Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.04.02 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR March 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7 :00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch Matt Brokl, Acting City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Michael Noonan, John Frank, G.M. Jolley, Earl Teporten, Michelle Leonard, Steve Hofer, Tim and Tyler Stienkeoway 4. APPROYEAGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled the Council Minutes as she was absent from the February 19,2002 Council Meeting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) ASLA Award The Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects reviewed the downtown streetscape and awarded Farmington a merit award of landscape design for the downtown streetscape. A banquet will be held in April to present the award. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/19/02 Regular) (2/20/02 Special). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan approving Council Minutes (2/19/02 Regular) (2/20/02 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTIONS RI4-02, R15-02, R16-02 Approving Private Development Closeouts - Engineering c) Approved Senior Center Key Deposit - Parks and Recreation d) Set March 18, 2002 Public Hearing - Liquor License - Administration e) Approved Consulting Services Fiber Optics to Fire Station - Finance Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 2 f) Adopted RESOLUTION R17-02 Request from Chamber of Commerce - Defer Action of No Smoking in Restaurants and Bars - Administration Adopted RESOLUTION R18-02 Accepting Donation Cataract Fire Relief Association - Finance h) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (I'his item was moved forward to accommodate the audience). b) St. Michael's Church Property -Administration Mr. Robert Vogel, Consultant to the Heritage Preservation Commission presented a report from the HPC's last meeting regarding the St. Michael's Church property and other religious properties and historic buildings in Farmington. The City is committed to historic preservation, which it interprets as providing a form of special protection through zoning to significant historic resources. The City is not committed to protecting everything that is old. The primary reason to afford protection to these resources is so they can be used for useful purposes and functional. In the case of the St. Michael's Church property, it has been recognized as a potential heritage landmark. A report prepared in 1998 singled it out as a property worth considering, and it is also specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. When the church was vacated, the HPC became interested in the future of the property. There was a consensus that it was historic and eligible for some kind of protective coverage under city ordinance. It was unclear as to how it could be used. The HPC recommended the City undertake a reuse study, which is done to assess a particular building. The City administratively did not pursue that, possibly because of traditional shyness of government entities to become involved with religious properties. There was a presumption that filtered to the HPC about the City's official involvement in the disposition of the church property. There were meetings between interested parties and City staff, but there was no real game plan that involved the HPC. It was assumed at some point someone would come forward with a use for the property and at that time the HPC would become involved. Within the last few weeks, the HPC became concerned due to news articles about the sale and redevelopment of the property. The HPC does not think there has been enough discussion at the policy making level about what the impact would be if the church building itself was gone. Also, what will happen to the other church properties in Farmington? The HPC does not see where this has been discussed. There could be a radical change in the property without any public discussion. The HPC does not think all of the reuse alternatives have been examined. It is in the City's interest to take time out to allow for discussion regarding what to do with religious buildings and how important is it that the St. Michael's Church remain standing. There is concern the building could disappear before any of these discussions take place. The HPC is asking for authorization to work with City staff to assemble a task force to look at church related properties, and come up with a vision as to how the City regards them as community assets. And also a time out for demolition to occur on any historic buildings as a temporary measure during discussions. Mayor Ristow asked 19 months ago the HPC looked at this? Mr. Vogel replied the HPC asked the City to authorize the reuse study which would have involved Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 3 City administrative staff to do, and possibly outside architectural help. The HPC had identified experts both inside the City and outside who were willing to participate; however a reuse study was not done. Mayor Ristow inquired about buildings 50 years or older. Does that include all buildings, including houses? Mr. Vogel replied yes, the 6-month figure for a moratorium on demolition for these buildings was based on his experience. Mayor Ristow then asked about the reuse of the building. Mr. Vogel replied the building could be used for another church organization, or converted to housing, office space, commercial space, art centers or museums. Councilmember Soderberg asked about a statement in Mr. Vogel's report, "However, by ordinance the HPC must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on development projects that may impact a significant historic property - which I interpret to mean any building with preservation value (regardless of its landmark status) within the visual area of potential effects." Councilmember Soderberg asked what the visual area of potential effects includes. Mr. Vogel replied it is the area within the view shed, when standing in a particular spot what do you see. The visual effects on historic properties are just as important as the direct ones. Councilmember Soderberg asked about designating historic landmarks. He felt as long as the landowner is willing to participate, that is something Council would move forward on. Mr. Vogel replied there must be a partnership between the owner and the City with that designation. Councilmember Soderberg then asked regarding the 6-month moratorium for demolition on all buildings 50 years or older, if that would be an ongoing moratorium for all applications or from today's date through 6 months from now. Mr. Vogel