Loading...
12/12/1995 - City Council Special MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE amen" EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota December 12, 1995 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, December 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Egan and Councilmembers Awada and Hunter. Absent was Councilmember Wachter. (Counclimember Masin arrived at 7:08 p.m.) Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Director of Public Works Tom Colbert, Community Development Director Peggy Reichert, Finance Director Gene VanOverbeke and Parks and Recreation Director Ken Vraa. REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY ROTTLUND HOMES Administrator Hedges Introduced this Item as a proposal for the development of the Sister property. Community Development Director Reichert added that this is a concept proposal, and it Is Important for the Council to raise major concerns at this time. Administrator Hedges stressed that concept presentations do not constitute approval. Todd Stutz, President of Rottlund Homes Minnesota, gave a presentation on a proposal named Hunter's Pointe, a planned community for the 125.45 acre site known as the Bieter property. He noted this property Is presently guided for D-II, Mixed Residential, 0-6 units per acre, with the present zoning as Agricultural with 2.5 acres zoned Retail Business on the southwest comer of the site. Their proposal calls for 315 housing units on 117.51 acres, and 7 acres of commercial development. The density as proposed is 2.68 units per acre, which is consistent with single family densities. He reviewed some of the development Issues, such as the perception of the housing market and housing types, Johnny Cake Road alignment, city water tower, school access, wetland preservation/water quality, tree preservation, natural features/topography, and the commercial development. He noted they would like to make this one of the best housing and commercial developments in the Twin Cities. He noted there are five housing types they would like to develop on this site. The custom single family home neighborhood would have custom floor plans from 2,800-4,000 square feet, the majority of which would be two-story homes with brick, stone, stucco and wood siding exteriors. The lots would be 85-100 feet in width, with a front yard setback of 20 feet to the garage, and a side yard setback of 5 feet to the garage and 10 feet to the living area. The price range would be $200,000-$350,000 and they are proposing these on 59 single family detached lots. The lodge series single family home neighborhood would be the same as the custom single family home neighborhood, except lower in price and on smaller lots. The floor plans range In size from 2,200-2,800 square feet, with the majority being two-story homes with brick, stone, stucco, wood trim and maintenance free siding exteriors. The single family lots would have private ownership, with cul-de-sac islands and entry monumentation being owned in common and maintained by a homeowners association. The lot size would be 65 feet In width, with a front yard setback of 20 feet to the garage, and a side yard setback of 15 feet between buildings. He noted that using these setbacks will preserve some of the trees and natural features on the site. The price range will be $180,000-$250,000, and are being proposed on 57 single family detached lots. He added that slightly over a third of the project is proposed for single family homes. The cottage detached townhome neighborhood is a single level maintenance free alternative to single family homes. It Is a detached townhome with no common walls. The floor plans range from 1,350-1,600 square feet with two car garages and exteriors of brick with wood trim and maintenance free siding. The front yard setback Is proposed at 20' to the garage, and 12-15 feet between structures. The price range is $130,000-$170,000 and is proposed for 63 detached townhome lots. The village detached townhome neighborhood Is for detached townhomes with no common walls with a square footage of 1,200-1,600, and brick exteriors with maintenance free trim and siding. These are proposed as townhome lots with homeowner association ownership of surrounding common area. The front yard setback is EAGAN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 2 proposed at 20 feet to the garage and 10 feet between structures. The price range Is from $120,000-$160,000 and is proposed for 44 townhome lots. The villa attached townhome neighborhood Is proposed for 8-12 unit building configurations with square footage of 1,128-1,300. The exteriors will be brick with maintenance free trim and siding and will be condominiums with homeowner association ownership of common areas. The price range will be $80,000-$110,000 and 92 units are proposed. He noted that this development would provide the city with the missing connection between Diffley Road and Deerwood Drive. He stated that they have cooperated with the city to provide access the water tower site so they can begin construction. This development will provide for an alternative access point to Deerwood School. He noted that water quality ponds matching the Comprehensive Plan will augment the wetland system to control storm drainage and flooding. Their goal for the site Is to develop the property with tree removal below the maximum threshold allowable by the City's tree ordinance. They have designed the project to save individual trees as well as woodland areas to preserve the natural amenities of the site as well as habitat for wildlife. They intend to retain as many trees as possible, which is why some variances would be needed for setbacks. The natural features of the site also resulted in the lower density of 2.68 units per acre. The higher densities were concentrated In areas where natural features were less. Areas of wetlands and tree concentrations are preserved. He then reviewed the plans for the seven acre commercial site on the comer of the development, which is planned to be developed Into retail or commercial uses in a tastefully Integrated center which will serve the immediate residents of Hunter's Pointe as well as surrounding areas. Discussion followed concerning how the density was calculated and the types of uses anticipated for the commercial area. Community Development Director Reichert asked Mr. Stutz to explain why they are proposing to deviate from single family standards and why smaller lots are proposed in the front and how it Is perceived by the market. Mr. Stutz explained that they are asking for smaller