1j. Approve Reslolution Adopting Livable Communities ActCITY OF �
�HAKHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
n
C
0
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUBJ: Resolution Adopting Livable Communities Act
BACKGROUND
At the October 23, 1995 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed goals for participating
in the Livable Communities Act. The council directed staff to set up a work session date to
review goals and communicate with the Metropolitan Council staff regarding penalties of goals
that are not met.
The City Council must adopt the resolution to participate by November 15, 1995 and set housing
goals by December 15, 1995. The proposed resolution is based on the model provided by the
Met Council. The city then has to establish an action plan to meet these goals by June 30, 1996.
Please find attached a resolution agreeing to participate in the act. Also attached is a letter from
the Met Council regarding staff's policy on local ability to meet goals. The letter states "we
know that limited resources are available to help you meet your goals; therefore, you will not be
penalized if resources do not materialize." While this letter is staff s opinion on the penalties, it
is impossible to predict what the legislature position will be. Later in the council agenda, a work
session will be set for reviewing the housing goals. Again, the goals need to be adopted before
December 15, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the resolution to participate in the local Housing
Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1.
2.
3.
Resolution.
Letter from Craig Rapp, Metropolitan Council dated October 23, 1995.
City Council minutes dated October 23, 1995.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1
CARVER AND HENNEP/N COUNTIES, MINNESOTA '
DATE:
MOTION BY:
RESOLUTION NO:
SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (1995 Minnesota Laws
Chapter 255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended
to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined
by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax
Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the
Local Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other
assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or
loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain
polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan
Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life -cycle housing
goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the
Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, by June 30, 1996, each municipality must identify to the
Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the establishing
housing goals; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan council must adopt, by resolution after a public
hearing, the negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for each municipality by
January 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the
Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year;
and
WHEREAS, for calendar year 1996, a metropolitan area municipality can
participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects
to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995,
(b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and
life -cycle housing goals for the municipality, and (c) by January 15, 1996, the
Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life -cycle
housing goals for each municipality;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Chanhassen hereby
elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act during calendar year 1996.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of 1995.
' ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City ClerkVanager
YES
NO
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ABSENT
_t Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the FYtture
October 23, 1995
rc.
Dear Local Official:'
Now that our Livable Communities implementation program is fully underway, I thought itwbuld be important to
provide you with an update, and reaffirm the Metropolitan Council's commitment to the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act.
Our first implementation step has been negotiating affordable and life -cycle housing goals. As the Council's staff
has indicated to you, we believe we have a framework for goal- setting that is market based, reflects funding realities,
and recognizes the abilities of local units of government to create an environment in which affordable and life cycle
housing can occur.
During our negotiations, however, we have heard local officials express great concern about their limited ability to
influence production of affordable and life cycle housing. We understand this concern. We also understand that the
marketplace will continue to play the primary role in determining how development occurs. In addition, we also
know that limited resources are available to help you meet your goals, therefore, you will not be penalized if
resources do not materialize.
As we movc forward together in this process, it is important that you clearly understand our expectations. We
believe cities should be accountable for their zoning and approval processes, and for pursuing available affordable
housing resources. Therefore, we will expect you to examine zoning and approval processes to determine what, if
any, changes could be made to help create an environment for developing affordable and life cycle housing. Once
that is completed, we would expect you to develop an action plan that states your willingness to pursue available
funding opportunities.
We understand that it takes time to build trust between partners. We also appreciate the fact that the law requires a
rapid decision - making process. We value and need your cooperation and feedback.
In summary, we are entering into our discussions with high hopes and good faith intentions. We want you to know
that your community will be held accountable only for those things that you control. We understand that the market
and available resources will continue to determine whether your goals are actually accomplished.
We look forward to working together with you on this exciting and important effort.
