Loading...
1990-05-15 Council minutesPage No. 2782 May 15, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 15, 1990 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Anderson, Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Anderson moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting as amended to include a petition for public utilities from the Furlong neighborhood. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, amended to remove items d (Sibley Park Plans and Comfort Station) and j (Furlong Septic Pumping Bids) for discussion later in the meeting, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the draft minutes of the April 24th Planning commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for April. c. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for April. d. Acknowledgment of a tabulation of bids received for walkway paving (Improvement No. 89, Project No. 6B), awarding the contract to GMH Asphalt Corporation for their low bid of $266,405. e. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for April. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 90-29, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING Page No. 2783 May 15, 1990 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1).11 g. Approval of a modified critical area site plan for Monty Girard Homes to allow construction of a home on Lot 2, Block 2, Val's Addition (1134 Orchard Circle), along with waiver of the critical area application fee. f. Acceptance of bids for the closing of wells located at 1304 Kendon Lane and 1306 Kendon Lane (City-acquired properties), and authorization for the issuance of a purchase order for the well closing to Stevens Well Drilling for their low bid of $2,500. g. Authorization of the issuance of a purchase order to the 2M Company for $472.50 for the purchase and installation of Bally Window Blinds in the large conference room. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated May 15, 1990 and attached hereto. i. Approval of the List of Claims dated May 15, 1990 and totalling $293,388.39. j. Approval of a recommended summary of Ordinance No. 270 and authorization for its publication according to law. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FURLONG PETITION Mrs. Carol Doffing, 1314 Furlong, presented the Council with a petition, signed by 18 Furlong Addition property owners, for the installation of sewer and water in the Furlong Addition. Mrs. Doffing stated that the petition represents 540 of the Furlong property owners. Mayor Mertensotto read the petition for the Council and audience. He informed the audience that if Council proceeds with the request there are procedures required under M.S. 429 which must be followed, including conducting a public hearing. Page No. 2784 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Cummins stated that Council is very familiar with the issue and that he does not think anyone believes that the project can be done at an assessment maximum of $15,000 per lot as was stipulated in the petition. He also did not feel that Council could tell the residents that the value of their homes can be enhanced that much, in which case the residents of the city will have to pick up the costs. He further stated that some of the Council members question whether use of TIF funds is prudent management. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the petition states that the property owners support the project only insofar as it improves their property - if Council uses funds from the city to pay for utility improvements in the neighborhood for the homeowners to stay there, the city will never recapture its TIF funds. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council fully realizes that the MAC wants the properties bought out. He felt that the residents are entitled to public utilities and that this is the least Council can do considering the situation, since Council does not know when MAC will buy the area out. Councilmember Blesener stated that utilities will cost $700,000 to $800,000 and that a buyout would cost $4 million. She felt that if the City makes such a substantial public improvement investment there would be no way MAC will do the buyout. She felt Council should pursue buyout rather than utilities. Councilmember Hartmann pointed out that the City cannot buy out the area and that if public improvements are not installed, Council would be asking the residents to wait and hope for someone to buy them out. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not think anyone has ever proposed that the community pay for the improvements: the funds would come from TIF and assessments. Councilmember Cummins felt that the city cannot expend TIF money on the gamble that someday the area will be bought out. He felt Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Blesener Cummins FURLONG SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPING BIDS Page No. 2785 May 15, 1990 that the residents of the community will end up paying. Councilmember Anderson questioned what else could be done for these residents who can't drink their water, etc. MAC is not involved in sewer and water problems, but rather buys neighborhoods out because of air noise. He further stated that the city owns two homes in the neighborhood which have no value now, and pointed out that the city does not have $3 to $4 million to do a buyout. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the original TIF District plan specified that the district would provide subsidy for utilities for the Furlong area. About a year ago, because there are extreme problems in the neighborhood, and because sewer could not be extended then, Council authorized spending some of the TIF funds for the purchase of the two homes. Councilmember Hartmann moved that Council find that more than 35% of the property owners in the Furlong Addition have petitioned Council for sewer and water installation in their neighborhood, unless otherwise notified within 30 days in those cases where only one spouse signed the petition, and further that staff be directed to proceed as expeditiously as possible to commence a Chapter 429 improvement project. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a report from Public Works Director Danielson tabulating quotes received for the Furlong residents for septic system pumping. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the purpose of soliciting quotes was to give the residents a way to control costs. He recommended that the neighborhood contact the low bidder. Staff was directed to notify the Furlong residents of the results of the request for quotations. HEARING: MARRIOTT Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for Page No. 2786 May 15, 1990 LIQUOR LICENSES the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Courtyard Management Corporation for renewal of the Courtyard By Marriott Limited Service Hotel and Motel On- Sale and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor licenses which expire on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve the renewal of On -Sale Limited Service Hotel and Motel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 1 HEARING: CLUB LIQUOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for LICENSES the purpose of a public hearing on applications from the Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their Club Liquor Licenses which expire on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Anderson moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the renewal of Club Liquor Licenses for Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: MGM LIQUOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for Page No. 2787 May 15, 1990 LICENSE the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the LAMA Corporation for renewal of the off-sale liquor license for the MGM Liquor Warehouse which expires on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the renewal of the MGM Liquor Warehouse off-sale liquor license, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: LAVIGNE, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for CASE NO. 90-10 the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mrs. Margaret Lavigne for a minor conditional use permit to replace an existing 4211 fence with a six foot fence at 1090 West Circle Court. Mrs. Lavigne was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 It was noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the application along with waiver of a portion of the application fee. Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve the conditional use permit to allow a six foot high fence at 1090 West Circle Court in the same location as the existing 4211 fence, along with waiver of $115.00 of the $150 application fee. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2788 May 15, 1990 BROMPTON COURT Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer STORM WATER Klayton Eckles along with a letter from Mn /DOT District Hydraulics Engineer Susan Klein, regarding proposed cost participation for a Mn /DOT correction of drainage problems at Highway 13 and Sylvandale (for 651 Highway 13 in Lilydale). Councilmember Hartmann moved to reject the proposed Mn /DOT funding proposal. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: CENTEX, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for CASE NO. 90 -03 the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Centex Homes for rezoning, conditional use permit for planned unit development, preliminary plat and wetlands permits for Kensington PUD Phase II, Plan C -3. Council acknowledged copies of staff reports to the Planning Commission dated April 19th, March 22nd, and February 22nd; staff reports to Council dated March 28th, April 26th and May 8th; a chronology of Southeast Area Plan adoption dated March 6th; an update of the Southeast Area traffic study, dated April 19th; a memo from the Police Chief to the Public Works Director dated April 17th regarding public safety recommendations; a report from the City Planner. dated April 24th; copies of the application materials, including site plans, grading plans, prospectus and Centex Homes' Kensington Phase II brochure; traffic study information prepared by Traffic Engineer Jack Anderson (Short Elliott Hendrickson) and attached to May 8th staff memo; public hearing notice documentation; a notebook containing background information on the comprehensive plan amendment which had been requested by and furnished to the Hampshire neighborhood; the draft minutes of the April 24th Planning Commission meeting, and excerpts from the minutes of the February 28th and March 27th Planning Commission meetings. Council also acknowledged a letter from Mr. Jerry Duffy, counsel for a number of Hampshire and Copperfield area residents dated May 15th, and letters from: Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive; Dan & Kathy Flicek, 2493 Bridgeview Court; J.C. Milstead; Edward L. Zeman, 2219 Page No. 2789 May 15, 1990 Bent Tree Lane; Jean & Darrel Robertson, 2344 Copperfield Drive; Nancy & Dan Alcombright, 2236 Bent Tree Lane; Joan L. and Kenneth L. Brendle, 2274 Copperfield Drive; Robert E. Prior, 2455 Hampshire Court; and Pierson M. and Florence B. Grieve, 280 Salem Church Road, Sunfish Lake. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that Council has been informed that if the planning applications are denied the developer threatens litigation and that if they are approved, a number of residents threaten litigation. He further stated that Council intends to give the developer a fair hearing this evening. He acknowledged that the Planning Commission has recommended denial. Mayor Mertensotto then asked the developers' representatives to make their presentation. Mr. John Bannigan, legal counsel for the developers, stated that it is his understanding that Council has a very complete record before it which consists of all the previous details which have come before the Council. He informed Council that he has discussed the public record matter with the City Attorney and that they have agreed that the record consists of all of the materials which were before the Planning Commission and anything the Council has been made aware of either tonight or through the Planning Commission records. Mayor Mertensotto agreed and directed that staff mark all of the items which have been before the Council and Commission for the public record, including letters from residents. Mr. Bannigan introduced Tom Boyce, President of the Minnesota division of Centex, Kevin Clarke, Centex Construction Manager, and Dick Putnam, President of the Tandem Corporation. He informed Council that Mr. Putnam would be making a brief presentation on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Bannigan reserved the right to rebut after public comments. Mayor Mertensotto introduced City Planner Howard Dahlgren, who was involved in the preparation of the Southeast Area Study. He Page No. 2790 May 15, 1990 informed the audience that Mr. Dahlgren has prepared background transparencies for presentation this evening. Mr. Dahlgren informed the audience that he has been asked to consider the amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted in 1985 as it relates to the current proposal and the density as it relates thereto and to briefly look at the traffic conditions as they relate to what is before Council this evening. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency of the Thoroughfare Plan portion of the City's original comprehensive plan prepared in 1960. He explained that at that time Mendota Heights Road was planned as an east /west thoroughfare to handle heavy traffic traveling through the community from west to east. It was planned as a state aid road since 1960. There was also an east /west thoroughfare from Dodd to Delaware proposed at that time in the location of the existing South Plaza Drive across what is now the Dodge Nature Center. Because of land characteristics and the fact that the property became a nature preserve, MSA status was transferred to the planned Huber Drive. He felt that this has made a very good pattern for providing access to the neighborhood with the focal point being the intersection of Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed transparencies showing existing planned unit developments in Mendota Heights, consisting of Ivy Keep, Somerset 19, Eagle Ridge and the Lexington Heights Apartments. He explained that through the use of the planned unit development process, developments utilized the ability to construct the units in townhouse and /or condominium or apartment form and conserve ponding areas and dedicate open space and water areas to the City. Mr. Dahlgren pointed out the City decided in 1985 that the Lexington Heights Apartments PUD, consisting of three very large buildings, is not kind of PUD development they want in the Southeast Area - very large three story brick buildings. The concept at that time was that the City wanted small buildings with a maximum of 24 units per building, two story and residential in character. The comprehensive plan amendment was then adopted, reducing the maximum density to 8 units per acre. Page No. 2791 May 15, 1990 Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Dahlgren stated that when the Comprehensive plan is amended it establishes a new density, and it is assumed that the property will be rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive plan. When the plan was amended for the Southeast Area, it was amended to establish a density pattern south of Mendota Heights Road of eight units per acre for some of the area and four units per acre for other areas. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed a transparency showing noise attenuation districts and noise zones as relate to the MSP airport, airport runway locations and established patterns at the time the Southeast Area Comprehensive plan amendment was adopted. The subject area was located within Noise Zone 4. He explained that at the request of MAC the City adopted a noise compatibility ordinance which provides that single family homes can be built within Noise Zone 4 if the homes are constructed so as to decrease the decibel level by 25 decibels through insulation, etc. It was also felt that if single family structures were kept away from freeways it would be an improvement. In response to a question from Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Dahlgren stated that at the time his firm was requested to prepare the Southeast Area Study, it was recognized by many that trying to develop single family plats in the area of a freeway is difficult, and that people do not want to live next to a freeway. Because of the excessive noise levels near freeways, in those cases where residences exist in advance of freeway construction, Mn/DOT will contribute 90% of the cost for noise walls. They will not provide noise walls after a freeway is built. He explained that noise walls will interrupt the high intensity noise from a freeway and are very expensive to construct. He felt that building single family homes across the whole proposed development would probably not be wise because of the known noise factors. He pointed out that multi-family housing is more compatible because multi-family construction requires air conditioning and reduces noise within the units and also that people spend less time outdoors in multi-family Page No. 2792 May 15, 1990 developments. Another consideration was air noise. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that planes are flying outside the flight corridors. Mr. Dahlgren responded that if aircraft stay within the corridor, steps can be taken through construction of dwellings to alleviate noise impact. Assuming that someday the planes will stay in the corridor, noise would be concentrated within the corridor shown on the noise map. He stated that the location of the corridor is known in the sense that it lines up with the freeways. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency comparing density statistics in the developers' June 20, 1989 sketch plan and densities allowed by the Comprehensive plan. He stated that the sketch plan covering 111.7 acres envisioned an overall density of 5.07 units per acre, and a total of 567 units, and that the sketch plan was approved. The basic development pattern and density was then established and is no longer an issue. Councilmember Anderson asked if that plan density was consistent with the Southeast Area comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren responded that Phase I of Kensington, which was approved, provided for 5.29 acres of medium residential and 16.82 acres of high density residential, for a gross density of 6 units per acre, or 132 total units. The comprehensive plan amendment density was four units per acre on some of the land and eight units per acre for the balance: 156 units was established in the comprehensive plan, and Phase I was well within that limit. He stated that the developer is now requesting approval of the balance of the development, on a total of 89.77 acres, utilizing a gross density of 3.19 (MR) and 7.77 (HR) units per acre as opposed to the 4 and 8 units per acre allowed by the comprehensive plan. The overall net density proposed for Phase II is 5.07 units per acre - 3.48 MR net and 8.10 HR net. The developer proposes a total for Phase II of 423 units as compares to the 478 units allowed by the comprehensive plan. The total net density for the Kensington development overall would be 5.4 units per acre - a total Page No. 2793 May 15, 1990 of 555 units as compared to 634 allowed by the comprehensive plan. The density proposed is well within the legal density requirements that were established in the comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed a transparency of the Southeast Area Study land use map for Land Use Concept D. He stated that the map shows the density pattern and land use for the Southeast Area which was established when the Southeast Area comprehensive plan amendment was adopted. North of Mendota Heights Road, the Southeast Area plan amendment allowed 418 residences in the Copperfield /Hampshire areas, but because the land was developed in a curvalinear pattern, the actual number of lots was platted at 258. The comprehensive plan allows 118 units in the Bridgeview Shores development, but 84 were platted. South of Mendota Heights Road, the Plan provided for 669 total units on the Kensington property, but 468 units are actually proposed: 132 units have already been approved. The Patrick subdivision east of Kensington consists of 11 single family lots. According to the comprehensive plan amendment, 1,543 housing units could be built in the Southeast Area, however the total of what is existing and proposed is 1,009 units, resulting in an actual proposed density which is 2/3 of what was approved in the comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency of the Southeast Area Study preliminary traffic report prepared by Jack Anderson, an independent consultant hired by the City in 1985. Traffic Study Concept D of the report had the highest density and anticipated 1,493 housing units in the Southeast Area. He stated that the traffic report was used to show how it was planned to handle the traffic and how it would relate to the existing proposal. The report assumed 900,000 square feet of office space and 35,000 square feet of commercial space in addition to the anticipated housing units, and commercial space tends to increase traffic levels. He pointed out that under the current development proposal, there would be a total of 1,009 housing units rather than the 1,493 anticipated in the report. Additionally, he showed and reviewed a transparency for Page No. 2794 May 15, 1990 Southeast Area Land Use Plan Concept D, which also envisioned a school north of Mendota Heights Road in addition to the housing units. He reviewed the estimated traffic statistics from the traffic report for Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive along with current traffic counts taken by City staff. The traffic report envisioned a traffic count of 2,450 two-way average daily trips; the April traffic count was 662 ADT. At the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Delaware the report projected 785 ADT as compares to 552 in the April count, and 8,954 in the report at the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road versus 1,017 counted in April, 1990. He stated that traffic can increase over eight times and still not exceed the estimates of the study, based on the most dense land use, including commercial and office space to the east. Mr. Dahlgren stated that Mr. Anderson had indicated in his report that all of the projected counts would work if two things were done - left turn lanes and signals would have to be constructed at some time. These will come when the State determines that traffic warrants are met. Mr. Anderson had recommended that even before that happens, the City should construct a left-turn slot on Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Dahlgren stated that under Development Concept D of the traffic study, the street system will work because of the very good system of State Aid roads in place. Councilmember Anderson asked if there is any reasonable likelihood that there will be any potential for a Delaware Avenue crossing at I- 494. Mr. Dahlgren responded that there is not. He stated that back in the days when the freeway plans were being developed, one of the ideas that was presented was to put an interchange at Delaware. His firm was working with both Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake at that time, and Sunfish fought the proposal because it would affect prime residential land. He stated that the concept of a Delaware interchange was scrapped at that time, and he sees no way that it could be resurrected. He informed Council and the audience that there were some recent studies initiated by Northwest Airlines in Eagan for a traffic Page No. 2795 May 15, 1990 analysis. Various analyses were done by BRW on how to improve the traffic capacity at Dodd Road and 1-494. He stated that one of the options was an interchange at Delaware, but that his firm, which was doing the development consulting for Northwest, convinced them to drop the option because it adversely impacts so many residences and would have a tremendous deleterious affect. one idea that is being proposed is a ramp in the northwest corner of Dodd and 1-494. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mr. Dahlgren envisions a possibility of a ramp 1/2 mile east of Delaware. Mr. Dahlgren responded that he is not familiar with such a plan but that he is aware that there is contiguous residential development in the area which could be adversely impacted. He informed Council that his firm did the planning for the Northwest site but that it was not involved in the traffic analysis. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that other than updating the traffic information done by City staff, Mr. Dahlgren is talking about planning done in 1985 and that planes are supposed to fly in the corridor. He asked what the study would be like if Mr. Dahlgren were to do that planning today knowing that the planes are flying all over the place. Mr. Dahlgren acknowledged that planes are flying outside the corridor and that in view of the freeway, access, thoroughfare patterns, nature of the land, etc., he believes the Land Use Plan Council adopted in 1985 is a good one and can be successfully executed and that all parties should come out winners because the big asset is the movement of density which can be done in a PUD. The purpose of a planned unit development is to provide flexibility. The City would receive a 26 acre park free under the development proposal, and he felt that this is a very important factor, as demonstrated by earlier PUD's in the City where the City can conserve vast areas of open space. In this case, the City is not conserving an area that is unbuildable, but rather, the developer proposes to dedicate very desirable land, which would be a tremendous asset to the City's park system. He further stated that the comprehensive plan amendment has the same force and affect as the Page No. 2796 May 15, 1990 original comprehensive plan. By having taken action to adopt the amendment, Council established the density that is allowed in the Southeast Area. Councilmember Cummins stated that Mr. Dahlgren had stated earlier in his presentation that the density issue, by virtue of the comprehensive plan decisions made in 1985, three years ago and two years ago, is a "done deal." He asked the City Attorney to address this issue for Council. Mayor Mertensotto also asked what the 1985 Amendment did and what the City can do today. City Attorney Tom Hart responded that the Council still maintains a certain amount of flexibility today. He explained that the City has two levels of discretion with respect to land use legislation, legislative and quasi- judicial discretion. Legislative discretion means basically that whatever the City decides, as long as it has rational basis, will be upheld in court - virtually unfettered discretion. Quasi-judicial means that the Council must take applications before it and apply a set of standards, in this case the standards set out in the PUD ordinance. He stated that it is his opinion that the City exercised its legislative discretion as to the density issue in 1985 when it passed the comprehensive plan amendment, which is why a super majority (4/5) vote is required for comprehensive plan amendment and why it must go through the Metropolitan Council. There are a number of checks and balances in the process. He stated that as to the density, that decision was made in 1985. If Council were to find that circumstances have changed drastically since 1985, Council could take action to undertake to amend the comprehensive plan, but an amendment should be entertained only if there have been significant changes. He pointed out that Council did not rezone the land at the