Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.28.05 Special Council Minutes JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL February 28, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. for the Council. The meeting was called to order by Chair Rotty at 7:00 p.m. for the Planning Commission. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Rotty, Barker, Larson, Richter Johnson Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Doug Bonar, Jeff Carpenter, Ann Manthey, Jay and Pat Christensen, Terry Donnelly, Brad Meeks Members Absent: Also Present: 3. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. WAIVER OF PLAT - CHRISTENSEN PROPERTY City Planner Smick stated she was recently notified by Mr. Jeff Carpenter, Attorney for the school district, that the school district is interested in platting the Christensen property. There are two ways to plat property. The first is going through the regular platting process which is a public hearing at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, and the Council approves or denies the plat. The second way is a waiver of plat. A sub-divider divides a single parcel of land into no more than two parcels. The Zoning Officer reviews administratively the waiver of plat to determine a number of things. If it meets the requirements of City Code, the waiver goes to the City Administrator for approval. The Zoning Officer gives the waiver to the sub-divider who sends it to the County Recorder. They pay a $30 recording fee. This process is done frequently. There is a $100 fee to apply for a waiver of plat. The regular platting process is $750 plus $10 per lot, a final plat fee of$300, a surety of $200 times the acreage. There are two requirements that need to be met for a waiver of plat: 1. The property is part of the recorded plat, or both parcels created by the subdivision are located outside of the urban service area identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Lots meet the minimum lot requirements of the zoning ordinance. If the Zoning Officer feels the subdivision would adversely affect the future orderly development of the property or adjacent property, the waiver may be forwarded to the Council for consideration. The Council shall waive the platting requirements unless it determines a CouncilJPlanning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 2 proposed subdivision will adversely affect the orderly development of the property or adjacent property. Staffwas contacted on February 14, 2005 by Mr. Jeff Carpenter, Attorney for the school district, regarding the waiver of pi at process. County Road 64 is to the north of the Christensen property and Flagstaff Avenue is to the east. They are proposing combining three parcels into 110 acres and split 9.93 acres off of the easterly parcel. These parcels are outside ofthe MUSA service area. This property is zoned A-I. In 2002 the agricultural district was changed to make it real farming. The code was changed to a minimum of 40 acres per parcel. Prior to that lots could be 1 acre. Parcel B, 9.93 acres, does not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Staffwanted to give guidance to the school district as to the Council's thoughts as far as approval ofthe waiver of plat and if it meets the conditions of the code. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifthey would be creating a 9.93 acre parcel or combining that with the parcel to the south. Staff did not have that information. Mr. Jeff Carpenter stated he spoke with City Planner Smick today and that is when he discovered the variance issue and they discussed combining the parcels. The parcel to the south of the 9.93 acres is 35 acres. Ifthese were combined that would create a 45 acre parcel and he understood the Christensen's would be agreeable to that. If that is the case, this would be a moot issue. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Christensen to confirm this. Mr. Jay Christensen, stated he could not give an answer now but it seemed feasible to combine those two parcels. Councilmember Soderberg explained that creating a 9.93 acre parcel is not compliant with the zoning laws. There have been other requests to do similar things. If it would be combined with another parcel it would be a moot point. If you are creating a non-compliant parcel then there is a conflict. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what his intent is with the property without combining it. Mr. Christensen stated they are in ag preserve now and would be farming for a number of years. He did not see where it would create any problems to join the parcels, but could not give a definite answer. Chair Rotty stated a few months ago they had a variance request to split a lot to create a non-conforming parcel and it was denied. In this case, he believed something could be done and did not think there is a significant hardship. It is premature to look at a variance. The Planning Commission would prefer that they combine the non-conforming parcel. Councilmember Soderberg agreed to remain consistent with the code. The Councilmembers agreed. Community Development Director Carroll stated he would agree ifthe parcels were combined, that would eliminate the current problem with meeting the minimum lot size requirement. The Zoning Officer would still have to address the other point in the waiver of plat. She will have to determine ifthe proposed division of the property would adversely affect the future orderly development of the property or adjacent property. He asked for the Council and Planning Commission's perception of orderly development. One could say that orderly development is development that is consistent with the Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan. If the guidance to staff that the use of this property for a high school site, even though that is consistent with the Comp Plan is orderly development, the waiver of plat would be approved administratively. If Council has reservations about that or says it is not orderly development, there would have to be further discussion. Councilmember Soderberg stated they have not planned on any development in that area. The area is identified in the Comp Plan as ag preserve until 2020. Councilmember Wilson noted the lot split actually corrects a previous lot split if the 9.93 acres and 35 acres are combined. The 35 acre parcel is now a legal non-conforming use. 5. COUNCIL POSITION ON AG PRESERVE PROGRAM - CHRISTENSEN PROPERTY Community Development Director Carroll stated on January 19, 2005 the school district delivered to the Environmental Quality Board