Sincerely,
Craig R Rapp
Director, Community Development Division
CRR/kp
cc: Curt Johnson, Chair, Metropolitan Council
Jim Solem, Regional Administrator, Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Council Members
230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 (612) 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904
Metro Info Line 229 -3780 1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
n
G '
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT UPDATE. HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate and I did have some discussions this afternoon and I think Kate has some good news for
us. I should say this morning. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I'd like to introduce two members of the Met Council staff that are with us
tonight, Don Bluhm and Bob Paddock. Maybe I can ask them to come forward. They're here available to
answer questions. They're the representatives of Section 8. I did include in your packet the Sector 8 so you get
an idea of the communities that we're being compared against. As I mentioned in the report, if you took a
summary of the different sectors that they're comparing us with and averaged those, those are kind of the
benchmarks that we'll be measured against. As I indicated a couple of weeks ago when I brought this originally
to the Council, I believe it's in our best interest to participate in the Livable Communities Act based on the fact
that we will be having to go back and ask for MUSA expansion and in addition any other financial
consideration that would have the jurisdiction of the Met Council or the legislature, including ISTEA dollars.
Federal Highway dollars. Certainly this would be used in measuring whether or not we're participating and
consideration of whether or not we would get those funds so we certainly, staffs of the opinion that it's in our
best interest to participate. In order to look at what were realistic goals we first had to go back and measure
where we've been and what we're doing to try and get an idea. First of all, what the Met Council has rejected
as far as population households. See if that number seemed realistic and then step back and say what have been
the development trends and how far from these marks are we. So what we've done is, Bob and I spent a lot of
time pulling these numbers together and looking at, on Table 2 we went through and looked at the last four
years and looked at the development and densities and number of units per acre and those are broken down into
two components. The low density and then the medium or high density or the multi family, if you put it on this
chart. Just to give you an idea of where we've been averaging as far as density, and again we're requesting that
we be considered net density and when comparing us to other communities, we do have a significant amount of
wetlands which does affect our ability to, our lot yield so we're asking for consideration on the net density,
which is what we looked at in the MUSA expansion. If you look at what we're averaging under a net density
for single family is 2.05 units an acre. Under multi - family it's 6.25. As far as where the benchmarks under
density, where that hurts us is when we've approved projects for certain density, and again the Planning
Commission's raised this issue several times when we approve a project underneath that density. Where do we
pick up that extra density and put it somewhere else? We've lost that density basically because it's difficult to
go back to another neighborhood and say, gee we took it from here and now we're going to impose it on this
neighborhood. So one of the things that we'll be looking at is, under this act is, maybe pushing those to the
upper limits of the density. Back tracking to what we're requesting to do tonight is look at some of these
factors that we've put out and give us some feedback whether or not you think these goals are realistic. What
the Met Council is requesting is that by November 15th we adopt a resolution saying we're going to support that
and then by December 15th we have to put our goals together. What I'm requesting is that you consider the
goals and the resolution at the same time because if there's not concurrence on the goals, then I don't think we
should put the resolution forward so I'm hoping between now and the next Council meeting that we can get
some concurrence. The other thing I mentioned in here is that the city does have to put in a certain, a dollar
amount for the Affordable Housing Act. That would be $50,000.00. But in talking with the staff from Met
Council, we have participated really at that level and beyond already with our senior housing project, and the
fact that the HRA is underwriting those costs so we're already getting credit for that so we do not have to
allocate any additional dollars. We just need to demonstrate to them the amount that we are providing for that
project. So that's good news. Okay, just to show you where we're going then, as far as density. The three
factors that we're being measured against is density, life cycle and affordability. So density under the low
family, we're confident we can meet the goals. Again the issue on the density for multi - family was really an
27
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
issue of the fact that we have been approving projects underneath. Most recently North Bay which was guided
for 12 units an acre and that came in around 5 unit an acre so we've lost that opportunity for those number of
units. Although the staff supported it because it was a zero lot line, affordable project. We did lose that
opportunity to provide some other types of, other units. Again if you look at that, in order to get the numbers
closer to the range that they're recommending we'd actually have to be producing, or approving projects in
excess of our minimum requirements.
Councilman Berquist: North Bay. The zero lot line affordable project? What was the sell prices in there?
