zech responded that the county has a sequencing ordinance that requires that the city councils finish their action before the county acts. He feels it would have been helpful to know about the access concerns early on in the platting process. They didn't look at that until the access permit application was received. Councilmember Hunter questioned whether the county was aware that the city had access concerns prior to receiving the access permit application. Mr. Zech replied no. Hunter responded by stating he believed the County was aware. Mayor Egan noted that the City Administrator appeared before the Physical Development Commission and discussed access Issues as well as other transportation issues. Councilmember Masin stated that this process needs to change so the city gets input before their decision and not after. Mr. Gandrud added that there were meetings with the county and access points were agreed to. The plat was then filed. They relied on that information. Councilmember Hunter noted that even it everything was finalized, the county can come In later and Install or remove medians whenever they want. Councilmember Awada noted that the legality Issue of whether or not this planned development can be rescinded has nothing to do with the access issues. She asked whether the fact that the previous planned development was never terminated Is a legal Issue. City Attorney Sheldon responded that on November 6th, the final planned development agreement was approved. It has been signed and it is the zoning on the development today. Some discussion followed concerning the process used for planned development zoning. Mr. Peterson noted one more issue is that on August 15 when the preliminary approval was given, there was a condition that all access issues regarding Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road must be resolved prior to final plat approval. He doesn't feel those have been resolved. Ray Connelly, the developer, Indicated they appeared before the County Plat Board and got their plat approved, and the County Attorney told the commissioners these were legal accesses. As to the access permit, when they got delayed, they did not ask for the permits because they were not going to utilize them until rod Spring. However, they were told by the County Attorney what they could and couldn't do. He Is wiling to meet with Mr. Zech to discuss final details. However, Mr. Zech was at that meeting and was informed by the County Attorney as to what the access would be. AN they are asking for Is that people live up to legal agreements. Councilmember Hunter stated he feels it is dear that this Is a legal Issue and it is also dear that there Is nothing the Council can do at this late date. The access points have been resolved. Whatever medians the county decides to put in really has no bearing on this. Hunter moved, Wachter seconded a motion to reaffirm the Council's decision to approve the final planned development and final subdivision for Soderholm Addition. Councilmember Awada noted that she Intends to vote against this because she voted against this originally. However, she feels she needs to back up the Council on the legal points. There is no way to legally rescind this action. She has always been against this project, and she wishes these people would have been here when the preliminary plat was considered. Some discussion followed concerning how this was handled. 00329 EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1x95 PAGE 9 Lauren Florin, 4085 Lexington Way, stated she feels there have been some misgukdances that have led to this final decision. One of the Advisory Planning Commissioners wrote to her that she relied on the staff report and she feels there were some Inaccuracies In the report. She also noted that Mark Miller, Chairperson of the Advisory Planning Commission recommended that she recommend to the Council that this be sent back to the Planning Commission because there were misleading comments that brought it to the preliminary stage, and that it should not have gotten there due to those misstatements. Councilmember Awada asked whether that Is a legal reason to reconsider this. City Attorney Sheldon stated that In his legal opinion, there Is no basis for sending this back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Wachter added that the Planning Commission Is advisory to the City Council. The Council at times reverses the decision of the Planning Commission If it is felt that the best Interest of Eagan is not being served. The Council has supreme jurisdiction. Aye: 3 Nay: 2 Councilmember Masin suggested a letter be written to the county requesting them to change their process to provide Input prior to final approval by the Council. Discussion followed. At 9:20 p.m., the Council recessed for 15 minutes. At 9:35 p.m., the Council reconvened. PREUMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, EAGAN PROMENADE Administrator Hedges reviewed the history of this request. Community Development Director Reichert noted that concept approval was given in July, and some direction was given as to some changes to be made. Some concerns expressed were that the park component should be excluded; there were concerns about the housing component and how many units could be put In there without losing trees; Interest in a hotel was expressed; and staging of the development was discussed. The commercial component as revised is 298,700 square feet of In-line strip retail, and 