replied it would be from today's date. This is an unusual situation because of the City's shyness in getting involved 2 years ago. Councilmember Soderberg stated Mr. Vogel alluded to the shyness in getting involved. Was that a recommendation by the HPC to Council or an administrative recommendation? Mr. Vogel stated it was a recommendation to the Council. The HPC understands what Council receives comes through the staff process. Councilmember Soderberg stated that when there is a Council appointed advisory board that makes a recommendation to Council, he wants to see that recommendation. Some of this could have been avoided if that had taken place. Councilmember Soderberg then asked Father Gene Pouliot regarding the alternate uses of the church. Father Gene was attending on behalf of the parish along with parish trustees, John Frank and Gem Jolley, and administrator Steve Hofer. They are also interested preserving the heritage of Farmington. Father Gene stated during the past 2 1/2 years they have exhausted all means of preserving the church, including discussions with the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and the Dakota County Community Development Agency. Discussions were also held with other churches, school district, the City of Farmington, arts council, redevelopment investors for multi and single family dwellings, small businesses and a host of property developers. Due to construction of a new church, it is prudent the church entertains any reasonable offer to purchase the property to meet their financial obligations. Without the sale of the entire property, they would not be successful in funding the construction of the new facility. Farmington Development Company was the first to approach them with a Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 4 purchase agreement. The church was initially contacted by the company two years ago, and declined further discussion in anticipation of selling to an organization that would retain the existing structure. Although St. Michael's is not in favor of demolition, this may be necessary in order to sell the property. The vast majority of church members they have heard from concur with this direction. Universal catholic church law states the church should be demolished so it does not get into the wrong hands for inappropriate use. The church has preserved several stained glass windows, the statues, the bell, and a number of devotional items. Should demolition occur, the church would be happy to help the HPC in efforts to preserve a historical record of the structure by making their archives available. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the church would have any objection to an arts center or senior use. Father Gene replied that would be acceptable. Councilmember Cordes stated Mr. Vogel said that with preservation in the downtown area, the property owners have taken an interest. The church has exhausted all possibilities. If the property owner is unable to take it on, she does not know how the City can take on that project. Father Gene stated they have tried for 2 1/2 years to save it. Councilmember Strachan stated if the HPC's request is granted, and a study is done, the church's concern is that the building be demolished, and whatever replaces it is consistent with the neighborhood. If it is not demolished the church wants to make sure there are some controls over the use of the church. Councilmember Cordes stated that by placing a 6-month moratorium on demolition how does that affect the sale that is already started? Mr. John Frank stated that would put a significant financial strain on the church. They would like to proceed with the sale of the property. Mayor Ristow asked if there was a contingency with the sale. Mr. Frank replied the only contingency is that the City approves the plans. Mayor Ristow stated that could take more than 6 months. Mr. Frank stated ifthere is a contingency with a date then they could revisit the date and negotiate. Councilmember Soderberg stated we are discussing preservation vs. demolition. To loose the structure and what it has meant to the community would be a tragic loss. If someone were to come forward and preserve it somehow to a use that would be honoring and right for the community, that person would be perceived as a hero and would be leaving a significant mark on the City. If the building is demolished, the persons involved in that might not be perceived so highly. Preserving the building is greater than a single entity it requires multiple entities. Mayor Ristow was concerned about what kind of disruption it would be for the area. Time is needed to study plans. Councilmember Strachan asked if the time frame were shorter than 6 months, what would that do to the process. Mr. Vogel replied that the 6-month time line reflects more how the moratorium would affect other developments in the community. Councilmember Strachan stated there are three prongs to this issue. The first is to demolish or not to demolish. The second is the preservation of the historic building. The third is linked to the Lutheran church nearby and how all of this affects the neighborhood. If it were a shorter period can we accomplish those goals? Mr. Vogel replied in three months we could complete the study to look at all historic religious properties and identify what role they play and what are the preservation issues, and reuse issues. We Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 5 could do a reuse assessment of St. Michael's in that time. We could gather the information that a development entity that specializes in those kinds of properties could give you. Once the wrecking ball goes into play, you do not have a second chance. This building has not gotten a second or third chance like the exchange bank building received. The study will be done in whatever amount of time Council allows. What should be looked at quickly is what role could the City have in not just the St. Michael's property but other historic properties. A study could be done in three months and then you could say the City has done its part. Councilmember Strachan stated no one wants to go through the motions without positive results. At the same time we want to have our eyes open as to what the process is and to what is going to be there. The community also needs to be respectful of the church and their plans. Councilmember Cordes stated the Catholic Church made a conscious decision to build a new church knowing full well that building may come down. Would we be having this same discussion if they had decided to add on to the church which would have changed the look of the building. She would like to see the church