Kate Aanenson: Really they're over $120. $125 is kind of what they're looking at. That was one of the
directions you gave staff. Look to provide some of those units to be affordable and that's what we're working
on. That was a direction that you gave also.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, sorry.
Kate Aanenson: That's alright. So what we're seeing in order to get closer to those averages, because right now
we're at 6. Our number's a little bit different than the Met Council because we've kind of thrown in our own
factoring. What we're saying is that we need to push a few, like the senior housing project for example. That
one, actually the senior housing project was actually 30 units an acre. We did the density shift on the PUD so
there are opportunities to push the averages up and try to get them better but what we're saying is that we're
going to have increase. We don't have a lot of high density in the city. We have a lot of medium density and
those areas we do have an opportunity under a PUD to approve density bonuses so that may be one opportunity.
As far as life cycle goals. Again, this is kind of a cyclical thing. We believe that as far as what the Met
Council is recommending, the 25/75, we just don't believe that that's an opportunity that we'll be able to meet.
Based on where we are right now, we're quite a ways from that goal and we don't believe that based on
development trends that we could get more than 80/20 percent on the mix. - Actually the Met Council
benchmark was even up as high as 33 %. I think this is an area that we're going to have to be the most creative
in. If you look at in terms of what that actually means in units. For every 8 units of owner /occupied, we have
to be looking at 2 units of rental. Again there are those opportunities but this is again for the next 15 years to
look down the road. We have been approving a lot more attached, owner /occupied but there haven't been that
many rentals but we are approving different types of mix. As far as rental units, again we believe some of that
goes beyond the scope of the city's ability to do some of that stuff. We have done the senior housing project
and we certainly hope to be working with Carver County in doing some more projects and looking at the
Southwest Metro and transit facilities and providing some of those sort of opportunities. We believe there's
some creative options that we can do there. But again, we believe that even at a 20/80% mix, it's going to take
some creativity on the city's part to reach that goal, and that again is underneath the benchmark that Met
Council's given us but I'm trying to give a goal that I believe is more realistic. Their direction to the staff, or to
the city is that you're supposed to be turning the course of the shift. Certainly we can't, we may not be able
to ... but certainly our objective is to work in that direction. Multi- family, life cycle. Non - traditional. Again,
we're believe that we're moving in the right direction on that one because we have approved a lot of projects.
The comprehensive plan, we put in 34 %. We believe that still is easily accomplishable. If you look at the
project that we've been approving, most recently the chart I had up earlier, we've approved a lot of attached,
owner occupied projects and we certainly believe that that 34% is a good goal. Again, we had that in the comp
plan and there's a lot of different types of products within that range. I think again that's certainly doable. The
affordability. For owner occupied that's $115,000.00 and for rental, originally they were giving us a number of
$500.00 a month but now they're looking at $625.00 a month for this sector. Just to give you an idea, when we
approved the senior housing project we had 65 units. Of those, 37 are under $625.00 a month so there's 37
28
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
units there that would be affordable. What's happening there, because we haven't approved that many projects,
we're actually kind of moving away from some of these numbers. It's going to be cyclical as development
occurs. We'll be moving further from some of the numbers. Right now, the last couple years because interest
rates dropped, we actually approved a lot of houses on the upper end and projects such as Mission Hills on the
' lower end have actually, well they're sold really fast. We haven't done as many of those type of units so again
we believe that's cyclical and we are seeing a lot more of the multi - family. What we did, based on the GIS
system that we have, we were able to go through and break down all the different types of land uses and give
you an idea of where we're going. We calculate right now we're at about 32% on the low density so we're got a
' ways to go to get more of the higher end. Again, that's an opportunity that we need to explore doing some
density transfers and the like. So in summary the goals that they're recommending and that we're putting in
place, under the ownership, the 115, while we've been approving a lot of the different types of single family, not