time of the amendment because there was no application for rezoning before Council, and Council does not generally rezone on its own initiative. He stated that there is an application before Council now and that Council is in a quasi-judicial role. council must now take the set of standards set forth in the PUD ordinance and apply them to the particular plan before it: density in and of itself was determined in 1985. Any other Page No. 2797 May 15, 1990 planning issue, either set forth in the standards of the PUD Ordinance or otherwise relating to the public health, safety, morals and welfare is before Council tonight. Mr. Hart informed Council that he was handed a letter from Attorney Jerry Duffy tonight as he arrived. He stated that in the letter Mr. Duffy raises a number of practical and legitimate issues relating to the proposed plan. He expressed that he does not know how the issues raised in the letter are to be resolved but that they are legitimate issues before Council this evening - density, in and of itself, is not a legitimate issue in his opinion. With respect to substantial change in circumstances, Mayor Mertensotto stated that planes are flying all over the place now. He asked Mr. Hart whether in his judgment this is a change of circumstances that Council would be warranted to take into account in its quasi-judicial discretion. Mr. Hart responded that this certainly is a factor but that he believes it was a factor in Planner Dahlgren's Southeast Area study recommendation in 1985 for higher density in the Southeast Area. He stated that he would have to defer to Planner Dahlgren as to whether less dense uses given the aircraft situation would be appropriate for the Southeast Area and whether in and of itself this would be a reason to again amend the comprehensive plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City of Eagan purports that by allowing all the residential development in the Southeast Area, Mendota Heights has created its own problems and in reaction is now asking for a fanned flight corridor. Mr. Hart responded that this is a planning consideration: whether aircraft noise was central to consideration to change the plan in 1985. If it was central and Council finds that the situation has changed and is no longer appropriate (planes are flying all over now and noise in the area has been reduced), Council could consider amending the plan. It was his opinion that Council would have to find that airplane noise was a central reason Page No. 2798 May 15, 1990 for the 1985 amendment and that the circumstance no longer exists. Councilmember Anderson stated that it is significant that as recently as June 20th, the Council approved Sketch Plan C-3. He asked whether that tends to indicate that there is some consistency between the comprehensive plan and the proposal. Mr. Hart responded that it is some indication but pointed out that sketch plan approval is the most preliminary approval available under the City's zoning ordinance, and indicates that it is a general feeling of the Council that the program before the Council is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. The developer's agreement which the City has makes it very clear that all the Council's discretion is expressly reserved, but it does state that Council is generally in agreement that the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan, giving evidence to the developer that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He stated that if Council were to deny the plan, that would shift the onus to the City to demonstrate the factual basis for denial of the plan. Councilmember Anderson asked whether Council would have to find some significant external change occurring between June of 1989 and May of 1990 to disregard the proposal. Mr. Hart responded that it is evident that in June of 1989 the proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan and long range planning goals of the City at the time. If a finding were made and came before Council now that it was not aware of at the time, that evidence can be overcome, but it is strong evidence in favor of the developer for that proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council's charge and its primary concern is what is in the interest of the City from the standpoint of health, safety and welfare. Council must know what parameters it can utilize in making a decision and what leeway and discretion it has and what factors are important. He felt that what it gets down to is a question of whether the 1985 comprehensive plan amendment action binds a future Council to a present day development. Page No. 2799 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Hartmann stated that it is his recollection that the impetus for the Southeast Area Study was that in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the Metropolitan Council rejected the zoning, especially in the southeast area of the City, because it was inconsistent with the airport noise element of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Dahlgren concurred, responding that the Metropolitan Council would not approve the comprehensive plan amendment until the City adopted an aircraft noise attenuation ordinance and put it into affect. With respect to air noise impact, Mr. Dahlgren stated that the City must be very careful what it does. The noise ordinance Council adopted sets as a policy that as the noise level increases development moves away from single family to multi-family housing. single family use is provisional in Noise Zone 4, but multiple family housing is permitted. He stated that if Council assumes that the noise level is spreading, the provision is that there be more high-density rather than less. He cautioned Council to exercise care on how it uses aircraft noise. Mayor Mertensotto asked who made the finding that this should be, since there would be more people in high density development. Mr. Dahlgren responded that the City studied the draft Metropolitan Council and MAC noise attenuation ordinance and carefully reviewed and suggested changes before it was adopted. He pointed out that what the ordinance officially says is that as the noise problem gets worse, development should move from single family to multiple family housing because in multiple family developments there is always air conditioning, fewer people spend time outside and noise can be better mitigated in the construction of the buildings. It is easier to mitigate the noise in multiple family dwellings than it is in single family. Councilmember Anderson questioned what planning understanding is involved with not putting single family along freeways and under flight paths on the basis that an even greater number of people would be affected by the noise impact in clustering more dense units. Page No. 2800 May 15, 1990 Mr. Dahlgren responded that single family homes are designed for families with children, with large yards and open space around the houses, and that single family residents should spend a good deal of time outside. He stated that in multi-family areas there are frequently very few children and often none. He further stated that the buildings can be built so that they are much more sound-proof than single family homes can be, and although there are more people in the buildings, the buildings are more compatible under aircraft and along freeways than single family homes. He further stated that one can see multiple family very successfully used along freeways but where there are single family homes contiguous to freeways they are hard to sell. Mr. Dahlgren felt that from a planning standpoint, what is at issue now is how the plan is done for parking, building materials, whether two-story is the right height, garages, etc., and also the proposal for private roads. He stated that these are the things the Council has the power to control. Mr. Dahlgren informed Council that private roadways are consistently part of PUD's and that they should be because then the homeowners association maintains them, which he felt is in the City's best interest. Mayor Mertensotto asked that the representative of the developers make his presentation. Mr. Dick Putnam, representing the developers, informed Council that he would not make a slide presentation on the sketch plan which Council reviewed some time ago and which the Planning Commission and neighborhood have seen. He stated that there have been numerous plans approved for the site, including the most recent planning which has also been modified. He presented the plan and stated that the total number of units has been decreasing with each plan and in the new plan. Phase I was approved for 136 housing units and is under construction. There is now a total number of units in the total project area of 555 units. He stated that between Plan A and Plan B, the park area has been pushed and squeezed by the City to make the park system Page No. 2801 May 15, 1990 work not only for the development project but for the City in meeting its park needs. Mr. Putnam stated that he has been going over the reasons the comprehensive plan was amended, and the two factors which keep coming to mind are traffic noise and air noise. There were also some positive points the City had in 1985, one was diversity in housing types in the southeast area. There were very few multiple family units in Mendota Heights at that time, and one of the expressed desires and objectives of the Council was to provide a variety of housing types and the southeast area was felt to be the place to do that. He stated that as the developer of Copperfield, he did not feel it was the place. The proposal made by the prior property owner has potentially 1,000 apartments. Council wanted to encourage ownership as opposed to rental and to limit 24 units per structure. It also wanted to discourage a project that would use repetitive building types, and stipulated that a project cannot exceed 150 units of a repetitive building type. He stated that the other area Council looked at as a positive rather than a negative is the land characteristics. The southeast area of the City is very pretty, with ponds and woods. In Copperfield, the areas between the ponds and the ponds themselves were committed to parks and also scenic easement areas were dedicated around the ponds to protect the adjacent fringe areas of the ponds. He stated that this has carried through in the proposed project and that the developers have respected all of the wetlands and are making most of the wetlands in the area public parks. He felt that another positive is the City park issue. There is a variety of parks in the southeast area including the private Dodge Nature Center and public parks such as Friendly Marsh, passive areas between the ponds in Copperfield, and neighborhood parks such as Friendly Hills and the King-Hagstrom park. He stated that the proposed development includes an extension of the trail system and a proposed very active park and a passive park around the lake. Including three softball and two soccer fields is an asset to the neighborhood and the community, and it generates much that the City wants to accomplish. He pointed out that it would have been much easier for the developers to tell Page No. 2802 May 15, 1990 the City to put the fields some place else and that the developer would put in a 10 acre neighborhood park site. The developers felt that to try to incorporate what the City and the citizens said they wanted in active fields into the development area and to put it where it is proposed makes some sense. He felt that major ballfields are an excellent neighbor to the freeway. He informed Council that the developers will build berms to reduce the freeway noise behind the development. Mr. Putnam stated that one thing that wasn't done in Plan C-3, but which was ultimately addressed in the plan that was submitted for approval tonight was that the developers didn't realize that the area where there is a two-story condominium structure would be perceived to be a problem by people. It was pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting and in meeting with the neighborhood and Attorney Duffy that the intrusion of the high density use at the corner was a problem, and the building has been shifted. What is currently proposed is to replace one of the 24 unit condominium buildings with a 6 and 4 unit townhouse and to shift the road a little to put the townhouse across the road from Hampshire. The result is an increase from 59 to 71 townhouse units and coachhomes and a reduction from 300 to 280 condominium units, decreasing the project to 555 units. He stated that this was not done to decrease the density of the site but to create a buffer in the density between the larger lots in Copperfield and Hampshire and the proposed plat. He informed Council and the audience that the type of structures that are being built now in Phase I are indicative of the architectural detail and attention to other detail that can be expected in the remainder of the units, townhouses, condominiums and single family. The project will provide a diversity in housing ranging from 945 square foot units for a base price of $60,000 to about $95,000 for three bedroom units. Townhouses will range from $100,000 to $135,000. The single family will be similar to Hampshire, although some may be larger because of the woods to the south. He stated that the developers feel the project is well planned and integrates public and private facilities and a good diversity of housing types. All units will be owned versus rental, Page No. 2803 May 15, 1990 which provides an advantage to the City. He stated that when he started Copperfield he felt the market would be $135,000 to $170,000, and that he was surprised at what happened. In the case of the manor homes, Centex is finding many buyers from Mendota Heights, and many empty- nesters who do not want their four bedroom homes any more. He suggested that the Council not program out Mendota Heights people by ruling out different housing types at the expense of everything having to be the same housing type. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Putnam was very successful in Copperfield and Hampshire and that Mr. Putnam acknowledged that in the southeast area he has taken medium residential east of the park and put that into single family residential. He stated that Mr. Putnam obviously recognizes that there is a continued market to develop single family in that area contrary to what Planner Dahlgren has said and contrary to the Metropolitan Council plan. He asked how the Council can answer Eagan when it continues to put housing in the southeast area? Mr. Putnam responded that the single family area moves out of Noise Zone 4 in the east and that that area is less noisy. Also, Sunfish Lake is east and there are existing single family homes in Mendota Heights just south of the proposed single family location. He explained that he spent much time in discussing this whole area in 1986 and 1987 in meeting with the neighbors and trying to make a plan work. Also, this portion of the site is heavily wooded, the most heavily wooded portion of the development, and that it is very difficult to build high density units in woods unless they are big buildings which are excluded from the comprehensive plan and would not be consistent with the desires of the City. There is a berm built along I -494 and it is heavily wooded. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer is transferring density from that area to the west of the pond and is making a marketing decision to change what is permitted under the comprehensive plan, asking that the density be transferred to the remaining area. He stated that the complaints are coming from the people Mr. Putnam sold lots to. Page No. 2804 May 15, 1990 Mr. Putnam stated that he could go back to Plan B, which was also approved, which had softball fields in addition to the proposed soccer and ballfields. Had the plan gone ahead the condominiums (coach homes) would have been built adjacent to the edge of the King property along Mendota Heights Road and what is proposed now for single family would have been townhouses. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the people Mr. Putnam sold to are not objecting to the townhouses. With respect to Plan B, the City has a need for park and open space and additional athletic fields. He stated that the developer has made the economic decision to put single family east of the park, and he felt that a solution to the whole problem would be for the developer to go back to Plan B. He stated that the City has authority to spend $750,000 and though that it might cost the City $50,000 to get the additional 20 acres of parkland in Plan B (40 acres total) it would solve the City's recreation needs once and for all and might also placate the residents with respect to the problem they have with the condominiums. It is the density transfer from the single family area that stacks the condominiums in. The City does not have its athletic facility plan completed, even with the Sibley park development, and has additional needs. He did not feel the City will be able to get the Mendakota Estates property. He asked Mr. Putnam if going back to Plan B, with a 40 acre park, is a viable option to look at. Mr. Putnam responded that Centex just paid $100,000 in first half real estate taxes and assessments for the property the Mayor suggests is worth $50,000 in land value. He stated that the developer has been down this road for a long time and has discussed" what if" the City were to buy this land. It was his understanding that the voters passed a referendum that said that the proposed park dedication would be dedicated to the City and the money from the referendum would be used to develop this site and other parks in town and trails. He stated that if he has been listening to the people at the three Planning Commission meetings, they would rather not see as much multi - family adjacent to Mendota Page No. 2805 May 15, 1990 Heights Road, and the developers have tried to do the best they can. There are real problems with putting single family along Mendota Heights Road, and if the Council had initially set out the objective in the past that is being discussed now, everything would have been different in the plan. Specifically to answer the Mayor's question of would plan B be a good plan for all concerned, he stated that in terms of what he knows now in hearing from the Hampshire people, he doesn't think they like Plan B because it would involve condos adjacent to Mendota Heights Road and townhouses where single family is now proposed. He stated that the plan has evolved a long way since those discussions and felt that things have improved for everyone. Councilmember Anderson stated that it seems to him that there was an initial park referendum that was robustly defeated by the citizens and he felt that one reason was that Sibley was out of it and the bulk of the community's residents did not want the main facility in the southeast area of the City. Councilmember Cummins stated that as a resident very close to this area, he did not think that adding three more athletic fields is the kind of open space that the residents in the area want, and that he does not relish the idea of an eight field complex rather than five fields. That would just increase the amount of traffic from all over into the area. He felt that what the Mayor seems to be saying is that the City should buy some additional property to build more playfields on. Councilmember Cummins did not see this as any solution, but if there were to be 15 acres of wooded space the residents would probably like it. Councilmember Blesener stated that the Mayor has said there is $750,000 available. The referendum was in two parts: some of it was for a third ball site. The referendum that was passed included three sites for ballfields with a budget of about $400,000 to acquire the third site. $750,000 was to acquire land for other park needs: $300,000 to $400,000 is needed from the second referendum question to improve the ballfields, which leaves $350,000 for other park improvements. To assume Council can take all available funds to buy Page No. 2806 May 15, 1990 land for fields is wrong. She pointed out that the voters rejected the proposal two years ago to buying a significant amount of land in this area in the first referendum. Councilmember Anderson pointed out that Council had approved Plan B and the referendum was rejected, after which Council had Mr. Putnam revise his plan to accommodate the City park. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that this time the developer is asking for approval of the entire PUD, not just a phase. He did not want to give up the potential for additional park land and pointed out that approval would foreclose any options. Councilmember Blesener also pointed out that she was a member of the referendum committee, and that all the other land in the city that is available for a third ballfield site, including all of the land in this portion of the city was considered by the referendum committee, Park Commission, etc., and putting any more fields in the southeast part of the City was rejected. Councilmember Cummins stated that Plan C-3 is before Council, and that he would like to ask Park Commission Chair Huber, present for the discussion, for the Commission's reaction to this plan. He asked if the Commission supports the park plan portion of C-3. Mr. Huber responded that the Commission unanimously approved the park plan in C-3, and that the City's consultant, Barry Warner, and the developers and others have worked on the plan. From a park perspective, the Commission feels it has evolved to the best plan, and to go back to Plan B would be going back to something the voters rejected. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City does not have all of its recreational facility needs satisfied in its overall planning and that he does not want to foreclose the option of satisfying those needs. He felt that after a while the City may not find additional areas to acquire, and that Council should not overlook the possibility of satisfying the entire community need for open space and facilities. Page No. 2807 May 15, 1990 Mr. Huber responded that the facility now has 3 softball fields. Plan B only has 3 softball fields and one baseball field, which does not meet the total City ballfield needs. Only one additional baseball field would be picked up in the design of Plan C. He also pointed out that if the additional land were acquired there still would be 500 housing units in the development plan. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Plan B has 40 acres of open space as opposed to 20 in C-3, and that he is talking about additional open space which the City would be buying from the developer. He asked Mr. Putnam if he could do Plan B. Mr. Putnam replied that he does not know, but that Plan B does not coincide at all with what he has heard at the three Planning Commission meetings. He could not see any area residents supporting Plan B because it is all multi- family along Mendota Heights Road, so in that regard, he could not do Plan B. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mr. Putnam would do the single family development and also if there is a way he could put a restriction on the development so that the City would have some control over who is developing it. He pointed out that.Council knows Mr. Putnam and Centex as developers, but was concerned over what might happen if Centex sells the site. Mr. Putnam responded that whether he or Centex develops all of the single family it looks like it would be a third or second phase of Hampshire, which would make the most sense. Centex would develop the townhouse, condominium (coach), and manor homes over the next five years. Attorney Bannigan stated that the approval being requested runs with the land, and the plans are all on file with the City. Centex fully intends on building it, however anyone else who would come in and try to build it would have to do exactly what Centex would have to do. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the City would have a developers agreement for this development just as is required for all PUD's. Page No. 2808 May 15, 1990 Attorney Tom Hart suggested that the Mayor's concern is in terms of the maintenance of quality if Centex were to sell the property. Under a PUD, the City can certainly require standards in terms of materials, quality, etc. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. Putnam is asking for approval of the entire PUD. Mr. Putnam responded that he is. He felt the single family portion should be zoned single family PUD like Hampshire and Copperfield, and pointed out that it is proposed to be a conventional single family subdivision patterned after Hampshire and Copperfield. He informed Council that there will be public streets in the single family area; in the MR and HR, there is a private street system; Lockwood Drive is a public street. He informed Council that he has spoken to one of the residential property owners south of the proposed single family area, Mr. Biehl, with respect to providing access to the Biehl property and the other parcels adjoining it. Mr. Putnam felt that the best way to provide access to these large private parcels would be to provide a private driveway easement which the developers would convey to those property owners so that they could someday develop their property. He informed Council that while access can be done either via the private easement or public street, a public street would devastate that small sensitive area. Mr. Biehl felt that the private easement would be much better. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the private street system in the proposed development is really no different from many of the City's existing PUD's. Mr. Putnam stated that the private streets would be built to the same standard as City streets, 28 feet wide with surmountable curbs, and that the only difference from a public street is that they would be constructed and maintained by the people who live in the development. RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:32 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:40 P.M. Page No. 2809 May 15, 1990 Mayor Mertensotto asked for comments from Attorney Gerald Duffy. Mr. Duffy informed Council that he is present to represent 540 to 580 residents of the City who have a concern about the direction this development is taking. He stated that he has submitted a letter to Council, and pointed out that in the letter and before the Planning Commission he has stated that Kensington Phase 2 does not comply with the comprehensive guide plan. He pointed out that Howard Dahlgren stood before Council this evening and disagreed, but that he believes it is clear that it does not comply and he will inform Council as to why he feels it does not. He also stated that he disagrees to some extent with what has been said about what a comprehensive guide plan is. A comprehensive guide plan is a guide and does not carry with it the weight of a zoning ordinance change. He cited two cases in support of the position, which discuss what happens when a comprehensive guide plan is in conflict with zoning. The fact that a Council may have approved a comprehensive guide plan in no way infringes on a council's ability to take a direction other than how the plan guides them. What the Council did in 1985 in accepting the comprehensive guide plan cannot bind the council in 1990 in the exercise of authority to zone or not zone - it is a guide. He pointed to two cases in which Mr. Dahlgren's associate John Shardlow gave expert testimony. What really makes the cases important is how the change was necessary in the comprehensive guide plan when passed and today, what kind of evidence is needed. Council may say the assumptions made in 1985 are no longer valid and that the guide is no more than a guide and may come to some other conclusion on how the property may be rezoned. He then raised issues for discussion. First, whether