68,600 square feet of free standing commercial businesses on eight separate lots. The In-line strip center is smaller, but the building divisions have been increased from seven to nine. There are four restaurants Instead of three. The public park component has been completely eliminated but there Is still private open space. The community center was eliminated, but the community retail has been expanded and it Is designated for restaurant and retail uses. The area in the back has been designated for retail/hotel. The residential component calls for up to 294 apartment units. She noted that approval of this agreement will establish the uses, the setbacks, the maximum building square footage, the Internal circulation and parking requirements. The agreement also provides the ability to add conditions as a result of the environmental assessment worksheet or indirect source permit. Both the planned development agreement and preliminary subdivision approval contain conditions regarding the roadway improvements, that final approval cannot be given until the Council and developer reach an agreement on how the roadway improvements will be financed. Staff is looking at the landscaping, lighting, signage, architecture, etc., but the design details are not being approved as a part of this. Staff has some issues with those aspects, but these items will go before the Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment. There will be a master plan, and then as each lot Is developed, those site plans will have a final planned development approval that will have to be consistent with the overall master plan. She noted that most of the issues have been resolved other than the financing of the roads. The outstanding issues are staging of the development, uses, parties to this agreement, and sidewalks around the pond. The Council Indicated they wanted more restaurants In the community retail space, and Opus would like more flexibility as to what can go in there. She noted that If the Council wants specific uses for any of this space, now is the time to raise those Issues. The property owner is concerned that by being a party to this planned development agreement, they will Incur some liability. An agreement was reached that if the Council approves this, the property owners can hold the agreement for one year, and as soon as it is sold to Opus, Opus will sign it and file it as property owners. An Issue was also raised about sidewalks around the residential component. The agreement requires that a trail be constructed around the pond, and they are concerned about the feasibility of this with the grading of the area. She noted that both parties can agree to eliminate this later if it proves that it Isn't feasible. The agreement can be amended at any time If both parties agree. Opus is requesting that this planned development be for a 10 year term rather than the standard 5. She noted that once this preliminary planned development is approved, that is the zoning, and the city EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 10 cannot change it for the entire term of the development agreement. She reviewed a change to condition 5 regarding the Lexington Avenue roadway improvements to provide for left turn lanes at the intersection of Lexington Avenue at Northwood Drive. She noted that the details of the plaza area haven't been worked out YeL Michelle Foster, Senior Director of Real Estate for Opus, further reviewed their concerns about the phasing and mandatory uses within the community retail. She noted that this project's success is based on the ability to lease and prelease the major anchor tenants for the in-fine space, as well as for the pad sites along Yankee Doodle Road. They have a number of leases under negotiation for both the In-line space and pads. Both of those components need to be In place in order to prelease the community retail space. They are actively pursuing leases for the community space, but at this time they do not have commitments in place, which means they cannot start the in-line space and pads. Recognizing the importance of the community retail space, they are willing to start that space with only 50% preleasing as opposed to 100%. She emphasized that the entirety of the project is very Important to them, and will continue to dedicate their efforts to leasing the community retail space. They requested that the Council not require them to start that project without at least some leasing In place. Regarding the mandatory use requirement for the community retail, they are talking to a variety of uses for that space, but they would like to have the flexibility to lease that space as the market permits. They would like to not have a requirement for a minimum level of restaurant use within that space. They are making every effort to meet the objectives of the city to create a gathering place for that area, but feel it would be more appropriate to leave those decisions to the market. Counclimember Awada asked about their request to have a 10 year planned development. Mayor Egan stated he would feel more comfortable with a 5 year planned development, with a 5 year option. He noted he had a meeting with a representative of Byery's and he talked about a restrictive covenant against having a coffee shop and other uses in the community retail space. Tim Mumane, of Opus, reviewed Byeriy's proposal. He noted that there is a bookstore proposed for the In-line space that has a coffee franchise