a document captioned Notice of Intent. This notice was the school district's indication to the EQB that they intended to acquire by condemnation property that is currently located in the ag preserve program. On February 16, 2005 the EQB sent a complete copy ofthe notice to the City with a letter indicating they were receptive to comments ifthe Council wanted to make any. They preferred to receive comments by March 7, 2005. On the following day, there is a Tech Reps meeting who are some members of the EQB. They are heads of departments in the EQB and they go back to the EQB board members with comments as to what was discussed. March 10, 2005 is the packet deadline for the EQB meeting on March 17, 2005. Anything the City wanted to submit for the packet would have to be received that morning. They are not requiring the City to comment. The EQB does have an interest in what the elected and appointed officials have to say. The three northern parcels of the Christensen property would be the high school site. The ag preserve program is a way of providing protection for people that have agricultural property and do not want their agricultural operations end earlier than they want them to. In the absence of an ag preserve program, if a City wanted to develop something close by, the City would have a right to impose assessments on the ag preserve property and in some cases owners may be required to sell the property and take it out of ag production to meet the payments. Once a property is in ag preserve there are covenants and other documents and they are normally in ag preserve for eight years. The school has indicated to the EQB they want to use an exception that exists in the law for getting these 110 acres out of the ag preserve program immediately. In this case, the Christensen's had already filed paperwork to get out ofthe ag preserve program. There are 5-6 years left. There are five options for the Council with regard to commenting: 1. Notify the EQB that the City supports the removal of the Christensen property from the ag preserve program. 2. Notify the EQB that the City is opposed to the removal of the Christensen property from the ag preserve program. 3. Council would not indicate they are opposed to the removal from the ag preserve program, but would like the EQB to schedule a public hearing on the proposed removal of the Christensen property from the ag preserve program. 4. Decline to comment. 5. Defer any decision. Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Wilson stated in comparing this situation with the power line issue, he wondered what kind of authority the EQB has with respect to this issue. In terms of the power line issue, their opinion carried some weight and is it the same in this situation. Community Development Director Carroll replied with the power line issue, the EQB had the decision making authority. In this case, they do not have the right to permanently halt the condemnation proceeding involving the Christensen property. They can solicit comment. Based on that comment they can decide if they want to hold a public hearing. After the public hearing they have the right to suspend the condemnation proceeding for up to a year. After one year, there is nothing else they can do. The condemnation proceeding would pick up where it left off. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his perception is that there would be no use of eminent domain on the property and that is why the property was chosen. Now eminent domain will be used to take it out of ag preserve rather than taking the property from a property owner. He found that questionable. Mr. Jeff Carpenter, Attorney for the school, stated the school's purpose was to avoid condemnation. They are trying to avoid the acrimony and everything associated with the condemnation process. There is nothing acrimonious about this. The Christensen's have agreed to the entire process including the condemnation process. They have an agreement in place that provides for that process. This is solely for the purpose of eliminating the ag preserve status. Filing it with the EQB is an acceleration of the process the Christensen's have already started. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated some ofthe public understood condemnation would not have to be used for this property and now it comes out the school knew this would have to be used to get it out of ag preserve. To Councilmember Pritzlaffit does not matter ifit is used to take property from a property owner or to take it out of ag preserve. Either way you are using force to get what you want. Mr. Carpenter replied they have used this process for a number of school districts around the state. People who are directly affected by the condemnation are in a more dire position of having problems with the process. He cannot speak as to members of the public having problems unrelated to the process. From the school's perspective they did not know going into the negotiations with the Christensen's that it would be necessary to exercise condemnation. The discovery of the ag preserve was not noticed right away. The condemnation process, which is a statutorily permissible method of eliminating the ag preserve is the process most effective to accomplish the project. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt if they were going to use eminent domain they could have chosen another property that was not in ag preserve and used it for the same purpose. Mr. Carpenter stated they would have been taking property from someone who was not a willing seller. The school went to great lengths to identify parties who would be willing sellers and prioritize properties that would be most advantageous for school development. They then worked to negotiate agreements. If they used the more traditional approach of condemnation they would be in an acrimonious situation. Commissioner Larson stated he agreed with Councilmember Pritzlaff. He did not like the precedence they were setting. Ifthis were the only land they could find for a high school, he could go along with it. Right now there is another site that could be used without Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 5 going through this process. He wished there was more thought and working together between the school and the City. Since the school has a purchase agreement on another site where the high school would work, and he felt would work better for the City, he believed condemning the land in this way is the wrong way to go. He was speaking about the Angus site. He has spoken to the school board and the public and realized