Loading...
07/28/1998 - City Council Special Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MN JULY 28, 1998 00272 Present: Mayor Tom Egan, Councilmember Pat Awada, Councilmember Bea Blomquist, Councilmember Sandy Masin, Planning Commission members Carla Heyl, Paul Bakken, Peggy Carlson, Jerry Segal, Gary Huusko, Steve Burdorf, Larry Frank, Planner Julie Farnham, Senior Planner Mike Ridley, City Administrator Hedges, Attomey Mike Dougherty, Finance Director Gene VanOverbeke, Consulting Planner Greg Ingraham, Planner Pam Dudziak, Planner Bob Kirmis, and Intern to the City Administrator Amy Hertel. Councilmember Ted Wachter was absent. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Egan called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and the agenda was adopted with the addition of the Cedarvale Area under Other Business. VISITORS TO BE HEARD The visitors present to comment on specific changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan elected to speak during that discussion. DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES City Administrator Hedges introduced this item and gave a brief overview of the work of the subcommittee. He commented that he expected the discussion about Properties Identified For Special Areas/Council Direction would be the most time consuming. He invited the subcommittee to comment on the work they had done. Councilmember Awada stated that the update was straightforward in most cases and consisted of matching the zoning and land use designations to match the uses that have evolved on the properties. She stated that this exercise was not only important for the City, but was also necessary for submission to the Metropolitan Council. She stated that there were some unique areas in Eagan that posed particular challenges for the subcommittee. Councilmember Blomquist complimented Planner Farnham on her work, stating that it was very representative of the work of the subcommittee. City Administrator Hedges informed the group that he and Senior Planner Ridley had met with Planner Farnham and complimented her on her broad understanding of the issues in the plan. He also introduced Attorney Dougherty as a resource to answer any legal questions that may arise in the course of the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that most changes reflect current property uses, that there may be some confusion in referring to the properties due to a potential change in the language used which will be discussed later and suggested the group proceed directly to the special areas to be considered for council direction. In regard to Area 1, Planner Farnham stated that the property would be difficult to subdivide much further and that the issue is with regard to a small gift shop would become a non- conforming use if the land use is changed to residential. She stated that whether the area is guided 01 orta commercial, there will be nonconforming entities; if it were guided 01, the gift shop is a non-conforming use and if it is guided commercial, the homes are non-conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken asked if the residences would be able to obtain a higher sale value if their property were zoned as commercial. Planner Farnham responded that the assessments are done according to the highest and best use for the property, so the value Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 2 00273 depends on the use. Planning Commission Member Bakken asked if the current residents would have to maintain their properties differently with a zone change. Planner Farnham responded that all non-conforming uses must adhere to the non-conforming ordinances, which do not allow for expansion but do allow for maintenance. Attorney Dougherty clarified that no capital improvements can be made to properties that are non-conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken stated that those property owners have a lot to lose with a zoning change because they've made investments in those properties. Planner Farnham said that retention of the current agricultural zoning may allow for those homes to be conforming uses, but the gift shop would be subject to the non-conforming uses ordinances. In regard to Area 2, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee wanted to designate this a Special Area on the new land use map with area specific policies to be included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The group concurred. In regard to Area 3, Planner Farnham stated that this would be another Special Area to encompass the Waters planned development. The group concurred. In regard to Area 4, Planner Farnham stated that this area had been studied in 1994 which resulted in the change to Rural Residential land use. She further stated that this area functions as a special area and should be handled in accordance with other special areas. Planning Commission Member Bakken clarified that the special area would encompass the provisions of the Rural Residential district; he further stated that it is important to protect those who are there now. The group concurred. Councilmember Masin arrived at 4:48 p.m. In regard to Area 5, Planner Farnham stated that it is guided 02, zoned agricultural, but that the subcommittee recommended the area be guided for low-density residential, as the current single family use wifllikely remain for the foreseeable future. Consulting Planner Ingraham commented that the property is hard to develop because of its shape and size. In regard to Area 6, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee thought this area (currently Industrial) was really more of a Public Facility, given that it houses the United States Postal Service building and should consequently be reguided to Public Facility. Mayor Egan commented that it seemed like the subcommittee was putting form over substance and stated that it should remain Industrial to reflect the use of the property. Senior Planner Ridley expressed concern with this change because it would open up other Public Facilities areas to industrial activity. Planning Commission Member Heyl inquired about the permissibility of truck garages and maintenance facilities as Public Facilities. Planner Farnham stated that the allowances in Public Facilities were vague and should be revisited, possibly instituting more CUPs or modifying the performance standards. Planning Commission Member Heyl said that the Public Facilities areas should be consistent and that the Commission and the Council should reconsider the requirements for buffering and other provisions of the Public Facilities properties. Councilmember Blomquist concurred, stating that they should review the setbacks for Public Facilities and review their uses. Councilmember Awada stated that she thought there were setbacks for Public Facilities. Senior Planner Ridley confirmed that there are setbacks for Public Facilities structures and that the setbacks