within the store that would be restricted by Byerly's, but he has been able to reach a compromise to allow both coffee vendors to be there. Byerly's has restrictive covenants against liquor stores, full-service dell's, and full-service meat uses. He noted that the tenants they are now talking to for the community retail space will equal 50-75% of the space. He reviewed the types of uses for the in-line space as well as the small shops, which included a linens store, book store, fashion retail store, children's book store and electronics retail. In the community retail space, they are looking at a sit down family style restaurant, dry cleaner and service vendors similar to what you would see in a small strip center. They are working on getting the larger spaces committed, but they have hired a brokerage firm to help get the community retail space leased. The front is nearly committed with a bank, video operator and national restaurant chains with liquor. Considerable discussion followed on available liquor licenses and the ability to attract a hotel to this area. Counciimember Hunter indicated he would be comfortable agreeing to no restrictions on the community retail space, except those required by Byeriy's, which included liquor store, full-service deli, and full-service meat use. Mr. Mumane noted that the lease with Byerly's is fully negotiated, so they don't anticipate any further restrictions. Councilmember Hunter noted that the Intent behind the staging was due to the community center and public space component. Because that was removed, he doesn't see the need to require this. Counclimember Awada concurred. Counclimember Masin stated she feels strongly that restaurants are needed In the community retail space to create a gathering place. Mr. Mumane reviewed what they are doing to attract people to this area and to create a gathering place, both at the community retail space and plaza in the summer, and the coffee shops and bookstore in the winter. It doesn't take the place of a community center, but still gives a lot of opportunities to gather. Councllmember Masin noted that If the Council takes out those restrictions, there Is no guarantee that those types of businesses will go there. Mr. Mumane Indicated they would like the market to dictate what goes in there, so they aren't In a situation that they make a commitment to the city they can't fulfill. That restriction could hold up the whole project which would be detrimental. EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 11 Counclimember Masin Indicated she wants assurances that this will be developed as a gathering place. Discussion followed. Mayor Egan asked about the trallways. Community Development Director Reichert Indicated they haven't gotten to that level of detail, but will be working on that. Michelle Foster reviewed the concept plans to date. Mayor Egan stated he likes the changes that were made to this project and he Is pleased with these preliminary plans. Dan Chrysler, 1095 IQrkwood Drive, stated he doesn't feel It is practical to require a gathering place in a suburban setting. Eagan has retail space like this, and there are benches that sit empty all the time. He feels it Is impractical to impose those types of conditions on a developer. Councilmember Awada noted that this plan is on a much smaller scale than the Council envisioned. Mayor Egan added that this will create the synergy necessary to attract those types of uses to that location, but not until the in-line space is filled. He doesn't want to put too many restrictions on this development. Councilmember Awada asked how Mr. Chrysler feels about the strip mail and Mr. Chrysler Indicated he Is excited about ft. He Is concerned about requiring a restaurant In the community space when there will be three national chains in the front. Carl Olson, 6324 Pheasant Ct, Edina, noted there is strong Interest in a hotel at that site, and some of the people he spoke to are considering a restaurant. City Attorney Sheldon noted that paragraph 7 of the planned development agreement refers to paragraph 5 and it should be paragraph 6. Awada moved, Wachter seconded a motion to approve the preliminary planned development proposal for Eagan Promenade, subject to the owner of the property executing the preliminary planned development agreement and delivering the agreement to the city, together with proof of ownership, within one year from today's date; the modification of the paragraph 7 of preliminary planned development agreement; modification of the term of the planned development agreement to five years; removing the condition on the staging of uses; and that there be no further restrictions beyond the restriction of liquor stores, full-service deli's and full-service meat in the community retail space. A member of the audience asked what will be east of Lexington at this location. Community Development Director Reichert noted It is currently zoned Industrial and has preliminary approval for an industrial subdivision. The audience member remarked that most of the uses described are already within ten miles of this area. He wondered why they are duplicating businesses that are already here. Mr. Mumane stated they are responding to the marketplace. The businesses come to Opus. There is some duplication, but the majority are new uses and concepts. Considerable discussion followed concerning the condition regarding the restrictions on uses, and it was decided to drop that as a condition. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Awada moved, Hunter seconded a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision for Eagan Promenade, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a preliminary development plan for Eagan Promenade subject to the conditions enumerated in the Eagan Promenade preliminary planned development agreement. 2. Platting of the property by the developer. 3. Standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council action on February 2, 1993. 4. The following additional wetland/water quality conditions: Poll EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 12 a. The development shall meet its water quality mitigation requirements through on-site ponding. The ponding and storm drainage configuration for the site shall be that shown on the plans received by the City on November 11, 1995 except for the following: 'Pond DP-5.1 shall be excavated to provide a wet pond volume of .9 acre-feet and a minimum mean depth below normal water level of three feet. Grading contours for this pond shall be shown on the grading map.' The Invert elevation for the outlet from Pond DP-6.1 shall be one foot In elevation below the delineated edge of the wetland In this location.' b. The applicant shall be allowed to fill up to .473 acres of wetland on the site and construct 1.1 acres of Type 3 wetlands for replacement as per the June 1995 wetland replacement plan for the site and as amended with the revised plans received by the City on November 6, 1995. The wetland replacement plan as amended is approved. c. The developer shall maintain a buffer of natural unmaintained vegetation extending 30 feet back from the normal water level of Ponds DP-6 and DP-6.1. the only encroachment allowed within this buffer during construction Is that associated with road construction along the southern margin of Pond DP-6.1 and grading for Building 5 along the east margin of the pond as shown on the plans. Graded areas within the buffer shall be restored with natural vegetation kept in an unmaintained condition. The limits of the buffer will be marked on the grading plan and marked with permanent monuments in the field prior to grading. The developer will contact water resources staff at least five days prior to the start of grading for approval of the monument type and location. 5. Council approval and ordering of the required external/internal roadway Improvements Including: CENTRAL AREA (EXTERNAL) Yankee Doodle Road a. Construct dual left turn lanes on each approach at the Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Road Intersection. b. Replace the traffic signal at the Yankee Doodle Road/Pilot Knob Road Intersection. c. Construct a third through lane In each direction on Yankee Doodle Road between Washington Drive and Yankee Place. d. Widen the bridge over 1-35E on Yankee Doodle Road to accommodate the additional third lane. e. Construct dual left turn lanes at the Yankee Doodle Road/Denmark Avenue intersection. f. Construct a right turn lane on westbound Yankee Doodle Road to northbound Denmark Avenue. g. Add an additional northbound through lane on the south leg of Denmark Avenue at Yankee Doodle Road. h. Replace the traffic signal at the Yankee Doodle Road/Denmark Avenue Intersection. EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 13 1. Construct a right turn lane on westbound Yankee Doodle Road to northbound Promenade Avenue. J. Provide for a future signal at the Yankee Doodle Road/Promenade Intersection. k. Reconstruct the entrance to MVTA to provide for a right in/right out movement only. 1-35E a. Remove the existing signal and entrance ramp from westbound Yankee Doodle Road to northbound 1-35E and dose median. b. Construct new entrance ramp with right turn lane from westbound Yankee Doodle Road to northbound 1-35E north of Yankee Doodle Road. c. Right turn lane on southbound exit ramp to Yankee Doodle Road. d. Construct dual left turn lanes on the 1-35E northbound exit ramp at Plot Knob Road. Lexington Avenue a. Extend five lane section from Yankee Doodle Road to one-quarter mile north of Northwood Drive. INTERNAL AREA (PROMENADE DEVELOPMENT) Denmark Avenue: Four lane divided roadway between Yankee Doodle Road and Northwood Drive. Promenade Avenue: Two lane divided roadway between Yankee Doodle Road and Northwood Drive. Northwood Drive: Three lane undivided roadway between Denmark Avenue extension and Lexington Avenue. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OWN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SALES FOR McG'S CONVENIENCE STORE Administrator Hedges noted that a petition was submitted by the Cedarvale merchants who are opposed to this proposal. Community Development Director Reichert gave a staff report, noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval, but changed several of the conditions relating to the dedication of 15 proof of parking spaces, maintenance, and trash enclosures. She noted that concerns were expressed at the Planning Commission meeting relative to traffic, aesthetics and screening. Staff raised these concerns with the developer, but they didn't want to take any of their suggestions, so it was felt these concerns needed to be brought to the Council. Some of their concerns are increased traffic and safety. She reviewed several alternatives for ingress and egress. SRI McGuire, owner of McG's, presented a petition of 350 people who are In favor of this request. In today's market, convenience