Loading...
07/28/1998 - City Council SpecialI AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday July 28, 1998 4:30 a.m. MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE & ZONING CHANGES • PROPOSE LAND USE CHANGES • PROPOSE ZONING CHANGES • PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED FOR SPECIAL AREAS/COUNCIL DIRECTION DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS DISCUSS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS IV. MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY V. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS VI. DIRECTION RE: CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT DIFFLEYTTRUNK HIGHWAY 3 VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMO city of eagan HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES JULY 24,1998 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/JULY 28,1998 AT 4:30 P.M. A Special City Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, at 4:30 p.m. in the Community Room of the Municipal Center Building. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a joint City Council/Advisory Planning Commission meeting to discuss a Comp Plan Subcommittee recommendations for land use and zoning changes, discuss draft land use descriptions and discuss public participation process as it relates to the Comp Plan Update. The Advisory Planning Commission has its regular meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS/DISCUSS ZONING CHANGES/DISCUSS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS At the request of the joint City Council/Advisory Planning Commission Subcommittee, a Special City Council meeting was scheduled to consider the Comp Plan Subcommittee recommendations for land use and zoning changes, discuss draft land use descriptions and discuss public participation process. Since the Visioning Retreat in late April at which time the City Council and three (3) members of the Advisory Planning Commission met at Trapp Farm Park, the Subcommittee has met on four (4) occasions. Much of the work performed by the Subcommittee has focused on identifying where land use/zoning inconsistencies exist in making recommendations on potential land use and/or zoning changes needed to achieve for consistency. A copy of a memo prepared by Planner Julie Farnham with attachments was distributed on Wednesday, July 22 to each member of the City Council and Planning Commission. DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER: Provide direction to the staff on: 1.) recommendations for land use and zoning changes, 2.) draft land use descriptions, and 3.) a public participation process. 0 MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY In March of 1998, the City was contacted regarding the possibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance a senior housing complex on the site of the former Eagandale Health Club, now owned by the Sage Company. City staff has met with representatives of the Marice Manor Senior Living Community project to discuss the possibility of the City acting as a conduit issuer for issuing tax-exempt bonds for the project. Due to an expression of intent to be a small issuer of bonds during 1998, the City cannot sell these bonds this year. Director of Finance VanOverbeke has prepared a memo providing information on the revised request by the developer which is enclosed on pages 5_ through (L. DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on a recommendation to the Dakota County HRA who has given preliminary approval to the issue. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS Director of Finance VanOverbeke and City Administrator Hedges have discussed the City's purchasing and accounts payable functions in advance of the retirement of Lorene Lee from the Accounts Payable position. A reason for reviewing the position is to find ways to maximize the return on the City's resources before the position is filled. The recommendation is to delegate the authority to pay certain claims to a City administrative official, which in this case, is the Director of Finance/City Clerk or Assistant Finance Director. The advantages of moving to the recommended process are outlined in the attached memo prepared by Director of Finance VanOverbeke enclosed on pages '7 through i' DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator and Director of Finance regarding this request and if this change is found to be acceptable, the item will be placed as a matter of Consent on a future regular City Council meeting agenda. CONSIDERATION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT DIFFLEY ROADITRUNK HIGHWAY 3 City staff is requesting direction by the City Council regarding the future use and development of that property. For further information on this item, refer to a memo prepared by the Director of Finance/City Clerk; a copy is enclosed on pages Q through for your review. 3 DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator and Director of Finance/City Clerk regarding City owned property located at Diffley Road and Trunk Highway 3. OTHER BUSINESS There are no items to be considered for other business at this time. /S/ Thomas L. Hedees City Administrator FA 9 MEMO city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Mance Manor Senior Living Community In March of this year the City was contacted regarding the possibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance the senior housing complex on the site of the former Eagandale Health Club. In April a meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the City acting as a conduit issuer for this purpose and a proposed time line was covered. In the April meeting staff raised two items that we felt would be clearly public policy issues that the City Council would be specifically asked to address at a later date. The first issue had to do with the size of the financing which is approximately $22,000,000 and how much equity the applicant was putting into the project. The second issue had to do with the project being potentially tax- exempt in terms of real estate taxes. Although there is some question as to the eligibility for tax-exempt status as a nursing home, staff has a concern about providing tax-exempt financing to an entity that potentially will be paying no property taxes to cover the cost of services provided to the facility. The potential exists that the demand for public services could be fairly high given the nature of the project. As additional work was undertaken after this meeting, it was determined that Eagan could not sell these bonds during 1998. The City had represented earlier when we sold the improvement bonds and the Ice Arena bonds that we were going to be a small issuer for 1998. Given current tax regulations a small issuer cannot reasonably expect to sell more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds in a calendar year. On the advice of Steve Rosholt acting as bond counsel, the City withdrew form further consideration as an issuer and suggested that the Dakota County HRA would possibly be an option as a tax-exempt issuer. The applicant contacted the HRA who called the City for input. We basically reiterated to them the concerns that we would have raised for City Council consideration; those being the economics of the project and the potential tax- exempt status of the property. We also stated that given a satisfactory resolution to those two issues the City would probably support the project, although that is a City Council decision. An application from Intergenerational Living and Health Care, Inc. to issue tax-exempt 501(c) 3 bonds was subsequently completed and the Dakota County HRA is reviewing it at this time. 5 The County HRA Board gave preliminary concept approval to the project and passed an inducement resolution in June. The Dakota County HRA per its policy will not consider approving a final bond sale resolution before a 30 day comment period has elapsed, or comments are received, whichever comes first. The HRA will not approve requests for bonds where a community indicates that the development is not consistent with the community's plan, policies, or goals. Those comments are due to the HRA by August 17,1998. The developer has agreed in concept to make a payment in lieu of tax, if the project is tax exempt. Language will be included in the documents as they are drafted, if that is the desire of the City Council. Since the tax-exempt financing is being handled by the HRA, we have not concerned ourselves with any additional review of the economic feasibility of the project or the details of the financing plan. I am suggesting that these issues be addressed by the their decision be forwarded to the HRA. Please let me any additional information or would like to discuss the Fina a Director/City Clerk WAI City Council and that know, if you would like matter. city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 23, 1998 SUBJECT: Authorization To Pay Certain Claims MEMO In advance of the retirement of Lorene Lee from the accounts payable position and as a result of a City Council suggestion, staff has been reviewing the City's purchasing and accounts payable functions. Because of the interrelationship of the two activities, the review has been combined for the most part. The primary objective of the review is to find ways to maximize the return on the City's resources, both in personnel and financially. Although we have not completed the process, I am recommending to you and for City Council consideration one significant change that would be implemented immediately upon City Council approval. Current state law provides that a City Council may delegate its authority to pay certain claims to a city administrative official. The official delegation is contingent upon the completion of the following: 1. A resolution must be passed specifying the type of claims to be paid and the administrative official to whom this authority is granted. 2. Internal accounting and administrative control procedures must be established. These procedures include frequent periodic council review of the administrative official's action and presentation of all expenditures for the council's information at the next meeting. 3. Cities delegating authority must prepare annual audited financial statements. My recommendation is that this authority be delegated to the position of Finance Director/City Clerk and to the Assistant Finance Director in his/her absence for implementation as soon as the above items can be prepared and approved by the City Council. Upon delegation of that authority, we would change to paying bills on a weekly basis. There are a number of advantages to moving to the recommended process. First, it would even out the workflow in accounts payable by eliminating the connection between the bill paying cycle and regularly scheduled City Council meetings. That change would lead to a second advantage; that is eliminating 9 the artificial deadlines for paying bills for operating departments. The deadline is now the middle of the week preceding the Council meeting and really is counterproductive to efficiency. Third, this new process would eliminate the two and sometimes three-week period between the release of checks approved by the City Council. Elimination of that lengthy period has the additional advantages of reducing the concern about deadlines because the time to the next batch of checks is significantly reduced. This places the City in better position to take advantage of early payment discounts. Finally, it reduces the number of special handwritten checks required to meet certain payment deadlines. Such "special circumstances° checks are written outside of the regular system and require a disproportionate amount of resources. Since the City Council approves the operating budgets, they effectively retain the complete authority over City expenditures. The delegated authority contemplated in this recommended process would extend only to the actual release of checks to pay for expenditure items already approved in the various budgets. The City Council would retain the same review process (technically no longer approval) currently used in which additional information can be requested on any disbursement. In the unlikely event that that information leads to expenditures that the City Council feels are not appropriate (which has not historically been the case), those expenditures would be changed prospectively as they would be in the present system. Assuming that the City has received the goods or services, the vendors will expect to be paid, and from a practical standpoint changes could only be made prospectively in either system. Please let me know, if you would like any additional information or if you would like to discuss this recommendation in more detail. cr4y Fin ce Director/City Clerk Cc: Assistant Finance Director Pepper 8 i=:i''"' city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 24, 1998 SUBJECT: City Owned Property at Highway 3 and Diffley 411,l�; As part of a public improvement project the City acquired a parcel of approximately 10.2 acres at the intersection of Highway 3 and Diffley Road. While it was less expensive to acquire the entire parcel for ponding purposes, only about 4.5 acres actually is used for that purpose. The balance of about 5.7 acres has remained vacant; most recently used as a site for collection of tree debris. Because of inquiries about the availability of this parcel as well as others in the community, staff has been reviewing all City owned land as well as tax forfeited land in the City to determine current and potential uses. While the subject parcel had been considered at one time as a satellite maintenance location, that use is not being pursued and staff is not currently aware of any long-term need for the City to; retain the vacant portion of the parcel. The site is highly visible and appears to be desirable for commercial development as staff has received at least four inquiries about its availability. In order to provide a timely, accurate and fair response to these questions, I would appreciate receiving direction from the City Council about retaining or disposing of the parcel. Attached to this memo are copies of location maps showing the zoning and land use designations for the parcel. Also attached is a copy of the material from the comp guide study covering the general area that is referenced as area 16. Any decision at this time is complicated by the comp guide study and may be premature unless the decision is simply to retain the property indefinitely. On the other hand, if the best use for this property is obvious and the City Council would like to begin immediately to sell the property, that is also a reasonable approach. Since the City is involved, a well-defined process to sell would need to be put in place. I would expect that the terms of the sale would need to cover the actual development proposal so that the potential neighborhood concerns could be addressed before a new owner showed up with a development application that may or may not be acceptable. Another issue for a buyer will be whether the. City is selling the entire parcel while retaining an easement for ponding or selling only the residual piece and retaining ownership of the ponding area. The City's preference has been to hold easements rather than to own the property. The staff has no desire to force any decision on the ultimate use of this parcel but would simply like to be able to provide good customer service by making ar appropriate response to the inquiries. I would appreciate any direction the City Council feels is appropriate at this time. -(-�Iw Fina a Director/City Clerk Cc: Senior Planner Ridley Director of Public Works Colbert /D •111111*0LI :l• remain guided for IND uses and zoned 1-1? If so, the existing uses will remain non- conforming. Area 12: These parcels are guided IND and zoned PD. The existing PD calls for a school, an office, and some retail uses. A proposal was recently reviewed by the APC (although now on hold at applicant's request) to amend the PD to allow office- warehouse/showroom uses. The subcommittee questioned whether these parcels would be included in the Cedarvale redevelopment plans. If so, it would make sense to also include these properties in that special area (see Area 13). Area 13: This area is recommended to be labeled "Special Area" on the new land use map. Given the recent discussion and studies regarding creation of a Cedarvale redevelopment TIF area, it seemed to make sense to designate this as a Special Area. The boundary of the Special Area should correspond to the potential TEF district. Likewise, the development plan that will be created for the TIF could be used as the special area land use plan. Some policies regarding transition from existing to proposed uses may need to be developed, but that would coincide with development of the TEF plan. Area 14: This property is guided D -II and zoned Ag. It is currently owned by a communications company and used for a cell tower. As such, it may not develop further in the foreseeable future. It may then be appropriate to guide this parcel for Quasi -public and rezone to Public Facility. Area 15: The subcommittee initially identified this property (Bieter) for further CounciVAPC direction. However, a proposal for single family development is pending review by the APC on July 28. If the Council approves the plan, the land use should be changed to Low Density and the property rezoned from Ag to R -I. Area 16: Most of these properties are guided NB and zoned GB. Existing uses include a restaurant and a mini -storage facility. The parcel abutting Diffley Road is owned by the City. The east half is guided NB and the west half is guided PF. The west half is a designated detention pond and should remain guided for Quasi -public and rezoned to PF. The Council will need to decide if commercial uses are appropriate on the remaining parcels and, if so, what intensity of uses (GB zoning allows much more intensive uses than NB). Adjacent land across TH 3 in Inver Grove Heights is guided for Community Commercial uses and is currently vacant. Further east is a liquor store, gas station, and U -haul business. Area 17: This parcel contains the Diamond T Ranch and is guided D -I and zoned Ag. The subcommittee suggested the land use remain low density residential. The primary question for the Council is whether the property should be rezoned to R-1 which would make the riding stable use non -conforming. Because the property is more than 5 acres in area, it may not be necessary to rezone because Ag zoning is deemed consistent within that low density land use as stated in the category descriptions that will be included in the new Comp Plan (see pages _IL_thru 1,, ) /. 15 4 Areas Designated as Special Are. Council Direction - Speclal Area Parcel Special Area e Psmels Water Section OManning Area I1 Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MN JULY 28, 1998 Present: Mayor Tom Egan, Counp'jniember Pat Awada, Councilmember Bea Blomquist, Councilmember Sandy Masin, Planning Commission members Carla Heyl, Paul Bakken, Peggy Carlson, Jerry Segal, Gary Huusko, gfeY4:EiiirCtifE;;L2dy;48nk, Planner Julie Farnham, Senior Planner Mike Ridley, City AdministraJ6 ' 46d 'i�ttomajf:N4fke Dougherty, Finance Director Gene VanOverbeke, Consulting Plarpw Greg Ingraham, Planner Pam Dudziak, Planner Bob Kirmis, and Intem to the City Admini"or Amy Hertel. Councilmember Ted Wachter was absent. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Egan called the meeting to.prder at 4:35 p.m. and the agenda was adopted with the addition of the Cedarvale Area under.;plher Business. VI§ITORS�b BE HEARD The visitors present to commentan:speGi(icchat>Qesjq:i he Comprehensive Guide Plan elected to speak during that discussiir{;;:::;:::::::: DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES City Administrator Hedges introduced this item and gave a brief overview of the work of the subcommittee. He commented that he expected the•.disCk ion about Properties Identified For Special Areas/Council Direction would be the•.mp5fU1TI2:Gensuming. He invited the subcommittee to comment on the work they had done; Councilmember Awada stated that-.the::it . ate was straightforward in most cases and consisted of matching the zoning and laritl'oseligs.pWions to match the uses that have evolved on the properties. She stated that this exercise wa5:not.ply important for the City, but was also necessary for submission to the Metropolitan Council. *Slie stated that there were some unique areas in Eagan that posed particular challenges for the subcommittee. Councilmember Blomquist complimented Planner Farnham on her work, stating that it was very representative of the work of the subcommittee. City Administrator Hedges informed the group that he and Senior Planner Ridley had; met with Planner Farnham and complimented her on her broad understanding of the isgd�5.ui 3fie plan i4so introduced Attorney Dougherty as a resource to answer any legal que$Ij". ' 1 af:'M "*::aAse'I'n'.the course of the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that:Mgst changes reflect current property uses, that there may be some confusion in referring to tliiii: iropertie ifue to a potential change in the language used which will be discussed later ands ' rrgfeJif ifZ gtC�p:�tt>?Ceed directly to the special areas to be considered for council direction. $ In regard to Area 1, Planner Farnham stated that the property would be difficult to subdivide much further and that the issue is with regard to a small gift shop would become a non- conforming use if the land use is changed to.reSldential. She stated that whether the area is guided DI or to commercial, there will badi4ACQYtTo.0" entities; if it were guided DI, the gift shop is a non -conforming use and if it is guided:corttliieibr�il :3he homes are non -conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken,' ked if the re5i.60ces would be able to obtain a higher sale value if their property were zon'ed'as commercial. kroner Farnham responded that the a: nents are done according to:27e higl and best:A5e for the property, so the value Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 2 depends on the use. Planning Commission Member Bakken asked if the current residents would have to maintain their properties differently with a zone change. Planner Farnham responded that all non -conforming uses must adhere to the non -conforming ordinances, which do not allow for expansion but do allow for maintenance. Attorney Dougherty clarified that no capital Improvements can be made to propeitfes that are non -conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken stated that those prb&i y owners have a lot to lose with a zoning change because they've made investments in those properties.Planner Farnham said that retention of the current agricultural zoning may altW.ibighdS.v:6 .6&tV:be conforming uses, but the gift shop would be subject to the non-conformlkig: tiSBs:oiiyiti&'.itos22`:: In regard to Area 2, Planner FarrF►i''m indicated that the subcommittee wanted to designate this a Special Area on the new land irs0'map with area specific policies to be included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The group concurred. In regard to Area 3, Planner Farnham stated that this would be another Special Area to encompass the Waters planned development. The group concurred. In regard to Area 4, Planner Fariilam statod:that this area had been studied in 1994 which resulted in the change to Rural Resia"ktial land:use. She further stated that this area functions as a special area and should be hand4d in accortlance with other special areas. Planning Commission Member Bakken cladfiied:t# M:Ioe:spegial are..a.would encompass the provisions of the Rural Residential district; he furtt$ E;SC2fedtliataf:is:ittitpohant to protect those who are there now. The group concurred. Councilmember Masin arived at 4:48 p.m. In regard to Area 5, Planner Farnham stated that it is guided D2, zoned agricultural, but that the subcommittee recommended the area be guidecl.W:Oikensity residential, as the current single family use will likely remain for the foresee$bla:fWbre: Consulting Planner Ingraham commented that the property is hard. todev¢loq':IiEc'auSe of its shape and size. In regard to Area 6, Planner Famham:irtdicated that the subcommittee thought this area (currently Industrial) was really more of a PiitiiicFa> ili(y,..given that it houses the United States Postal Service building and should consequently tie;�2itlifed to Public Facility. Mayor Egan commented that it seemed like the subcommittee was putting form over substance and stated that it should remain Industrial to reflect the use of the property. Senior Planner Ridley expressed concern with this change because it would open up other Public Facilities areas to industrial activity. Planning Commission Member Heyl inquired about the permissibility of truck garages and maintenance facilities as Public Facilities. Planner Farnham stated that the allowances in Public Facilities were vague and should.pg:Fevisited, possibly instituting more CUPS or modifying the performance standards. Planning:r ......o{t:t i; Hey[ said that the Public Facilities areas should be consistent and that:W.:C.6mmi5e4.0.VamdtWe Council should reconsider the requirements for buffering and other:provisionsatlhe Public Facilities properties. Councilmember Blomquist concurred:.stating thatthey should review the setbacks for Public Facilities and review their uses. Coi &ilmembi i.*Awada stated that she thought there were setbacks for Public Facilities. Senigr t?Ia6tit tiiiie *:.=$gned that there are setbacks for Public Facilities structures and that the set *S ii(1:flt£it2e!height of the building. Planning Commission Member Burdorf stated that the USPS facility does not conform to his understanding of Public Facilities. Councilmember Masin asked what the property is currently zoned and Senior Planner Ridley responded that the property is currently zoned 1-1. Attorney Dougherty stated that the federal government is not subject to City zoning ordinances. Planner Farnham said that the subcommittee considered the facility a pt{t#tiCetiE+ty: 3pd therefore thought Public Facility zoning was most appropriate. Mayor Egan stlgpe�tedtfie:Fitl#c Facilities zoning be separated into two degrees of intensity, including a Heavy -Use Public Fa6lli�j¢;and Light -Use Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Segaf•commented that he:i5 less concerned with the Public Facilities zoning because it is subjeCq:w Council considegation and the Council can reject Minu of the Special City Council og July 28, 1 page 3 proposals that do not fit the description of Public Facilities. Planner Famham asked if it was the consensus of the group to keep this area as Industrial. Councilmember Awada stated that the decision on this property should be consistent with a decision about Seneca; she further stated that the properties should remain industrial. City Administrator Hedges asked if the storage of fire trucks would be considered an apprdpclpte use under Public Facilities. Councilmember Blomquist asked what the setbacks f0lbose facilities would be and City Administrator Hedges responded that they would be at least.ps mute, as the. setbacks for Commercial or Industrial properties. Consulting Planner Ingraii :gj 'e"P" j Q ' *ia gtbgp that the difference between Public Facilities and Commercial or Industrial: ol {#f2fii6i.- Wte sector has more choices about where to locate, whereas there are lessoptions when considering where to install a public facility. Planning Commission Member HeyI44ressed concern for residents who may move in next to a public facilities zone and be unpleas'a'ntly surprised at a heavy, industrial -type use allowed on that property in the future. She further stated that it was important that the City's designation and regulation of Public Facilities should reflect the community's understanding of that designation and stated that the City needs to be very Gear about the potential uses of a Public Facility zone. Planning Commission Member CadWr)stated that she thought there should be two types of Public Facilities. Councilmember BO"I"' uist stalled that the conditional uses allowed under Public Facilities were vague and that she vtW. d ratheO mm two categories of Public Facilities. Planning Commission Member Carlson said tW:the Cor}j{i+ission and the Council should consider factors like traffic and noise when making d¢cfsions regufating Public Facilities. Planner Farnham asked if it was the consensus of the group to:kwj.'.'tha:prppe .y.zoped Industrial. Councilmember Awada said it sounded like they wer9:betist�# NRg 'C d4.'g!qgpublic Facilities to two categories. Consulting Planner Ingraham stated that if the property were sold at some point, the only appropriate use would be industrial and the property would.have to be re -zoned and re -guided to reflect the change. Attorney Dougherty said that the City should be consistent in its policies and pointed out the City's advantage of having the golf course area as a Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Frank stated that there would be very -few options available if USPS decided to sell because not many Public Facilities a re::3pprppriate to their building. Councilmember Awada questioned the value:oS fiWa PF:districts because the decisions about developments are at the discretion of•tlfe:A¢visdry Planning Commission and the Eagan City Council; she further stated that the tYiro'&iinctions vil[jUld be meaningless. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that she still ttitwo t the twd'distinctions would be useful. Mayor Egan stated that it would be appropriate to redsib 2ttTy t ` Ulale. two different types of Public Facilities uses. Consulting Planner Ingraham suggested ft it::kGih%'i8 USPS property and the Seneca property be retained as Industrial and that the Council ri Jise the performance standards for Industrial properties because the City is less vulnerable keeping the existing zoning. Planning Commission Member Segal directed the group to think long-term, asking how the group would want the property zoned if someday USPS is no longer there. The group concurred that the industrial land use and zoning should be retained. In regard to Area 7, PlannerFarttfilijrjtcated:ih$t`tiiy subcommittee recommended this area which encompasses the Centralkiea b'e'3poijlded'as'a Special Area. The group concurred. In regard to Area 8, Planner FaB+ham indicr7tgd that the subcommittee recommended the property be guided as low-density, til tainin&O*W Agricultural zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 9, Planner Fai'itli'Ali "—"'2t0tl fila! giz:tbbcommittee recommended rezoning the area to D1, thus making Richfield Blacktop a non -conforming use and subject to the limitations of the non -conforming ordinances. She stated their concern with guiding just that one property as commercial, making it an island of commercial property amidst extensive residential properties. Planning Commission Member Carlson. expressed concern that the use of this property seems to just keep expanding,: {il4 'W-: 83►{ommented that Richfield Blacktop had been issued a citation and that their catid'ri T t� gAsion had been granted, so the feasibility ?3?Ak 13.... of rezoning the area to fit with low-dertsify becomes a' 6:"n greater challenge. Consulting Planner Ingraham questioned what lht group wanted to, fitivein this location long-term, stating that if it is zoned General Business,,:'*}other business cor4o. move into the Richfield Blacktop Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 29, 1 page 4 location amidst residential areas. Councilmember Masin stated that because they had gasoline pumps at that location, she would never feel comfortable allowing someone to build a home there. Councilmember Blomquist stated that there are ways to treat land to make it livable for homes; she cautioned against "spot zoning' policies, especially ones that are poorly maintained. She further stated that their CUP is c�tiirently being broken and that the current use of that land is more Industrial in nature. Planning dwninission Member Carlson stated that this is an excessively heavy use in a residentiat;area,: P1anrIVr,Farriham asked if the group wanted to rezone the property to coincide with tFiee7d51+fg Df:,gtifdi ::::idlayor Egan stated that the business should be a non -conforming entity artif sii6jei i'TO ttiose'tiriiit'8tions. In regard to Area 10, Planner Fa(t k'am stated that the subcommittee recommended keeping the area low-density, Indicating that the"Physical features of the land make it challenging to develop. She stated that it could be included as a Special Area. CouncilmemberAwada emphasized the difficulty of developing this area. Planner Farnham said that this is a designated PD with low and medium density residential and limited business uses. Mayor Egan suggested a discussion with the owners of Blue Grows to determine the scope of any future inclusions in the Planned Development and their londiWim goalxfor the property. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that high-density residEhtial waS 66t the answer for this property. Planner Farnham stated that the City would C.6 tact Blu4: ross. In regard to Area 11, Planner Faiiifi�rrE;$ta":thata;potiion of this property is owned by the City and may be appropriate to guide ftgiiasi piitYlic:::if:lu8s:615o suggested that this area be included in a Special Area in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study Area. In regard to Area 12, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee thought the entire area should be designated a Special Area to allow for the flexibility needed for planning the potential Light Rail Transit location. She further stated that. Area 13 would be appropriate for Inclusion with Area 12. In regard to Area 13, Planner Far$iafti hid? algid ifta subcommittee recommended this area be designated a Special Area. Policie's i rd. a land use map would be developed in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study. In regard to Area 14, Planner Farnham indicaNed:that;tti.e subcommittee recommended the area be zoned quasi -public to reflect its use as a cell towt r -site. The group concurred. In regard to Area 15, Councilmember Awada stated that the potential settlement regarding this property would make this discussion moot. In regard to Area 16, Planner Fam,hls. :stated that.the land use designations currently split the City -owned properly in half, inqu rjng tf:ttiiite w2$ ja(o t by the City in subdividing the property. Planning Commission MeliW''r Bakkep s' ked if this area would be a good candidate for Office Service. Planner Famham.. spondeiOhat the existing uses would then become non- conforming. Mayor Egan stated thak.Vte area imeluded a touchy parcel and emphasized the importance of being sensitive to thd:t4d.Spf &6e urrounding neighbors. He expressed interest in considering the economic viabilitj fftie: rty:asiid ii#0,king it consistent with the surrounding uses. City Administrator Hedges stated'tliatllfe`66'ifii 1 -should consider plating the land and will discuss this area in further detail later in the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that the most appropriate uses for the area included Office Service, which would allow LB or NB zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 17, Planner Famt4^fi'AfatQG�iftaf:the subcommittee recommended maintaining the current zoning and gldifii g'for ffi'e'are� :`.The group concurred. In regard to Area 16, Planner Famham emphasized: f, ib importance of not encouraging investment by current property owrtCiB:due to interest by J$kota County to purchase the land. Minu of the Special City Council 'ng July 28, 1 page 5. She further commented that zoning to Parks would make the houses non -conforming and may also hasten the sale of the homes. Consultant Planner Ingraham noted that the homes currently there could be tom down and replaced with larger homes if not made non -conforming. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired if the church on the property would be acquired by the County, stating that the City should 66'fact the -County about the church. Consulting Planner Ingraham said that the County is int$#i aced in buying on a willing -seller basis. Planner Famham said that making those homes non-conf.Ofming.uses would limit their ability to invest in the property that is set for County acqui5lfioT;irir>j¢itiri;ltiAE�gr that the area could also be designated a Special Area and policies- the transition from residential to park zoning. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that the area should be zoned for Parks, making the homes non-confotFijng uses and stated that the homeowners should be noticed of the County's intent to pur"'ti'ase the land. Councilmember Blomquist said that the City should talk to the County first to see if they have the resources to acquire the land. Consulting Planner Ingraham informed the group that the County has reserve funds for this purpose and will be able to acquire the property when it becomes available. In regard to Area 19, Planner Fi6t" am indipted that a pocket of General Business uses exists amidst an area designated fo6iiidentiakt'3 and DI uses. She stated that the subcommittee recommended re -guiding to low` -density residential and make the commercial uses non -conforming. Planning Commission Memb'. cbarlson asked if there was anything the City could do to ask these properties tooleattir{f:ttC;arsa;:pfanrter Farnham said that there is nothing the City can do unless those properties:Gti'iitE:3R:lo:"%*'%>14ri:a permit, in which case they would be brought up to current standards. Councilmember Masin asked what the City of Rosemount intends to do with their adjacent properties. Planner Farnham said that Rosemount's property is guided Rural Residential. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired about the zoning for the Gun Club, stating that it should be a Public Facility. Councilmember Masin stated that the area should remain recreational. Planner Famham indicated that an appropriate zoning for the area may be quasi -public. Planning Commission.Memb&burdorf expressed concern about the long -tens use, stating that zoning this as a,QubfipFaeilitj was an expression of support by the City of this use of the land. Hefurtf>Qr;s{ated:�haf'ih :neighboring residential areas would be more welcoming of General Businesse" :i6n of the than Club. Planner Farnham confirmed that designating this area as a Public Facild�.:ti!RLId.show`support for the current use. She stated that the public facilities zoning is inconsistent wltfrliiti;D7::gpide: She suggested further review of the area, including discussions with the neighboring'? esfdeiif$;;1?osemount and the Gun Club. DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS Planner Farnham asked the Planning Commission and the City Council to contact her with comments on the potential new land use descriptions. DISCUSSPZ; BLI.: ARTiCIPATION PROCESS Planner Farnham stated that slie38entified:2bbut 70 parcels of land that are proposed for a significant change and that the properly ownec�.ahould be notified individually about the changes. These meetings could be separate;ffoA1 the 57i¢%ghborhood meetings that will be held for general public input. It was suggested that :5t8Tf.... bs(.n311sose properties and review it with the subcommittee. MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY City Administrator Hedges gave an overviey pf this item. He stated that the property in question was located next to Sidney's aFld#bgt£eY61t�p21s wanted to build an assisted living community. Finance Director VanOy�iEs*.'""' tate'd:4fta(:tPe developers had not initially thought they would need financing through l;gtitfs, but were noiK:Ct questing $22 million worth of bonds, covering almost 100 percent of the "'osis of production. 'ifie stated that the project may qualify as tax-exempt if it meets the standard*:§7 a nursing home, in:Y+hich case the property owners would Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 6 have to make a payment in lieu of taxes. He informed the Council that the City could not issue the bonds because Eagan is committed to issuing fewer than $10 million in bonds. He stated that the Dakota County HRA was willing to issue the bonds, but they required City endorsement of the project prior to those negotiations. He,asked the Council if they would be interested in having the HRA pursue a payment in lieu of taxea,:option through their negotiations. Councilmember Awada said that the HRA should certainly ptiisue that option and her comment was met by consensus on the Council. Councilmember Masin asked. now. ihat.payment would be applied to City operations. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated itl2t-V*:iti�j ' - rpii�Q be treated like any other tax revenue. He further stated that the ag' roemerri t6tWfeab?Wd with the developers would include a protective clause whereby the property jrrould be subject to standard property taxes If it was not granted tax-exempt status by the Cotigtq assessor. City Administrator Hedges stated that the Item would be on the August 4, 1998 Consent Agenda. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS City Administrator Hedges gave:a!�;averview of this item, stating that this authorization would allow a streamlined process of payirig.ihe bilis.::glnance Director VanOverbeke stated that action by the Council could authorize a staff:¢erson tti � y the bills on a weekly basis, subject to accounting regulations and policies tti�j can b6: bdified by the Council at any time. Councilmember Awada staled that the current System was inefficient. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council that the City would not change as a result of this authorization. Mayor Egan askei3 hdiv:t6e:piesetilaSititi:af the bills to the Council would change. Finance Director VanOverbeke said that the bills would be reviewed every Wednesday to be paid every Friday and the Council would receive updates at the Council meetings of all bills paid since the last Council meeting. City Administrator Hedges emphasized the scrutinizing process the bills are subjected to before being paid and stated that these procedures would not be relaxed at all. Councilmember Awada stated that it is, Important for governments to be moving away from these inefficiencies. Finance Director VanO i*l&ke stated that this matter would be on the August 18 Regular Council Meeting.ageAda;:;:::::' Finance Director VanOverbeke inforneti lfle::PoA;Gl.that the City has received several inquiries about the property and asked the Councilhi there:;O s Interest at this time in selling. Councilmember Blomquist said she would feel more co6iWable selling the property after the neighborhood meetings have taken place. Mayor Egan identified the precarious balance between reclaiming the City's investment in the property and sensitivity to the needs of the residents. Councilmember Masin asked if the City would ever have any need for this in the future. City Administrator Hedges responded that it is hard to predict the future needs of the City, but informed the Council that the only consideration given.to this land previously was as a potential site for satellite maintenancet t itiiCi4;figd:Rtii:Co '.O:to fruition. Councilmember Awada stated that the Council should wait U itlr�fter t'fi�.4oiimprehensive Guide Plan Update was completed. Councilmember Awada expresg6d`66tfi'u'3i25t1c'iiiter2§t in seeing the Light Rail Transit system have a hub in Eagan and asked how to ensure this would happen through lobbying and committee efforts. She also asked who would be representing Eagan on the planning committee for the Light Rail Transit. City Administrator Hedges responded that Tom Butler would serve as the business community representative and,>hatUgrgaret Shriner would participate as the resident representative. Councilmember:A$i$di:W,' d.that the Light Rail Transit is extremely Important and said the City should give;;loF of Siippgrt;tithe committee members. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council thafft Light Rail Transit is being addressed at the staff level, stating that he ha4:W$ I the resolution tp the appropriate persons. He stated Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 7 further that he had written the LRT into the Cedarvale RFP; he also requested that Tom Butler send the City copies of all documentation he receives through the committee. Councilmember Awada called for:an aggressive approach to obtaining the Light Rail Transit hub in Eagan, asking for information:966ut how to push this matter through and ensure Eagan's participation. City Administrator Hec4k stated that Eagan is currently a wild card, but gamers support from the MVTA and Dakota County,; He.turlOer.siat d that Bloomington has incentive to support the hub in Dakota County. He;:al3c � 0:0tat Epgan could find support from its legislative delegation. Councilmember Bfohlgol'st'wam'dii against assuming a stop in Dakota County would mean the location wour4:be in Eagan, citing discussion about having the stop at the zoo in Apple Valley. She indicatedstc.G�g support for pushing for a stop in Eagan. Councilmember Awada directed City Administrator Hedges to compile more data on this by Tuesday, August 4, 1998. OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Hedges inforrf efJ the Cay cil of an opportunity to meet with Jim Colbert of Colbert, Bums and McDonnell to dis�dss the potential golf course opportunity in the Waters area of Eagan. Due to open meeting laws >rity AdriMstrator Hedges informed the Council that either less than two Councilmembers could'ahend orft'eould be publicly advertised as a special meeting. Mayor Egan volunteered t¢;at#i rsif wif*h*:0ty:Adrrilrrlstrator Hedges and another volunteer. Councilmember BlomquisC e15o vzitbb::Id:atfend. Councilmembers Masin and Awada declined. City Administrator Hedges reminded the Council that this matter is still in the early discussion processes and that it will not be up for formal consideration until some more meetings have been held with the property -owners involved. I AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday July 28, 1998 4:30 a.m. MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE & ZONING CHANGES • PROPOSE LAND USE CHANGES • PROPOSE ZONING CHANGES • PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED FOR SPECIAL AREAS/COUNCIL DIRECTION DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS DISCUSS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS IV. MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY V. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS VI. DIRECTION RE: CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT DIFFLEYTTRUNK HIGHWAY 3 VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMO city of eagan HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES JULY 24,1998 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/JULY 28,1998 AT 4:30 P.M. A Special City Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, at 4:30 p.m. in the Community Room of the Municipal Center Building. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a joint City Council/Advisory Planning Commission meeting to discuss a Comp Plan Subcommittee recommendations for land use and zoning changes, discuss draft land use descriptions and discuss public participation process as it relates to the Comp Plan Update. The Advisory Planning Commission has its regular meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS/DISCUSS ZONING CHANGES/DISCUSS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS At the request of the joint City Council/Advisory Planning Commission Subcommittee, a Special City Council meeting was scheduled to consider the Comp Plan Subcommittee recommendations for land use and zoning changes, discuss draft land use descriptions and discuss public participation process. Since the Visioning Retreat in late April at which time the City Council and three (3) members of the Advisory Planning Commission met at Trapp Farm Park, the Subcommittee has met on four (4) occasions. Much of the work performed by the Subcommittee has focused on identifying where land use/zoning inconsistencies exist in making recommendations on potential land use and/or zoning changes needed to achieve for consistency. A copy of a memo prepared by Planner Julie Farnham with attachments was distributed on Wednesday, July 22 to each member of the City Council and Planning Commission. DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER: Provide direction to the staff on: 1.) recommendations for land use and zoning changes, 2.) draft land use descriptions, and 3.) a public participation process. 0 MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY In March of 1998, the City was contacted regarding the possibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance a senior housing complex on the site of the former Eagandale Health Club, now owned by the Sage Company. City staff has met with representatives of the Marice Manor Senior Living Community project to discuss the possibility of the City acting as a conduit issuer for issuing tax-exempt bonds for the project. Due to an expression of intent to be a small issuer of bonds during 1998, the City cannot sell these bonds this year. Director of Finance VanOverbeke has prepared a memo providing information on the revised request by the developer which is enclosed on pages 5_ through (L. DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER: Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on a recommendation to the Dakota County HRA who has given preliminary approval to the issue. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS Director of Finance VanOverbeke and City Administrator Hedges have discussed the City's purchasing and accounts payable functions in advance of the retirement of Lorene Lee from the Accounts Payable position. A reason for reviewing the position is to find ways to maximize the return on the City's resources before the position is filled. The recommendation is to delegate the authority to pay certain claims to a City administrative official, which in this case, is the Director of Finance/City Clerk or Assistant Finance Director. The advantages of moving to the recommended process are outlined in the attached memo prepared by Director of Finance VanOverbeke enclosed on pages '7 through i' DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator and Director of Finance regarding this request and if this change is found to be acceptable, the item will be placed as a matter of Consent on a future regular City Council meeting agenda. CONSIDERATION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT DIFFLEY ROADITRUNK HIGHWAY 3 City staff is requesting direction by the City Council regarding the future use and development of that property. For further information on this item, refer to a memo prepared by the Director of Finance/City Clerk; a copy is enclosed on pages Q through for your review. 3 DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator and Director of Finance/City Clerk regarding City owned property located at Diffley Road and Trunk Highway 3. OTHER BUSINESS There are no items to be considered for other business at this time. /S/ Thomas L. Hedees City Administrator FA 9 MEMO city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Mance Manor Senior Living Community In March of this year the City was contacted regarding the possibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance the senior housing complex on the site of the former Eagandale Health Club. In April a meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the City acting as a conduit issuer for this purpose and a proposed time line was covered. In the April meeting staff raised two items that we felt would be clearly public policy issues that the City Council would be specifically asked to address at a later date. The first issue had to do with the size of the financing which is approximately $22,000,000 and how much equity the applicant was putting into the project. The second issue had to do with the project being potentially tax- exempt in terms of real estate taxes. Although there is some question as to the eligibility for tax-exempt status as a nursing home, staff has a concern about providing tax-exempt financing to an entity that potentially will be paying no property taxes to cover the cost of services provided to the facility. The potential exists that the demand for public services could be fairly high given the nature of the project. As additional work was undertaken after this meeting, it was determined that Eagan could not sell these bonds during 1998. The City had represented earlier when we sold the improvement bonds and the Ice Arena bonds that we were going to be a small issuer for 1998. Given current tax regulations a small issuer cannot reasonably expect to sell more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds in a calendar year. On the advice of Steve Rosholt acting as bond counsel, the City withdrew form further consideration as an issuer and suggested that the Dakota County HRA would possibly be an option as a tax-exempt issuer. The applicant contacted the HRA who called the City for input. We basically reiterated to them the concerns that we would have raised for City Council consideration; those being the economics of the project and the potential tax- exempt status of the property. We also stated that given a satisfactory resolution to those two issues the City would probably support the project, although that is a City Council decision. An application from Intergenerational Living and Health Care, Inc. to issue tax-exempt 501(c) 3 bonds was subsequently completed and the Dakota County HRA is reviewing it at this time. 5 The County HRA Board gave preliminary concept approval to the project and passed an inducement resolution in June. The Dakota County HRA per its policy will not consider approving a final bond sale resolution before a 30 day comment period has elapsed, or comments are received, whichever comes first. The HRA will not approve requests for bonds where a community indicates that the development is not consistent with the community's plan, policies, or goals. Those comments are due to the HRA by August 17,1998. The developer has agreed in concept to make a payment in lieu of tax, if the project is tax exempt. Language will be included in the documents as they are drafted, if that is the desire of the City Council. Since the tax-exempt financing is being handled by the HRA, we have not concerned ourselves with any additional review of the economic feasibility of the project or the details of the financing plan. I am suggesting that these issues be addressed by the their decision be forwarded to the HRA. Please let me any additional information or would like to discuss the Fina a Director/City Clerk WAI City Council and that know, if you would like matter. city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 23, 1998 SUBJECT: Authorization To Pay Certain Claims MEMO In advance of the retirement of Lorene Lee from the accounts payable position and as a result of a City Council suggestion, staff has been reviewing the City's purchasing and accounts payable functions. Because of the interrelationship of the two activities, the review has been combined for the most part. The primary objective of the review is to find ways to maximize the return on the City's resources, both in personnel and financially. Although we have not completed the process, I am recommending to you and for City Council consideration one significant change that would be implemented immediately upon City Council approval. Current state law provides that a City Council may delegate its authority to pay certain claims to a city administrative official. The official delegation is contingent upon the completion of the following: 1. A resolution must be passed specifying the type of claims to be paid and the administrative official to whom this authority is granted. 2. Internal accounting and administrative control procedures must be established. These procedures include frequent periodic council review of the administrative official's action and presentation of all expenditures for the council's information at the next meeting. 3. Cities delegating authority must prepare annual audited financial statements. My recommendation is that this authority be delegated to the position of Finance Director/City Clerk and to the Assistant Finance Director in his/her absence for implementation as soon as the above items can be prepared and approved by the City Council. Upon delegation of that authority, we would change to paying bills on a weekly basis. There are a number of advantages to moving to the recommended process. First, it would even out the workflow in accounts payable by eliminating the connection between the bill paying cycle and regularly scheduled City Council meetings. That change would lead to a second advantage; that is eliminating 9 the artificial deadlines for paying bills for operating departments. The deadline is now the middle of the week preceding the Council meeting and really is counterproductive to efficiency. Third, this new process would eliminate the two and sometimes three-week period between the release of checks approved by the City Council. Elimination of that lengthy period has the additional advantages of reducing the concern about deadlines because the time to the next batch of checks is significantly reduced. This places the City in better position to take advantage of early payment discounts. Finally, it reduces the number of special handwritten checks required to meet certain payment deadlines. Such "special circumstances° checks are written outside of the regular system and require a disproportionate amount of resources. Since the City Council approves the operating budgets, they effectively retain the complete authority over City expenditures. The delegated authority contemplated in this recommended process would extend only to the actual release of checks to pay for expenditure items already approved in the various budgets. The City Council would retain the same review process (technically no longer approval) currently used in which additional information can be requested on any disbursement. In the unlikely event that that information leads to expenditures that the City Council feels are not appropriate (which has not historically been the case), those expenditures would be changed prospectively as they would be in the present system. Assuming that the City has received the goods or services, the vendors will expect to be paid, and from a practical standpoint changes could only be made prospectively in either system. Please let me know, if you would like any additional information or if you would like to discuss this recommendation in more detail. cr4y Fin ce Director/City Clerk Cc: Assistant Finance Director Pepper 8 i=:i''"' city of eagan TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke DATE: July 24, 1998 SUBJECT: City Owned Property at Highway 3 and Diffley 411,l�; As part of a public improvement project the City acquired a parcel of approximately 10.2 acres at the intersection of Highway 3 and Diffley Road. While it was less expensive to acquire the entire parcel for ponding purposes, only about 4.5 acres actually is used for that purpose. The balance of about 5.7 acres has remained vacant; most recently used as a site for collection of tree debris. Because of inquiries about the availability of this parcel as well as others in the community, staff has been reviewing all City owned land as well as tax forfeited land in the City to determine current and potential uses. While the subject parcel had been considered at one time as a satellite maintenance location, that use is not being pursued and staff is not currently aware of any long-term need for the City to; retain the vacant portion of the parcel. The site is highly visible and appears to be desirable for commercial development as staff has received at least four inquiries about its availability. In order to provide a timely, accurate and fair response to these questions, I would appreciate receiving direction from the City Council about retaining or disposing of the parcel. Attached to this memo are copies of location maps showing the zoning and land use designations for the parcel. Also attached is a copy of the material from the comp guide study covering the general area that is referenced as area 16. Any decision at this time is complicated by the comp guide study and may be premature unless the decision is simply to retain the property indefinitely. On the other hand, if the best use for this property is obvious and the City Council would like to begin immediately to sell the property, that is also a reasonable approach. Since the City is involved, a well-defined process to sell would need to be put in place. I would expect that the terms of the sale would need to cover the actual development proposal so that the potential neighborhood concerns could be addressed before a new owner showed up with a development application that may or may not be acceptable. Another issue for a buyer will be whether the. City is selling the entire parcel while retaining an easement for ponding or selling only the residual piece and retaining ownership of the ponding area. The City's preference has been to hold easements rather than to own the property. The staff has no desire to force any decision on the ultimate use of this parcel but would simply like to be able to provide good customer service by making ar appropriate response to the inquiries. I would appreciate any direction the City Council feels is appropriate at this time. -(-�Iw Fina a Director/City Clerk Cc: Senior Planner Ridley Director of Public Works Colbert /D •111111*0LI :l• remain guided for IND uses and zoned 1-1? If so, the existing uses will remain non- conforming. Area 12: These parcels are guided IND and zoned PD. The existing PD calls for a school, an office, and some retail uses. A proposal was recently reviewed by the APC (although now on hold at applicant's request) to amend the PD to allow office- warehouse/showroom uses. The subcommittee questioned whether these parcels would be included in the Cedarvale redevelopment plans. If so, it would make sense to also include these properties in that special area (see Area 13). Area 13: This area is recommended to be labeled "Special Area" on the new land use map. Given the recent discussion and studies regarding creation of a Cedarvale redevelopment TIF area, it seemed to make sense to designate this as a Special Area. The boundary of the Special Area should correspond to the potential TEF district. Likewise, the development plan that will be created for the TIF could be used as the special area land use plan. Some policies regarding transition from existing to proposed uses may need to be developed, but that would coincide with development of the TEF plan. Area 14: This property is guided D -II and zoned Ag. It is currently owned by a communications company and used for a cell tower. As such, it may not develop further in the foreseeable future. It may then be appropriate to guide this parcel for Quasi -public and rezone to Public Facility. Area 15: The subcommittee initially identified this property (Bieter) for further CounciVAPC direction. However, a proposal for single family development is pending review by the APC on July 28. If the Council approves the plan, the land use should be changed to Low Density and the property rezoned from Ag to R -I. Area 16: Most of these properties are guided NB and zoned GB. Existing uses include a restaurant and a mini -storage facility. The parcel abutting Diffley Road is owned by the City. The east half is guided NB and the west half is guided PF. The west half is a designated detention pond and should remain guided for Quasi -public and rezoned to PF. The Council will need to decide if commercial uses are appropriate on the remaining parcels and, if so, what intensity of uses (GB zoning allows much more intensive uses than NB). Adjacent land across TH 3 in Inver Grove Heights is guided for Community Commercial uses and is currently vacant. Further east is a liquor store, gas station, and U -haul business. Area 17: This parcel contains the Diamond T Ranch and is guided D -I and zoned Ag. The subcommittee suggested the land use remain low density residential. The primary question for the Council is whether the property should be rezoned to R-1 which would make the riding stable use non -conforming. Because the property is more than 5 acres in area, it may not be necessary to rezone because Ag zoning is deemed consistent within that low density land use as stated in the category descriptions that will be included in the new Comp Plan (see pages _IL_thru 1,, ) /. 15 4 Areas Designated as Special Are. Council Direction - Speclal Area Parcel Special Area e Psmels Water Section OManning Area I1 Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MN JULY 28, 1998 Present: Mayor Tom Egan, Counp'jniember Pat Awada, Councilmember Bea Blomquist, Councilmember Sandy Masin, Planning Commission members Carla Heyl, Paul Bakken, Peggy Carlson, Jerry Segal, Gary Huusko, gfeY4:EiiirCtifE;;L2dy;48nk, Planner Julie Farnham, Senior Planner Mike Ridley, City AdministraJ6 ' 46d 'i�ttomajf:N4fke Dougherty, Finance Director Gene VanOverbeke, Consulting Plarpw Greg Ingraham, Planner Pam Dudziak, Planner Bob Kirmis, and Intem to the City Admini"or Amy Hertel. Councilmember Ted Wachter was absent. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Egan called the meeting to.prder at 4:35 p.m. and the agenda was adopted with the addition of the Cedarvale Area under.;plher Business. VI§ITORS�b BE HEARD The visitors present to commentan:speGi(icchat>Qesjq:i he Comprehensive Guide Plan elected to speak during that discussiir{;;:::;:::::::: DISCUSS COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES City Administrator Hedges introduced this item and gave a brief overview of the work of the subcommittee. He commented that he expected the•.disCk ion about Properties Identified For Special Areas/Council Direction would be the•.mp5fU1TI2:Gensuming. He invited the subcommittee to comment on the work they had done; Councilmember Awada stated that-.the::it . ate was straightforward in most cases and consisted of matching the zoning and laritl'oseligs.pWions to match the uses that have evolved on the properties. She stated that this exercise wa5:not.ply important for the City, but was also necessary for submission to the Metropolitan Council. *Slie stated that there were some unique areas in Eagan that posed particular challenges for the subcommittee. Councilmember Blomquist complimented Planner Farnham on her work, stating that it was very representative of the work of the subcommittee. City Administrator Hedges informed the group that he and Senior Planner Ridley had; met with Planner Farnham and complimented her on her broad understanding of the isgd�5.ui 3fie plan i4so introduced Attorney Dougherty as a resource to answer any legal que$Ij". ' 1 af:'M "*::aAse'I'n'.the course of the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that:Mgst changes reflect current property uses, that there may be some confusion in referring to tliiii: iropertie ifue to a potential change in the language used which will be discussed later ands ' rrgfeJif ifZ gtC�p:�tt>?Ceed directly to the special areas to be considered for council direction. $ In regard to Area 1, Planner Farnham stated that the property would be difficult to subdivide much further and that the issue is with regard to a small gift shop would become a non- conforming use if the land use is changed to.reSldential. She stated that whether the area is guided DI or to commercial, there will badi4ACQYtTo.0" entities; if it were guided DI, the gift shop is a non -conforming use and if it is guided:corttliieibr�il :3he homes are non -conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken,' ked if the re5i.60ces would be able to obtain a higher sale value if their property were zon'ed'as commercial. kroner Farnham responded that the a: nents are done according to:27e higl and best:A5e for the property, so the value Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 2 depends on the use. Planning Commission Member Bakken asked if the current residents would have to maintain their properties differently with a zone change. Planner Farnham responded that all non -conforming uses must adhere to the non -conforming ordinances, which do not allow for expansion but do allow for maintenance. Attorney Dougherty clarified that no capital Improvements can be made to propeitfes that are non -conforming uses. Planning Commission Member Bakken stated that those prb&i y owners have a lot to lose with a zoning change because they've made investments in those properties.Planner Farnham said that retention of the current agricultural zoning may altW.ibighdS.v:6 .6&tV:be conforming uses, but the gift shop would be subject to the non-conformlkig: tiSBs:oiiyiti&'.itos22`:: In regard to Area 2, Planner FarrF►i''m indicated that the subcommittee wanted to designate this a Special Area on the new land irs0'map with area specific policies to be included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The group concurred. In regard to Area 3, Planner Farnham stated that this would be another Special Area to encompass the Waters planned development. The group concurred. In regard to Area 4, Planner Fariilam statod:that this area had been studied in 1994 which resulted in the change to Rural Resia"ktial land:use. She further stated that this area functions as a special area and should be hand4d in accortlance with other special areas. Planning Commission Member Bakken cladfiied:t# M:Ioe:spegial are..a.would encompass the provisions of the Rural Residential district; he furtt$ E;SC2fedtliataf:is:ittitpohant to protect those who are there now. The group concurred. Councilmember Masin arived at 4:48 p.m. In regard to Area 5, Planner Farnham stated that it is guided D2, zoned agricultural, but that the subcommittee recommended the area be guidecl.W:Oikensity residential, as the current single family use will likely remain for the foresee$bla:fWbre: Consulting Planner Ingraham commented that the property is hard. todev¢loq':IiEc'auSe of its shape and size. In regard to Area 6, Planner Famham:irtdicated that the subcommittee thought this area (currently Industrial) was really more of a PiitiiicFa> ili(y,..given that it houses the United States Postal Service building and should consequently tie;�2itlifed to Public Facility. Mayor Egan commented that it seemed like the subcommittee was putting form over substance and stated that it should remain Industrial to reflect the use of the property. Senior Planner Ridley expressed concern with this change because it would open up other Public Facilities areas to industrial activity. Planning Commission Member Heyl inquired about the permissibility of truck garages and maintenance facilities as Public Facilities. Planner Farnham stated that the allowances in Public Facilities were vague and should.pg:Fevisited, possibly instituting more CUPS or modifying the performance standards. Planning:r ......o{t:t i; Hey[ said that the Public Facilities areas should be consistent and that:W.:C.6mmi5e4.0.VamdtWe Council should reconsider the requirements for buffering and other:provisionsatlhe Public Facilities properties. Councilmember Blomquist concurred:.stating thatthey should review the setbacks for Public Facilities and review their uses. Coi &ilmembi i.*Awada stated that she thought there were setbacks for Public Facilities. Senigr t?Ia6tit tiiiie *:.=$gned that there are setbacks for Public Facilities structures and that the set *S ii(1:flt£it2e!height of the building. Planning Commission Member Burdorf stated that the USPS facility does not conform to his understanding of Public Facilities. Councilmember Masin asked what the property is currently zoned and Senior Planner Ridley responded that the property is currently zoned 1-1. Attorney Dougherty stated that the federal government is not subject to City zoning ordinances. Planner Farnham said that the subcommittee considered the facility a pt{t#tiCetiE+ty: 3pd therefore thought Public Facility zoning was most appropriate. Mayor Egan stlgpe�tedtfie:Fitl#c Facilities zoning be separated into two degrees of intensity, including a Heavy -Use Public Fa6lli�j¢;and Light -Use Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Segaf•commented that he:i5 less concerned with the Public Facilities zoning because it is subjeCq:w Council considegation and the Council can reject Minu of the Special City Council og July 28, 1 page 3 proposals that do not fit the description of Public Facilities. Planner Famham asked if it was the consensus of the group to keep this area as Industrial. Councilmember Awada stated that the decision on this property should be consistent with a decision about Seneca; she further stated that the properties should remain industrial. City Administrator Hedges asked if the storage of fire trucks would be considered an apprdpclpte use under Public Facilities. Councilmember Blomquist asked what the setbacks f0lbose facilities would be and City Administrator Hedges responded that they would be at least.ps mute, as the. setbacks for Commercial or Industrial properties. Consulting Planner Ingraii :gj 'e"P" j Q ' *ia gtbgp that the difference between Public Facilities and Commercial or Industrial: ol {#f2fii6i.- Wte sector has more choices about where to locate, whereas there are lessoptions when considering where to install a public facility. Planning Commission Member HeyI44ressed concern for residents who may move in next to a public facilities zone and be unpleas'a'ntly surprised at a heavy, industrial -type use allowed on that property in the future. She further stated that it was important that the City's designation and regulation of Public Facilities should reflect the community's understanding of that designation and stated that the City needs to be very Gear about the potential uses of a Public Facility zone. Planning Commission Member CadWr)stated that she thought there should be two types of Public Facilities. Councilmember BO"I"' uist stalled that the conditional uses allowed under Public Facilities were vague and that she vtW. d ratheO mm two categories of Public Facilities. Planning Commission Member Carlson said tW:the Cor}j{i+ission and the Council should consider factors like traffic and noise when making d¢cfsions regufating Public Facilities. Planner Farnham asked if it was the consensus of the group to:kwj.'.'tha:prppe .y.zoped Industrial. Councilmember Awada said it sounded like they wer9:betist�# NRg 'C d4.'g!qgpublic Facilities to two categories. Consulting Planner Ingraham stated that if the property were sold at some point, the only appropriate use would be industrial and the property would.have to be re -zoned and re -guided to reflect the change. Attorney Dougherty said that the City should be consistent in its policies and pointed out the City's advantage of having the golf course area as a Public Facility. Planning Commission Member Frank stated that there would be very -few options available if USPS decided to sell because not many Public Facilities a re::3pprppriate to their building. Councilmember Awada questioned the value:oS fiWa PF:districts because the decisions about developments are at the discretion of•tlfe:A¢visdry Planning Commission and the Eagan City Council; she further stated that the tYiro'&iinctions vil[jUld be meaningless. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that she still ttitwo t the twd'distinctions would be useful. Mayor Egan stated that it would be appropriate to redsib 2ttTy t ` Ulale. two different types of Public Facilities uses. Consulting Planner Ingraham suggested ft it::kGih%'i8 USPS property and the Seneca property be retained as Industrial and that the Council ri Jise the performance standards for Industrial properties because the City is less vulnerable keeping the existing zoning. Planning Commission Member Segal directed the group to think long-term, asking how the group would want the property zoned if someday USPS is no longer there. The group concurred that the industrial land use and zoning should be retained. In regard to Area 7, PlannerFarttfilijrjtcated:ih$t`tiiy subcommittee recommended this area which encompasses the Centralkiea b'e'3poijlded'as'a Special Area. The group concurred. In regard to Area 8, Planner FaB+ham indicr7tgd that the subcommittee recommended the property be guided as low-density, til tainin&O*W Agricultural zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 9, Planner Fai'itli'Ali "—"'2t0tl fila! giz:tbbcommittee recommended rezoning the area to D1, thus making Richfield Blacktop a non -conforming use and subject to the limitations of the non -conforming ordinances. She stated their concern with guiding just that one property as commercial, making it an island of commercial property amidst extensive residential properties. Planning Commission Member Carlson. expressed concern that the use of this property seems to just keep expanding,: {il4 'W-: 83►{ommented that Richfield Blacktop had been issued a citation and that their catid'ri T t� gAsion had been granted, so the feasibility ?3?Ak 13.... of rezoning the area to fit with low-dertsify becomes a' 6:"n greater challenge. Consulting Planner Ingraham questioned what lht group wanted to, fitivein this location long-term, stating that if it is zoned General Business,,:'*}other business cor4o. move into the Richfield Blacktop Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 29, 1 page 4 location amidst residential areas. Councilmember Masin stated that because they had gasoline pumps at that location, she would never feel comfortable allowing someone to build a home there. Councilmember Blomquist stated that there are ways to treat land to make it livable for homes; she cautioned against "spot zoning' policies, especially ones that are poorly maintained. She further stated that their CUP is c�tiirently being broken and that the current use of that land is more Industrial in nature. Planning dwninission Member Carlson stated that this is an excessively heavy use in a residentiat;area,: P1anrIVr,Farriham asked if the group wanted to rezone the property to coincide with tFiee7d51+fg Df:,gtifdi ::::idlayor Egan stated that the business should be a non -conforming entity artif sii6jei i'TO ttiose'tiriiit'8tions. In regard to Area 10, Planner Fa(t k'am stated that the subcommittee recommended keeping the area low-density, Indicating that the"Physical features of the land make it challenging to develop. She stated that it could be included as a Special Area. CouncilmemberAwada emphasized the difficulty of developing this area. Planner Farnham said that this is a designated PD with low and medium density residential and limited business uses. Mayor Egan suggested a discussion with the owners of Blue Grows to determine the scope of any future inclusions in the Planned Development and their londiWim goalxfor the property. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that high-density residEhtial waS 66t the answer for this property. Planner Farnham stated that the City would C.6 tact Blu4: ross. In regard to Area 11, Planner Faiiifi�rrE;$ta":thata;potiion of this property is owned by the City and may be appropriate to guide ftgiiasi piitYlic:::if:lu8s:615o suggested that this area be included in a Special Area in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study Area. In regard to Area 12, Planner Farnham indicated that the subcommittee thought the entire area should be designated a Special Area to allow for the flexibility needed for planning the potential Light Rail Transit location. She further stated that. Area 13 would be appropriate for Inclusion with Area 12. In regard to Area 13, Planner Far$iafti hid? algid ifta subcommittee recommended this area be designated a Special Area. Policie's i rd. a land use map would be developed in conjunction with the Cedarvale Study. In regard to Area 14, Planner Farnham indicaNed:that;tti.e subcommittee recommended the area be zoned quasi -public to reflect its use as a cell towt r -site. The group concurred. In regard to Area 15, Councilmember Awada stated that the potential settlement regarding this property would make this discussion moot. In regard to Area 16, Planner Fam,hls. :stated that.the land use designations currently split the City -owned properly in half, inqu rjng tf:ttiiite w2$ ja(o t by the City in subdividing the property. Planning Commission MeliW''r Bakkep s' ked if this area would be a good candidate for Office Service. Planner Famham.. spondeiOhat the existing uses would then become non- conforming. Mayor Egan stated thak.Vte area imeluded a touchy parcel and emphasized the importance of being sensitive to thd:t4d.Spf &6e urrounding neighbors. He expressed interest in considering the economic viabilitj fftie: rty:asiid ii#0,king it consistent with the surrounding uses. City Administrator Hedges stated'tliatllfe`66'ifii 1 -should consider plating the land and will discuss this area in further detail later in the meeting. Planner Farnham indicated that the most appropriate uses for the area included Office Service, which would allow LB or NB zoning. The group concurred. In regard to Area 17, Planner Famt4^fi'AfatQG�iftaf:the subcommittee recommended maintaining the current zoning and gldifii g'for ffi'e'are� :`.The group concurred. In regard to Area 16, Planner Famham emphasized: f, ib importance of not encouraging investment by current property owrtCiB:due to interest by J$kota County to purchase the land. Minu of the Special City Council 'ng July 28, 1 page 5. She further commented that zoning to Parks would make the houses non -conforming and may also hasten the sale of the homes. Consultant Planner Ingraham noted that the homes currently there could be tom down and replaced with larger homes if not made non -conforming. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired if the church on the property would be acquired by the County, stating that the City should 66'fact the -County about the church. Consulting Planner Ingraham said that the County is int$#i aced in buying on a willing -seller basis. Planner Famham said that making those homes non-conf.Ofming.uses would limit their ability to invest in the property that is set for County acqui5lfioT;irir>j¢itiri;ltiAE�gr that the area could also be designated a Special Area and policies- the transition from residential to park zoning. Planning Commission Member Carlson stated that the area should be zoned for Parks, making the homes non-confotFijng uses and stated that the homeowners should be noticed of the County's intent to pur"'ti'ase the land. Councilmember Blomquist said that the City should talk to the County first to see if they have the resources to acquire the land. Consulting Planner Ingraham informed the group that the County has reserve funds for this purpose and will be able to acquire the property when it becomes available. In regard to Area 19, Planner Fi6t" am indipted that a pocket of General Business uses exists amidst an area designated fo6iiidentiakt'3 and DI uses. She stated that the subcommittee recommended re -guiding to low` -density residential and make the commercial uses non -conforming. Planning Commission Memb'. cbarlson asked if there was anything the City could do to ask these properties tooleattir{f:ttC;arsa;:pfanrter Farnham said that there is nothing the City can do unless those properties:Gti'iitE:3R:lo:"%*'%>14ri:a permit, in which case they would be brought up to current standards. Councilmember Masin asked what the City of Rosemount intends to do with their adjacent properties. Planner Farnham said that Rosemount's property is guided Rural Residential. Planning Commission Member Carlson inquired about the zoning for the Gun Club, stating that it should be a Public Facility. Councilmember Masin stated that the area should remain recreational. Planner Famham indicated that an appropriate zoning for the area may be quasi -public. Planning Commission.Memb&burdorf expressed concern about the long -tens use, stating that zoning this as a,QubfipFaeilitj was an expression of support by the City of this use of the land. Hefurtf>Qr;s{ated:�haf'ih :neighboring residential areas would be more welcoming of General Businesse" :i6n of the than Club. Planner Farnham confirmed that designating this area as a Public Facild�.:ti!RLId.show`support for the current use. She stated that the public facilities zoning is inconsistent wltfrliiti;D7::gpide: She suggested further review of the area, including discussions with the neighboring'? esfdeiif$;;1?osemount and the Gun Club. DISCUSS DRAFT LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS Planner Farnham asked the Planning Commission and the City Council to contact her with comments on the potential new land use descriptions. DISCUSSPZ; BLI.: ARTiCIPATION PROCESS Planner Farnham stated that slie38entified:2bbut 70 parcels of land that are proposed for a significant change and that the properly ownec�.ahould be notified individually about the changes. These meetings could be separate;ffoA1 the 57i¢%ghborhood meetings that will be held for general public input. It was suggested that :5t8Tf.... bs(.n311sose properties and review it with the subcommittee. MARICE MANOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY City Administrator Hedges gave an overviey pf this item. He stated that the property in question was located next to Sidney's aFld#bgt£eY61t�p21s wanted to build an assisted living community. Finance Director VanOy�iEs*.'""' tate'd:4fta(:tPe developers had not initially thought they would need financing through l;gtitfs, but were noiK:Ct questing $22 million worth of bonds, covering almost 100 percent of the "'osis of production. 'ifie stated that the project may qualify as tax-exempt if it meets the standard*:§7 a nursing home, in:Y+hich case the property owners would Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 6 have to make a payment in lieu of taxes. He informed the Council that the City could not issue the bonds because Eagan is committed to issuing fewer than $10 million in bonds. He stated that the Dakota County HRA was willing to issue the bonds, but they required City endorsement of the project prior to those negotiations. He,asked the Council if they would be interested in having the HRA pursue a payment in lieu of taxea,:option through their negotiations. Councilmember Awada said that the HRA should certainly ptiisue that option and her comment was met by consensus on the Council. Councilmember Masin asked. now. ihat.payment would be applied to City operations. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated itl2t-V*:iti�j ' - rpii�Q be treated like any other tax revenue. He further stated that the ag' roemerri t6tWfeab?Wd with the developers would include a protective clause whereby the property jrrould be subject to standard property taxes If it was not granted tax-exempt status by the Cotigtq assessor. City Administrator Hedges stated that the Item would be on the August 4, 1998 Consent Agenda. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY CERTAIN CLAIMS City Administrator Hedges gave:a!�;averview of this item, stating that this authorization would allow a streamlined process of payirig.ihe bilis.::glnance Director VanOverbeke stated that action by the Council could authorize a staff:¢erson tti � y the bills on a weekly basis, subject to accounting regulations and policies tti�j can b6: bdified by the Council at any time. Councilmember Awada staled that the current System was inefficient. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council that the City would not change as a result of this authorization. Mayor Egan askei3 hdiv:t6e:piesetilaSititi:af the bills to the Council would change. Finance Director VanOverbeke said that the bills would be reviewed every Wednesday to be paid every Friday and the Council would receive updates at the Council meetings of all bills paid since the last Council meeting. City Administrator Hedges emphasized the scrutinizing process the bills are subjected to before being paid and stated that these procedures would not be relaxed at all. Councilmember Awada stated that it is, Important for governments to be moving away from these inefficiencies. Finance Director VanO i*l&ke stated that this matter would be on the August 18 Regular Council Meeting.ageAda;:;:::::' Finance Director VanOverbeke inforneti lfle::PoA;Gl.that the City has received several inquiries about the property and asked the Councilhi there:;O s Interest at this time in selling. Councilmember Blomquist said she would feel more co6iWable selling the property after the neighborhood meetings have taken place. Mayor Egan identified the precarious balance between reclaiming the City's investment in the property and sensitivity to the needs of the residents. Councilmember Masin asked if the City would ever have any need for this in the future. City Administrator Hedges responded that it is hard to predict the future needs of the City, but informed the Council that the only consideration given.to this land previously was as a potential site for satellite maintenancet t itiiCi4;figd:Rtii:Co '.O:to fruition. Councilmember Awada stated that the Council should wait U itlr�fter t'fi�.4oiimprehensive Guide Plan Update was completed. Councilmember Awada expresg6d`66tfi'u'3i25t1c'iiiter2§t in seeing the Light Rail Transit system have a hub in Eagan and asked how to ensure this would happen through lobbying and committee efforts. She also asked who would be representing Eagan on the planning committee for the Light Rail Transit. City Administrator Hedges responded that Tom Butler would serve as the business community representative and,>hatUgrgaret Shriner would participate as the resident representative. Councilmember:A$i$di:W,' d.that the Light Rail Transit is extremely Important and said the City should give;;loF of Siippgrt;tithe committee members. City Administrator Hedges informed the Council thafft Light Rail Transit is being addressed at the staff level, stating that he ha4:W$ I the resolution tp the appropriate persons. He stated Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting July 28, 1998 page 7 further that he had written the LRT into the Cedarvale RFP; he also requested that Tom Butler send the City copies of all documentation he receives through the committee. Councilmember Awada called for:an aggressive approach to obtaining the Light Rail Transit hub in Eagan, asking for information:966ut how to push this matter through and ensure Eagan's participation. City Administrator Hec4k stated that Eagan is currently a wild card, but gamers support from the MVTA and Dakota County,; He.turlOer.siat d that Bloomington has incentive to support the hub in Dakota County. He;:al3c � 0:0tat Epgan could find support from its legislative delegation. Councilmember Bfohlgol'st'wam'dii against assuming a stop in Dakota County would mean the location wour4:be in Eagan, citing discussion about having the stop at the zoo in Apple Valley. She indicatedstc.G�g support for pushing for a stop in Eagan. Councilmember Awada directed City Administrator Hedges to compile more data on this by Tuesday, August 4, 1998. OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Hedges inforrf efJ the Cay cil of an opportunity to meet with Jim Colbert of Colbert, Bums and McDonnell to dis�dss the potential golf course opportunity in the Waters area of Eagan. Due to open meeting laws >rity AdriMstrator Hedges informed the Council that either less than two Councilmembers could'ahend orft'eould be publicly advertised as a special meeting. Mayor Egan volunteered t¢;at#i rsif wif*h*:0ty:Adrrilrrlstrator Hedges and another volunteer. Councilmember BlomquisC e15o vzitbb::Id:atfend. Councilmembers Masin and Awada declined. City Administrator Hedges reminded the Council that this matter is still in the early discussion processes and that it will not be up for formal consideration until some more meetings have been held with the property -owners involved.