CC Minutes 2000 11 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:3S p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilwoman Jansen, and
Councilman Labatt
Mayor Mancino made an announcement that Councilman Engel had resigned from the City Council due to
moving out of'the City of' Chanhassen.
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, P, oger Knutson, Todd Cierhardt, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson,
Bob Cienerous, Bruce DeJong and Jonathon
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mayor Mancino~ May I have a motion to approve the agenda. We did add something to it. May I have a
motion and a second please.
Councilwoman Jansen~ Move approval without the addition.
Councilman Labatt~ Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda without the
addition. Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Councilman Senn and
Mayor Mancino voted against. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Mancino~ So we don't approve the amended agenda, correct?
lloger Knutson~ It did not pass.
Mayor Mancino~ It did not pass. Can I have another motion?
Councilwoman Jansen~ Move approval of'the current agenda.
Councilman Labatt~ Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as presented.
Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Mayor
Mancino voted against. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Mancino~ May I have another motion please. On the approval of'the agenda.
Councilman Labatt~ Move approval as published.
Mayor Mancino~ And a second?
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn: As published?
Councilwoman Jansen: As published.
Councilman Senn: But I mean this isn't what was published.
Councilwoman Jansen: Sure it is. Do we need a discussion of the motion?
Mayor Mancino: Was this particular agenda published? We can always add and delete to an agenda.
Scott Botcher: By published you mean posted?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as published.
Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Mayor
Mancino voted against. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Mancino: May I have another motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Madam Mayor, should we have a discussion of the catching point?
Mayor Mancino: No, let's have another motion. Is there another motion?
Councilman Senn: How about move approval of the agenda with the addition of 2(a) as a discussion item
for council vacancy?
Mayor Mancino: So that would be under new business, which would be 2(a). Discussion of the vacated
seat, Mark Engel that we found out about last week and talk about that.
Scott Botcher: That'd be 3(a) Mark.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm sorry. 3(a).
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to the motion? I will second that motion. All those in favor
signify by saying aye?
Councilwoman Jansen: Discussion of the motion?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: As we reviewed this particular suggestion during the work session that there be an
addition to the agenda for the discussion of the appointment of Councilman-elect Peterson, let me reiterate
what I said to Mr. Peterson. We certainly look forward to the day when you will be serving on this council
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
and we certainly appreciate your voluntarily wanting to come on early to help with the duties. The concern
that was voiced is that this particular discussion was not publicly on our agenda. There's been no
notification as far as our process and what we're about to embark on. In fact a lot of the public doesn't
even realize that Councilman Engel is no longer a member of the council. So our discussion in the work
session was that it would seem more appropriate to have that information received by the public so that
they are aware of Councilman Engel's departure. At the same time then being made aware that there's
being consideration given to bringing Councilman-elect Peterson onto the council and that that be allowed
to be made open and discussed with the public so that Councilman-elect Peterson's transition onto the
council is not viewed by the public as a shenanigan. I mean we're not notifying the public that we're
actually taking this large of a step and there was certainly controversy raised around the whole appointment
process potential as we go into next year so we really emphasized the public process and having it be open
as we go into that. That January process and just looking for this one to then be similar in pattern. So it's
a step that could be notified in the next Villager and acted upon at the next council meeting.
Mayor Mancino: The response that the other two of us talked about at the work session was number one,
that we were just notified of Mark Engel too. We like to work with a full council of five people so that if
we have a 2 to 2 vote, that obviously that there is a majority and that we try and have that at all meetings.
Now the public has certainly voted on Mr. Peterson and has shown us that he was the top vote getter for a
council seat and since we only have 6 weeks left, but we have a lot of important decisions to make. We
have decisions on the budget. We have decisions on debt policy. We have a big decision tonight on a
subdivision. We would like to have, and on the Livable Communities Act, that we would like to have a full
council for those decisions. Having five people on the council. And that the most common sense, the best
way to make that decision is to have the person who would be filling the City Council seat in January
coming on now, 2 months early and helping us make that decision. So that is what we put in front of us
tonight and to discuss it publicly at this meeting.
Councilwoman Jansen: And we simply requested that it be moved to the next council meeting so that it
could be advertised and noticed to the entire public. And that's the only catching point is this evening. We
certainly have welcomed the idea of Councilman-elect Peterson joining the council and obviously for the
same reasons. There was precedence set that top vote getters join the council but at this point, again doing
it more publicly and notifying the public of the process.
Mayor Mancino: I would be okay with that if then the two big decisions that we have to make tonight,
which is the Igel subdivision and the Livable Communities Act also be pushed to the next available agenda
and we would discuss it in full as a full council.
Councilwoman Jansen: As we discussed in the work session with Roger those things could certainly be
tabled if in fact they were to turn out to be controversial and needing to be tabled but however you want to
go about handling it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I don't see a lot of controversy, other than what was tried to pull earlier I think so.
You know it comes down to yes, Craig was the top vote getter and I welcome him and look forward to
serving with him for the next 2 years. But the public also spoke Nancy that they don't want the 3 of you
up here together so I'll leave it at that. And I told you I'd save my comments for public meeting. Make
them public. I'm not ashamed to say that.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: The public didn't say that. That's your inference. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean there's obviously an impasse. I don't see a problem with waiting til next
council meeting but as I said in the work session, I don't think it's fair to penalize anybody on either side of
the issue on any item to essentially have it automatically denied because of a 2-2 vote so, if you simply take
any items that would come to a 2-2 vote tonight and move them off to a future agenda, then it accomplishes
the same thing.
Councilwoman Jansen: That's what we discussed.
Mayor Mancino: So when it comes to a 2-2 vote then.
Councilman Senn: Well I think it's simple. You asked, let's see here. You ask both sides in the Igel deal
if they would simply like to move their item off to a future council meeting because it potentially tonight
could just be automatically denied because of a 2-2 vote. And any other items that somebody wants to pull
off the agenda because they feel that, we should just pull them off. Put them off to the future one with the
consideration.
Mayor Mancino: And decide that right now or at the time?
Councilman Senn: No, decide it right now. I think it's the only way to treat fairly, treat the parties. I
mean I don't think it's fair to ask them to get up and base acceptance or denial on that.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm confused as to why, or maybe you've reached a conclusion on the Igel
subdivision. I know we haven't talked about it so I guess I'm not clear as to why it's assumption that
that's an item that's going to have a catching point but maybe you know something I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: No. No, we didn't say it was going to have a catching point.
Councilman Senn: I don't know anything you don't know Linda. I'm following the same council
procedure we've been following for 8 years around here and that is, whenever there is a potential because
of a missing council person for a tie or otherwise vote to affect the outcome of an item, we've always tabled
it. Put it off and let it come back on the agenda before the full council.
Mayor Mancino: And in fact council members have said, I'm not going to be at that particular meeting. I
would like it pulled so that I can be there to vote on it. We've always done that.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess what I'm not clear on is, are we tabling items now or are we waiting to see
if we have a tie vote but I guess that's what I'm not hearing clearly.
Councilman Senn: ... passes, we've always done it ahead of time and asked people. To give them the
option. If they want to chance it and go ahead, that's up to them.
Councilwoman Jansen: But you can table it as you reach your 2-2 impasse. If there's a 2-2 impasse,
correct? I mean procedurally.
Mayor Mancino: No, if it's 2-2.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilman Senn: But wait now, not necessarily true. It depends on the time line in terms of how long the
item's been before us and whether we're outside the 120 day or up against the 120 day time line.
Councilwoman Jansen: There isn't one on the Igel subdivision.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Kate, is there a time line on the Igel subdivision?
Kate Aanenson: Well they had waived their's until the meeting tonight so I guess you'd have to ask the
Igel's what their position is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But if it came down Roger to a 2-2 split, at that point what happens to a tabling?
Roger Knutson: It's a separate vote.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And can the tabling, you can have a note to the tabling, we want to continue. If
it's 2-2. Let's say two people decide to table and two people decide not to.
Roger Knutson: It's not tabled.
Mayor Mancino: Then it's not tabled. So that's why we're discussing it up front.
Councilwoman Jansen: You're assuming no cooperation but you can go down that path if you like.
Mayor Mancino: So let's go down the agenda and see what we have on here. Consider aware of cable TV
franchise. Is there anyone here tonight? Who is the applicant?
Scott Botcher: Everest. Jane.
Councilwoman Jansen: Jane, would you like to come forward and just tell us if you would like that tabled
or if you would like us to go ahead. We can pull it from the agenda.
Jane Bremer: Madam Mayor, it's my understanding that the council supports bringing in a competitive
cable television system to Chanhassen so I would like a vote. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thanks. So we'll go ahead with that one. Consideration of no parking on Lake
Lucy Road during Christmas display.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, in this case it is a time sensitive issue and does need to be addressed
tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. The Igel's. Are they here tonight?
Rachel Igel: Hello council members. I'm Rachel Igel and I would say that if we had the choice that if there
were a 2 to 2 vote, that it could be tabled, we would prefer that. If that's not an option, then we would
rather push it off. And it sounds like it's not an option.
Mayor Mancino: So you would like to push it off.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Scott Botcher: You have the right to do that. If I understood your question.
Rachel Igel: To do what?
Scott Botcher: You have the right to grant a waiver to come again in 2 weeks.
Mayor Mancino: We don't know how the vote's going to go. We don't know if it's going to go 2 to 2. If
it's going to 3 to 1. If it's going to go 4 to 0.