they need more schools. But he felt this could have a negative effect on the City. It seems like we are pushing too many people towards Lakeville and out of Farmington. As the school has another site that would work, he did not see why we need to use condemnation here. Commissioner Richter wanted to hear more about the site selection process. Mr. Carpenter stated in seeking approval of the purchase agreement for the Angus site, which the transaction has closed, there was a great deal of opposition from the community in that area for a location of a high school at that site. They have not received the same kind of concerns with the Christensen site. Commissioner Richter asked how many people complained about the Angus site. Mr. Doug Bonar, school district, replied they tallied complaints by the dozen. The room was full when area residents spoke to their distain as to the Angus site for a high school location. The school board had several evenings where discussions were held in open session to get an understanding of that particular site selection. They went through the same public process for the Christensen site and there was very little comment. As far as the process itself, it was comprehensive and lasted for 23 months. The process included land professionals, civil and special testing professionals, legal counsel, members of two respective boards and members of two respective administrations. It encompassed over 30 different variables that were reviewed over the 23 months. There was a long list of criteria established for the site selection for a school, whether it be a high school, middle school, or elementary. He reminded the public the dollars given to the school in 2000 were for the purchase of multiple sites. At this time, two sites have been selected. They continue to work with a developer for a potential third site. There is a wide array of considerations that come into the choice of any school site. They include proximity to roadways, general location with the district, access to utilities, develop ability ofthe land itself. In site locations with past projects they have experienced problems with all of these. In this analysis they have tried to investigate and review all of the potential assets and liabilities of sites. There are no perfect sites. The school also realized they are in a competitive environment, whereby other developers who wish to create commercial or residential properties are vying for the same parcels of land. They have an opportunity to reinvest those dollars to the betterment of their company and the community, the school has a limited range of funds to make several purchases of school land. Councilmember Fogarty asked why no City officials were asked to sit on the selection committee. Mr. Bonar replied he came into the committee process several months after it began. She noted he made reference to two boards, clearly it was not the City Councilor the Planning Commission, and asked which boards he was referring to. Mr. Bonar replied past school board and current school board. The school has met and conferred with the City management team for well in excess of a year. They were very detailed CouncilJPlanning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 6 meetings on the information they were gathering. CounciImember Fogarty felt there might have been better sites. She asked ifthe committee ever went back to the board and asked them to reconsider some things. The school board set out to not use eminent domain as an option, they did not want to deal with more than one property owner, and that limited the number of sites. She asked if the committee went to the board and said they were having a difficult time. Dr. Brad Meeks, Superintendent, stated the board came back to the committee as they were looking for as many options as they could get for property. The one dominating factor the board wanted to maintain was a willing seller. The last two land deals for Middle School East and Meadowview were very difficult. When the Angus site was the only property the board had an option on, and there was concern raised by the Castle Rock residents, the school received stacks of letters, e-mails, phone calls, people at board meetings, and letters to the editor regarding that property. The board asked the committee to look for another property. They talked to the Christensen's and they were willing to come back to the table, and this became the second option. There were no letters, phone calls, e-mails, no people showing up at board meetings, and there was very little discussion about the Christensen property not being a viable site. In mid-summer there was a third property, the T &C site. Part of that property was also in ag preserve. They had previously looked at that site and decided it was not suitable. They would have had to go through this same process. In November 2002 part ofthe bond referendum at the time was $10 million set aside to buy three pieces of property. When he came to the district in the fall of 2003 the school had not secured any property. Seeing the number of students coming through the school and pending enrollment they needed to find property. They found properties that would have been more acceptable, but not willing sellers. They are still looking for a third property. They are trying to match the property where they know no development will occur. Councilmember Soderberg stated there is no development planned for the Flagstaff corridor until 2020. Dr. Meeks stated in the 2020 Comp Plan there is no plan as to where new schools should be located. That should be explored and amended for growth. The school has finite resources to purchase property. The Angus site was acquired for $15,000Iacre, and Christensen is $35,000Iacre. Some property goes for double or triple that amount. Councilmember McKnight stated the MUSA committee allocated MUSA for the Christensen property for school use only. He asked ifthere was any discussion on the ag preserve issue and the extension of services to that property at the MUSA Committee. Councilmember Fogarty stated there was nothing finalized on the Christensen site. They were pretty sure the Christensen site was the site the school wanted to use. If the school was successful in getting it out of ag preserve, the City would not oppose it. Mr. Bonar stated the MUSA committee process is a land use process. He and Councilmember Fogarty with several other people were on the committee. Nothing was discussed regarding utilities. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Carpenter about the process for getting the property out of ag preserve. One would be for the Christensen's to apply, which they have. Second would be the school district's use of eminent domain. Mr. Carpenter stated the City can also take it out of ag preserve or a third way is the Governor can declare an emergency, and the fourth way is by condemnation. Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Carpenter stated regarding the Peterson/Empey site, a much larger area was in ag preserve than needed for a school site. It would have been necessary to eliminate the ag preserve on the entire site in order to develop there. The school district cannot condemn land that will not be for public school purposes so to remove the entire property would have been unlawful. Commissioner Larson asked when the Peterson and Empey properties come out of ag preserve. Staff replied the Peterson property is not in ag preserve. The Empey property will come out of ag preserve in 2030. Councilmember Wilson commended the MUSA committee for going through the process. He wanted the school district to comment on what level of involvement they sought from the City with respect to the MUSA issue. He read the Notice of Intent states, while development ofthe project property as a public school is technically inconsistent with the City's expressed intentions under the Farmington Comp Plan, such development maintains some compatibility to the City's agricultural vision. He noticed the intent letter references the Comp Plan, MUSA staging and the review process. In talking with staff, there may have been some level of discussion with the school regarding the overall process, but it seems with this extensive process and the committees and all the work involved, it is disappointing that there doesn't seem to have been as much interaction between the school district and the City knowing that on this particular project and others in the future we have to build a strong partnership. He asked Dr. Meeks to comment on the level of involvement the school district had with the City. Dr. Meeks replied there was a lot of dialogue. Beginning in September 2003 we have had monthly City/management school meetings. We discussed land and where we were at. The City would make suggestions and bring maps showing different properties. The school followed up on all suggestions and at times the land owners were not interested. Dr. Meeks felt there was a level of urgency seeing the number of students coming and needing to acquire property. He did not think there were any statements made saying a certain property is off limits. They looked at all property that was available that was brought to them. They hoped to have six parcels for the board to consider. Some withdrew at the last minute. The City and school did not always agree. There was a lot of dialogue about eminent domain. The school board did not want to exercise that option for a hostile takeover. Much of this was based on past history. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Mayor Soderberg as far as the 2020 Comp Plan. It seems the school board as gone full steam ahead without looking at the Comp Plan. There are other areas that will be developed before this property and asked why this property would work into their schedule. Dr. Meeks replied the Comp Plan is lacking as far as potential locations for schools. This has been communicated to staff. He made approximately 30 public presentations. The site location was not a hot topic with the public. They were more interested in road development. If the school would have chosen a property closer to town and gone through a hostile takeover of property the school would have had to pay a lot more money. It would not have been in the district's best interest to run out of money before acquiring three sites. We would have had to have another referendum or use the capital outlay budget. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked when the school did not receive opposition to the Christensen property, were the people Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 8 told the property would have to be taken out of ag preserve by eminent domain. Dr. Meeks did not think that was a big secret. That was discussed with the City. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he can understand the public does not like eminent domain, but in one case you tell them you have to use eminent domain on a different property, but don't mention that it has to be used to take this property out of ag preserve. Even if eminent domain is used on a different piece of property that might be better suited, you pay more for land, but lessen the cost for infrastructure. Dr. Meeks stated the infrastructure cost for the Angus site was $5.5 million compared to $6.2 million that was built in. Looking at road development around the Christensen property between 195th Street and Flagstaff and 202nd Street, access off Cedar, we are looking at 2,000 students per day plus staff plus large scale events. You need a lot of roadways to get into that site and the Christensen site seemed to offer that more than the Angus site, plus proximity to Meadowview. The school district did acquire the Angus property because they do need more property. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the Giles/Murphy property is 151 acres that has potentially 195th Street planned to go to Hwy 3 and a new north-south route close to that property. He asked if the school saw that being a major traffic concern. There would be two major arteries going to the school. Mr. Bonar replied the school did contact Mr. Murphy a long time ago and he was adamant he would not allow them to do special testing at their cost. He did not care to do business with the school district associated with a land purchase. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the eminent domain issue really bothered him. Everything has gone forward to this point and there are three pieces of property the Christensen, Peterson, and Angus properties. Mr. Bonar asked Councilmember Pritzlaff to look at the current proposed development for the Giles/Murphy property. The City is in the process of amending the Comp Plan because the City recognized that as a restricted development area. The previous Council and Commission recognized the soils in the area were not suitable for mass development. Commissioner Larson commented on the Angus property and the utilities going to it. The study and the costs were done before the golf course were purchased and felt this would have been a good opportunity for the City and the school to work together and develop the golf course from Hwy 50 to 225th Street which would have brought the utilities across the street from where the school would be. At the same time Biscayne would have been built as a county road going from 225th Street out to Hwy 50. 