stores need to have gasoline. Ted Tinker, representing Chaska Investment Company, the property owner, spoke in support of this request. He doesn't like staffs alternate plan for access and feels they didn't have an adequate time to review It. He had a traffic engineer review both plans and the 00331, EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 14 major drive areas between the store and parking lot and they generate much more traffic than a convenience store. He feels staff's plan is chaotic. Director of Public Works Colbert Indicated staff felt the safety issue needed to be addressed. The applicant is proposing to widen out the existing entrance and emphasize it as the main entrance. This is a major retail center, and to emphasize a major entrance through the increased pedestrian use with the gas station, will generate more traffic, and more pedestrian movements than what currently exists. They are proposing to eliminate the parking stalls In front, forcing more stop-and-go type shopping, which will cause more pedestrian traffic conflicting with thru movement. Staff would not approve their plan for two entrances so close together off a major community collector. The staff modification takes the main traffic stream away from pedestrian and traffic conflict and still provides adequate access; and it consolidates all traffic movement to one singular entrance Into the site. Community Development Director Reichert added that there is another entrance to the shopping center that could be widened If the other entrance is closed off. Counclimember Wachter stated that there was a similar request at Blackhawk Plaza and it wasn't approved. The gas station was moved to a more appropriate location and it works out a lot better there. He doesn't feel this Is a proper place for a gas station. The site is too restrictive. Counclimember Masin stated she has reservations about the number of gas stations being approved. Not every convenience store needs gas pumps. They are a major pollutant. Counciimembers Hunter and Awada, and Mayor Egan indicated they would agree to staffs proposal, and Counciimembers Wachter and Masin indicated no support for a gas station at this location. Discussion followed as to whether this should be continued, but Community Development Director Reichert noted that they are under a 60 day deadline for approving this request. She noted that the applicant can waive that 60 day requirement if they wish. Director of Public Works Colbert added that these Issues were discussed early in the review process, but the applicant wasn't receptive to those changes. Discussion followed concerning what was discussed between the applicant and staff and what action should be taken. Masin moved, Wachter seconded a motion to deny this request and direct staff to prepare findings. Aye: 3 Nay: 2 (Hunter, Egan opposed.) Al Birr, 1930 Silver Bell Road, expressed his opposition to this because he has a deep well, and expressed concerns about a group home in his neighborhood. Considerable discussion followed as to the reasons for denial of this request. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION FOR GOPHER RESOURCE CORPORATION Community Development Director Reichert gave a staff report. Mayor Egan asked about development plans for Parcel E. John Tapper, of Gopher Resource Corporation, Indicated they aren't acquiring that property. Hunter moved, Egan seconded a motion to approve a waiver of subdivision for the purpose of legally separating a four acre portion of a 13 acre unplatted parcel located on either side of the Soo Une Railroad, just north of the Gopher Resource recycling plant on Yankee Doodle Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit grading permit, or other permit required to develop or to construct any structure upon the property shall be Issued unless the property is first platted. 2. The property shall be subject to all subdivision regulations In effect at the time of platting. 3. Gopher Resources shall provide current status Information such as lot configurations, land uses, and future development plans for the Gopher Eagan Industrial/Residential Planned Development prior to any development occurring on the four acre parcel. 4. The applicant must obtain an access easement to Highway 149 and said easement shall be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's office. 95.83 Aye: 5 Nay: 0 EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1965 PAGE 15 APPEAL OF ZONING CODE, TWIN CITY POULTRY (This Item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant No action was taken.) APPROVE 1996 FEE SCHEDULE Finance Director VanOverbeke gave a staff report reviewing the proposed changes, noting he would like to remove the proposed treatment plant charge for Irrigation meters from the schedule for further consideration. Councilmember Hunter asked why the pawn shop licenses increased so much and Finance Director VanOverbeke Indicated that fee Is similar to what other cities charge. It Is based on costs. Councilmember Hunter questioned the fees for faxes and Finance Director VanOverbeke responded that that Is for the faxing of police reports. Counclimember Hunter stated he doesn't favor this Increase. Counclimember Awada and Mayor Egan concurred. Councilmember Hunter Indicated he also does not favor the hunting permit fees. Counclimember Masin asked about liquor license fees, and Administrator Hedges noted that those fees are not being proposed for change, and are based on costs. These charges are similar to what other cities charge, and are actually low compared to other cities. Awada moved, Wachter seconded a motion to approve the 1996 fee schedule as modified, with the exception of the treatment plant irrigation meter fee and Increase In fax fees. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 (Councilmember Hunter voted against the hunting permit fee.) a}ry..,v ~ianauik•}l~'ik.w~••J'la 4~~6.w. ' .w. .J. Mayor Egan reviewed the National League of Cities conference that he and Councimembers Masin and Awada attended recently. Community Development Director Reichert noted that staff has already started looking Into posting signs on property proposed for development. Discussion followed as to who should be responsible for placing the signs and what should be required on the signs. Mayor Egan noted that this will not solve all of the problems. When the Safari at Eagan development came before the Council, one of the residents saw the sign that was posted and she still felt the City should have personally notified her. Dan Chrysler, 1095 Kirkwood Drive, suggested a box by the sign with information brochures that people can take, or a phone number on the sign that has recorded Information on the project. Councilmember Masin suggested that agendas could be put on community access cable. Discussion followed. Director of Public Works Colbert reminded Council members of the community open house on the Cliff Road roadway Improvements on Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. Administrator Hedges noted that the second Truth In Taxation hearing was scheduled for December 13, and since that hearing is now not required, the Council could hold a work session on either Tuesday or Wednesday evening. Awada moved, Hunter seconded a motion to cancel the December 13 meeting and schedule a special work session for December 12 at 5:00 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Administrator Hedges Informed the Council of the dedication of the memorial wall at the Police Department at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday and reviewed plans for the open house at 9:00 am. Councilmember Wachter referred to a memo from Parks and Recreation Director Vraa regarding acquisition of brick from Dakota County and he suggested he obtain as much as he can. He asked about the status of the letter to the Small Business Association. Councimember Hunter noted he spoke to John Young, and he Indicated that the person who made those comments to the City Administrator was speaking on his behalf and not on behalf of the Small Business Association. Because of that, he doesn't feel it would be appropriate to address the letter to the Small Business Association. Councimember Wachter concurred, but EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 16 feels that the letter should go to the Individual who made these comments. Mayor Egan stated he feels it would be appropriate to let the City Administrator decide how this should be handled. Counclimember Awada presented some material on an arts park center they got at .*d NatkatV League of Cities conference and asked that it be distributed to members of the Capons Art Park Sujicommittee. She indicated she would also like to discuss Information she received on what other cities are doing with the Internet Discussion followed. Masin moved, Hunter seconded a motion to direct the City Administrator to send a letter to the Dakota County Commissioners requesting that the county departments, especially the Highway Department, review city projects proposed for development and that the city be contacted prior to final action by the Planning Commission and City Council. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Councilmember Hunter stated he feels Mr. Zech had a profound conflict of Interest in the Soderhdm Addition matter. He signed the petition opposing this, and then got up and represented the county. He doesn't feel that Is appropriate. Some discussion followed. Councilmember Hunter raised the Issue of expired planned developments. He thinks the Advisory Planning Commission should review any planned developments that expire and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether it should be terminated or left as is. Mayor Egan noted that the Council used to meet with the Planning Commission once a year to review planned developments. After some discussion, Hunter moved, Egan seconded a motion to set up a joint meeting annually with the Planning Commission to review planned developments that have expired in the previous 12 months. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Counclimember Masin noted that a letter needs to be addressed to the Planning Commission regarding denial of the conditional use permit for McG's. Wachter moved, Egan seconded a motion to approve the checklist dated November 30, 1995 In the amount of $2,723,542.54. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 (ROM The meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. DLP December 5, 1995 .,K Date 73 sty erk If you need these minutes In an alternative form such as large print, braille, audio tape, etc., please contact the City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (612) 681-4600, (TDD phone: (612) 454-8535). The City of Eagan Is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to Its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status or status with regard to public assistance.