Rachel Igel: If I understand the conversation, and maybe this is where Councilwoman Jansen was getting
at, is if after the vote we determine it's 2 to 2, it could be pushed off. Or would it have to be before?
Councilwoman Jansen: Well it could be. If it's the results.
Mayor Mancino: But let's say it's 2 to 2 and 2 people don't want to table it. Then it wouldn't be tabled.
Rachel Igel: And then the question I would have is, could there be a decision made prior to us deciding to
go forward tonight as to what the procedure would be? Meaning if there is a 2 to 2 tie, could they elect
before hand to either move forward or not so that we know what we're giving up or not ahead of time.
Mayor Mancino: Roger? Do you want to answer that one?
Roger Knutson: What's the question again? I was talking to Scott.
Scott Botcher: Well I'll try. Correct me ifI screwed up. As I understand it, and Roger will steer me
straight. At this point you have the opportunity to withdraw it from the agenda and say staff, put it on in 2
weeks. You have that opportunity. Once council undertakes the discussion, and I don't know what the
vote will be frankly, but if it were 2 to 2, that obviously is not a successful motion. And as the Mayor said,
a motion to table at 2-2 doesn't pass either. And as I understand it then, once you get into those
discussions, you somewhat and this is where I get a little fuzzy and maybe I'll have Roger help me, you
somewhat give up that authority to withdraw once that discussion happens. So I guess, those are your
choices.
Rachel Igel: That's I guess the clarification too. If that's the result then we would rather table it. If we
could lay out the procedure ahead of time, which is to say if all of the council members would agree to
table it if there's a 2 to 2 tie, then we would be willing to proceed forward.
Scott Botcher: Yeah and I don't think that's something that you'll get. I mean I don't think you can ask
the council to tell you what the vote is prior to the issue being taken up. But at this point, correct?
Roger Knutson: That's right.
Scott Botcher: You can voluntarily pull it.
Rachel Igel: Then we would voluntarily pull it.
Roger Knutson: And at the same time you're waiving the requirement that we act on it within a certain
period of time. You're kicking that over for 2 weeks.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Rachel Igel: Oh, we would absolutely do that. My husband I think wants to add something.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, you can certainly come forward with your wife. You may want to do one thing
and he may want to do another. You know, that happens.
Councilman Senn: Another split vote.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly.
Scott Botcher: At least he gets the opportunity.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, then we have a couple other things. Evaluation of goals and approval of
resolution for continued participation of Livable Communities Act. Kate?
Kate Aanenson: We're ready to proceed.
Mayor Mancino: You're going to go ahead to proceed?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the other one is discussion of acquisition of Lot 11, Block 1, Shadowmere
Addition.
Kate Aanenson: I'd like to keep that one. It's a timing issue.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, proceed. And do we have anything else?
Scott Botcher: That's it.
Mayor Mancino: So we'll just give you a few minutes. And you know, in the meantime I know that there
is for the Igel Addition a November 7th letter that Roger is going to be responding to. So in the interim
time, if they decide to push it, there would be a response from the November 7th letter. For those people for
the Igel subdivision.
Councilman Senn: I'm confused. If they decide not to push it, there'd be a response.
Scott Botcher: He at this point is prepared to give a verbal response but if it's delayed...
Mayor Mancino: He can do it here at the meeting but otherwise he can give a written response if we have
more time.
Scott Botcher: I shudder to make a suggestion.
Mayor Mancino: You shudder to make a suggestion?
Scott Botcher: May I make a suggestion?
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, you can make a suggestion.
Scott Botcher: Under the law, just for what it's worth, there's no requirement to approve the agenda. Now
you have to stick to the agenda as is posted, as Steve said. And I'm not going to get into that whole debate,
but as we're sitting here waiting for a bit, and I'm trying to pick the ones that are not controversial. If you
want to consider the cable TV franchise while we're sitting here.
Mayor Mancino: Well, let's ask the Igel's how much, do you want to.
Scott Botcher: I mean they're talking there nicely and I was just going to try to do work.
Mayor Mancino: Do you want to take a few minutes. You can certainly leave the room. We'll go ahead
with the agenda and then you can come back and tell us. Give you some time. Why don't you go ahead
outside. Good idea Scott.
Scott Botcher: Hey Todd. Can you show them up to the conference room if they want to use it, so they
don't sit in the hallway or something. Just trying to get work done.
Mayor Mancino: That's a good idea. So why don't we, we haven't even done the consent agenda. We'll
go to the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Accept Donation from Pillsbury for 2001 Chanhassen Safety Camp.
b. Approval of Carver County Prosecution Contract for 2001.
c. Approve Supplement No. 1 to Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 80068 for Trunk
Highway 5/West 78th Street, Project 97-6.
d. Resolution #2000-77: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Olivewood Addition,
Project 94-11.
Resolution #2000-78: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in The Woods at
Longacres 5th and 6th Additions, Project Nos. 99-15 and 99-16.
Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Arrowhead Addition, Project 00-09.
Approval of Bills.
Approve City Council Minutes:
- Work Session Minutes dated October 23, 2000
- Regular City Council Minutes dated October 23, 2000
Approval of Temporary Beer & Wine License, Edina Realty Foundation.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
j. Resolution/12000-79: Approve Resolution Calling for Public Hearing on a Joint Powers
Agreement with the City of Victoria for Issuance of Revenue Bonds.
k. Resolution/12000-80: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Whitetail Cove,
Project No. 99-6.
1. Approve Summary for Graffiti Ordinance for publication purposes.
m. Resolution/t2000-81: Certification of Delinquent Sewer and Water Accounts.
n. Approve Contract for Carver County Police Services for 2001.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
AWARD OF BIDS: CONSIDER AWARD OF CABLE TV FRANCHISE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tamara O'Neill
Jane Bremer
8425 Kimball Drive, Eden Prairie
7900 Xerxes Avenue So, Bloomington
Scott Botcher: At the work session and throughout the last, oh geez for the last 12 or months or so we
seem to be doing cable business. First MediaCom redid their agreement and then we were notified of two
separate parties interested in providing cable services to the City of Chanhassen. We have two of them in
the pipeline at this point. Tonight you have before you an agreement, a franchise agreement between the
City and Everest Communications. We have met with them. You have previously granted them a
franchise. I don't know if that's the correct term of not. Contingent upon the approval of this agreement.
Obviously one of the issues that has been important to staff has been the provision of competitive services
in the city of Chanhassen. The new providers will be providing far more than sitcoms. They're really in
the business to provide band width and are putting in state of the art high speed service to all parts of
Chanhassen. MediaCom's rebuild last year also was done to meet the competitive marketplace, even
though at that point they had no competitors. I think probably they knew they were coming. Bottom line is
we've negotiated an agreement with them and with their attorneys and our recommendation this evening is
to approve this agreement. As an aside we will also be coming to you hopefully in the near future with
another party that is seeking permission to provide cable services within the city. I guess that's it. And
they have representatives at the meeting if you have any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this point for the award of TV franchise?
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone from the floor that had any questions about the TV franchise. Okay. Bringing it
back, may I please have a motion.
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilman Senn: Move approval contingent upon the corporate guarantee by Everest Holdings I, LLC
and staff to prepare said guarantee consistent with the past agreements.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2000-82: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the award
of bid for cable TV franchise agreement to Everest contingent upon the corporate guarantee by
Everest Holdings I, LLC and direct staff to prepare said guarantee consistent with past agreements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF NO PARKING ON LAKE LUCY ROAD DURING CHRISTMAS
DISPLAY.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor and council members. There is a yearly Christmas display that takes
place at 1645 Lake Lucy Road. This is an annual display that is done and it attracts visitors from the
entire Twin Cities metro area. People are encouraged to leave their vehicles and to also tour the property.
Because of that we have a parking problem on Lake Lucy Road. In the past the deputies have just not
enforced the no parking zone. In this case we are asking that the council approve the lifting of the no
parking inscription for the duration of the Christmas display to make formal our past unofficial action of
allowing parking on Lake Lucy Road during the Christmas display. Appropriate signage would be added
to designate the area that is going to be no parking. To make it more clear to residents and also visitors to
the area who are assisting the display and we will cover the no parking zones that are in the area to be, to
allow parking. We will also increase our signage to allow people to be aware of the safety hazard, the slow
moving traffic, so they are aware of it before they come into the area. If there's any questions I'd be happy
to answer those.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for council?
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Councilman Labatt: Can you just give us a brief scenario of how far you're anticipating?
Teresa Burgess: Part of it would be based on sight lines so we would go out there and actually drive the
area and use a series of cones. We use the taller cones, they approximate the size of a kindergarten child.
So we use the 3 foot cones just as an approximation. We would probably go from the curve area around
the, in that area we would be putting up signage so that people coming around the curve can see that there
is the traffic coming up. A lot of times they aren't aware of it until they get around the curve. And then we
would be stopping it before, the name of the street escapes me.
Councilman Labatt: Yosemite?
Teresa Burgess: Lake Lucy Lane we would stop it so there's a gap for visibility. And then we would go
out probably to the traditional, where people have parked in the past.
Mayor Mancino: Are you going to be designing a plan and putting it actually?
Teresa Burgess: We'll be going on the experience of the deputies in the past and based on our experience
this year we will tweak it as we go through the season and next year would then base what is allowed next
10
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
year on what happens this year. The intention being that in the past we have not permitted at all and this
way we would be starting to set a precedence for permitting parking and also for gaining some control of
the situation in the area.
Mayor Mancino: Teresa at the end, could you do a report so also the Kendall's can see it too.