' a lot of those are affordable. Just as we talked about North Bay. While that's a different type of product, it's
not necessarily affordable and we've had problems such as when we first came in with Oak Hills, Oak Pond. If
you remember the second component was rental. They were having problems financing it, and after they started
selling really fast, they originally came in at $75,000.00 a unit and they started selling really fast. Well to and
' behold what happened is, the price went up and they actually changed the product a little more because the
market was such so actually we lost an opportunity there because the prices escalated pretty fast and now that
space that they did, that space in the north is actually in excess of probably $125 to $160. Some of those units
' so we lost that... That's going to be a hard one. I put 50% there. Again, the benchmark was 60 to try to get
ownership. Again, that's 50% of the next units that we're looking at. Again the rental, we're at the mark right
now but we're away from that mark again because we haven't approved as many units. And the life cycle again
' we believe that's accomplishable again. We put that on our 1991 comprehensive plan. We still believe that's a
good number, that 34 %. Again the owner renter mix, that's another tough one as far as whether or not that's, we
certainly are confident that 75/25 is not within our power right now. We hope, again working creatively with
some of our's as we did the Heritage Park and working with Carver County, HRA, our own HRA to try to
develop some of those opportunities. And again the density of the single family is not really an issue but the
multi - family we're going to have to increase some of the again upper end to try to increase the average. That
would be my recommendation. I'm just looking for your input. Again, what I'd like to do is come back. Get
some input from you and come back with a resolution and if these goals are acceptable with modifications, have
that prepared for you for the next time. And I'd be happy to take questions or for the staff from the Met
Council.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good Kate, thank you. That was good news on coming up with that $50,000.00
that we wouldn't have to budget. Sounds good for at least that 1997. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Does these mandates do anything for us? The market's hot. We've got however many
pieces of property that are current zoned, or comp planned IOP. Does this do anything for it as far as?
' Kate Aanenson: It brings up an interesting question that we may have to get Roger to come in on but if
somebody's underneath the density and we say it's inconsistent with our comp plan or our goals in our comp
plan, do we say well we're going to deny it based on the fact you're not meeting our housing goals? That's
what they're asking us to consider.
' Councilman Berquist: One facet.
I Kate Aanenson: Correct.
WE
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: I don't understand what you're grinning like...
Councilman Senn: Be careful what you call one facet on a political process.
Councilman Berquist: I'm too dumb to understand this. I just want to know if it gives us leeway in
maintaining our commercial /industrial percentages. It gives us another little bit of arm twisting ability. Okay
Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd love the opportunity to opine about my feeling of this Livable
Communities Act but that's not the purpose... I guess my frustration, in addition to it being a big fat stick, is the
fact that we have limited control over these factors. A lot of it is market driven. Kate, you and your staff know
more about this and if you say these are achievable, with some creativity, then I guess we have to go with that.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'd be perfectly honest to say. I'm trying to set them realistic. Are we going to achieve
them all? No. I don't believe so. But I'm trying to show good faith that I think these are realistic. I'm not
going to accept the benchmark that they give because we can't achieve them, and there's some areas we're not
going to make but what they're directing us to do is show good faith. The next component of this would be in
by June of '96. We have to come back with implementation. Of how we're going to accomplish these goals
and Nve've given you some suggestions in the report. Maybe we go back and revisit the PUD. Maybe we go
back and look at some of the densities and those are medium or high and look at those. - Working with the
HRA. We've give you a list of things that we believe we can implement but are we going to meet all of them?
i don't think so but I think they're realistic and we're certainly going to try to aim for those goals and that's what
they're asking us to do. To try and aim for those goals.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You did mention some possibilities, some creativity with Southwest Metro. I think
that clearly needs to be investigated. That is the three member community's land in Eden Prairie and if we will
be developing, where we can house...