225th Street could have been upgraded to Hwy 3 and the cost of Biscayne would have been on the developer for that major road. It would have brought the sewer and water across the street for the school to hook up to. The school and the City could have worked together to bring the property into the City and grant MUSA and develop to the front door ofthe school, thus lessening the cost of utilities up to a school site. He also commented on there not being any school sites in the 2020 Comp Plan. When the 2020 Comp Plan was developed, the school was invited to participate in that and only once did he see someone from the school district come to a meeting to give any input. The fact that there are no school sites in the Comp Plan is not on the City. The City asked for input and did not receive any and the City did not know where they would go. The MUSA Committee suspended all meetings until the school district picked a site for the high school so they Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 9 would know where the development would go and MUSA would have to go around it. When the school reached an agreement with the Angus property the meetings were continued thinking that is where the high school would go. Then the school district said they were looking at the Christensen property. This came up at one of the last meetings. Commissioner Richter felt there is a reason for the property to be in ag preserve and would like to see it stay in ag preserve. She is not against the new school. She feels there is a better location. Commissioner Barker stated in terms of the EQB, it will come out of ag preserve if it goes through eminent domain. Community Development Director Carroll stated regardless of what the Council does, as long as there are parties that continue to pursue getting it out of ag preserve it will eventually come out. It is just a matter of whether it is done now or delayed a year. He trusts the school has done their homework as far as other sites and whether they are feasible. Chair Rotty agreed no site is perfect. There is a need for the school and the community has supported the bond referendum. This does not meet the Comp Plan. He asked if the City through the MUSA Committee or through a j oint workshop or through Council action made a commitment to the school district, the community and the voters. There is a gray area there. Weare adding houses and businesses and with that comes a commitment to provide for schools, churches and other issues. Roads will be an issue along with other things. It was at the end of the MUSA Committee that the school district proposed this site. Ifwe go with this site, it will alter the Comp Plan. It was a bit uncomfortable as we spent a great deal oftime and energy doing the Comp Plan, but if this is something we need for a growing community, we would be willing to look at it. There was a joint meeting and some action taken. Community Development Director Carroll explained the Council adopted a resolution with a map attached showing the Christensen property as MUSA allocated upon removal of ag preserve - school use only. He has been asked if the Council's adoption of the MUSA phasing plan meant that the Council had spoken in favor of taking this property out of the ag preserve program. Staff feels the previous Council did not intend to imply that. The concerns expressed were if we agree to give MUSA to this property now not knowing whether it will come out of the ag preserve program, if it ends up not coming out or the school shifts its attention to another site and the Council has already given MUSA to that project, does that mean that anyone else that wants to develop can do that. He understood the MUSA Committee to say the school district has some hurdles to clear, including getting the property out of ag preserve and some Comp Plan issues. In the event the school district is successful in doing that, the MUSA Committee did not want MUSA to be the hurdle that holds them up. He did not get a clear signal from the Councilor the MUSA Committee that the wording that was put on the MUSA phasing plan meant the MUSA Committee, Planning Commission and Council were all in favor oftaking it out ofthe ag preserve program. That was an issue to be addressed later. Community Development Director Carroll addressed some other points. There has been discussion that the Comp Plan does not designate high school sites or zoning for future Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 10 school sites. Our Comp Plan is not any different than any other city's. There are challenges involved in the City unilaterally picking a private property owner's property and saying we will put a school here without knowing ifthe school is interested in the property or if they can afford to buy it or develop it. The material the school submitted to the EQB refers to the Comp Plan saying it does not in it's planning through 2020 appear to designate additional public or semi-public areas for future educational facility expansion. This is understandable that it is unrealistic for the City to incorporate within it's comprehensive planning, the school district's facilities needs. It is therefore assumed that such facility needs were in part outside the scope ofthe Farmington Comprehensive Plan. This is the part the planners disagree with. The fact that school sites were not designated does not mean the Comp Plan does not envision they would be needed. The planners envisioned when you look at a Comp Plan and you give designations to properties there are some designations that are appropriate for schools and others that are not. If you designate property as public, semi-public you can put a school there. You can have a school in residential district. But a commercial, industrial, or urban reserve district may not be appropriate for schools. The question is what will the impact be on the Comp Plan - to what use will the Comp Plan be put. There have been others coming in that wanted to do things in the urban reserve area and staff and Council have said you can't as that is contrary to the Comp Plan. Council can change the Comp Plan, but it is not changed yet. Staff is expected to tell people what the Comp Plan requires and act in a way consistent with that. If someone proposes a use inconsistent with that, staff has to advise Council what the options are. Weare on the track to have the most important