setbacks in the front of the single family homes to save trees. Community Development Director Reichert noted this has been allowed in the past for tree preservation. She noted the Council could require fewer lots. Mr. Stutz responded that the project needs to be economically feasible. The goal In designing this project is to stay below tree removal limits. The purpose of a planned unit development is to allow more flexibility to do that. Administrator Hedges noted that when this was presented to the Council last month, they expressed concerns about the commercial component, the reduced setbacks and lot size, and density. Councilmember Awada noted that this doesn't meet the city's standards for residential development. A lot of variances would have to be granted under this proposal. Mr. Stutz noted they could build these units without the setback variance, but a lot of trees would be lost. Director of Public Works Colbert asked whether they could have a 30 foot setback just for the garages and not the living area, and Mr. Stutz responded that a lot of trees would still be lost. Council member Awada noted that when she was first elected, one of her main concerns was that there was too much high density housing. The Council did some downzoning and she Is still very concerned about high density. She noted that only a third of this project Is proposed for single family homes and only 18% meets the standards for single family without variances. Mr. Stutz responded that 2.68 units per acre is very traditional for single family homes. Councilmember Masin Indicated she has a problem with all of the monumentation proposed. it doesn't create a neighborhood feeling. Councilmember Awada stated she likes the monumentation. Mayor Egan asked how much of the acreage conforms to the single family home standard of 85 foot lots. Mr. Stutz responded there are roughly 30 acres. Discussion followed concerning tree loss. Community Development Director Reichert expressed a concern about the detached townhomes, in that there are narrower streets and smaller lots, which raises Issues such as what to do with cars, etc. Mr. Stutz responded that they could attach the townhomes If the Council wishes, but they feel they are more marketable as detached units. Community Development Director Reichert Indicated a concern about having some public roads and some private roads. She feels there may be an Issue with these people all paying the same taxes, but some of them having to pay for snow removal In addition. COnT EAGAN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 3 Counclimember Awada stated she favors the single family housing and some of the detached townhomes, but not the condominiums or commercial area. Councilmember Hunter stated this comes down to economics. A lot of trees could be saved I it were all single family also. Councilmember Masin stated that this plan seems to be sensitive to the environment, rather than doing a lot of grading. Community Development Director Reichert noted that the Council has been receptive to some clustering to save trees, but this needs to be reviewed very carefully. Parks and Recreation Director Vraa asked whether the park is intended to be public or private. Mr. Stutz stated they haven't decided; however, they have been given the direction that the city isn't Interested in those park areas. The Council reiterated their concerns about the density and the commercial component. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (At this time, Councilmember Wachter was contacted by telephone to participate in this discussion.) Michelle Foster, of Opus, Indicated they are asking for reconsideration of the Council's decision on the Infrastructure allocation for the central area improvements. She didn't feel they had an opportunity to clarify their position and philosophy as to why a different allocation is appropriate. She noted that this project is going to have a very significant financial benefit to the city. It will generate $1.3 million in real estate tax dollars and $1.1 million In deferred assessments, which will need to be paid immediately upon initiation of the project. It will also create a number of jobs. There is strong public support for this project In the community. They have tried to meet the objectives set out by the task force. The reasons for asking for reconsideration are due to the fact that there are significant traffic problems on Yankee Doodle Road which have nothing to do with this project and exist today. She doesn't feel Opus should have to pay for that. Dakota County has allocated over $2 million for this project and none of those dollars have been factored into this project. This is dearly the most intense and highest and best use of the property. it will be much more difficult for another project to absorb special assessments and costs of the infrastructure. She feels they need to work together on a solution to get the best project possible. She doesn't feel they should have to pay for Infrastructure that others will use and benefit from. Those should be paid for by the community at large. They are willing to pay for 42% of the excess capacity that they will be using. She also feels their approach Is an economically defendable approach. They would be willing to pay $4.9 million of the Infrastructure Improvements for the internal and external portions. it Is more than the original estimate, but they are prepared to do that and can defend that from their project prospective. They will pass through as much of that to their tenants as possible and feels they have already done that. The alternative that was voted on at the last meeting doesn't work for Opus. Administrator Hedges noted he received two letters in support of this project-one from Carl Olson and one from West Publishing. Councilmember Masin asked about the $2 million from the county and Director of Public Works Colbert noted that typically, the county is the lead agency on improvements to county roads and 45% of the project is city responsibility, which Is funded by the Major Street Fund. Because the county cannot perform the improvements within the time frame necessary for this project, the city became the lead agency. The city will Incur 100% of the costs and the county will reimburse the city 55%. That money will go into the Major Street Fund. He noted they will continue to pursue participation by MnDOT. There are a variety of funds that would reimburse the Major Street Fund because the city is funding 100% of the project. Councilmember Wachter noted that whenever zoning was asked for on this project, the city