stay, but it comes down to landowner's rights and privileges. Putting a 6-month moratorium on development in that area, at the end of 6 months are we going to find someone who will preserve the building? The City cannot put money up front to preserve the building. Mayor Ristow asked if the HPC would also be involved in the Lutheran church. Mr. Vogel replied he assumes we would meet with the same group of people involved in this church to make sure we identify all the interested parties and construct some way for them to see the information the staff gathers. Councilmember Cordes asked about the building designated as heritage landmarks. The owners have undertaken all of the preservation without any City involvement. Mr. Vogel stated there were originally five landmarks. The Lyric Theatre building was withdrawn, as the owners, Premier Bank, could not guarantee they would have an interest in preserving it. The bank needs space, not that particular building. There is a way to get the bank what it wants and still have the building for another use. The City won't preserve anything; it is the people that own the buildings. Councilmember Strachan stated the motion before us does not designate the building as a landmark, only that it meets the criteria. Mr. Vogel stated there is one task that is not subject to Council consent and that is the HPC's determination that something meets the criteria. It is Council's decision as to whether to go with the designation or not. Acting City Attorney Matt Brokl stated you have before you a proposal that is two pronged. You have a proposal to look at churches within the City as to historic designation. The moratorium for that purpose would be to study the uses. That is legally doable. The other prong is that you have a specific plan for a specific property with a specific property owner, St. Michael's Church. The City Attorney's office would not be supportive of the Council moving forward and we do not believe it would be a good idea at this time to invoke a moratorium that would affect the St. Michael's property. Again, 19 months ago a moratorium that affected the property would have been appropriate. At this time the property owner has told you they have entered into a contract for the sale of this property. They told you they would be economically impacted by any type of delay. Financially they have an interest and they have a contract. At this time it would Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 6 not be the City's intent to interfere with a contract, nor would it be feasible to put a moratorium in place as to that property at this time. As to other properties, it does make sense and also to move forward with a study. Perhaps the City could look at this as a wake up call to other properties in town. Without the consent of the new owner, the developer, this moratorium could have significant impact on the parties to that contract. Therefore, the City Attorney's office could not recommend that you invoke a moratorium that would impact the contract. Councilmember Strachan asked if that could be considered a taking. Mr. Brokl replied yes. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is what troubles him about a moratorium is that it interferes with a contract between two private parties. Mr. Brokl stated the dialogue is very important. The idea behind keeping the church is a good one, if the developer can find an appropriate use. They are further along in the process legally than that at this time. He did not want to bring this up right away because this dialogue is important, but we cannot support a moratorium that affects this property at this time. Councilmember Soderberg stated the reuse study is a good idea. He then asked the church and the developer if St. Michael's would consent to being included in a reuse study for that property without a moratorium? Mayor Ristow then called the developer to the podium. Councilmember Cordes stated to pose that question to the developer and the church, they would have to have private discussions and it is unfair to ask them in a public forum like this. Mr. Garvey, the developer, stated he agreed with Councilmember Cordes and he had no comments. Councilmember Strachan stated the City couldn't get in the way of private contracts. At the same time, you have two sides of a contract who have agreed who are not interested in a moratorium. So the moratorium becomes an issue outside of those two parties. The City would be exposed to a legal liability if the moratorium were placed. We need to talk about the process and method used to get the reuse study done. Our eyes should be open to all historic buildings and making sure what goes into the St. Michael's property is consistent with the neighborhood. Councilmember Soderberg stated as far as the items requested, item 1 is to issue a finding that St. Michael's Church meets the criteria for designation as a heritage landmark. There is no problem with that finding in that it only works when the landowner wishes to have that designation placed on a building. Item 2 request interested parties to meet to discuss preservation value, this could be done and they have the right to decline. Item 3 the 6-month moratorium is scratched. Item 4 authorization of a study of the preservation value and reuse of historic buildings would be in order. Councilmember Strachan added a statement to item 2 for the Planning Commission to make sure the plan is consistent with the neighborhood. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is outside of this particular HPC recommendation. The Planning Commission should consider that separately. Mr. Vogel stated that is already made clear in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Ristow asked if this would eliminate buildings 50 years and older? Attorney Brokl stated he would like to meet with staff over the next two weeks and bring a recommendation to Council as to whether a moratorium might be appropriate to properties in general, not including the St. Michael's property. Ifnothing else, if you authorize a study so that a year from now if another property should come up Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 7 you have some idea how to act. Mr. Vogel asked if Council is telling the HPC to not proceed any farther in the process to designate St. Michael's as a heritage landmark. Councilmember Strachan stated we are instructing the HPC not to proceed with designating it as a heritage landmark without the full consent of the owner. Mr. Vogel stated that has been the HPC's practice that is not what the code requires. He did not want the HPC to consider directing him to prepare the nomination documents. He does not want to be in that position or have the HPC in that position. Council is saying it is a matter of policy to not designate it as a landmark, because obviously we do not have support of the owner. Attorney Brokl will prepare a summary of what was discussed and bring it back to the March 18, 2002 Council Meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Consider Resolution - Elm Street Easement Vacation - Community Development The City is seeking to vacate a street easement within the South Suburban First Addition on Lot 1, Block 1. It is a remnant piece of Elm Street that is no longer needed. The issue came up, as there is a property owner that would like to purchase 10 feet of property along the rear property line. The 10 feet of property encroaches into the City owned street easement. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R19-02 approving vacating a street easement within the South Suburban 1 st Addition on Lot 1, Block 1. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Resolution - 2002 Sealcoat Project - Engineering The 2002 seal coat project is the ninth project in the City's seal coat program. Several streets in the project area have already been assessed for seal coat costs through their respective development contracts. The remaining streets will be assessed. Costs will be assessed to benefiting property owners per the City's assessment policy. The special assessment policy indicates a 50/50 split between the City and the benefiting properties. The estimated assessment is $65.41 per residential equivalent unit. The total project cost is $101,000. One fax was received which staff is interpreting as an objection to the project which stated, street maintenance is one of the things I am paying for with property tax. Special assessment is wrong. The property owner is Robert and Kathryn Kane, 5815 Upper 183rd Street W. Councilmember Soderberg stated while seal coating is a function of street maintenance, there are certain properties that do not pay taxes and by doing it this way everybody gets involved in paying for the street maintenance including those that do not pay taxes, but do use the streets. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R20-02 ordering the 2002 seal coat project, approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 8 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion Grove 2nd Additional Development Contract- Engineering The 2nd Addition is the final addition of the Vermillion Grove development. Conditions of approval are the standard conditions with one exception as follows: - The developer agrees to construct the sanitary sewer line along the east side of the development that will service various properties along Akin Road adjacent to Vermillion Grove 2nd Addition. The developer will be responsible for 25% of the costs of the sanitary sewer and the City will reimburse the developer for the remaining 75% of the sanitary sewer costs. If the residents along Akin Road do not agree to participate in the sewer project by signing an improvement, assessment and easement agreement by May 1, 2002, the developer will not be required to construct said sewer improvements. The City will have some share in the costs ofthe line for the Akin Road residents in case any of those lots split. The City cannot assess for more than one lot at this time, so the City will carry the cost for those future lots. Those costs would be assessed in the future if those lots were to split. Councilmember Soderberg stated all of the residents must participate, so one resident could hold the project up. Staff replied that is conceivable and if that should happen, it would be brought to Council and discussed if one resident would hold it up or more than one, and do we put the sewer in and allow for a future connection by the uninterested property. This is the most cost-effective way to provide sewer service to these properties at this time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R21-02 approving the execution of the Vermillion Grove 2nd Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Set Workshop Date - Ash Street Project - Engineering At the last workshop that was held on the Ash Street project, it was agreed that upon completion of the draft feasibility report, the Township and City would review the report at separate workshops and then subsequently schedule the next joint workshop for further discussions. A workshop was set for March 19,2002 to discuss the draft report for the Ash Street project. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Council member Strachan: Attended the Senior Center lunch and spoke with the seniors about the City. Planning Coordinator Smick took the seniors on a tour of the City. Missie Kohlbeck does a great job at the Senior Center. He received a copy of a letter from City Administrator Shukle to the legislators thanking them for their hard work in making sure the cities were not punished for good financial planning. Council member Soderberg: Talked with the security at the FAA and the barricades on Spruce Street will be taken down approximately April 1. He was approached by a member of the Presbyterian Church and was told their parking lot is being used for skateboarding and asked about skatepark facilities. Councilmember Soderberg informed Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 9 him of the plans for the skatepark. The church members asked if the City would be willing to place some low-level equipment in their parking lot so kids would have another place to go. This will be taken to the Parks and Recreation Commission. City Administrator Shukle: The legislature did override the Governor's veto of the budget bill. After that there is still a projected $439 million deficit for the state. Finance Director Roland stated the Governor is pressuring the house and senate to come up with a way to solve this shortfall. After the veto was overridden the $2 billion in statewide cuts became law last Friday. The additional $439 million could be remedied through one time monies which would not solve the problem. They could also look at aid to cities. Staff anticipates they will not do that in the current year. The Governors' original big fix would have eliminated $356,000 of2002 funding from the City of Farmington had it passed. This would be 4.5% of the City's general fund budget. Without that cut taking place the City has the ability to look at how this will affect us in 2003. City Administrator Shukle stated for the 2003 budget in late May, early June, he would like to meet with Council to establish target goals. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, C ~h?~ r. CynthIa Muller Executive Assistant