issue answered at the end of the process with the EQB rather than at the beginning, which is when the Comp Plan will be changed. Staff feels this needs to be addressed up front. The underlying question is what to do with the area on the west side oftown. People have already asked staff about development in that area. No development is envisioned in this area for 15 years. Even if the Christensen property comes out of ag preserve in 5 or 6 years, that does not mean development will occur. Residential development will not occur until someone requests a change in the Comp Plan and zoning. Mayor Soderberg realized the Comp Plan does not envision any use of the land identified as urban reserve until 2020. Yet our A-I zoning allows for conditional use for a school. Is there an inconsistency with the Comp Plan and the zoning? Commissioner Larson replied when the Comp Plan was reviewed they took input from the property owners on the west side and they indicated they did not want development until 2020. Mayor Soderberg stated the 2020 Comp Plan is a document created by the Council, Planning Commission, and public input. Commissioner Larson stated the Comp Plan dictates where development will occur. With the investment made in the Spruce Street extension, it went along with our Comp Plan and where development will occur to support that. We made a huge investment in the Spruce Street extension. We need to think about what changing the Comp Plan and placing a school on the Christensen property will do to that investment. Maybe we do not get the traffic that some ofthose commercial developers would like to see and that delays commercial development which everyone wants more retail and commercial to help with property taxes and that may not happen with the school on the Christensen property. Ifwe go against that, we are going against our investment in the Spruce Street extension. CouncilJPlanning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 11 Community Development Director Carroll stated it does seem inconsistent to have A-I zoning which allows a school as a conditional use and have the same piece of property have a different Comp Plan designation that seems to preclude that. Met Council's definition of urban reserve is an area being held in reserve for future urban development. The other theory is the preservation of agricultural land. If there is a conflict between the Comp Plan and the zoning, the Comp Plan is the controlling factor. The Comp Plan would have to be changed even if the zoning remained A-I so the designation is something other than urban reserve as that is inconsistent with school use. Mayor Soderberg asked if the designation of the parcel were changed to public, semi-public does that dictate that we need to make other changes along Flagstaff and take that out of urban reserve? Staff stated it does not dictate that. The message it will send is that the City no longer sees all of this area as urban reserve for 15 years. You have made an exception and provided utilities and roads. The pressure would be on the Council, Planning Commission and staff to hold the line or change the line. People have already come forward asking to be part of development in that area. If Council wants to change the Comp Plan for only this property, they can do that, assuming the Met Council agrees. The Met Council can deny a proposed Comp Plan even if the City is in favor of it, if they believe it is contrary to regional interests. Commissioner Larson asked if the school does go there and Flagstaff is improved from Hwy 50 to 195th Street and sewer is brought into the school, once the land comes out of ag preserve and is developed, are those property owners assessed for the upgrades or is it all on the taxpayers. City Administrator Urbia replied staff made it clear to the school the City does not have the capability to bond for that. Many people want to see roads extended, but you need developers to pay for it or if the City does it, you need to have an assessment. If you do not have those minimums according to state statute you cannot build a road. With the feasibility study, the City feels the study would be up to the Lakeville/Farmington border. The pavement should be for the entire stretch of Flagstaff. City Attorney J amnik stated the City has no authority to assess for any improvements against properties in ag preserve. The statute specifies no structure has any benefit to ag preserve property. It is an open question as to whether the City may re-assess or collect as a condition of development, infrastructure costs for previous improvements constructed in the area while the property was in ag preserve and try to collect it once the property comes out of ag preserve. We have asserted in previous situations that we have the authority to do that. Some legislative staff, state representatives and attorneys indicate we cannot do that. If we constructed a road improvement or sewer and water and properties are in ag preserve that we have to cross, we cannot assess currently. If those properties come out of ag preserve in the normal course of ag preserve issues and are slated for development in 2021 or 2024 and they have a sewer line and water line going across the front and they want to tap in free of charge and put in 500 housing units, we do not know if we can charge for those past infrastructures. Our position has been and will be that we will try to collect as it would be unfair for that parcel to benefit for improvements that someone else financed. The attorneys for the property owner may say no. The laws have changed within the last 10 years. Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 12 Councilmember Fogarty asked if parcels not in ag preserve could be assessed. Attorney Jamnik replied yes. Commissioner Larson stated the properties in ag preserve along the Flagstaff corridor chances are they will not have to pay for the upgrades on Flagstaff to 195th Street and sewer and water. The developer that buys the property or the land owners along Flagstaff are getting a free ride. Attorney J amnik stated during the time they are in ag preserve they cannot be charged or assessed. Currently we have the ability to fight that battle before development is approved. That may change in the future. Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission's issue is was a commitment made to the school district through the MUSA expansion and in this decision, is the Council, the Commission and staff willing to make a significant Comp Plan amendment to allow a school in the A-I district. Mayor Soderberg stated it is preferred to see the land remain in ag preserve until it comes out naturally. Chair Rotty stated the Commission is split. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he would want to see the land come out of ag preserve naturally. He would not like to see that large of an amendment to the Comp Plan. Councilmember Wilson stated a Comp Plan will not designate where a school will be. He supported the referendum as he sees a need for the school. The issue is whether this location and altering the Comp Plan makes sense. He is not convinced that it does. He is torn because he does believe the school district went through a process they felt best identified properties, even though he would have liked more communication between the City and the school. He is not convinced this is the best location and this should be removed from the ag preserve status because of the other infrastructure costs associated with it. That puts the City in a precarious position for known development in 2015 and beyond. It is incumbent on the Council to be cognizant of actions today along with impacts of tomorrow. Dr. Meeks stated one thing they are zeroing in on with the Comp Plan is 200S. In 2008 they will exceed capacity with over 1200 students at the high school. Whether it is delayed a year or not, at 2009 we will not only be overcrowded at the high school, but the whole plan is contingent on grade shifts, new buildings opening and new boundaries going into place in 200S. That will have a ripple effect for 6,000 students. The road improvements and utilities were part of the bond referendum. It is not money the City will have to come up with to build that. Councilmember Wilson asked Dr. Meeks to specify where the starting and stopping points are ofthe infrastructure. Dr. Meeks stated the roadway improvements will go from Hwy SO to 19Sth Street. Mr. Bonar stated it is the school's intent to work with the county, Lakeville, Farmington and the Met Council to adapt the sewer run to the Met Council's sewer as it comes past the area. He would concur that the Council needs to be cognizant of the risk the district is taking bonding for utility and roadway improvements along Flagstaff Avenue south of 19Sth Street. The school will share, if not shoulder, that burden for any future assessments for any benefiting properties in the next 20 to 21 years. He reminded the Council neighborhood elementary schools are welcome. Neighborhood high schools are not. Our curriculum established for a high school keeps the farm in Farmington. It was outlined in the submittal that went to the EQB. It is an illustration of the thoroughness the school has taken to provide the necessary resources for recognized parties to make decisions. With Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 13 respect to the zoning for the area to the west of the community, the Council is within their authority to call any type of moratorium and delay any future development until thoroughfare plans or master plans will be fully and wholly completed in the western sections of the community. It has been done successfully in other areas. While schools were not recognized in the Comp Plan, the Council has been adopting and recognizing the overlays of trails and parks onto what this time is private property and fully recognized by those owners the potentials that exist in the not too distant future. Ifthat were to occur now, in the past or in the future it would obviously help the community as a whole help the community understand the necessary infrastructure of education. No different than trails or parks. Mr. Bonar stated what the school put together as their Comp Plan for education, he realized the Council has a different constituency and a different mission. You serve the same students and families that we do in part. Councilmember McKnight stated he understood the importance of the Comp Plan and the large amount of work that goes into creating and maintaining it. He also understands how important this is in guiding the development of the City. One comment made earlier is does it meet the Comp Plan - no, but for that to be important to him it has to reach a high standard. Ifthis high school is such a unique project and a unique institution in our community, there is not going to be another one coming to compete with it. That is what pushes him towards supporting removing the property from ag preserve. What pushed him over the edge was what the voters had to say. Councilmember Fogarty stated she voted for the referendum and sees the need for a school. Dr. Meeks stated if this gets a recommendation where it is pushed off for a year, they still intend to build there. Ifit gets pushed off to 2009, her stake is that this is the year her daughter starts high school. It is inevitable that the high school will be there. Her biggest concern is that making sure the school district is not short sighted in the things that need to be done. She cannot count the number oftimes she has heard about transportation. She wants the district to find a way to help 20Sth Street go through. It is laid out in the thoroughfare plan to go through the center of the new high school. In the future she will push very hard for Flagstaff to go through to 170th Street. It needs to be paved the entire way. Her other concerns are she does not want to see any of the utility services coming from Lakeville. Her last issue is with development. She does not care if this school sets out there like an island. She has no intention of giving into development pressures and she hoped the school district would not begin to advocate it. She realized it is a great deal of infrastructure cost to carry for a number of years. This is a very unique reason to take property out of ag preserve. She is not interested in a bunch of housing units going up out there. She agreed we need to look at the Comp Plan in general and this will change how they look at this area. She does not care if the school is there like an island for 15 years. She thanked Dr. Meeks, Mr. Bonar and Mr. Carpenter for coming and answering questions and listening to concerns. She would like to sit neutral on this issue or approve it. Mayor Soderberg stated we have properties out there currently not in ag preserve. If development occurs and the road and utilities go in do we have the ability to assess those properties that are not in ag preserve, or do we have to wait until those properties CouncilJPlanning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 14 develop. Attorney Jamnik replied they can be assessed immediately. Mayor Soderberg asked if putting in a paved street and sewer and water benefit the properties. Attorney Jamnik replied that is the question on special benefit analysis as to whether the market value of the property is increased by the improvement that is constructed. That is determined after an appraisal is done. The City assumes that if properties are served by water and sewer and roadway we presume that they are benefited, but the ability to sustain that depends on the market appraisals. Mayor Soderberg stated it is apparent the proposed project does not match the Comp Plan. As Councilmember Fogarty stated, we have to review our Comp Plan anyway by 200S. Coincidentally that is the year the school district has identified as the completion time for all oftheir projects. There has been discussion of starting the review ofthe Comp Plan process soon. There are some other issues such as transportation. 