gave full cooperation and building permits were reasonable. The taxpayers have borne the burden of taxes due to reduction of taxes on Green Acres property. He questioned how much of the taxes generated from this project will come to Eagan due to fiscal disparities. He doesn't feel the taxpayers should absorb these costs. He requested that If this Is a 2-2 vote, he would like to see it come back to the Council next Tuesday. EAGAN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 12, 1995 PAGE 4 Michelle Foster stated It is not their intent to Impose Inappropriate obligations onto the taxpayers of Eagan. They are trying to find a fair allocation of costs to the project. However, they don't feel they should have to absorb costs that will benefit the greater community. Councilmember Awada stressed that the taxpayers should not subsidize any of this. She feels the uses on the project have gotten better, but doesn't feel Opus has gone out of their way to meet the goals of the task force. She would be willing to look at this, but she is not interested in moving to reconsider. She would like information relative to city policy to justify any change In the amount. Councllmember Hunter stated it Is Important to come up with a fair way to allocate the costs. He feels the 42%/58% scenario is fair. People In the community have been asking when the public hearing will be on this. He would like to see this on the agenda. Mayor Egan stated he doesn't feel It Is appropriate to bring this to the Council if the project Is stonewalled by the transportation Improvements, which appears to be the case. Mr. Mumane asked what Councilmember Awada's reason is as to why she feels the 42%/58% scenario isn't fair. Councllmember Awada stated that certain Improvements have to be done whether or not there is extra capacity. It is a philosophical question. You cannot build half a road. She doesn't buy Into Opus only paying for part of the road they will be using. Mr. Mumane noted that it could be funded by future developments or the county. Counclimember Awada noted that If county funds are used, taxpayers will be funding it. Mr. Mumane noted these Improvements will provide for a lot of future development that they are being asked to pay for. Councilmember Masin noted that this is not what the Council first talked about. Opus has come a long way and she Is excited about what Is going there. She stated that If there Is going to be additional dialogue on this, she would like to reopen the plat discussion as well. Mayor Egan stated he doesn't feel the Council can reconsider the plat at this time. Discussion followed as to where this should be placed on the Council agenda. Councilmember Hunter asked whether the project is dead If they can't get the figure down to $4.9 million. Mr. Mumane responded that it would be. Councilmember Hunter asked whether the project can be scaled down and Mr. Mumane noted that the bridge is the largest component. He feels that is what is blocking the project. Director of Public Works Colbert Indicated that the county requires a 20 year Improvement as a condition of their participation. Mayor Egan noted that part of this will be paid for by the Major Street Fund and he feels this fits with what that fund was set up to do. Councilmember Wachter stated there needs to be a meeting of the minds between Opus and the O'Neils and the Council needs to know what that Is. The city has tools, but doesn't want to spend it all on one project. It was decided that staff would prepare additional information relative to policy and funding sources and that ft would be discussed at the upcoming work session on December 19. CIP (1996-2000) STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET Finance Director VanOverbeke presented the storm water utility budget. Rationale for a change in the service fee percentage allocation was discussed. The history of the storm water utility rates was also presented. Finance Director VanOverbeke further reviewed details of the operations account, renewal and replacement accounts, and expansion and modification accounts, giving examples of spending for each of these areas. The city also presented various assumptions regarding capital Improvement spending. The City Council accepted the staff recommendations that service fees be allocated retroactively to 70% operations, 10% renewal and replacement and 20% to expansion and modification, that the 1996 through 2000 capital spending be as presented In the CIP, that capital spending beyond the year 2000 be 'pay as you go' and that an annual 3% service fee Increase be programmed. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PART Ill (1996-2000) There was considerable discussion regarding the draft Part Ill CIP budget for 1996-2000 as presented by Administrator Hedges and Parks and Recreation Director Vraa. EAGAN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; DECEMBER 12, 19Q5 PAGE 5 Concerns were raised by Counciimember Hunter about the inclusion of North Park, which was not Identified in the Park Systems Plan. Parks and Recreation Director Vraa stated that an athletic field complex In the northern part of the city was identified in the Park Systems Plan, and North Park will serve this need. There was further discussion about prioritization of needs, prioritization of land banking over development, and further that all the park land improvements proposed for 1996 would spend down the Park Site Development and Acquisition Fund. Administrator Hedges suggested that the Council provide direction to the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission requesting a prioritization of land banking over development, that the 1996 capital needs be reprkxitized to not exceed $500,000. and the balance would be reconsidered after the proposed June 1996 bond referendum. Councilmembers raised questions regarding bonding for renewal and replacement; and whether it Is possible to establish an account for renewal and replacement. There was also discussion regarding the operating costs associated with all new parks. The Council requested further information regarding operating costs if certain park land is to be developed. OTHER BUSINESS Counciimembers discussed a number of issues pertaining to how business is conducted at City Council meetings, dissemination of information, rules of decorum and communications with the public. The City Administrator was directed to include this as a topic of discussion at the annual retreat in January. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:45 p.m. DLP December 12, 1.995 AA IkA 00A 0 Date City erk