or not, if the guide applies, this plan conforms to the comprehensive guide plan. The comprehensive guide plan envisions two separate PUD's in terms of density: one can see (on the comprehensive guide plan map) where it shows MR and HR. One is medium density and one is high density, and each carry a maximum density which the Council can allow. The comprehensive guide plan sets a ceiling, but not a floor. Development can be less dense but not more dense. He felt that Page No. 2810 May 15, 1990 it is interesting that when the City did its map and when Howard Dahlgren was talking about the impact of the comprehensive guide plan, he talked about planned density and continued to make distinction between MR and HR. He stated that this is because the comprehensive guide plan laid out a line between them. The only way the Council can approve this plan is if it erases the line, because what the plan does is to transfer density across the MR to the HR. If the density in the HR zone is calculated taking out the park dedication and roads, and one discusses what is actually proposed to be in high density, the proposal is way over the maximum densities the comprehensive guide plan will allow in that zone. He felt that the only way the comprehensive guide plan would allow the densities proposed is if it didn't have the two separate zones, and if in fact it were assumed for the purpose of density discussions that the City were to purchase the land for the park, taking it out of the area which is in the HR zone and the roads, and have the developer deal with the acreage that is left, there would be 18 units per acre. Nowhere in the City is that kind of density allowed. The only way it works is if the line is ignored. He felt that talking about the densities of MR and HR is meaningless, and that it is all HR, and the proposal is contrary to the comprehensive guide plan. Councilmember Cummins read an excerpt from the Zoning ordinance which provides that if a PUD is in more than one zoning district the number of allowable dwelling units must be separately calculated for each portion of the development in a separate zone and then must be combined to determine the number of allowable dwelling units in the PUD. He pointed out that one of the purposes of the PUD ordinance is to provide a tool to allow the City flexibility to move densities within a PUD regardless of the actual zoning. Mr. Duffy disagreed on the basis that there are two separate zones and two separate PUD density areas and the densities must be made to work on those two areas. If there were not, why would the densities even be discussed. He did not think that what Councilmember Cummins stated is what the ordinance says. He stated that much has been said about the fact that this (property) is Page No. 2811 May 15, 1990 part of the southeast area study. The City went to the Metropolitan Council and asked for amendment to the comprehensive guide plan. One of the significant reasons for the change and the study was a belief at that time that multiple family housing was more suitable in an air landing corridor than was single family. He stated that he disagrees with that logic, but that the fact of the matter is that today given dual local control and the facts that exist the air traffic patterns are going across a wider area of Mendota Heights. He asked how the City is dealing with that. He pointed out that there is a committee which was supposed to meet to discuss air noise reduction and the City has received a letter from Eagan City Administrator Tom Hedges asking for a cooperative effort between the cities in dealing with MAC on air noise. One of the things Mr. Hedges' letter talked about was the need not to exacerbate the issue by approving more residential development in the area before agreement can be reached. He felt that it would be contradictory to say to MAC that noise needs to be reduced in residential areas and at the same time approve plans that will more than double the number of housing units in the area. What also makes the 1985 assumption that multi-family is more consistent in this area than single family is the kind of housing being talked about. He stated that Mr. Dahlgren has said that the developer has tried to make this look more like single family, two-story, but the fact is that the plan before the City is not even close to the kind of multi family that was envisioned when the concept was originally put that multi-family is more consistent in this kind of area. Centex is not advertising Kensington as an area designed to be located within a flight path of an airport where everyone is to stay inside in air conditioned comfort. They are advertising the amenities of Mendota Heights, lots of parks and open space and outside recreational activities. He stated that the assumption that lead to the 1985 study and change in the comprehensive guide plan does not apply today, circumstances have changed. The airport is used differently. This developer's view of the type of housing that should go here has changed significantly. In totality, there is a complete lack of support for the original assumption, a change of circumstances which Page No. 2812 May 15, 1990 makes the 1986 comprehensive guide plan assumption no longer valid. Also no longer a valid assumption is the issue of schools. He stated that one of the points raised at the Planning Commission meeting is that recently the City approved temporary school units. The comprehensive guide plan assumes there will be adequate infrastructure to serve the needs as units are added to the community. One of the needs is schools, and one that will be directly impacted by this development is overcrowded, and the assumption rate will be used by this development, another of the assumptions in the comprehensive guide plan no longer is a valid assumption, there's been a change in circumstances. Mr. Duffy stated that another change in the assumptions that lead to the 1986 comprehensive guide plan change has to do with the number of single family houses in the area. At the time the comprehensive guide plan was looked at there wasn't projected to be the type and number of single family housing, i.e., Marvin Anderson development. The nature of this area changed and is much more oriented to single family. He stated that another assumption was whether or not people would build and buy single family next to freeways. If one looked at comprehensive guide plans in the 1980's they would find that many came up with apartments along freeways, however if one drove down 1-35 through Apple Valley, and Burnsville, there is a huge amount of single family going on and there is a market for it, which brings to mind the question of whether this is a valid assumption. He felt this is not the case. Mr. Duffy stated that whether or not those kinds of things are sufficient changes in circumstances for the Council not to apply the comprehensive guide plan, the Council should look at Wellington versus Apple Valley where these very issues were raised, whether or not the assumption that single family could not be built adjacent to interstates and whether or not a road could be completed when it wasn't completed at the time would be sufficient change in circumstances for a council not to comply with the comprehensive guide plan, and the court found that it would. one of the factors that seems to be driving the proposal Page No. 2813 May 15, 1990 is the offer of free park land. That is a prominent factor in why the proposal is before the Council. He stated that Council does not have to trade density for parks and that the City has enough money to buy land for parks. He felt that in any event it is a bad trade- off to trade this kind of density for parks. Mr. Duffy stated that one of the comments the developer has used in talking about differences between park land he is required to dedicate and the other park land is non- required park land dedication. The trade off is the density transfer. It was his belief that the trade-off for the non-required park land is the density transfer. He felt that the trade-off for the non-required park dedication compared to the density simply is not a good trade-off for the City to make for a variety of reasons in terms of what is good for the City as a whole. He suggested that with this kind of density there are lots of cars and lots of people in a relatively small area. one of the questions that came up at the Planning Commission hearing was where all of the cars would be parked. Parking as required by the ordinance will be absorbed partly by a garage for one car and parking one car directly behind it when the garage door is closed, so much land has been used that there is little available space for parking, etc. One question that came up was where the people will put their garbage cans. He stated that the answer was in the garage, but there is barely enough room for a car. People are expected to open their garage door in the winter and put the garbage in a garbage can against the back wall of the garage. He did not think that will happen, they will put the cans out where they are most accessible, right out the back door. He stated that even so simple a question as how to handle the garbage doesn't track in the plan. The developers have had to compress in order to get the density they want and in order to give the City the non-required park land dedication. He stated that Mr. Hart has indicated that the law in terms of what is needed for evidence to not apply the old comprehensive guide plan is a drastic change of circumstance, but he suggested that the cases say only a change of circumstances and sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances. He felt that there is sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances. He directed Council's Page No. 2814 May 15, 1990 attention to his letter, stating that it sets out why he believes the proposed development plan is inconsistent with the comprehensive guide plan and why he believes it does not comply with the City Zoning ordinance. Under the Zoning Ordinance, to approve a PUD Council must find that the plan meets each and every one of the standards. He stated that it does not. He also pointed out that the PUD must coordinate with subdivision laws, and that he has set out in his letter several areas where he feels the plan fails to comply with the subdivision ordinance. The PUD must also comply with other applicable provisions of City code, including wetlands permit requirements. He stated that the proposed development cannot meet the standards for the issuance of wetlands permits and that he doesn't feel that has been sufficiently looked at. He then reviewed the portion of his letter relating to wetlands. He stated that Section 5.6 of the Zoning ordinance sets out criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, which also must be issued. One of the criteria is that it may not be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the community. He stated that there will be 1,000 people per square mile in this particular development. The development, which contains less than 1% of the land in the community will have 30% of the population of the City when fully developed, and if that is not detrimental to the general welfare it is hard to define a set of circumstances. It must not cause traffic hazard or congestion. With respect to traffic, the City documents show that when this area is fully developed, the level of service will be Level F until such time as Mendota Heights Road and the interchange of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road is affected. He stated that this is controlled by Mn/DOT, not the City, and that it seems incomprehensible to approve a plan which carries with it the possibility that Level F could be visited on all these houses. He suggested that Council look at Wellington versus Apple Valley to see if this is sufficient grounds. According to the ordinance, the plan should not seriously depreciate surrounding property values. He further stated that the proposal is not in harmony with good planning. In exchange for the park the City is getting much it doesn't want and should not get. Good planning and Page No. 2815 May 15, 1990 common sense will not result in a disregard for what the neighbors think should go on, shouldn't disregard the comprehensive guide plan, good planning, the zoning ordinance, good wetlands management, good traffic management, current air noise abatement issues and should not overcrowd schools. He stated that he feels it disregards all of these and asked that Council not approve this plan for the reasons set forth tonight. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire stated that it has been mentioned tonight that a previous plan was rejected and that the City would prefer to have properties owned rather than rented. She further stated that the plan contains many condo units, and in discussions with realtors she has found that there is very little after market for condos in the twin cities, fewer people who are in a position to purchase condos are buying them. She asked what will people do if they can't sell them, and felt that they will rent them and that will have a great affect on the area. Mr. Dan Nichols, a Hampshire resident, felt that there are two issues. First, from the residents perspective, it has been made clear that the Council can make any decision it wants to tonight. From the very beginning, the residents have run into resistance from the Planning Commission and Council members with whom they spoke. He felt that it is clear that Council's hands are not tied by the comprehensive plan. The second issue is what the residents want, what they hate to hear is that "you know that land is going to be developed." The residents don't contend that it will not develop and agree with much of the proposed plan. He stated that they don't disagree with Kensington or the single family and that they do respect Mr. Putnam's abilities and Centex's ability as builders. He stated that the only area of disagreement is that the residents do not want the developers to build quite so many units in one area, but unfortunately Council must decide tonight. Mr. Nichols stated that there was much discussion before the Planning Commission about how the residents in the area have been sandbagged, and that no one can give the Page No. 2816 May 15, 1990 residents a clear answer today on where the proposal is at. He stated that this meeting is the residents only opportunity to voice their opinion, since they were not residents at the beginning of the planning. He felt that the only way the residents can negotiate the matter in a way acceptable to those who live in the area is to say no. He pointed out that the Mayor mentioned that litigation has been threatened by both sides, but he did not think that anyone wants to sue. He felt that the parties would be willing to negotiate some points and that it only makes sense that since the parties are so close together, Council should vote no. Mr. Nichols stated that the residents have not been happy with the responses they have received from the Council members, who have given the impression that they do not care what the residents say on the phone. He further stated that there are 600 to 800 voters in the area and they want Council members who are responsive to their needs -- they expect to be heard and hope the Council will not take them lightly. He asked that the development be stopped at this point so that changes can be made to make it desirable to all parties. Councilmember Cummins responded that early in his remarks Mr. Nichols stated that there was one area of density he does not like. He asked what specific area that is. Mr. Nichols responded that it is about 1/3 of the development. He stated that the residents are satisfied with the quality and density of Kensington but that the area in between that needs to be negotiated. The neighbors realize it is not going to be all single family and realize the density is currently too high. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Boyce if there is room for negotiation. Mr. Boyce responded that the developers tried that at the Planning Commission meeting and the only one that stood up was Mr. Duffy. He would therefore guess the answer is that there is no room for negotiation. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Boyce has heard Mr. Duffy speak this evening and that it is the people Mr. Boyce sold to who are complaining about the continued development. He expressed his concern, stating that Page No. 2817 May 15, 1990 litigation is not the way to go, and the concerns must be resolved. The people have indicated they have no objection to the manor homes, the problem they have is the high density sector in the center of the project, 300 condominium units, which is totally uncharacteristic of the development of Mendota Heights. He further stated that in his experience there is a problem with after market for this type of unit in Mendota Heights. If a solution can be negotiated it would be far better than litigation. Mr. Putnam stated that the first time the residents specifically said the problem is with the density at Lockwood and Mendota Heights Road. He asked when Mr. Nichols talks about the density is it actually 8, 12 and 16 unit buildings that are the problem, the units themselves, detached garages, two stories, etc. He stated that the only difference between that unit and the manor home unit is the attached garage. The first four units are cut-through building units because they have garages in front of them. The units themselves are essentially the same unit, just put together differently. With respect to Mr. Nichol's comment, if the park land were taken out and instead he went back to the plan for a small neighborhood park and take the same number of buildings and spread them out over the area, you would have the same number of units but the perception of how far the buildings are apart would look like the manor homes do. What the City would lose is the public open space. He further stated that as a practical matter, his experience with a project in Bloomington, done in three phases, is that these buildings spread out 200 feet apart look silly, and this is not what the people who live in them are after. He stated that Mr. Nichols' comments are good, and that the developers have wrestled with the same questions, but that they know they don't want to build another 250 manor home units. Mr. Nichols responded that the trouble with the density is that when people talk about density they are always talking about different things. He felt the density the residents are concerned about is the number of people in the area, concern about the secondary effects of that many people in this Page No. 2818 May 15, 1990 area. It is the sense that there are 500 sites all at the end of their block. Bob Divine, 607 Huber, stated that he would rather speak to the value of the homes. He lives in Copperfield and owns one of the homes originally planned to be $130,000 to $175,000. He bought his home for $200,000 and it has appreciated. There are many homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range in the area and the developer is talking about $60,000 condominiums. He stated that he would rather see fewer condominiums and higher values, $85,000+. He felt that this would be a good compromise, fewer and more expensive units. Liz Petrich, 645 Quail Ridge Circle, stated that her family is probably the least impacted but that does not mean they feel less strongly. What really bothers the residents is that some people have put every nickel they had into their houses which back up against Mendota Heights Road and this is what they have to look at. She stated that she talked to Centex when they were first building their model and was told that it would be the most beautiful executive homesites which would put Copperfield to shame. People were told this and they invested in their lots and homes, and there is a very little setback. Jill Nichols, 633 Hampshire, stated that property value is not a concern of hers. Her concern is traffic that will come from that many people in that small area. Its not consistent with the rest of Mendota Heights. She was concerned about her family going to and from school and work and the safety of her girls biking in that area and her family trying to get out onto Mendota Heights Road. She stated that she does not want to wait until someone is killed before stop lights are installed. She also stated that it is already too noisy there and to add that many units will make the noise that much worse. The resident at, 2470 Park Lane, the corner of Park Lane and Mendota Heights Road, stated that you can't see people coming around the corner. She further stated that she does not relish a stop light next to her house, that living on a corner is bad enough, but stop and go traffic is much worse. She stated that this is a dangerous corner now. Page No. 2819 May 15, 1990 Don Pacdernik, 2472 Hampshire Court, stated that he paid $3,000 extra for his lot which backs on Mendota Heights Road. He was told that this development was going to be multi family, but at $125,000 each for the townhouses. That's where they said it would start at for townhouses. He stated that he thought his investment would be very safe, and that what he understood is a stark departure from $60,000 units. Kay Hallo, 606 Pondview Terrace, stated that her question relates to schools. The private schools are full and Mendota Elementary is overcrowded. She felt that someone buying a $60,000 home will not put their kids in private schools and questioned what will happen when this number of units is put in if the public schools are so crowded now. Gary Berg, 2345 Copperfield Drive, stated that the City can have many statistics about traffic levels at f, a or d and anyone can argue those. He presumed that the Council members have not spent a lot of time in the area seeing the activity, lots of people walking dogs, jogging, kids on bikes. He felt this would no longer be safe and the lifestyles of the people who moved into the area will be disrupted. The residents expect that their reasons for moving into the area will be respected. Dawn Rabelon, 629 Hampshire Drive, stated that her concern is tax revenue. She stated that it is a known fact that these are lesser priced homes and multi - family does not contribute as much to taxes as it takes for schools, fire, police, etc. She stated that she does not think it is fair for the entire city to have to pick up the tab for this. Mike Williams, 2471 Hampshire Court, stated that he is concerned about safety associated with traffic. He stated that much emphasis has been placed on the free park area and that he did not think many of the people in Hampshire Estates would be using the parks. His children would not cross the street to use the parks. Greg Schreader, 594 Waters Edge Terrace, stated that his concern is the apparent lack Page No. 2820 May 15, 1990 of a demographic study by Centex. They have said that they will build as needed. Also, the Ivy Falls development is a nice development very aesthetically appealing and doesn't compare to this proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is not Council's concern on whether the developers have done market studies. Council's concern is the interest of the City. Mr. Schroeder asked what will happen if the Council approves this and all of the streets and utilities are put in and it becomes a white elephant. Larry Brown, 647 Pond View, stated that he agrees with the Mayor's comment that most of the people in this area moved to Mendota Heights for what it offered, but 30% of the population on 1% of the land mass is not what they moved here for. He asked how that concentration of people affects the infrastructure. He pointed out that most of the people in the audience did not live here when the comprehensive plan was approved in 1985. He felt that the fact that all of these people now live here but did not in 1985 is a big enough situational change. Mr. Bernard Frie1,750 Mohican Court, stated that the citizens who lived in the area in 1985 opposed the comprehensive plan and did not think there was a basis for change. He spoke about the history of opposition in 1985 and 1987 to the comprehensive plan Amendment, and stated that many of those who opposed the plan changes in 1985 and 1987 still hold their view about the changes in the comprehensive plan and he did not believe they would support this zoning change. Mr. James Losleben,815 Hazel Court, stated that the development is totally out of character with Mendota Heights. He felt that the fact that the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 against the proposal is a significant change in circumstance since the last time the Council looked at the proposal. Mike McNamara, 632 Hampshire Drive, stated that he has heard reasons why the single family can't be moved over to where the multi family is in the center, and asked why it Page No. 2821 May 15, 1990 cannot. He acknowledged that businesses are run to make a profit and that Centex has a profit margin, but stated that the Council should represent the residents and must have some sort of a benefit in mind for them. He asked what the costs and benefits are and what value has been placed on the child who might get hit on a bike on his way to the park or the drugs and crime that might happen in the park. He asked what price has been put on all the possible fire, police, school and traffic problems and what the cost/benefit ratio is. Mayor Mertensotto responded that in the general sense, the question is how does this project benefit the City. There is no question that multi family brings in more tax revenue but there are more people in the area the revenue is coming from. He stated that hopefully the revenue coming in balances against the needed services. An unidentified resident asked if the overall density of the Planned Unit Development meets the standards of MR and which standard applies, MR or HR. Councilmember Cummins responded that Planner Dahlgren has indicated that the density for the MR area is 3.48 units per acre which is well under the four units per acre allowed, and that the HR is 8.10 and that overall the average is under 6 units per acre. Joan Bjorklund,2324 Fieldstone Drive, stated that one thing she does not understand is why the single family homes will be so valuable on the wooded land if what they look out on is multi-family. She further stated that she would not let her children walk around the multi-family to get to the park. The owner of 628 Hampshire, stated that the timing of a compromise is important. If the Council votes on the rezoning now, it should say no. The residents feel compromise must be made before the Council takes a vote. There being no further Councilmember Anderson be closed. Councilmember Hartmann Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 questions or comments, moved that the hearing seconded the motion. Page No. 2822 May 15, 1990 Mayor Mertensotto asked for comments from Attorney Bannigan. Mr. Bannigan stated that one of his concerns was the identification of the City Planner as being loose on the density figures. He felt that this is unfair, that Mr. Dahlgren is one of the Planner Emeritus of the twin cities area. He proposed to Council that it must make its decision on a rational basis, that the reasons must be substantive and have a factual basis. Council has heard from lay persons expressing opinions, but Council can only take into consideration the learned opinion of the experts. The law is a good reasoning tool, and Council knows what the law is. He stated that all the developers ask is that the Council base its decision on the facts before it, not the emotions dragged out before them this evening. The task before the Council is to determine whether this applicant has met the predetermined standards for the community. Mayor Mertensotto asked what about the substantive changes that have occurred between the time the comprehensive plan Amendment was adopted and today. Mr. Bannigan responded that when the Council looks at zoning changes it must look for substantial change in circumstances, a legal charge. He did not think there has been a substantial change, and that every factor that has come up this evening was pre-known, but that the only change is the normal growth in the area which has developed as it was planned and guided. Mayor Mertensotto asked Attorney Duffy for his additional comments. Mr. Duffy stated that there must be substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change from the comprehensive guide plan and evidence that it meets every criteria in the ordinances in order for the Council to make a zoning change. He disagreed with Mr. Bannigan's comments that only learned people can be considered. He stated that the residents have a valid right to point out safety hazards, etc. He further stated that when the Council looks at a request for a zoning change, no one has an inherent right. Developers must come in with evidence as to why rezoning should occur, and the Council must balance that against health, Page No. 2823 May 15, 1990 safety, etc. of the community. The Council must look at what's best for the community and what the law is and consider whether this should be allowed. He felt that the answer should be no, it is not good planning or good use for the land and calls for too much compromise on what's good for the City. He asked that Council say no, and that it tell the developer to try to get something that makes sense. He stated that when Mr. Putnam talked about the meeting with him as a compromise, he was promised a sketch plan and he did not have enough time to let the people know and they were left out of the process. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the matter is now before the Council and it has the proposal before it for a PUD which is effectively for the rezoning of the land. He asked what the rezoning is which is requested to take place. Attorney Hart responded that he has not studied the application for rezoning, but he presumes that the rezoning application will be consistent with the PUD. It is essentially PUD zoning in the area. With respect to the single family, it would be single family PUD, high density would be HR PUD, etc. Planner Dahlgren agreed, stating that the HR and MR PUD areas would stand on their own. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the Council approves the conditional use permit for PUD and the underlying zoning becomes whatever the units that are built in the area dictate. Mr. Dahlgren stated that the zoning for the portion of the comprehensive plan area where it shows MR can be zoned MR -PUD, the HR can be rezoned to the HR -PUD District, the PUD can allow the transfer of density across this but in this case the boundaries would be the same as they are on the comprehensive plan and they would conform to the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Cummins stated that now that it finally comes down to looking at what Council would be voting on tonight, Council does not have what it needs. He stated that he is reluctant to vote without some sort of specific document in front of him (on the rezoning), on which to base his vote. Page No. 2824 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Anderson, stated that regarding the Planner's report of April 24th, the City Planner set forth recommendations with conditions to be attached. Council must understand that it would be operating under the PUD drawing that was submitted to the Council by the developer and dated March 12, 1990, and the most recent preliminary plat which encompasses the area incorporated into the conditional use permit. Mayor Mertensotto asked that if the Council does not rezone but gives a conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development, when does Council impose conditions. Councilmember Blesener suggested that some refinement of the plan needs further consideration, but nevertheless agreed with the validity of the comprehensive plan amendments that have been done over the last several years. She did not agree that there have been significant enough changes and felt the proposal before Council conforms to all that was set forth in the comprehensive plan Amendment. The park is a bonus. She stated that she would like to put to rest some major issues so that design refinements can be addressed, and that she would like to deal with the density and park issues. She stated that she believes that the plan for 555 units is consistent with the comprehensive plan amendments and is acceptable. Also, that the park is a bonus and an excellent dedication that will serve the entire community and further that she feels Council should commit that this is a dedication the City wants. She proposed that Council deal with the rezoning to put a framework forward but not act on the conditional use permit this evening or the preliminary plan, both of which call for further review on design issues. She proposed that Council deal with the rezoning to put in place the basics. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what Councilmember.Blesener is saying is that the concept is okay , that she approves single family east of the park, 280 condominiums in the center section and the changes in the transition zone that Mr. Putnam talked about. Councilmember Blesener stated that it is her opinion that the Council could come up with a Page No. 2825 May 15, 1990 list of design and planning and traffic flow issues but put to rest the density and park issues. She wanted to defer acting on the total plan but to make a decision on the total number of units that can be built there. Attorney Bannigan stated that if the developers had a finding as to the consistency of their plan versus the comprehensive plan, and a finding that the park as conceptually drawn is acceptable, they could refine the plan and bring it back to the Council. He stated that the developers must have some determination given that the density is consistent and the park proposal is consistent in order to proceed. They need direction they can consider consistent, otherwise the discussion will continue to go round and round on the issue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no developer's agreement or conditions, so Council cannot approve the conditional use permit, because the developers agreement and conditional use permit give the Council the opportunity to impose conditions. Councilmember Cummins stated that he thought that in 1985 Council made a good and reasoned decision on the basis of aircraft noise, the City's desire to acquire park land and traffic and he feels that same way this evening, that the Council made a good decision. He stated that he has spent much time talking to the residents on the phone and that he has been listening. He further stated that he is willing to support a finding that the plan generally conforms with the comprehensive plan, and that he thinks that the density changes Council has put in place are appropriate. He further stated that he was not in general agreement with the particular proposal presented. The most important point was the question of quality of the units being proposed. He stated that the current ordinance sets certain standards for planned unit developments, one of which is that they harmonize with the development in the area. His concern was that there are homes ranging in value from $175,000 to $400,000 in value, and he is not convinced that $60,000 condominiums which may in fact become rental and that he has a serious reservation that they will stand the test of time that the City Page No. 2826 May 15, 1990 has come to expect. He stated that as it presently stands, he thinks the density is appropriate but not that the project is consistent with the kind of quality that people have come to expect in Mendota Heights. Attorney Hart commented that to the extent there is any perception that the various attorneys disagreed as to the level of change in circumstance required for a comprehensive plan change, he agrees with Attorneys Bannigan and Duffy that the proper standard is "substantial and definite change." Councilmember Hartmann stated that he thinks that the density is appropriate. He further stated that he is the only member who has been on the Council since 1979 when the original comprehensive plan was adopted to the present time. There was a concerted effort to zone this part of the southeast area so that it would provide a diversity of housing, part of that direction coming from the Metropolitan Council, and to consider the air and freeway noise impact to the land. He stated that much time was spent to arrive at the 1985 comprehensive plan Amendment, and he felt that it is safe to assume that when Council looked at the sketch plan, they consciously approved that plan, and he does not disagree with the density. Councilmember Anderson stated that, as the newest Council member with not much input on the matter in the past, if he had been on the Council in 1979 or more particularly 1985, he probably would not have voted for the amendment. He stated that he likes large lots. on the other hand, he is an attorney and he believes in the common law and the effect of precedent and does not think it is his responsibility to disregard what has transpired in the last decade, and that Council must act in good faith. He stated that City has relied on the comprehensive plan, and Council cannot just go back and change it as new neighborhoods develop. On one hand, he did not like the idea of high density, but on the other hand, the developers have worked with the City for a number of years on this project, they are good developers, and most of those present purchased their homes from these developers. He stated that Mr. Putnam and Centex have as Page No. 2827 May 15, 1990 good a reputation as can be found, and the City Planner has given his recommendation. He pointed out that Council must provide some stability and some precedent. The issue is not rezoning or the PUD, the issue is really changing again the comprehensive plan, which he felt is inappropriate. With respect to the affect on schools, many of the people in the high density area will not have big families and schools will not be adversely affected. He felt that it is not necessarily true that property values will be adversely affected. He believed Council should have integrity and stick with its earlier decision. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer has elected that the land east of the park land is single family, and that as far as he is concerned, the developer forfeits the density on that area, that he can not take that density and put it into another area. He further stated that someone said 14 of the land in the City will have 30% of the population, and he thought that is totally overcrowded and uncharacteristic of the community. He informed the audience that he was not on the Council when the comprehensive plan change was made in 1985. He felt there has been substantial change in circumstances since that time and that he does not support the proposal at all. He felt that the matter should be tabled and that staff should prepare findings. Councilmember Cummins moved that the City Council find that the density in the proposal which has been submitted by Centex and the park proposal of the PUD before Council are appropriate and further move that Council re- refer the matter to the Planning Commission which should focus its attention on specific planning issues given the fact that the Council has endorsed the density proposed and the southeast area planning: those issues to address are: buffering on 1-494 and Mendota Heights Road by way of transition between multi-family and the single family across the road; impact of traffic exiting the area, specifically the realignment of exits from Kensington which cross into Hampshire, wetlands encroachment, specifically in those wetlands covered in the requested permit; redistribution of townhouses, manor homes and condominiums to provide a more suitable Page No. 2828 May 15, 1990 distribution within the site; whether detached garages are appropriate in Mendota Heights and this proposal, including the provision of drawings by the developer of those detached garages; the issue of parking including the adequacy and appropriateness of the off-street parking scheme, including screening issues; quality of construction as proposed by the developer and compatibility with the existing housing within the southeast area; details of sidewalk and trail construction and location, including the composition of sidewalks and trails; adequacy of street right-of-way and cul-de-sac sizes; garbage storage issues raised by counsel for the neighbors; driveway easement; street access to the properties in the southeast of the southeast area, specifically access to the lots owned by the Kennedys and existing homes on Delaware; and the possibility of a limitation on long term rental on the condominiums and townhouses to be constructed in the area. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion upon agreement from Councilmember Cummins to include the following additional issues within the motion: the issue of quality of construction includes exterior materials proposed for the structure; the issue of garage setbacks from the right of way; the issue of public versus private streets; the planning issues raised in Mr. Duffy's letter dated May 15th Duffy letter identified as separate line items to be addressed; and the transition in the view from the Hampshire homes to the south, buffering, berming, etc. Discussion on the motion was as follows: Councilmember Anderson stated that he is not sure that the motion proposes to be a finding. He stated that if the Council states that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan as amended in 1985, he would support it, but if there were an interest in truly amending the comprehensive plan at this point, he would support that. Councilmember Cummins stated he thinks the density decision Council made is appropriate and that when Council gets a PUD proposal presented that meets all the criteria that the City has for a PUD he would be willing to vote to rezone the property to allow the PUD to go Page No. 2829 May 15, 1990 forward. He felt that the is not sufficient and that need still to be addressed Commission and Council and the Planning Commission to issues before Council take� rezoning. PUD before Council a great many issues by the Planning that he would like look at those s a vote on Councilmember Anderson stated that if the Council concedes that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan, Council could go ahead with the rezoning as requested. If Council cannot do that, it seems the door is left open for amending the comprehensive plan, and he would support that if it were left open. If Council is not willing to do that, perhaps there is enough hesitancy that Council should rethink the whole concept of amending the comprehensive plan before making any decision tonight. He felt that Council should not ride the fence. Councilmember Cummins stated that the purpose of the motion was to indicate that there are at least four votes on the council in favor of endorsing the comprehensive plan as it presently exists and the density it implies in the Southeast Area. He thought that it might be premature to change the zoning until the PUD is in shape for approval. Councilmember Hartmann asked if the motion is a finding that the proposed PUD before council is consistent with what is required. Councilmember Cummins responded that it is specifically a finding that the proposal the developers have given the Council on the density and park land issues conforms to the wishes of the Council. The purpose of the motion is to let the people know that density is not for discussion. Councilmember Blesener stated that further, it endorses the comprehensive plan currently in place, that Council goes on record that the density conforms with the 1985 comprehensive plan amendment. Councilmember Anderson stated that if Council makes that finding, they are locked into it, if that position is taken, Council is telling the people that the Council does not see a significant departure from the standard past Page No. 2830 May 15, 1990 five years ago. Council would be standing behind the comprehensive plan amendment done in 1985. Councilmember Cummins stated that his intent is to say that the Council stands behind the comprehensive plan as amended, as it stands today. Councilmember Blesener stated that Council must make it clear that they are not interested in amending the comprehensive plan and more particularly that the number of units on this proposal is what the Council is ready to deal with, it is less than what is allowed. She stated that she is also trying to make it clear that the developers are not obligated to continue to reduce the density because any reductions would still conform to the comprehensive plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he thinks the motion is improper and out of order, that there is no precedent under statute or in City ordinances to proceed in this manner. He stated that the application is in for approval of conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development and rezoning and wetlands permit, etc. He felt that it is not appropriate to make a finding and send it back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Hart responded that the Zoning Ordinance certainly allows Council to send the matter back to Planning Commission for further findings and investigation and to direct them to focus their attention on the issues that Councilmembers Blesener and Cummins have raised. Councilmember Anderson stated that it takes four/fifths of the Council to amend the comprehensive plan, and that Council must make it very clear that they are not going to do that. Attorney Hart stated that the intent of the motion is to focus the attention of the Planning Commission away from the issue of density for the sake of density and to specifically address the planning issues raised by the citizens and their representative. Page No. 2831 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Cummins agreed, stating that the Planning commission got lost in the density issues and did not consider the planning issues. The intent is to send the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction that density is not at issue but that Council wants them to deal with the specific issues raised. He stated that Council must let all parties know that the density issue has been resolved and that Council supports the comprehensive plan, the park land dedication, and the number of units as shown. Councilmember Anderson stated that Council does not want to limit the Commission's considerations, but if the motion intends that the Council stands behind the comprehensive plan and that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Commission must look at planning issues, he can support the motion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not consent to the density and cannot support the motion. Mayor Mertensotto called for a vote on the motion. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 - Mertensotto SIBLEY PARK PLANS AND Council acknowledged a report from Public COMFORT STATION Works Director Danielson along with Sibley Park plans and Sibley Park comfort station design, along with a preliminary cost analysis for the comfort station. Mayor Mertensotto asked how m will be stored in the comfort felt that $50,000 seems to be 500 square foot building. He Council needs to know why the for what amounts to a storage two bathrooms. ach equipment station. He very high for a stated that cost is so high building with Councilmember Blesener pointed out that it is a very basic building and did not feel there is anything that could be changed to save money. Park Commission Chair John Huber stated that Kodet Architects have indicated the structure Page No. 2832 May 15, 1990 could be built much cheaper with wood rather than block, but did not recommend this change. Administrator Lawell informed Council that one of the items Council had changed in the architectural contract was the removal of the waiver of liability clause. Kodet has objected to removal of the clause and has not signed the contract. Councilmember Blesener asked why Kodet has not agreed and pointed out that the plans are ready to go out for bid. She suggested that staff deal with the architect over the contract terms and to notify Kodet that no payment will be made to them until the contract is signed. Administrative Assistant Batchelder informed the Council that timing on construction of the park is critical and recommended that staff be authorized to take bids for the park construction. It was Council consensus that the comfort station plan be tabled and that staff be directed to try to resolve the contract issue. Councilmember Blesener stated that if Kodet refuses to agree to the contract language, staff should contact other firms for quotes for design. Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the Sibley Park design and to authorize staff to accept bids for construction of the park, not including the comfort station. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 1:05 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: thleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 2778 May 15, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Continued Board of Review Meeting Held Tuesday, May 15, 1990 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the continued meeting of the Board of Review, city of Mendota Heights, was held at 8:00 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Anderson, Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the minutes of the May 2nd Review Board meeting. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISCUSSION Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that County Assessor Marvin Pulju and Bill Peterson from the Assessor's officer were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels the residents of the Furlong Addition are entitled to reduced market values because of the problems they are experiencing in finding that their property is not marketable, problems perceived to be due to the on-site disposal systems. He stated that the County Assessor has agreed to reducing values if the Council adopts a resolution requesting such action. Mayor Mertensotto acknowledged a proposed resolution which would request a reduction in land values by a maximum of $5,000 to a minimum of $1,000 in value, and a reduction in the assessors market value for structures and other improvements of up to 10% due to curable, functional obsolescence, the total reduction not to exceed $15,000, independent of any other reduction in market value to which the owners may be entitled. He explained that the curable functional obsolescence relates to on-site systems which could be replaced with municipal systems - if this were occur, the conditions would be cured. Council acknowledged a tentative list of valuation changes, prepared by the Assessor's Office, which would result if the resolution Page No. 2779 May 15, 1990 is adopted and submitted to the County Assessor. Councilmember Blesener stated that she has a problem with the proposed resolution, because she firmly believes that the neighborhood should be bought out sometime and when the buyout becomes possible it will be starting from a lower base. She stated that she would like to have the opportunity for further information and feedback from the neighborhood. She expressed concern over the long term plans of the City, which she believes would be to buy out the neighborhood in the future - the neighborhood would be worth less if the valuation reductions occur. City Attorney Hart stated that the issue before the Board of Review involves the reduction in value for tax purposes, not for buy out purposes. If the City were to buy out in the future, the question would be the value at that time. He stated that the Assessor's Market Value is not controlling: the residents would have every opportunity to have an appraisal and the City would have to show by then-current valuations what the property value is. He reiterated that the County's market value is not controlling in any way with respect to buy out but rather that it would hopefully result in property tax savings for the property owners. Councilmember Blesener suggested that a fifth condition be added to the resolution: the reduction in market values should not impact any future negotiations for buyout. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he has no objection to the proposed condition. Councilmember Anderson stated that he feels that the condition is redundant since the City Attorney has indicated that the action proposed would have no great bearing on the sale value of the properties. He stated that Council is trying to do the property owners a favor, and that if the condition proposed by Councilmember Blesener is needed to carry the motion, he would support it. Attorney Hart stated that in addition, if any of the residents feel that their property values are being reduced too much, they are free to ask the Assessor to raise them. Mayor Page No. 2780 May 15, 1990 Mertensotto pointed out that the residents also could refuse to accept the change. Councilmember Anderson moved adoption of Resolution No. 90 -28, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING DAKOTA COUNTY TO REDUCE PROPERTY MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE FURLONG'S ADDITION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS," as amended to include a fifth condition stipulating that the reduction in market values should not impact any future negotiations for buyout. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board of Review, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:12 o'clock P.M. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor 1990 MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOARD OF REVIEW CHANGES PARCEL ID NAME ORGINAL EMV CORRECTED EMV REDUCTION AMOUNT 27- 28400 - 080 -01 MADAN NO CHANGE 27- 28400 - 010 -02 KOPPEN 104,900 90,500 - 14,400 27- 28400 - 020 -02 HSIAO 74,700 62,900 - 11,800 27- 28400 - 040 -02 GOODIJOHN 13,100 8,.100 -5,000 27- 28400 - 051 -02 GOODIJOHN 87,500 74,600 - 12,900 27- 28400 - 060 -02 FURLONG 101,900 65,900 REVIEW DONE - 36,000 27- 28400 - 070 -02 LYNCH 40,000 32,000 -8,000 27- 28400 - 091 -02 BIESSENE 84,600 72,200 - 12,400 27- 28400 - 111 -02 BERSKOW 98,900 84,700 - 14,200 21- 28400 - 112 -02 BERSKOW 7.8,600 66,900 - 11,700 27- 28400 - 010 -03 TOUSIGNANT 137,200 118,200 REVIEW DONE - 19,000 27- 28400- 021 -03 TOUSIGNANT 8,900 3,900 -5,000 27- 28400- 032 -03 HINER 116,100 101,500 - 14,600 27- 28400 - 042 -03 HINER 8,900 3,900 -5,000 27- 28400 - 070 -03 DOFFING 168,900 155,200 - 13,700 27- 28400 - 090 -03 GEIER 65,000 55,100 -9,900 27- 28400 - 110 -03 CITY MENDOTA HGTS 73,900 63,800 - 10,100 27- 28400 - 120 -03 KRENZ 11,000 6,000 -5,000 27- 28400 - 010 -04 SCHWARTZ 128,600 113,900 - 14,700 27- 28400 - 030 -04 SWANSON 100,600 86,700 - 13,900 27- 28400 - 050 -04 BELL 85,200 72,700 - 12,500 28400- 060 -04 SPERLE 91,800 79,200 - 12,600 27- 28400 - 080 -04 CITY MENDOTA HGTS 76,500 66,000 - 10,500 PARCEL ID NAME ORIGINAL EMV CORRECTED EMV REDUCTION AMOUNT 27- 28400 - 090 -04 RICHGELS 93,100 79,200 - 13,900 27- 28400 - 110 -04 LYSNE 96,100 82,900 - 13,200 27- 28400 - 130 -04 GRIEP 74,500 62,700 - 11,800 27- 28400 - 131 -04 LALLIER 1,700 1,000 -700 27- 28400 - 140 -04 LALLIER 90,500 77,300 - 13,200 27- 28400 - 151 -04 LALLIER 1,100 1,000 -100 27- 28400 - 161 -04 LECLAIRE 74,700 64,400 - 10,300 27- 28400 - 170 -04 BREDVOLD 96,600 82,700 - 13,900 27- 28400 - 171 -04 HILL 54,000 45,200 -8,800 21- 28400 - 010 -05 FRAZIER 59,100 49,600 -9,500 27- 28400 - 020 -05 MAX 52,800 43,800 -9,000 27- 28400 - 040 -05 COMPTON 93,200 79,200 - 14,000 27- 28400 - 050 -05 STEIN 68,900 58,000 - 10,900 27- 28400 - 070 -05 DERKS 92,200 79,100 - 13,100 27- 28400 - 090 -05 STATE OF MN 15,300 10,300 - 5,000