20Sth Street is very important to the City and it has been identified in the Comp Plan and the Transportation Plan. The City needs a commitment from the school district. He would like to discuss this tomorrow night at the joint meeting with the School Board. Flagstaff does need to go to the northern boundary. Weare looking at 3 miles of roadway that is in ag preserve and that is a lot of money. It is a gamble as to whether it can be assessed back and whether it will be a free ride for those land owners. Given the options, he would either remain neutral or support the removal from ag preserve because we do need the high school. The voters weighed in on it, knowing where it was at. The problems identified are clearly there and they are hurdles. If the City can commit to the school and the school can commit to the City we can get over these hurdles. We have a split Council as well as a split Planning Commission as to whether to support or oppose the removal of the property from ag preserve. He recommended to the rest of Council to remain neutral and not offer any comments to the EQB. Councilmember Fogarty stated she does not want to not comment to the EQB. She feels it is important they understand this conversation. She wanted a summary that we have a Council and Planning Commission that are split and here are some of the concerns we have, but we wish to remain neutral. She did not want the EQB to think Council did not talk about it and address it and have no opinions. We do, they are just not decisive one way or the other. City Administrator Urbia suggested preparing a summary statement and including the minutes. Council agreed. Councilmember McKnight stated he supported the removal from ag preserve. But the split comment says can't they make up their minds. Councilmember Fogarty suggested saying a majority of Council supports removal of the property from ag preserve. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to notify the EQB that the City supports the removal of the Christensen property from ag preserve and pledges to work with the school district on the following issues: Extension of20gth Street to the east and the west, additional transportation issues, additional infrastructure issues not addressed in the bond referendum and review the Comprehensive Plan to address the issue. Councilmember Wilson stated he was persuaded by Councilmembers Fogarty and McKnight. He is not a big fan of the site location and that it is contrary. We need the school and the reason he supported the referendum was he reviewed the numbers and there is a definite need. Giving some thought, he will support the motion but do hope and CouncilJPlanning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 15 believe, starting tomorrow, establish good, constructive dialogue with the school board members and work together on these issues which will concern the Council and Planning Commission with respect to infrastructure. He is concerned with those costs and is concerned with the position they could put themselves in. He is changing his position and does support the motion. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he supported the referendum because we need a new school. We need transportation. He has serious problems with taking property out of ag preserve through eminent domain. It was never perceived that we would use that. He will stand that he would like it to come out of ag preserve naturally. As far as the Comp Plan, if we are going to review it, he will agree with Council to review it. Again, it is a significant amendment to the Comp Plan. He will work with the school, but those two issues are a hurdle he cannot jump over. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Wilson. Voting no: Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. Community Development Director Carroll stated he will prepare a letter to the EQB summarizing the motion that was made and what the vote was. He will also attach a copy ofthe minutes. Chair Rotty agreed to have the Commission's comments included. The Planning Commission is a 2-2 split regarding removing the property from ag preserve and reviewing the Comp Plan. Community Development Director Carroll asked for direction regarding the waiver of plat. Mayor Soderberg stated if in the waiver of plat process we create two parcels that are compliant with the current zoning it will be supported by the Council and Planning Commission. Chair Rotty stated in having a lot that is non-conforming he would find it difficult to find a hardship. That is what the Commission would base a variance on. He agreed with Mayor Soderberg. If a non-conforming lot comes to the Council, Mayor Soderberg would not approve it. Community Development Director Carroll stated regarding whether this would adversely affect the future orderly development ofthe property, even ifthe zoning officer made that determination or brought it back to Council, there would not be a majority Council that would approve it. Mayor Soderberg stated a 40 acre parcel does not adversely affect orderly development. Ifby granting a waiver of plat we create two parcels that are 40 acres or greater, that is compliant with the current Comp Plan and zoning, and does not adversely affect future development, Council and the Planning Commission agreed. Mayor Soderberg asked City Planner Smick to look at parking in the downtown district in the future. It has to do with requiring hard surfaces backing up to alleys versus gravel. The current zoning requires a hard surface parking area adjacent to a gravel alley. Council/Planning Commission Minutes (Special) February 28, 2005 Page 16 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ /77dIL Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant