Loading...
02/08/1993 - City Council Special W0.,^$ rJ MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota February 9, 1993 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, February 9, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Tom Egan, Councimembers Ted Wachter, Pat Awada, Shawn Hunter and Sandy Masin. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, Acting Community Development Director Hohenstein, Assistant City Attorney Dougherty, City Planner Sturm, representatives of the sign industry and the public. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN ORDINANCE City Administrator Hedges Introduced the Rem and stated that the issue of billboard advertising had been before the City Council in various forms over the past two years. He indicated that the business Rem was a result of work done by the City's Outdoor Advertising Sign Task Force which culminated in late 1992. Acting Community Development Director Hohenstein provided additional background on the history of the sign issue and the outcome of the task force deliberations which resulted in a 6 to 3 vote to ban additional billboard signs in the City. He indicated that the policy issues before the City Council were whether or not the Council wished to adopt a ban as recommended by the task force, add additional regulation to the existing ordinance or retain the existing ordinance and what public purposes the Council perceived in banning, further regulating or maintaining existing regulations on such signs. He then distributed a map showing existing sign locations and their ownership. Council member Awada stated that she supports maintaining the same number of billboards and opposes the addition of any new signs but stated that she is open to existing signs being relocated to specific zones within the City as long as there is no net gain. Mayor Egan stated that there are pros and cons to any approach to the sign issue and noted that many signs will be removed with the eventual development of the underlying property. Councilmember Hunter stated that he feels the economic liabilities of billboard signs outweigh their benefits. He stated he agreed with Councilmember Awada's comments about banning new signs, but asked for more discussion of the relocation of existing signs. Mayor Eagan stated that the City needs to foster economic development but not at the expense of the visual clutter that many billboards would create. He stated that a further discussion of all business signage Issues would be beneficial in the future to determine If additional signage of any kind would foster business in the City. Cheryl Casey of 4706 Beacon Hill Road, a member of the task force, stated that the sign task force had recommended against a no net gain policy and the relocation of signs because they were concerned that the same number of billboards might be concentrated in permitted signage areas and cause more blight and visual impacts in specific areas of the City. Councilmember Hunter stated that If the City were to adopt a no net gain policy, it would only support what he perceived as the existing Naegele monopoly and would be unfair to other sign companies who did not have as many signs to relocate or replace. Councilmember Awada stated that she feels Naegele has a monopoly metro-wide anyway. Mike Cronin of the Naegele Company, stated that Naegele currently has 70 - 80% of the billboard signage in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region. He stated that if the core cities are excluded, the number drops to approximately 50%. Councilmember Wachter stated that he is not in favor of adding new signs or altering the existing signs. He stated that he has not supported billboards within the City in the past and that many residents and some corporations and developers oppose such signage. He stated that he feels that the signage is visual pollution. He stated that he does support the use of freeway Identification and directional signs such as the MnDOT signage announcing food, gas and/or lodging for various exits on the freeway system. Councilmember Hunter agreed with Wachter's comments about visual pollution and stated that permitting the relocation of existing signs will concentrate the negative affects in specific areas. 2/9/93 SCC MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 Mayor Egan stated that it was Important for the Council to leave the meeting with a firm decision and not a middle ground decision which would leave issues unresolved. He asked how the "Omni Case" affected this issue. Assistant City Attorney Dougherty and Mike Cronin of Naegele Signs responded that the Omni Case dealt primarily in the area of sign content. Assistant City Attorney Dougherty stated that there is nothing to prevent the Council from banning additional billboard signs provided they do not base their decision on signage on the content of those signs. Councilmember Hunter stated that if the City bans billboards entirely, it avoids the legal issues associated with content. Egan Chamber President Gary Morgan stated that he was concerned by the conduct of the Sign Task Force meetings. He stated that the task force could have been better controlled in its deliberations. He noted that there was some gray area concerning what did and did not constitute a billboard sign since certain on-premise signs in Bloomington such as that at the Mall of America are actually billboards, but are permitted because they are on the premises of the business. Cheryl Casey stated that some of the confusion about the task force outcome resulted because two members changed their votes from a previous meeting to the final meeting and that the majority of six to three supported the banning of additional signs. Morgan stated that he felt the Sign Task Force had not completed its work because other business signage had not been addressed In its entirety. Mayor Egan then stated the need for the Council to arrive at a conclusion relative to the issue. He suggested that staff draft an ordinance consistent with the task force majority report banning new signs. The other Councilmembers stated their support for this direction. The Mayor went on to suggest that discussion needed to occur regarding a comprehensive business signage policy and asked staff to prepare information in that regard as well. Councilmember Awada asked if it would be possible to craft a no net increase ordinance which would still permit Council flexibility to deny requests for relocations. Assistant City Attorney Dougherty stated that a no net increase ordinance would have to be applied to all sign companies wishing to take advantage of it but that the