depend on the height of the building. Planning Commission Member Burdorf stated that the USPS facility does not conform to his understanding of Public Facilities. Councilmember Masin asked what the property is currently zoned and Senior Planner Ridley responded that the property is currently zoned 1-1. Attorney Dougherty stated that the federal government is not subject to City zoning ordinances. Planner Farnham said that the subcommittee considered the facility a public entity and therefore thought Public Facility zoning was most appropriate. Mayor Egan suggested the Public Facilities zoning be separated into two degrees of intensity, including a Heavy-Use Public Facility and Light-Use Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Segal commented that he is less concerned with the Public Facilities zoning because it is subject to Council consideration and the Council can reject Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28,1998 page 3 00274 proposals that do not fit the description of Public Facilities. Planner Farnham asked if it was the consensus of the group to keep this area as Industrial. Councilmember Awada stated that the decision on this property should be consistent with a decision about Seneca; she further stated that the properties should remain industrial. City Administrator Hedges asked if the storage of fire trucks would be considered an appropriate use under Public Facilities. Councilmember Blomquist asked what the setbacks for those facilities would be and City Administrator Hedges responded that they would be at least as much as the setbacks for Commercial or Industrial properties. Consulting Planner Ingraham reminded the group that the difference between Public Facilities and Commercial or Industrial uses is that the private sector has more choices about where to locate, whereas there are less options when considering where to install a public facility. Planning Commission Member Heyl expressed concern for residents who may move in next to a publiC facilities zone and be unpleasantly surprised at a heavy, industrial-type use allowed on that property in the future. She further stated that it was important that the City's designation and regulation of Public Facilities should reflect the community's understanding of that designation and stated that the City needs to be very clear about the potential uses of a Public Facility zone. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that she thought there should be two types of Public Facilities. Councilmember Blomquist stated that the conditional uses allowed under Public Facilities were vague and that she would rather form two categories of Public Facilities. Planning Commission Member Carlson said that the Commission and the Council should consider factors like traffic and noise when making decisions regulating Public Facilities. Planner Farnham asked if it was the consensus of the group to keep the property zoned Industrial. Councilmember Awada said it sounded like they were considering changing Public Facilities to two categories. Consulting Planner Ingraham stated that if the property were sold at some point, the only appropriate use would be industrial and the property would have to be re-zoned and re-guided to reflect the change. Attorney Dougherty said that the City should be consistent in its policies and pointed out the City's advantage of having the golf course area as a Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Frank stated that there would be very few options available if USPS decided to sell because not many Public Facilities are appropriate to their building. Councilmember Awada questioned the value of two PF districts because the decisions about developments are at the discretion of the Advisory Planning Commission and the Eagan City Council; she further stated that the two distinctions would be meaningless. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that she still thought the two distinctions would be useful. Mayor Egan stated that it would be appropriate to reasonably regulate two different types of Public Facilities uses. Consulting Planner Ingraham suggested that both the USPS property and the Seneca property be retained as Industrial and that the Council revise the performance standards for Industrial properties because the City is less vulnerable keeping the existing zoning. Planning Commission Member Segal directed the group to think long-term, asking how the group would want the property zoned if someday USPS is no longer there. The group concurred that the industrial land use and zoning should be retained. In regard to Area 7, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee recommended this area which encompasses the Central Area be included as a Special Area. The group concurred. In regard to Area 8, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee recommended the property be guided as low-density, maintaining the Agricultural zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 9, Planner Farnham stated that the subcommittee recommended rezoning the area to 01, thus making Richfield Blacktop a non-conforming use and subject to the limitations of the non-conforming ordinances. She stated their concern with guiding just that one property as commercial, making it an island of commercial property amidst extensive residential properties. Planning Commission Member Carlson expressed concern that the use of this property seems to just keep expanding. Mayor Egan commented that Richfield Blacktop had been issued a citation and that their application for expansion had been granted, so the feasibility of rezoning the area to fit with low-density becomes an even greater challenge. Consulting Planner Ingraham questioned what the group wanted to have in this location long-term, stating that if it is zoned General Business, another business could move into the Richfield Blacktop Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28,1998 page 4 00275 location amidst residential areas. Councilmember Masin stated that because they had gasoline pumps at that location, she would never feel comfortable allowing someone to build a home there. Councilmember Blomquist stated that there are ways to treat land to make it livable for homes; she cautioned against .spot zoning" policies, especially ones that are poorly maintained. She further stated that their CUP is currently being broken and that the current use of that land is more Industrial in nature. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that this is an excessively heavy use in a residential area. Planner Farnham asked if the group wanted to rezone the property to coincide with the existing 01 guide. Mayor Egan stated that the business should be a non-conforming entity and subject to those limitations. In regard to Area 10, Planner Farnham stated that the subcommittee recommended keeping the area low-density, indicating that the physical features of the land make it challenging to develop. She stated that it could be included as a Special Area. Councilmember Awada emphasized the difficulty of developing this area. Planner Farnham said that this is a designated PO with low and medium density residential and limited business uses. Mayor Egan suggested a discussion with the owners of Blue Cross to determine the scope of any future inclusions in the Planned Development and their long-term goals for the property. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that high-density residential was not the answer for this property. Planner Farnham stated that the City would contact Blue Cross. In regard to Area 11, Planner Farnham stated that a portion of this property is owned by the City and may be appropriate to guide it quasi-public. It was also suggested that this area be included in a Special Area in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study Area. In regard to Area 12, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee thought the entire area should be designated a Special Area to allow for the flexibility needed for planning the potential Light Rail Transit location. She further stated that Area 13 would be appropriate for inclusion with Area 12. In regard to Area 13, Planner Farnham indicated the subcommittee recommended this area be designated a Special Area. Policies and a land use map would be developed in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study. In regard to Area 14, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee recommended the area be zoned quasi-public to reflect its use as a cell tower site. The group concurred. In regard to Area 15, Councilmember Awada stated that the potential settlement regarding this property would make this discussion moot. In regard to Area 16, Planner Farnham stated that the land use designations currently split the City-owned property in half, inquiring if there was interest by the City in subdividing the property. Planning Commission Member Bakken asked if this area would be a good candidate for Office Service. Planner Farnham responded that the existing uses would then become non- confonning. Mayor Egan stated that the area included a touchy parcel and emphasized the importance of being sensitive to the needs of the surrounding neighbors. He expressed interest in considering the economic viability of the property and making it consistent with the surrounding uses. City Administrator Hedges stated that the Council should consider plating the land and will discuss this area in further detail later in the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that the most appropriate uses for the area included Office Service, which would allow LB or NB zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 17, Planner Farnham stated that the subcommittee recommended maintaining the current zoning and guiding for the area. The group concurred. In regard to Area 18, Planner Farnham emphasized the importance of not encouraging investment by current property owners due to interest by Dakota County to purchase the land. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 5 00276 She further commented that zoning to Parks would make the houses non-conforming and may also hasten the sale of the homes. Consultant Planner Ingraham noted that the homes currently there could be torn down and replaced with larger homes if not made non-conforming. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired if the church on the property would be acquired by the County, stating that the City should contact the County about the church. Consulting Planner Ingraham said that the County is interested in buying on a willing-seller basis. Planner Farnham said that making those homes non-conforming uses would limit their ability to invest in the property that is set for County acquisition, commenting further that the area could also be designated a Special Area and policies developed to address the transition from residential to park zoning. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that the area should be zoned for Parks, making the homes non-conforming uses and stated that the homeowners should be noticed of the County's intent to purchase the land. Councilmember Blomquist said that the City should talk to the County first to see if they have the resources to acquire the land. Consulting Planner Ingraham informed the group that the County has reserve funds for this purpose and will be able to acquire the property when it becomes available. In regard to Area 19, Planner Farnham indicated that a pocket of General Business uses exists amidst an area designated for residential 03 and 01 uses. She stated that the subcommittee recommended re-guiding to low-density residential and make the commercial uses non-conforming. Planning Commission Member Carlson asked if there was anything the City could do to ask these properties to clean up the area. Planner Farnham said that there is nothing the City can do unless those properties come in to apply for a permit, in which case they would be brought up to current standards. Councilmember Masin asked what the City of Rosemount intends to do with their adjacent properties. Planner Farnham said that Rosemount's property is guided Rural Residential. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired about the zoning for the Gun Club, stating that it should be a Public Facility. Councilmember Masin stated that the area should remain recreational. Planner Farnham indicated that an appropriate zoning for the area may be quasi-public. Planning Commission Member Burdorf expressed concern about the long-term use, stating that zoning this as a Public Facility was an expression of support by the City of this use of the land. He further stated that the neighboring residential areas would be more welcoming of General Businesses than of the Gun Club. Planner Farnham confirmed that designating this area as a Public Facility would show support for the current use. She stated that the public facilities zoning is inconsistent with the 01 guide. She suggested further review of the area, including discussions with the neighboring residents, Rosemount and the Gun Club. DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS Planner Farnham asked the Planning Commission and the City Council to contact her with comments on the potential new land use descriptions. DISCUSS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Planner Farnham stated that she identified about 70 parcels of land that are proposed for a significant change and that the property owners should be notified individually about the changes. These meetings could be separate from the 5 neighborhood meetings that will be held for general public input. It was suggested that staff prepare a list of those properties and review it with the subcommittee. MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY City Administrator Hedges gave an overview of this item. He stated that the property in question was located next to Sidney's and the developers wanted to build an assisted living community. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated that the developers had not initially thought they would need financing through bonds, but were now requesting $22 million worth of bonds, covering almost 100 percent of the costs of production. He stated that the project may qualify as tax-exempt if it meets the standards of a nursing home, in which case the property owners would Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 6 00277 have to make a payment in lieu of taxes. He informed the Council that the City could not issue the bonds because Eagan is committed to issuing fewer than $10 million in bonds. He stated that the Dakota County HRA was willing to issue the bonds, but they required City endorsement of the project prior to those negotiations. He asked the Council if they would be interested in having the HRA pursue a payment in lieu of taxes option through their negotiations. Councilmember Awada said that the HRA should certainly pursue that option and her comment was met by consensus on the Council. Councilmember Masin asked how that payment would be applied to City operations. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated that the income would be treated like any other tax revenue. He further stated that the agreement to be reached with the developers would include a protective clause whereby the property would be subject to standard property taxes if it was not granted tax-exempt status by the County assessor. City Administrator Hedges stated that the item would be on the August 4, 1998 Consent Agenda. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS City Administrator Hedges gave an overview of this item, stating that this authorization would allow a streamlined process of paying the bills. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated that action by the Council could authorize a staff person to pay the bills on a weekly basis, subject to accounting regulations and policies that can be modified by the Council at any time. Councilmember Awada stated that the current system was inefficient. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council that the City Council's role in the process would not change as a result of this authorization. Mayor Egan asked how the presentation of the bills to the Council would change. Finance Director VanOverbeke said that the bills would be reviewed every Wednesday to be paid every Friday and the Council would receive updates at the Council meetings of all bills paid since the last Council meeting. City Administrator Hedges emphasized the scrutinizing process the bills are subjected to before being paid and stated that these procedures would not be relaxed at all. Councilmember Awada stated that it is important for governments to be moving away from these inefficiencies. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated that this matter would be on the August 18 Regular Council Meeting agenda. DIRECTION RE: CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT DIFFLEYITRUNK HIGHWAY 3 Finance Director VanOverbeke informed the Council that the City has received several inquiries about the property and asked the Council if there was interest at this time in selling. Councilmember Blomquist said she would feel more comfortable selling the property after the neighborhood meetings have taken place. Mayor Egan identified the precarious balance between reclaiming the City's investment in the property and sensitivity to the needs of the residents. Councilmember Masin asked if the City would ever have any need for this in the future. City Administrator Hedges responded that it is hard to predict the future needs of the City, but informed the Council that the only consideration given to this land previously was as a potential site for satellite maintenance, which had not come to fruition. Councilmember Awada stated that the Council should wait until after the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update was completed. CEDARVALE Councilmember Awada expressed enthusiastic interest in seeing the Light Rail Transit system have a hub in Eagan and asked how to ensure this would happen through lobbying and committee efforts. She also asked who would be representing Eagan on the planning committee for the Light Rail Transit. City Administrator Hedges responded that Tom Butler would serve as the business community representative and that Margaret Shriner would participate as the resident representative. Councilmember Awada stated that the Light Rail Transit is extremely important and said the City should give a lot of support to the committee members. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council that the Light Rail Transit is being addressed at the staff level, stating that he had sent the resolution to the appropriate persons. He stated Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 7 00278 further that he had written the LRT into the Cedarvale RFP; he also requested that Tom Butler send tile City copies of all documentation he receives through the committee. Councilmember Awada called for an aggressive approach to obtaining the Light Rail Transit hub in Eagan, asking for information about how to push this matter through and ensure Eagan's participation. City Administrator Hedges stated that Eagan is currently a wild card, but garners support from the MVTA and Dakota County. He further stated that Bloomington has incentive to support the hub in Dakota County. He also indicated that Eagan could find support from its legislative delegation. Councilmember Blomquist warned against assuming a stop in Dakota County would mean the location would be in Eagan, citing discussion about having the stop at the zoo in Apple Valley. She indicated strong support for pushing for a stop in Eagan. Councilmember Awada directed City Administrator Hedges to compile more data on this by Tuesday, August 4,1998. OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Hedges informed the Council of an opportunity to meet with Jim Colbert of Colbert, Burns and McDonnell to discuss the potential golf course opportunity in the Waters area of Eagan. Due to open meeting laws, City Administrator Hedges informed the Council that either less than two Councilmembers could attend or it could be publicly advertised as a special meeting. Mayor Egan volunteered to attend with City Administrator Hedges and another volunteer. Councilmember Blomquist also volunteered to attend. Councilmembers Masin and Awada declined. City Administrator Hedges reminded the Council that this matter is still in the early discussion processes and that it will not be up for formal consideration until some more meetings have been held with the property-owners involved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. July 28, 1998 Date