Kate Aanenson: And that's an existing opportunity. That's a good point Colleen and that's another opportunity
we can do too, is clustering. Chaska offered to give us their trailer park but. That's another opportunity that we
can do and I'm glad you brought that up. Is to cluster with other community's projects because there are other
communities that are going to have a hard time. Shorewood and the like. They're going to have a hard time
trying to do some of these but they do have the opportunity and we are allowed to do some of those creative
kind of things.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that it Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, along with Colleen, I might opine anyway even though you didn't. I feel a little bit
like we're being mandated to do some things and of course not being given a penny to do it. And I basically
have a lot of problem with that. But I guess I also kind of see the handwriting on the wall. I've been talking
30
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
C
0
affordable housing for a long time and I'm told well, it's market driven and it can't happen. And I guess part of
me then says well, here comes that big stick and now we're going to do something about it. So maybe that will
all work. I don't know. I wonder about some of the other questions about well, what Kate just said. Well what
are we going to tell the developer? I mean if we turn them down for those kinds of reasons, what's going to
happen Roger?
Roger Knutson: I've been doing this for a lot of years. I've seen a lot of plats turned down and people leverage
and say you've got to take out a lot or two or you've got to reduce density. This would be an interesting
situation where someone comes in and you'd say, you get those lots smaller, you add units or you're out of here.
Councilman Mason: Maybe it's time for that, I don't know.
Roger Knutson: But the answer is, I think we can write ordinances. I think we can write ordinances to
encourage people, and in some cases mandate what we want.
Councilman Mason: Right, understood.
Roger Knutson: Under the current ordinances if someone came in here, you know met the rules and wanted to
build a $300,000.00 house, you can't say I'm sorry. You've got to keep ... make it more affordable. Our current
ordinance... ordinance is now wouldn't allow you to do that.
Councilman Mason: I don't know. I'm done for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: First I'd really like to applaud you know Kate in terms of what she's dealing with here and
what she's trying to put together. You know what you really have in front of you on that last page there is
really some numbers that I think Kate's already described in those numbers which would acceptable to the Met
Council and the benchmarks that they've set. I think as the City of Chanhassen we have to be real cautious here
because I think if you look at those numbers for 5 minutes you can tell very quickly that they are goals we
cannot possibly meet. We cannot possibly meet 50% affordable housing you know in single family ownership
at this point. I mean it's just not possible if you consider the amount of single family ownership we already have
developed what's left and what would have to happen there to do it. It can't happen. I think we have to be very
cautious here in the sense that this is all real nice and relatively flowery right now, as it relates to develop these
nice goals and oh, don't worry about the goals and stuff but we also have to remember that these mandates
come from the legislature and there are some very strong voices in the legislature who've already advocated the
heavy stick approach versus the, let's call it the volunteer approach, which is what the current process is being
called. The problem is, if we set a goal we can't meet, I can pretty well lay odds that several years down the
road somebody's going to use that as an excuse as to why the stick should be used rather than the volunteer
approach. I know several communities have asked for this and if this Council's willing to go along with that
approach, at least in terms of what's on that last page there in terms of setting goals we can't reach but would be
acceptable to the Met Council, I suggest we also get it in writing that those goals are not hard and firm and that
we cannot be penalized later for not meeting them even though we make our best efforts to meet them. I'd
rather have that up front than depend on it coming down the road when I doubt it would. As far as the
affordable housing goes in Chanhassen, I'd really like to see us, as a Council, set up specifically a work session
to deal only with affordable housing. Nothing else on the agenda. This issue is going to be very critical to this
city in the next 15 to 20 years. One way or the other. Either in a positive way or a negative way. I mean I've
31
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
had lengthy conversations with people in the field about this, including Curt Johnson who heads the Met
Council, and you know in Chanhassen's case, I think it's really unfair to, you know if you go to that matrix
there and compare Chanhassen to those other cities. I mean look it. 99% of the other cities on that list are
older, fully developed suburbs with substantially older housing stocks who are in redevelopment and rehab mode
rather than new development modes. One or two may come remotely close to where we are at this given point
in time and I think that's really an unfair comparison. That type of, I'm going to say data and statistics is what
has fueled this argument in the legislature all along and I think somewhat erroneously but I hate to see the good
guys at this side, which I'll try to describe the Met Council as, is adding fuel to that fire on that issue. But from
our perspective, and I've talked to, like I say, Curt Johnson about this and from Chanhassen's standpoint, I mean
we do need to produce affordable housing. The problem is I think there's only two ways it's going to happen.