Teresa Burgess: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: So that they understand.
Teresa Burgess: We can do an update for the council, also what area. I'd like to do the no parking zone
though by actually driving it and actually going out with the sign superintendent and doing it on that basis.
Asking one of the deputies to accompany us and tell us what problem areas, get their input as well.
Mayor Mancino: I know that the Kendall's met with their neighbors, etc so I would think that everybody
would want to understand what you find out this year when you do a post mortem on what's happened and
the safety, etc.
Teresa Burgess: Parking was raised at the neighborhood meeting. I was not able to attend that but I
understand that Mayor Mancino did attend a portion of that. It does not appear that parking was one of the
primary concerns of the neighborhood. Other issues related to lights, the amount of traffic, were bigger
issues for the neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: And the kids crossing the street.
Teresa Burgess: The kids having to cross without looking where they're going.
Mayor Mancino: Do we need a motion on this?
Teresa Burgess: We are looking for direction from the council. In this case it is a longer period of time
and staff is comfortable addressing without council direction so we would like to have the council to
approve. We do not need a formal resolution.
Mayor Mancino: But you do want us to approve that the no parking restrictions may be temporarily lifted?
Teresa Burgess: We'd like you to approve it in this case because it is a finite period.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for Option 1 per staff recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: A second please.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Resolution #2000-83: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
resolution temporarily lifting the no parking restrictions on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
11
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Igel Addition. Are they back yet?
Scott Botcher: No, I sent John up for them. Let's move on.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll wait and see.
EVALUATION OF GOALS AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION IN THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steven Berquist
Jean Mancini
Kay & Tom Faust
Mel Kurver
Jerome Carlson
Susan Hallberg
7207 Frontier Trail
820 Santa Vera Drive
541 Mission Hills Drive
7240 Kurvers Point Road
6950 Galpin Boulevard
411 Del Rio Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. In 1995 the City originally agreed to participate in the Livable Communities
Act and in that original agreement we reserved the right to re-negotiate the goals every 2 years so this
would be the end of the second year to renew the goals. Attached are the goals to participate and staff is
recommending that these goals not change. As a part of the comprehensive plan, the housing element was
updated consistent with the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council following
state law does require the housing section and our densities and diversity of housing type is a requirement
of that. Our comprehensive plan was approved by the Met Council and it is my opinion that if we deviate
from some of this that we will not be in compliance with the Metropolitan Council. I made an overhead of
these standards and I included in your packet just a summary of some of the projects. We're one of the
model communities. Just to look at what we're doing as far as densities. As you recall, we looked at the
single family and what we've done in the past where originally we did a lot of research. Looking at the
goals and what we could do for single family detached and historically we had done 1.8. That was what
was approved in the 1991 comprehensive plan and we left that as it was. What the Metropolitan Council
said we had to achieve in order to be in compliance with the, get our comp plan in compliance, was get it
closer to 3 for an average. That meant under the multi-family you get closer to the 9 to 10. I've also
included in your packet some of the multi family projects and single family projects to show you kind of
where we've been with densities. Some of the single families actually have been a little bit closer to 2. But
the multi family again is, it's been a range again depending on if it's medium density or high density. We
don't have that many high density zoned properties in the community. One of the things that we looked at
in putting this together is we look at the Bluff Creek overlay district where we're trying to accomplish this
sensitivity of the landforms that we're probably doing some more clustering and have to be doing some
zone changes. But we haven't been providing also as far as single family or in a rental, we haven't been
providing subsidy. The last one we provided subsidy for the ownership was in North Bay and that was a
number of years ago. The last projects that we've received affordability credit have been just based on
market rate. They've come in at that point. Whatever, every year those numbers change but we get credit
if units come in under the affordability index. And I'll go through what that is right now. Right now for
the single family affordability would be anything under $134,000 to 150 so if a product comes in under that
12
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
we would just get credit for that. Again, that's just for the market rate. The rental, some of the numbers
will be increasing for 2001. What your motion says on the front page is staff would recommend the
Council approve the 2000. It should say 2001 because this would be for next year. The rents have gone
up slightly so the median income at 50% of 31. I'm on page 2. On $31,000 would be $34,000. Again we
did try to do, we looked at when Villages on the Pond came in, that last project and the council made a
decision that the 20,000 gap differential was too high so we did provide subsidy in that so the last rental
subsidy that we looked at that we got credit for was on the senior housing project. So we haven't done any
rental subsidy. Again keeping in mind it's not always, our goal is a number of different things. It's not
always the affordability. It's also the life cycle and the different types of product which we're trying to
achieve. The other thing I wanted to point out, I put in here building permit activity. I wanted to point out
for you, this is the lowest number of single family detached housing that we've done in the city since the
1980's. Part of that is there's getting to be a pretty large spread between the townhouse type product and
the single family detached. There are lots on, there is land available. We know there's some other single
products that's coming on board but those tend to be $300-400 plus so there is a big price spread. If you
look at the building permit activity I included in your packet, the chart. We're down with what we have
approved this year as far as building activities as far as... closer to the 300, is that we approved 162 as far
as Villages on the Pond. Otherwise our building permit for residential would be very low. We've also
approved the 350 as far as Powers Ridge but that probably won't occur until next year. Again we don't
have a lot of single family detached product on the market yet. That seems to be moving a lot slower. So
again diversity is an issue and as I pointed out, so is the density factor. Again just on the multi family
which we haven't done a lot of so, with that it's the staff's recommendation that we continue to support the
goals as was originally approved. We did modify those. Let me back up. We did modify those. The
owner and renter mix because we felt there was not way we could achieve that based on patterns that had
happened in the past. And maybe I could just make one other comment as far as what's available. That
was the building permit activity. You can see where we've had the higher spikes when we've actually had
more product. In 1995 where you see the high spike, that was the first year we actually did more attached
product than detached. When I'm talking detached I'm saying it's a traditional single family detached so
that was the first year. And again this year what brought us up is the fact that we did some apartments. I
just want to show too where we are as far as land availability. As far as multi family. As you're aware,
we approved the comprehensive plan amendment for Eckankar which did have some multi family zoning.
Otherwise what's left in the current MUSA is the Gorra property. That's the only other piece. We do have
the Pulte project that's going to the Planning Commission and they're asking for a land use change. That's
going to the Planning Commission tomorrow. And the rest of it, in the southern part of the city would be
probably the Moon Valley piece or again as we talked about, some of the clustering.
Mayor Mancino: Don't we have some medium density along the northern part of 212, just south of Lyman
also?
Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, medium density. As far as high density right, that would be the only piece.
High density would be... and the Moon Valley but you're correct. There is some medium density in the,
along 212 between the Degler property. Part of the Degler property and going towards 212.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Well let's get a few questions and then we'll allow people to speak.
Mark, do you have any just questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Linda?
13
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: I have a couple Kate. Number one. When I look at the goals for November, 2000. Do
you think they're, I mean obviously you've recommended going ahead. Do you have any concerns that it's
unrealistic as far as rental new construction? Because you know we changed our goals. We modified
them. They were very aggressive in 1995 and we kind of looked at those goals again in '97 and '98 and we
backed off on some of those goals so I just wondered from your evaluation as you look forward.
Kate Aanenson: Again when the Met Council put these forward to the communities, they said these are
long term goals and we also told you that we're going to be moving closer and moving away and depending
on where we are in the cycle of land availability and product that's coming on board. Are we going to meet
all the goals? Probably not. We know that Villages on the Pond, some of the things that we anticipated in
there as far as maybe some affordable rental may not happen. But I think that in good faith we're trying to
get close to those goals. I think looking at what we put together in the comprehensive plan as far as land
use and we ran the numbers as far as on the GIS, looking at land availability and the different zoning
districts. Yes, I think those are two. The thing that's going to be difficult is the affordability component.
So is the city assisting or whether we get some other assistance from somewhere else. It's difficult for the
city to make up affordable units. It's just impossible without some other type of assistance. And that's
something that's broader than the City of Chanhassen. That's a metropolitan or state issue.
Mayor Mancino: So you're comfortable that we can reach then. That if we don't, we don't.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think what we showed them and what we told them through the comprehensive plan
effort is that in good faith we're trying to provide diversity of housing and that's our goal. We're also
trying to with each project look at affordability if we can accomplish it and we've given, every time we've
had a project we've looked at it. For example, the one at Villages, the numbers just didn't work and they
understand that. We shared that information with the Met Council before Target. The council made
decision that financially that just didn't make sense and they understood that. So I think what we're trying
to say is in good faith we're taking each project, taking our time. Doing our due diligence and that's what
their expectation of us is.
Mayor Mancino: What's happened to the market rate, those that have come in affordable to begin with?
For instance I'm thinking of Mission Hills. There were quite a few of those that came in that met the
affordable Met Council's definition. Now years later you know they're market driven.
Kate Aanenson: Well what's happened is as we've had a smaller supply of affordability or things in a
certain price point, the demand for those go up and when there's an increased demand, the price can go up
so when there's a smaller, and this is metro wide. If there's not a lot of product under $134,000, it moves
very fast and you can ask a lot for it just because there isn't a lot in that price point. So when there's a
scarcity of product, unfortunately it drives the price up. Again, in our conversation with the Met Council,
our due diligence is to try to bring that product in at a certain price. We don't want to discourage anybody
from improving their property, finishing it off, maintaining it and achieving more when they sell it. We
found that experience in some of the product in North Bay where actually they had accelerated really high
14
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
because there's not a lot of detached, small lot in the community and some of those were desirable and so
they actually increased in value a lot higher than, and sooner than we anticipated. But our goal is to try to
provide that opportunity for somebody to get in.
Mayor Mancino: And obviously we don't control that. What's the only way that we can control that? Is
that through subsidy?
Kate Aanenson: That's one way, yeah. I'm not sure, it's a broader issue.
Scott Botcher: I don't think, I mean personally I don't think you can control it. That's the marketplace. I
mean being more of a free market guy anyway, I just think that you can't do it over the long term. Like
Kate said with Villages on the Ponds project, the numbers were really ugly and we didn't, as you all know,
we didn't choose to do that so, I mean I think the issue of affordability is broader than the city of
Chanhassen. I think that until such time as state or regional authorities decide to provide funding or
assistance to have these reduce the negative impacts on affordability, cities like Chanhassen and our
neighbors are not really going to be able to do much on the affordability issue, nor is it necessarily
equitable for the city of Chanhassen necessarily to provide housing dollars for, when some of our neighbors
aren't. I know we had this discussion with Shel's project but that's the reality. It is a region wide issue
and.
Mayor Mancino: Well we didn't like the strings attached.
Scott Botcher: Well I mean the strings are attached because region wide there's no financial plan. I mean
Met Council simply has not a very workable financial plan for the division of affordable housing. Personal
opinion.
Mayor Mancino: But we will as a city, much like we did for senior housing for Centennial Hills, we will
look at that for senior affordable housing and rental.
Scott Botcher: Certainly the council can make whatever policy decision they want and even on the
financials with any specific project, you can decide that it's in the best interest or not and there are projects
that people come and speak to us about that the financial investment on the part of the city is such that it's
more palatable. But again in the long term the market, and I think you've talked about North Bay and I
think Kate talked about some other sites, ultimately the market governs. In housing and everything else,
ultimately the market governs.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other comments? A lot of people are here tonight. Would you like to come
up and please if you'd like to speak to the council. Take just a minute or two. We'd love to hear what you
have to say about this particular, the Livable Communities Act. Please state your name and address.
Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail, and I wrote some things out
because oft times I'm not particularly as organized as I'd like to be when I'm off the cuff. And I
understand the problem that we have with marketplace driven like the economies. And acceptance of
Livable Communities Act does not necessarily mean that we subsidize to make things affordable. It simply
means in my estimation that we try to provide as wide a variety of housing stock as we possibly can. So
I'll use the word life cycle a few times in my comments. I'm here to advocate for Chanhassen's continued
commitment to Livable Communities Act, and you'll forgive me. I haven't been here for a while so I'm a
little nervous, although I'm not sure why. The LCA has a carrot and stick approach to asking communities
15
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
what is inherently in their best interest anyway. By adopting the Livable Communities Act and reaffirming
your stated and outlined goals to provide a wide variety of housing options, we as Chanhassen provide
ourselves with the possibilities of receiving state funds for use in our community for a wide variety of
immediate and hopefully future needs. By adopting the Livable Communities Act and continuing to strive
for mixed densities and density transfers in projects where it's appropriate, we provide ourselves with
controlled growth that addresses the needs of all of our citizens. By adopting the Livable Communities Act
and working to educate people as to what it means to Chanhassen, we can continue to provide housing
opportunities to people that are desirous of and desirable to Chanhassen. Putting in paces with life cycle
housing, putting it with that phrase I think is important. I'm talking about housing that will be rented or
owned by school teachers, bank tellers, auto mechanics, dental hygienists, retail employees, clerks, nurses,
child care workers, cooks, receptionists, janitors, church employees, newspaper reporters and many other
people that are vital to the overall efficiency, economy and the needs of the community. I'm talking about
housing that will be rented or owned by young adults that are just entering the work forces. My children.
Your children. Their children. My parents. Their parents. Their parents. They may be, but they also
may be doctors, airline pilots, attorneys, manufacturing professionals, or any other career you can name.
You look at the list of professionals that live over at Walnut Grove and it will astound you. I'm talking
about empty nesters and retired people that have chosen to downsize into something with less cost. Less
upkeep or simply less footage. In other words, what we're talking here is about everyone except those who
are in the prime of adulthood in terms of their earning power and their ambition. Everyone else. Now
providing housing options for every individual who contributes to a community, no matter how small or
large the contribution, tax wise or otherwise, should be the goal. Our current comprehensive plan speaks to
it very well, and I'll bore you with the six points, five points that I highlighted. Number one is a balanced
housing and supply available for all income levels. Number two is accommodation of racial and ethnic
groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing. Number three is a variety of housing types for
people in all stages of the life cycle. Number four is a community of well maintained housing and
neighborhoods, including ownership and rental. And number five is development that respects our
environment and tries to accommodate a wide variety of housing types and costs. Those of us in the
community that believe that adoption of the Livable Communities Act will bring low income housing and
turn us into Brooklyn Center are unknowing of the problems regarding housing and thus far are fearful for
their families, and I understand that. Prior to the election there was a letter in the Chanhassen Villager and
it made the misanthropic assertion that life cycle housing will allow Chanhassen to become a haven for
$6.00 per hour people that we don't want here. It's impossible to intelligently address a statement like that.
I can only say that the adoption of the Livable Communities Act does not mean housing values will drop
and that crime will rise. It does not mean that Chanhassen will be over run with the poor and indigent
seeking asylum. It means that we're committed to providing housing opportunities for each and every
member of our community, be they young, old, or inbetween. Regardless of the size of their pay checks. In
my opinion it's good business, it's good for the community and it's morally upright. I urge you as a citizen
to demonstrate your commitment to doing what is right for the entire community of Chanhassen and
reaffirm our commitment to the Livable Communities Act. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Please state your name and address and just pull it down.
Kay Faust: My name is Kay Faust and I'm one of the Mission Hills people after having lived 35 years
right up there by the public school. And I'm very distressed that Chanhassen turned into an elitist
community. I look over 25-30 years ago, the city of Jonathan was developed with all income groups and it
still exists with all income groups because somehow there was insight on affordable housing for people.
Somehow Chanhassen should look at itself and figure out a way to make housing affordable for the newly
weds. For all the people Steve brought up. They're good, hard working people. Maybe they make less
16
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
than $100,000 a year but they're hard working people. They work just as hard. I've heard a few young
people that have said we work hard for our money. They're about 35 years old and they're living in
$400,000 homes and so they don't want a lower group of people coming, or not group of people but a
lower income housing brought in because they think they worked hard. Well everybody works hard for
their money. If they make $6.00 an hour, they work hard for their money. And so I feel, I'm very much
for renewing the livability act and I feel that somehow the people of Chanhassen should get together with
developers or whoever, and try and work out affordable housing for these other people that make less
income. Even of course Mission Hills is even market have gone up. In two years. But somehow this has
to be controlled because if I wanted to stay home today and take care of my children like I did, like I was
able to do when we moved to Chanhassen and built a brand new house, a nice home, I couldn't do it today.
I'd have to go out and work and you know, and so I wish other people would have that opportunity too. To
live here and raise their families. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Please, more people get up that would like to. We knew that this was a concern.
Jerome Carlson: My name is Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin, well Chanhassen calls it Boulevard. Excelsior
calls it Lake Road. Take your choice. It's actually an Excelsior mailing address but I'm not sure why. I
have a statement which I would like to distribute when I'm through to the council and to the members, and
it's dated today, November 13, 2000. Dear Mayor Mancino and Council members. I wish to be on record
in support of our city's current comprehensive plan and it's intentions. This is a plan which materialized
after years of input from our citizens. This plan evolved as the result of dozens of meetings involving
hundreds of citizens and elected officials. A lengthy, laborious but inclusive process. It is a sound plan
reflecting our citizen's desire for a balanced community. Balanced between commercial property and
industrial property. Balanced between expensive housing and less expensive housing. Our present plan, if
followed, allows affordable housing for young people getting started. How soon we forget. And older
people who need to downsize but still want to live here because this is their home. It allows for housing to
be built which our teachers and machine operators can afford. They're good enough to work here.
Housing which is affordable to people who work in our community is a good thing. It's not a bad thing.
Our current comprehensive plan does not intend for our community to become exclusive or elitist in it's
housing choices. I encourage this council and future councils to remain committed to our plan and provide
affordable housing opportunities for people throughout their life cycle. And I'll distribute that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Jerome Carlson: And in addition to that, I've gone so far as to prepare a resolution of my own, which as a
citizen I think I'm within my rights to do. And it's merely for the council's consideration. So I'd like the
council to consider the following resolution. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen has historically been
supportive of affordable housing, of affordable life cycle housing; and Whereas, the City's current
comprehensive plan supports life cycle housing; and Whereas, in recent months, maybe it's longer than that
but in recent months, in my opinion, there has been a vocal minority of citizens who are opposed to life
cycle housing in general in Chanhassen and/or are opposed to the locations for such housing as provided
for in the current comprehensive plan; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen wishes to reaffirm it's
commitment to life cycle housing and to the current comprehensive plan in general. Therefore, be it
17
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
resolved that the City of Chanhassen hereby reaffirms the City's commitment to affordable life cycle
housing and to the City's current comprehensive plan. Thank you very much.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Jerome. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to come up and speak to
the council on this agenda item.
Carmen McMeen: Carmen McMeen, 9391 Foxford Road. I believe very strongly, with all my heart that
this community should embrace anybody who wants to live here. However, I find it somewhat
disingenuous that what is occurring is actually affordable. That's the ultimate goal here and that's what we
should all be focusing on. I watched a news show last night on Channel 11 talking about how the Met
Council itself could be accused as being part of the problem in the fact that the way they're drawing the
MUSA lines, they're not allowing for new developments. Therefore it is dramatically raising the cost of
land for everyone involved. Therefore it makes me more than a little concerned that we are adopting what
the Met Council has to say when they in fact may be part of the problem. I think we need to look at a much
broader issue on how we can help people move into Chanhassen. Live here. Work here. Retire here. I
think that it would be very important to take a look at some of the other programs that are already in place
to help people get into homes. Whether it be low cost mortgages, help with down payments.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we're doing that.
Carmen McMeen: Okay, but I think there should be more cooperation with the council as far as that is
concerned. In addition, I also believe that there needs to be more senior housing made available here in
Chanhassen. And the types of housing units that are going up are not addressing senior needs. My parents
are seniors. My in-laws are seniors. I see them seeking housing where it is single level so that they don't
have to worry about stairs and accessibility. It also gives them a level of assistance, whether it be through
meals or medical care or whatever. And I don't see anybody putting forth those types of solutions at this
time. So before we approve anything, I think we need to seriously take a look at what the Met Council is
saying versus what the Met Council is doing and assure that we are providing for affordable housing and
affording affordable housing for our seniors. Thank you very much.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Carmen. Kate, do you want to respond to Carmen's concern about
mortgages and what we do with the county and how much.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. We're cooperating with Hennepin County which we do have block grant through
and they do first time home buyer programs. We also work with referrals through the local banks, first
time homebuyers. We get calls for that all the time. And Carver County also provides that. As far as the
program on, that was put together by the Builders Association who is lobbying really heavily. I can only
speak to the City of Chanhassen. We have a comprehensive plan that is concerned about, we could open
up the City and provide service wherever we want. I'm not sure that's in the City's best financial
responsibility to go down and build where we don't have roads and sewer and water in place. We can only
carry so much debt. We've put together the comprehensive plan a very, I believe fiscally sound staged plan
on our way to accomplish that. I think some of the builders want free rein. Yes, land prices are going up
but so are homes as far as valuation and square footage. A standard home now has a 3 car garage. You
know things have changed over time as interest rates have dropped and I think we'll see some of that
18
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
changing too as the economy changes here soon. Lumber prices have gone up. All that's adding to the cost
but just to be clear, that was produced by the Builders Association and they're lobbying heavy to have.
Carmen McMeen: It was produced by KARE 11.
Kate Aanenson: Yes it was, through the Builders Association. I've got them, I'm on their mailing list and
I saw. They are the ones that asked them to put that program together so there's.
Carmen McMeen: I think we need to weigh both sides...
Kate Aanenson: As far as some of the other programs that we do. There is a project coming on line at
Villages on the Pond, Presbyterian Homes. The recent project that we approved for 350 units also has a
senior component. That may be the first project to go forward. The 80 units senior housing project and
Presbyterian Homes is looking at the Villages on the Pond, will have assisted and independent living. They
may be coming here yet this December but it may be right after the first of the year. They're trying to work
out. They just had some preliminary meetings with the staff looking at design and some of the final
components so we are working on senior housing. We know that's an issue. There's also another project
that will be strictly senior right in the immediate area of the City Hall here. Approximately 30 units. 30 to
36 units so we do have senior housing on board.
Mayor Mancino: So I hope that answers a couple of your questions, especially on the senior housing.
Knowing that that's going to be coming in in the next couple months. Have we, as far as with the Met
Council, as far as our MUSA and taking in more land. Has there been the Met Council trying to restrict us
taking in more land? I thought that that was more staff generated as far as contiguous property and making
sure that we could afford the infrastructure.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: It wasn't Met Council restricting and saying don't have us take in more land. It is.
Carmen McMeen: It also provides funding for the sewer and the water and they're the ones that
determine...
Kate Aanenson: The City provides their own, as far as, we would come to the City Council and ask for a,
the City to do a feasibility study and we would carry those costs. We've had requests to go in other areas
of the city where it not provided MUSA. It's always been the staff's recommendation that we provide
services on a timely, actually I have a... if you want to look at that. Right now the City's investment's on
Highway 5 with the frontage road. We have the lift station in place right now. The sewer and water as it's
moving. Right now it's at Walnut Grove, going across. We're providing a lot of investment on the
frontage road. So that's the next area we're bringing in. As far as MUSA expansion, that was guided for
the next 5 years. If things accelerate, we would look south. The next area that we'd be bringing in where
we have a lift station in place is the Degler piece. Bernardi. Some of that property on the other side of
212. We could bring in other property but again the city has, when we did the comprehensive plan, a 20
year capital improvements plan and I don't think it'd be wise at this time to.
Mayor Mancino: You mean our taxes would go up?
19
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It would take a big investment to put another lift station in when we've already paid
for one and we're paying ourselves back and that's kind of the big issue there. So.
Mayor Mancino: I also think the Catch-22 we get as we bring in more land in the MUSA and trying to
hold, because I understand Carmen's concern. You know the less supply of land, the higher the prices are.
We also get a lot of people in the community who wants us to slow growth. They've come here and they
don't want urban sprawl nor do they want us to be growing as fast as we are because they want us to stay
as a small town. So you get those two philosophies kind of at each other. Stay small. Don't grow fast.
We moved here because we liked it the way it is and so we as a council have listened to that over the years.
Don't go too fast. And so we have not tried to move the MUSA in huge, huge acreage increments. We've
tried to do it reasonably and very balancedly and so that's the other part of it.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The other thing I just wanted to comment, as Scott indicated earlier. There's
market forces out there. Not every property owner is willing to develop at the same time. There are people
that have large tracts of land in the current MUSA that have the staying power, don't have to subdivide.
That's holding some of the land out and we don't want to force somebody to subdivide until they want to
but that's also affecting some of the supply and demand. And that we have no control over.
Mayor Mancino: Yep. Can't make those people subdivide. Anyone else? Bring it up. Talk about it. Ask
the questions. Make the comments. We've got good, knowledgeable people. Any other comments? Do
you have a comment Linda?
Councilwoman Jansen: Are you bringing it back to council?
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Councilwoman Jansen: If we're at council comments, certainly.
Mayor Mancino: Go ahead.
Councilwoman Jansen: The part of this discussion that philosophically I guess I have tried to address for
the last year. A year ago when we were reviewing our goals I asked that this council sit down and go
through all of the detail as far as our housing goals. How we're going to reach them. How we're going to
achieve them. So that we could be sure that everyone was on board and at the same time many
communities just like our's have held housing forums. Public housing forums so that everyone within the
community, Wayzata as a matter of fact just had one recently. So that everyone can be educated as to
exactly what it is we're trying to accomplish. So that everyone's comfortable with the knowledge of what
it is we mean when we say affordable. I consider it my responsibility as a community leader to explain to
people what we mean when we say affordable, and it's a complicated term. And how we're trying to
achieve it is a complicated process. You get down to where. Who's going to finance it? Whether you're
going to increase the densities. It gets down to a lot of decision points that need to be made. Do we as a
community want to support all of those individuals that were listed tonight who need this type of housing?
Absolutely. And it breaks my heart to go door knocking and find people living in homes who would very
much like to get into something affordable and they can't because though we're building townhomes and
life cycle, they're not affordable. And they're not staying affordable. So as I'm looking at these goals, I
see it as a multi faceted question. Do I have a problem with the density? No. Density's fine. Life cycle of
course is an issue. Who would be opposed to townhomes? Who's opposed to townhomes? I'm looking at
this affordability, and you heard here tonight that what we're constructing is being driven by market forces.
20
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
We hold Autumn Ridge up as one of those projects that we built so that people could come into our
community as affordable. Well those are selling right now at $180,000. Those aren't affordable any
longer. So as a community I look at this goal and I would like it to be reflective of our building
sustainable, affordable units like we have in North Bay where we have stepped up in partnership and we've
actually sustained some of those affordable levels. When I go back to the comp plan and I see how it's
being suggested we achieve this, it's not clear that we're saying a goal that can be achieved. We say within
our comp plan that affordable, unsubsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated in one area of the
city. Then we also say that all future multi family development would have to occur at a ratio of 53%
affordable to achieve these goals. Well 53% in my terms is concentrated. You've got communities that are
similar to our's, like a Maple Grove, who's getting awards from the Met Council for achieving sustainable
affordable at 20% per development. So if we could go after the lower percent, maintain it's affordability.
Bring it into our community so that it's a blend. It's a balance. It's not, you know here's our affordable
area. Even the Met Council has said that it should be dispersed throughout a development and to what
percent I gather is up to us. So when I'm looking at these goals, I see it as 3 parts. The only one that I
don't believe we have properly set is the affordability percentage. And going back to a year ago I had
asked staff and Kate kindly got me a list of all of the other communities and what their goals are. One that
caught my eye, well several communities actually are listed with no numerical goals. So I see this as a
broad range of flexibility on the Met Council's part. You've got communities with no numerical goals.
You've got Minnetonka who's affordable goal applies to new development. So instead of trying to balance
the part of our community that's already built, what are we trying to accomplish in all of our new
development and who are we working with to make a part of that affordable? Whether it's the County or
the Met Council or this community. And again, I think the public needs to have some say in what sort of
subsidizing the city should do. How much do our taxpayers want us to step up to the plate with on each of
these developments in order to make them affordable because if we really believe in it, and I hear everyone
speaking from the heart here tonight. If we really believe in it, then let's make it something that we can
actually achieve. And step up and actually do it. So when I'm looking at approving this act tonight, I'm
hesitate and not 100% sold that this affordability percent is correct. We could either specify that this
percent applies to new construction, which then we're not shooting for this 53% goal or the affordable on
the Pulte is 70%, and that's only at initial construction. It's not going to stay at that market rate. What
percent of that project, if it's 30%, then let's step up and let's achieve that either with the County or figure
out how to keep it affordable. If that's what our goal is. So if we're going to address the goals tonight,
either making those two percentages. The ownership which is 30%. Rental at 35. Specifying that it's for
new construction.
Mayor Mancino: That's what it says.
Councilwoman Jansen: No it doesn't. We're achieving, the other page. We're achieving these goals by
adding at least, as per the comp plan, and it says it right on page 27 of the comprehensive plan. If the City
were to maintain the same ratio of affordable units for all future multi family development, we would add,
and it gives the number of units and that's 53% is the ratio that's actually quoted in the comp plan. So I'm
suggesting that if these goals were designated to the Met Council as on all new construction, is what we'd
be attempting.
Kate Aanenson: That was the intent but we can clarify that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, because that's not what it says in the comprehensive plan. And we've been
shooting for these and ending up with 53%. 59%. 52%. That's where you're getting a reaction and a stir
out of the community. We're saying we're not going to concentrate.
21
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Where are we getting the reaction and the stir?
Councilwoman Jansen: As Mr. Carlson stated in his resolution, he was speaking to the fact that we've got
some of these younger voices actually speaking of who are in the minority. Well, I don't think we would
get that kind of a reaction if we were making this development and these goals more compatible.
Mayor Mancino: Linda, we spent '97 and '98 having public hearings on the comprehensive plan. What
you're leading.
Councilwoman Jansen: Not on the Livable Communities Act.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. The Livable Communities is part of the housing, isn't it? In our comprehensive
plan.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes it is.
Mayor Mancino: And it shows the percentages there. And we did get people coming and speaking about it
publicly. Now I'm not sure.
Councilwoman Jansen: Communities currently are holding housing forums in order to address, in fact as
part of the whole affordable strategy it's been suggested in order to get rid of some of these situations
where residents don't understand what it is that communities are doing, that you hold one of these forums
in order to provide the education. That's all I'm suggesting. And we have not had that sort of a situation
where all we've addressed is the Livable Communities Act our affordable goals and how we're going to
achieve them.
Mayor Mancino: We did bring that up last year when we also had to pass the Livable Communities Act.
Councilwoman Jansen: Which is when I requested that we do that. So yes, it was brought up a year ago.
Mayor Mancino: And so in March of this year we also addressed it with the Met Council who came out
and the EDA, etc, and we did address it. We didn't address our particular ones because Kate felt very
comfortable that it was in our comprehensive plan and we've been going with it.
Councilwoman Jansen: Which again did not answer the request that had been made the year ago when we
were reviewing this. Yes, we did have them come out and they spoke to more city officials. It wasn't a
housing forum. I mean we can sit here and debate this but there is a difference in how.
Mayor Mancino: Because we're hearing so many people so concerned about it? And where are they
tonight?
Councilwoman Jansen: Oh goodness. I'm through with my comments, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: As I understand what we're doing tonight, I mean it's simply reaffirming the existing
goals that we have on Livable Communities. That's correct right Kate?
22
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Kate Aanenson: That's my recommendation, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And there are no changes to those?
Kate Aanenson: That was my recommendation.
Councilman Senn: Okay. You had mentioned however that the mix had been adjusted.
Kate Aanenson: We adjusted it. We originally adopted in '95 and I think 2-3 years after we adjusted and
we changed the owner/rental mix.
Mayor Mancino: I think we changed it in '97.
Councilman Senn: And do you recall what we changed it from?
Kate Aanenson: Under owner/rental mix?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I thought we changed it down quite a bit.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we put the range in there. We put the, I think we originally had 80/20 and we
realized we couldn't achieve that because we hadn't been doing that much rental so we changed it to 90/10.
Kind of left that range in there. 80/90-20/10.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And that was negotiated back with what, Met Council then at that time?
Kate Aanenson: We went back and told them. Gave them some rationale why.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then the, and as far as, it's always been my understanding and I guess I got
a little confused here now. Essentially I thought our goals always related to new development.
Kate Aanenson: Well, when they did the original index they looked at the city wide to see what your
housing style was. They put you in a sector and they measured the entire sector to see what, you have a
threshold of housing over, at that point was 120 or 115 at that time and they measured everything that was
above and below that.
Councilman Senn: Well I remember going through that exercise but essentially our.
Kate Aanenson: Right. We got credit for where you were at the beginning.
Councilman Senn: Right. But I mean that was a positive situation for us where we got credit for existing,
when a lot of communities, especially at that point didn't even have any existing. And then essentially from
there our goals were established going forward based on new development, weren't they?
Kate Aanenson: Well what we said is that we were going to be moving closer and farther from a target
depending on what.
Councilman Senn: What market forces were in place.
23
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Kate Aanenson: Right, where the cycle was, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well, I guess the only additional comments I have is you know, historically I
remember very well when Livable Communities first came at us. There was a guy down at the legislature,
Myron Orfield who was a Democrat from Minneapolis and also a very powerful person in the legislature,
then and now. He wanted to pass Livable Communities with mandated goals and essentially penalties
attached to those mandated goals, such as loss of State Aid and that sort of thing if you didn't achieve their
mandated goals. Much to everybody's surprise, he had the votes to pass the bill. And many of the suburbs
at that point complained very loudly, including us, about that. And again much to our surprise another
Democrat kind of came to the battle call and went back and basically achieved a compromise which took
the guts out of that bill which effectively eliminated the mandating and the penalties and produced a Livable
Communities bill which was strictly voluntary and rather than mandated goals and objectives, essentially
negotiated goals and again with no you know real mandated end result or penalties if you don't achieve
them. The caveat however that was attached to that bill at that time was that if the voluntary program
didn't work, the legislature was certainly willing to revisit the mandate and penalty issue. In fact shortly
after the law passed, Maple Grove if I remember right, kind of refused to participate in even the voluntary
program. And at that point kind of like the world descended upon Maple Grove and you know basically
got really ugly. Including the legislature's threat for mandates once again. Maple Grove backed off and
the issue went away. Personally I don't think we want to initiate Chapter 2 of that same scene. It's our
community responsibility to help provide a wide range of housing types and diverse housing types. I think
we need to reaffirm our participation in Livable Communities. The goals are the goals. All we're doing
tonight is reaffirming those goals. I think we've now clarified the issue that those goals are on new
development, which is what I always understood them to be and I would hope.
Kate Aanenson: We're getting, let me clarify that. Anything that we have under that price is counted
towards the ultimate but what were submitted to the Met Council every year as far as a report is stuff
that's coming in new. That's kind of your report card. But when they do the where are you, I mean
anything that's older housing stock or older rental that's still under there is still being counted.
Councilman Senn: Correct. I mean it's a count that carries forward and all they're looking for again under
the voluntary goals and stuff is essentially an effort being made to essentially achieve more affordable
housing.
Kate Aanenson: Right. What tools are you employing to achieve that, right.
Councilman Senn: Right. And I think you know we really need to keep that plan that we have moving
forward. If there's clarifications that need to occur, then we should need to make those clarifications but
the fundamental parts of the plan I don't think should be you know tinkered with a whole lot because I
think otherwise... Chapter 2.
Mayor Mancino: Well and then we wouldn't have what we have today. Kate, and I'm sorry Steve. I just
have a question for Kate. Sustainable affordable housing. How do you get sustainable affordable housing?
Kate Aanenson: ...the City brought down part of those units at two different rates but if they want to
finish off their basement, we allow them to do that. Recapture it but we want to get our payback. We
encourage people to invest in their property. I think that's kind of difficult to do some of that. I'm not sure
24
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
that's always wise. I think you have to kind of take it on a case by case basis and certainly depending on
the type of product and you know, it may not make sense.
Mayor Mancino: Do you think we have a mix of good tools to continue our affordable housing at this
point? I mean are there tools out there that we're not using?
Kate Aanenson: Obviously there's a communication gap. We try to on each product. We try to go to all
the resources that we can, but obviously we're not doing a good job is what I'm hearing of communicating
what exactly our action plan is, which is outlined in the comprehensive plan. You know block grant
certainly is an assistant. We've been pooled.., pooled with other communities so now we have to compete
with some of the other lakeshore communities. We don't even qualify in Carver County. We get our block
grant in Hennepin County so we're competing with some of the other communities.
Councilwoman Jansen: But we haven't actually managed to do anything that we have maintained under
any program in the last 2 years as far as affordable because the apartments we couldn't work out.
Kate Aanenson: We haven't done any assistance. Yeah, everything that's come in has been affordable
through market forces, right. But that doesn't mean we haven't tried, right. Council has to make those
decisions but we have tried, and tried resources. We contact Carver County and certainly people go into
the county to get homebuyer assistance.
Mayor Mancino: And do you direct them also to the county to get homebuyer assistance so if anyone
wonders?
Kate Aanenson: .... also, yes.
Mayor Mancino: So are there any tools out there that we aren't using? Or that we aren't trying to use as
affordable housing comes into our community?
Kate Aanenson: Well again I think it sounds like a communication of explaining what tools we have and
what we don't have.
Mayor Mancino: Aren't they listed in our comprehensive plan pretty well?
Councilwoman Jansen: It's not so much communication as Carver County, the HRA manages to build
projects so were we reaching out and doing more of the Centennial Hills or being more compatible with
someone who is wanting to come in and do affordable. It's not a matter of communication. It's are we
actually doing everything even as a council. Is it because of the percentages? When we've got.
Kate Aanenson: No. I mean the staff has tried. For example the...
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm not accusing you of not trying and doing your best.
Kate Aanenson: ... property so we were in that position.
Mayor Mancino: But Kate when projects come in do you come to us, as a council, and I'm over the last 4
years I know you have come to us and tell us how to use the tools to make it more affordable. Because
that's what Linda is saying that there isn't that communication. Has there been?
25
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: No, that wasn't what I was saying.
Kate Aanenson: Right, there's not the communication. Are we using other resources as appropriate as we
can? Yes. I mean for example we went down to Met Council and we got some 12th hour funding to try to
make that work and we still had a big gap. I think we spent a lot of time trying to make that come together.
On every project that comes in, the first call always goes to Carver County. We are working with Carver
County. We've talked to them on the Puke project. They're looking at, it's in the north. They are looking
at acquiring some of those units themselves. Every project we look at resources and it's in the staff report
that they are looking at buying some of those projects.
Councilwoman Jansen: And I did see that. I'm saying what percentage are we actually looking at
controlling, discussing. We can sit here and debate this but, and again going back to whether it's new
construction or not, if this is new construction, then that's different than the numbers that are generated in
the comprehensive plan. If what we're saying, and I can agree to this. If what we're saying is we're going
to communicate to the Met Council that on new construction going forward these are our goals, that's what
I would like to at minimum achieve tonight. The life cycle I already said is fine. Density is fine. It's what
do these numbers truly represent because Minnetonka in their submittal to the Met Council, it is asterisk
and it's down to the bottom saying that this is on new construction and if that's what we're saying, then
we're in agreement. That that works but the numbers then, the total numbers don't work out the same as to
what, and you can go back and re-check the long term goals. Because it was 30% of the total. Total build.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think you have to look at the map picture as far as the different product mix and
some of that so, obviously we've looked at it, and I haven't run the numbers the same way you have so I'd
have to look at it but if you want to put an asterisk and we go back to the Met Council and say we want
this considered for, we'll have to look at how that relates to what you're saying.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I was just hearing you say what I was trying to get to and so then I'm fine
with that.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we're understanding for new construction? Yes, Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: You know we keep kind of referring kind of in and out of it in terms of the economics,
you know and that has been a huge driving factor in terms of what we've been able to do and not do. I
mean Centennial Hills is a wonderful example of that. We went after that all guns but we also under wrote
guaranteed the entire project and put the taxpayers at substantial risk to do that. But we decided to do that
essentially to accomplish our first senior project, outside of market forces because the market obviously
wasn't going to accomplish it. But time and time again now, and then North Bay which I think shortly
after that we also provided the subsidy on the North Bay thing to achieve that because again under market
forces we hadn't been able to accomplish any of that. But essentially all else, as I understand it, that we
have accomplished affordable housing since then has happened within market forces. And we've looked at
discarded some proposals essentially based on economics but just simply put the city or the taxpayers at
too great a risk to do that and I hope going forward we continue to keep that conservative slant to things
essentially where we don't just jump in with both feet and big subsidies to simply accomplish it.
Councilwoman Jansen: Agreed.
26
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Steve.
Councilman Labatt: So Kate, how's that affect your numbers on page, I don't know. I'll call it 3 of the
package there. By making the double asterisk. Will that affect your numbers on page 2? On page 3?
Kate Aanenson: No. That's still going to be product that we've done to date, and again these are our long
term goals, 2010. But I think if we're going to put that asterisk down there, I think one of the, as Linda
pointed out might be a goal to add maintain existing affordable.
Councilman Labatt: Sustainable?
Kate Aanenson: Sustainable or something and we try...to accomplish that. And work on that. Maintain
existing affordable units. I'm not sure if that's in or not right now. I kind of thought something along that
lines. But if it's not, then we'll put that in there and put some other policies to make that happen. It may
be a financial commitment which you have to make a decision on, but we can come back with something on
that too.
Councilman Labatt: When is this due to the Met Council?
Kate Aanenson: The end of the year.
Councilman Labatt: So 12/317
Kate Aanenson: Yes. If it's the first meeting of the first of the year.
Councilman Labatt: Well I just wonder, obviously we're going to have 3 new people on the council and I
just wonder if, several things were said tonight that make you almost wonder if we want to do what
Wayzata did and hold a forum.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think Wayzata had some other issues and we have to be careful about comparing
communities. That'd be like comparing Chanhassen to Shorewood. I mean different communities.
Wayzata also had an issue regarding people taking the small, affordable lots in the downtown area, which
they were very concerned about. I'm not trying to minimize the comparison. We have to be really careful
about comparing ourselves even to Victoria which has a different tax base and some of those kind of issues
so. When they try to put together the sectors, they tried to kind of group us also, everybody kind of looked
average but each community is different. I mean if you compare us to Edina, a lot different. They have a
lot more apartments so we have to be really careful about the comparison. What we've, the approach we
took at the Met Council, we're following our goals that were put in place in 1991 which have always been
some diversity in housing and that's what we want to continue to maintain. What we're trying to do is
provide the opportunity as projects come in, to look at that. Provide the zoning. Provide what tools we can
and what assistance but I think it's helpful to see what models other communities are doing but we have to
be really careful to compare us exact. They kind of look at what's going on in that community because
they're all a little bit different and their's was, they were losing some of their existing affordable so they put
a moratorium on in place. To stop some of that.
Councilwoman Jansen: And that was just one community from recently that I had read had done it.
27
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right.
Councilwoman Jansen: Multiple different communities have, it's been a suggestion.
Kate Aanenson: ... sure. Sure, there's a lot of different approaches out there. But so if you wanted us to
come back and look at some of the maintaining, if there's more specific goals, I'm not sure. We can check
and see what some other communities are doing but, we do talk to other communities and see what they're
doing. What situations and problems that they have but you know, what Shorewood's doing is completely
different than what Chanhassen's doing. Same with Victoria. We're a lot further ahead. Fortunately we
have some other economic resources and things that are happening that are different in the community so.
Councilman Labatt: This is a living, breathing document though, right?
Mayor Mancino: Oh sure.
Kate Aanenson: It is, and again that's why I tried to frame it to say this is a long term goal. We're going
to move further. Sometimes we're going to be really close to getting our goals and then we're not going to
have any projects for a couple of years. Right now what's really strong is industrial. Our housing is very
slow except for the fact that we're doing other types. Our single family's actually down. That's why I'm
saying it's cyclical and if we go into a little bit of a recession, as you can see on that chart I put on there,
you know the permits. You know different things happen. Our housing prices may drop. People might do
different types of products so it's a long term goal and what we're looking at is trying to do, really do what
we believe was always the intent was to have the diversity. And in good faith try to accomplish that
through each project. What can we do on each project and that's the approach we have taken.
Mayor Mancino: I've also gotten the impression over the years that you've tried to add some flexibility to
the tools for us as a staff to show us different tools and depending on the development, what it is and when
it came in. To bring that forward to us because you're the professionals doing it, not us.
Kate Aanenson: Well and that's one of the things, you know that's what we get criticized for. Chanhassen
has a large lot size of 15,000 square feet so that's why we said we're going to do some of this clustering
and some other things. I mean we're always going to be heavily weighted single family detached but that's
one of the first shots that we get is because we have one of the larger lot sizes. But that's okay. If there's
other ways that we can still get there with our goals and we stuck by that and that's why we kept the 1.8.
That's okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: The other thing Steve to consider that with the affordability goals is that the Met
Council has talked about going for some legislative, going before the legislature to maybe put, make these
more than just flexible. So that's where I would like to at least make sure that we've got them fine tuned
down to something we're comfortable with.
Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Well I would hope that before they make them less flexible that they would allow cities to
review and, because they certainly have been very flexible about this. Okay. Any other discussion? Then
may I have a motion?
28
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Kate, is it just this one sheet that actually ends up going that we're approving
tonight?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And the resolution. So you would have the resolution and then.
Councilwoman Jansen: This is the attachment? So if we are doing our asterisk next to these two with, for
new construction, it's not as if you need to be reworking any of the long terms?
Kate Aanenson: ...that's just for your edification to show you where we're at.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we reaffirm the goals and approve the resolution for continued
participation in the Livable Communities Act.
Mayor Mancino: And how do you feel about the asterisk with new construction?
Councilman Senn: I thought that was happening here.
Councilwoman Jansen: That's an understood?
Kate Aanenson: Can we just make clear what asterisk.., and say for new construction and then we're also
talking about our goal of sustaining existing affordable.
Councilwoman Jansen: And maybe we just work that out as we go forward versus needing to delineate that
in here? So that you have time to work on that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Totaling up those totals from the comprehensive plan. Is there a second? Is there a
second to the motion? Okay, I'll second the motion.
Resolution/12000-84: Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that the City Council
approve the 2001 Livable Community Act Housing Goals Agreement. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
LUCAS IGEL ADDITION~ DAVID IGEL~ PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT
11~ BLOCK 1~ SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE.
Public Present:
Name Address
S. Crosby
Robert & Susie Eastman
Linda Landsman
Fred Cuneo
Arlis Bovy
Edina
26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
7335 Frontier Trail
7339 Frontier Trail
29
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Jerry, Jan & Emily Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Ron & Ann Kleve 7307 Laredo Drive
Norbert Kerber 7216 Frontier Trail
Cathy Greeley 7341 Frontier Trail
Dick P. 7301 Frontier Trail
Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive
Debbie & Dick Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Helen Bielski 7209 Frontier Trail
Rita M. Woletski 7334 Frontier Trail
Don Huseth 7332 Frontier Trail
Alan & Ann Fox 7300 Laredo Drive
Mayor Mancino: Igel's?
Councilman Senn: Now that you've had more than enough time to think about it.
Rachel Igel: Thank you. Rachel Igel again. As an accommodation to the council we have discussed it and
would like to go ahead and push off presentation until you have a full council back. And we waive our 60
day limit.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you for taking
the time and sitting through that.
Councilman Senn: Roger, do we need to table that at the request of the applicant or not?
Roger Knutson: I think to keep your agenda clean it would be the best idea unless that's going to cause a
problem.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I would move that we table it at the request of the applicant.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that consideration of the Lucas Igel Addition
be tabled at the applicant's request until there is a full City Council present. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
DISCUSSION OF ACQUISITION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SHADOWMERE ADDITION, LORI
HAAK, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR.
Kate Aanenson: This is being proposed by the Water Resources Coordinator which comes out of the
Storm Water Management budget. We... for acquisition. This has kind of been a problem lot. Subdivision
was approved in 1987 and since that time we have put a storm water pond, we did a project back in there
so while the lot comes off of the end of the street, there is a storm water pond in front of it. There's also a
bluff in the area. The lot has been tried to be built on, it may require some variances. It's a very marginal
30
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
lot and we think it's not in the best interest to try to construct a home on it. So we're recommending before
we spend any resources and time on it, that we would like to pursue, we have money in the storm water
budget put aside for this, that we would like to pursue acquisition of this lot so what we'll do is go out and
get some appraisals and bring those back to you and then pursue acquisition. So we just wanted to get
your direction on that before we proceed.
Scott Botcher: And again our goal, obviously our methodology here is that we would initiate negotiations.
You all would have to approve any purchase agreement, offer, that sort of stuff but we wanted to get your
two cents worth before we started feeling out the property owners.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: What's the black box on there?
Councilman Labatt: Building pad?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm sorry. The building pad. That's a 60 x 60 building pad. It does meet the
buildable lot. It's the pond. It's the access. It's the slope. Soil corrections. We're just concerned that
we're putting ourselves at risk of constant problems out there. We think it's best that we can use it for
additional storm water capacity and solve that problem.
Mayor Mancino: Do you have any other questions Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: And essentially what you're going to do at this point is go ahead and get appraisals?
Kate Aanenson: And then come back to you. Show you what those appraisals are and then if we can...
Mayor Mancino: Any comments? Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: It just seems like a real positive use of the storm water management funds, like you
said, since they are designated for protecting and preserving. I commend staff for bringing this forward
actually as a proposal. Nice job.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: Nothing. Makes a lot of sense.
Mayor Mancino: Good project. Go ahead. Again, we don't need to vote on that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do we need a motion?
Kate Aanenson: No. It's really just to let you know in case you had any problems.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks.
Scott Botcher: The only other thing I had, and this just as, I think we need to toot our horn on occasion.
That is that we did receive from Standard and Poor's, and a copy of it's in your packet and I guess I'm just
saying this to make a public record of it. Standard and Poor's, we generally get rated by Moody's. If you
31
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
remember last year we were evaluated by Moody's and Kate took a lead role in securing a bus for us. We
gave the gentleman from New York a tour of the city and received a bond upgrade from Moody's. This
year as part of Standard and Poor's ongoing debt rating program, they reviewed the City's finances. Our
annual financial report and other relevant data related to the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota General
Obligation Debt. They have confirmed our rating at A- and given us a rating outlook for intermediate to
longer term of positive, which given the fact that I think it was in the mid 90's we had, was it $7 million in
derivative losses? And we've worked very diligently over the past 2 years to deal with our debt issues.
Our financing issues, and I'm pleased that Standard and Poor's has seen fit, following review of our
financial situation, to give us the intermediate to positive, or intermediate to longer term positive outlook
and I think for the record anyway, I'd like to commend Bruce, because he's worked very, very hard on that.
And I know he's not here. He's probably home watching the golf channel or something, but he has worked
very hard to achieve that. Secondly, and I know I said this in the work session, but I'll say it again. For
the public if they choose to attend, we are having a special council meeting on Thursday. It begins at 4:30
p.m. It will be, we'd like to hold it upstairs although frankly with all the people that are coming, we're not
sure. It's going to be in this building somewhere. A meeting where we are going to go through several
scenarios as it relates to the debt study and it's integration with our tax increment financing issues,
primarily the downtown district. If you remember last year we applied for grants and secured 1.143 million
dollars in a successful grant application from the State. 1.3 was given out statewide so we received the
vast majority of it. We have applied this year for a grant that I believe is 1.089 million dollars, and we
expect to receive, or we have been told that the Department of Revenue will announce the awards on
November 15th, which I believe is Wednesday. I'm assuming that.
Mayor Mancino: We'll know before Thursday?
Scott Botcher: Well yeah, and that will be a big help. The only unofficial word we've got is that
Chanhassen's a big player in the grant applications again this year and we hope that we're successful in
getting that. But the meeting on Thursday is very, very important. We're dealing with some significant
issues as they relate to the City's financials from now until 2005. I know I've said it's a 7 million dollar
question. It really is a 7 million dollar question, or could be a 7 million dollar question. When I came here,
that was about the amount of the shortfall that we were facing was 7 million bucks. We did have another 4
hour staff meeting this morning on it. It appears as if we've got it whittled down potentially down to about
a million bucks but that whole last million bucks you all are going to have to make your decision on what
your comfort level is with the risk/reward ratio. We can be very, very aggressive with the absolute
certaintude that we'll get a naughty letter from Judy Dutcher. And we can be less aggressive, we'll
probably still get a naughty letter from Judy Dutcher, but it's more defensible so for what it's worth and
those and Eric and the rest of those in the public, if you wish to come and enjoy an evening of high finance,
I would invite you to Chanhassen Hall Thursday.
Mayor Mancino: The TIF district that was started in 1979.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, it's a pre-79 district.
Councilman Senn: Is this an EDA meeting or a council meeting?
Scott Botcher: Actually there will be both. I think the EDA is, and I talked to Don and Bruce late today.
They're scheduling an EDA meeting immediately prior to 4:30, or at 4:30 because they need the EDA
passed, a quick resolution. A quick motion so actually they're the ones that go to market on the financing
for the Lake Ann Park building, which really ought to be 2 seconds in and out, you're done. 4:30 until, and
32
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
I'm honest. It's going to take 3-4 hours. So wear jeans. Wear something comfortable and will be entirely
TIF.
Mayor Mancino: And Craig is invited to come to that meeting.
Scott Botcher: Everybody.
Mayor Mancino: Obviously Bob Ayotte's invited too to come to the meeting.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, we sent out notices. I assume you got your agenda packet. I instructed the staff to
send out all correspondence goes to council, both to yourself and to Mr. Ayotte so they should be, you
should all be in the loop. But that's the two cents worth that I have and again I want to congratulate Bruce
on that. And you too Teresa.
Mayor Mancino: We also had to pass good budgets to be able to do that. I do have a question for Teresa
on 212. On the noise mitigation. At one point I think it was Anita who said that MnDot would be
providing noise mitigation for North Bay.
Teresa Burgess: It was our understanding that they would be providing noise mitigation for the entire
project at length. However, since that time this one actually came up as an election issue. A constituent
asked someone, and it might have even been you Mayor, about why weren't there any pictures at the open
house that MnDot held. We went back to MnDot and asked and it took several weeks to get a response.
This is the response we received. They have received.., from MPCA that they do not have to provide noise
mitigation for projects that were essentially approved after the date of the permit, which was in 1994.
North Bay was approved by the Council in 1996. So for that reason MnDot will not be spending highway
funds for construction of noise walls on this part.
Mayor Mancino: So who signed that 1994 document?
Teresa Burgess: MPCA.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and we can't.
Teresa Burgess: Over riding any city action on that.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. So we did not have a decision to make or it wasn't anything that we signed
away any rights to noise mitigation as a city?
Teresa Burgess: No. You did not as a city give up that right. It was something the MPCA made the
ruling that once they had issued a permit for the project, then any projects that came after that would be the
responsible of the City or the developer. In this case you'll also see there's a letter in your packet, in the
correspondence from MnDot that states that there was mitigation requirements recommended to the
developer. The developer did install a berm and some landscaping. However, they did not choose to install
the noise wall that was recommended by MnDot, partially for economic reasons. The council did approve
North Bay after MPCA had issued the permit.
Kate Aanenson: They do have a condition that says they're responsible for noise mitigation. There is a
condition on that subdivision that they are responsible for noise.
33
City Council Meeting -November 13, 2000
Mayor Mancino: That the subdivision is?
Teresa Burgess: This will be an issue that will...
Mayor Mancino: And they do this with every city?
Teresa Burgess: They can do this on any project that they are doing. As they do a project they have to
receive a permit from the MPCA for the noise and negotiating with MPCA, they will draw the line at which
point they do not have to mitigate for noise for any development past a certain date so that they can budget
for the project. In this case it was the 1994 date that MPCA agreed to.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Discussion?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
34