Council always has the discretion to deny signs if they find that they are deleterious to the area or do not meet City sign standards. He stated that the only way for the Council to insure that they did not have to review all applications for relocation would be to Institute a ban. Gary Graves, also a member of the task force, indicated that the City Council is affecting the ability of the sign industry to do business In the area. Jack Young of Young Outdoor Advertising stated that he is concerned about the direction for a ban when his company has a sign application pending. He stated that he felt a ban would be arbitrary. Assistant City Attorney Dougherty reviewed the circumstances surrounding the existing sign applications and stated that the Council's decision relative to a ban would not be considered to be arbitrary. The Mayor indicated his belief that the pending applications for Young and Adams would fall under the new ordinance. He directed Legal Counsel to review the Issue for the March 2 Council meeting with recommendations as to how to address those applications. Bob Graiziger of Adams Sign Company stated that he is concerned about an ordinance banning additional signs or capping them at their current number. He stated that he feels that it is unfair for certain applications to be pending for over a year and then not be heard on their merits. He stated that there are only four or five sites within the City that are feasible for additional signs anyway. Jeff Evrard of the Naegele Sign Company stated that the Council should approve the existing Adams and Young sign applications under the old ordinance. He stated Naegele's interest in maintaining flexibility to survive. He suggested that the City adopt greater spacing requirements to protect the aesthetics of the area. He said that billboards are not bad and that many billboards provide tax and other advantages if appropriately regulated. 2/9/93 SCC MEETING MINUTES PAGE 3 Councilmember Wachter stated that the Council has been elected by the people and that he feels that residents agree that billboard signage Is not attractive and should be strictly controlled. Mayor Egan stated that it was time to make a decision and put the Issue behind the Council. He stated that It was Important not to take a middle ground. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF DRAFT 1993 - 1997 CIP City Administrator Hedges opened the discussion on the Draft 1993 -1997 CIP by providing a general overview of the history of the CIP process In the City and a review of the work that had been undertaken since the City Council's earlier review on December 8, 1992. City Administrator Hedges stressed that it is Important to view the document as a multi-year planning instrument and that upon approval only the year 1993 becomes an approved budget. All subsequent years would be subject to additional review as additional research was completed and new CIP's prepared. Hedges pointed out the desire to focus the evening's discussion on the major policy Issues Identified In the draft CIP. These major policy issues Incorporated many hours of meetings and work on the part of both the City Council and the staff as well as other groups such as the Volunteer Firefighters and the Hockey Association. After a brief overview of the entire document, Hedges noted that he and Mayor Egan had determined after review of the City Council agenda and the document that It would be most beneficial and productive to consider the policy issues In reverse order, that is Part III (Public Facilities Infrastructure and Park Improvement Projects), Part II (Vehicles and Equipment) and Part I (Public Facilities). PART III (Public Facilities Infrastructure and Park Improvements) City Administrator Hedges pointed out the major policy Issue centering around the fact that there is a variance of approximately $4,000,000 between identified park acquisition and development needs and funding currently available. General discussion followed about the relationship of the Draft CIP to the update of the Park Master Plan last completed In 1984. Interest was expressed about how much land needs to be acquired for complete implementation of the master plan along with concerns that today's actions do not preclude acquisition in the future or make acquisition unreasonably expensive. Other concerns were expressed about the relationship between acquisition and development of park land and resulting operating costs. Mayor Egan pointed out the very subjective nature of Part III planning and the importance today of addressing the time frame, the process and the priorities, not total adoption. Councilmember Hunter expressed concern about the timing of the systems plan in relationship to the CIP and suggested a two phase process Involving gross planning to come to terms with the size of the problem and detailed planning within the scope of completing the master plan. Councilmember Wachter noted a concern about getting the best return on today's dollars between acquisition, development and the need for active facilities. The general consensus was that there is currently only so much money and current acquisition and development would be prioritized to operate within that budget. Also, that this did not entail a restructuring of the 5 year priorities as they are known today and that the completion of the new master plan would provide additional guidance and direction at a later date. it was also noted that a referendum would probably be required at some point In the future, however, a great deal of additional work would be required to determine specific parks and projects. Mayor Egan then noted the CIP was truly subjective when applied to Infrastructure. Councilmember Hunter pointed out the obvious trade off between capital and operational costs throughout 2/9/93 SCC MEETING MINUTES PAGE 4 the entire document and noted a desire for any analysis of the trade off costs to be presented to the City Council. Mayor Egan concurred with the observation and noted that even though the current document was well done in that regard there is a need to broaden benchmarks and criteria even more. City Administrator Hedges briefly reviewed the amount of work and study that has gone into the preparation of this section of the document, the need for some additional revisions based on new information, and the relationship of funding to match the projects. The concern about having dollars available to complete projects as proposed was again raised. Mayor Egan expressed a concern about the potential for assessments and what happens If there is a shortage of money in the Major Street Fund or other trunk funds. Director of Public Works Colbert said it may be necessary to scale back and possibly take advantage of the proposed transportation utility If enabling legislation is passed. The importance of considering the effect of the Cedar Grove reconstruction project on this process was mentioned. PART II (Vehicles and Eauicment) City Administrator Hedges Introduced the discussion on Part 11 by explaining the history of Equipment Certificates In the City and the process used since December 8, 1992, to revise the draft CIP. He covered the process used to determine departmental allocations, variances that still exist by departments and the discussion points used by the management team in conducting their evaluation. Hedges acknowledged and reiterated the concern that reductions in capital spending have the potential to increase operational costs through increased maintenance and the need for more contractual services. The City Administrator pointed out that major equipment of City wide benefit such as a radio system was not included in this allocation process although none was proposed in this five-year CIP. He then raised the two policy questions which had been identified; 1) is the proposed annual spending level of $500,000 appropriate and 2) is the administrative process used okay for ratification. Mayor Egan stated that while he does not necessarily agree with all the equipment, it has become more sophisticated and he was willing to rely on the expertise of the professional staff noting that they were operating for the City Council. A question was asked about the advisability of stretching the use of today's equipment. Director of Public Works Colbert, Police Chief Geagan and Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa agreed that because of better specs used for purchase, the use of heavier equipment, and the work of the Central Maintenance Division on vehicle upkeep that the useful life of today's equipment can be stretched. Councilmember Awada commended the staff In having done what was asked and even gone beyond. City Administrator Hedges noted that even after approval the City Council will have the opportunity to approve specs and bids on the major equipment purchases. Mayor Egan and Councilmember Hunter stated for the benefit of those who had not been involved that even though there were not a lot of questions being asked tonight and little discussion about particular equipment, there had already been a great deal of both at earlier meetings. Consensus was reached that Part 11 (Vehicles and Equipment) was acceptable as presented in this draft of the CIP document. PART I (Public Facilities( City Administrator Hedges Introduced the Part I discussion by again calling attention to the major policy issues outlined in the document. He covered potential alternatives In using the Community Investment Fund such as spending some of the principal rather than only 90% of interest earnings. He also C as2/9/93 SCC MEETING MINUTES PAGE 5 stressed that the goal of the meeting for this part of the CIP was to receive general direction, prioritize projects and authorize the use of additional expertise and other individuals to review more detailed concepts and Ideas. The details would be brought back to the City Council at a later date. He noted that to the extent possible discussion should focus on 1993 so the process could continue. Mayor Egan stated that the City Council was trying to come to grips with what the real needs are as of today. Mayor Egan further noted that it was his understanding that the Community Investment Fund is for capital at some time but not necessarily for generations Into the future. He felt it is more Important at this time to create a balance In the community than to worry about something that might come up in the future. It was noted that through previous efforts the City Is now in much better shape than it would be without the $10 million. There was a great deal of discussion about Fire Department needs as listed on the draft CIP. It was the consensus that additional work and study is needed before the complete Part I CIP regarding Fire could be approved. Concerns covered such items as congestion of emergency vehicles, cooperation within the City and with other cities, the optimum location for administrative offices as well as stations and the ambulance. It was agreed that an architect would be helpful to guide the discussion given the various possibilities and combinations of options. A potential funding problem was Identified assuming a combination of fire and police services at the municipal center location given the fact that the municipal center/police facility has probably been estimated too low at $2.5 million. City Administrator Hedges noted that that should save money on other projects which could be used and it might be necessary to appropriate more money from the Community Investment Fund. Discussion then turned to the Recreational Facility and covered issues of the appropriate year for consideration, appropriate use of today's dollars, referendum history, appropriate financing sources and how private dollars could be raised. In addition, the Hockey Association representatives expressed their willingness to enter into a financing agreement with the City to assist with the project. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa reviewed general concept plans and how he had arrived at his estimated costs. Vraa was authorized to engage an estimator at an estimated cost of $5,000 to help refine the project and potential costs. Consensus was reached that the City's commitment to the Recreational Facility of $1,350,000 and $50,000 to the proposed wading pool should proceed in 1993 and that the "bare bones" facility should receive no further consideration. It was further agreed that a task force should be put together that can help the community understand the nature of the facility and coordinate the fund raising effort. The project can proceed only upon successful completion of the community goal and needs to involve the entire community. It was also noted that it will be essential for the project to retain options for later expansion into a full community center if desired by the community. Mayor Egan closed the discussion by noting how far the effort had come to arrive at the consensus and how important it was to continue In that vein and how very Important community perception will be to the success of the project. City Administrator Hedges said that the CIP will be placed on the March 2,1993 City Council agenda, for ratification. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. TLH February 9, 1993 Date City Clerk