Okay. One is going to be some broad form of government subsidy through programs similar to TIF or
otherwise. You know to actually get government involvement in doing it and right now under the current TIF
guidelines, which would probably be the only program that would be remotely close to doing it, that all sunsets
and goes away in a few years. So that's not a practical solution without change. The other is that we abolish
MUSA lines. Because unless you abolish the MUSA line, and in effect create an over supply of land in this
marketplace, land prices in this town are going to continue to prohibit this type of development regardless of
what you do. And I don't think Curt disagrees with that. In fact I think he said he agreed with it. And that's
an issue I think we really need to go on record on and I think it's an issue we need to look at very strongly
because I think that's going to, from an overall standpoint, have more to do with us, or at least our potential of
meeting these goals on any type of a I'm going to say near term basis because like I say, if we don't get it on a
near term basis, I mean it's never going to happen but again I think we have to get realistic and not look at a
number like 50% and come up with something that is realistic and more or less have our eyes open doing it and
that's why I think it'd really... how would I say, it demands the time I think to really spend some in depth time
discussing it and coming up with what we really look at as a city position and in a timely manner to respond to
it. The Met Council staff is basing it again, they're basing—legislature to get back with some information which
I think they want by next session effectively is what it comes down to. So you know, that's kind of where it's
at.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's exactly right and I agree with you Mark. I've had discussions with Kate today
and I was using the same things that you're just basically saying. With the usage of the Twin Cities and the
first rank suburbs that falls right into their realm but in the city of Chanhassen, not that we're any different but
basically we are because the land costs have escalated and everything has gone way out of the benchmark for
us. So I think that really what you've indicated is very true. I think that's something that we have to really look
at and come up with some conclusions. I first was intended as a great big stick to use that by legislature but it
didn't really achieve it but it's coming back much softer, but it's still trying to meet some goals that may not be
attainable, as you've indicated. So I see that as we go through this, I think we're going to have to really come
up with some clear numbers.
Kate Aanenson: Can I get some clarification from the staff members here from Met Council, because I believe
that some other communities have asked for similar letters about the ... they have something to that effect and we
can certainly put that in your next packet. Maybe they'd like to comment on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I wouldn't want to put ourselves to be penalized so that if in the event that the
expansion within the community...
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, and other communities, as I mentioned.
32
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
C'
Mayor Chmiel: ...hold back with the MUSA line change, and that concerns me as well.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And the other communities have raised that same issue and they can certainly comment
to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to that mic please?
Don Bluhm: Again I'm Don Bluhm with the Metropolitan Council staff. We've been dealing, Bob and I with
the communities in the Carver, Scott County area. We've talked with about 8 areas and several of the
communities are apprehensive in what would happen if we establish goals. We do everything we can in our
power to get things done but yet the market doesn't, or the market doesn't allow us to do this. The information
we've got, or the direction we've got and the answers to the community and we can't get that ... if you put
together an action plan. That action plan establishes a lot of things that Kate's already talked about as far as
what the city can do or would intend to do, is permit this type of development. And it doesn't come. That then
the Council is going to hold the community liable for any, you know for missing goals that weren't attainable
because the marketplace wasn't there. I can't say what the legislature's going to do next time through or even
years down the road. We've heard that comment here tonight and we don't know. The goals that we want...
We'd like communities to get somewhere between the, in this case the city's index of 37% on affordable and the
60 which is the benchmark. We want to show the process. The city's goal of approaching the benchmarks that
are out here. The 50, somewhat inbetween. The city can take a look at what's realistic. If 50's not realistic,
what is realistic? 45? Is there a difference between 4 1/2 out of every 10 and 5 out of every 10? How is it
being affordable? That's something for you to look at. I really don't know staff wise as to what type it is but
you still have to, I think working with Kate we've seen a real hard working staff person here going to the goals
and objectives and almost working at some sort of an implementation plan or action plan... Most communities
have gone as far as what we have seen at this point. Yet we've got 4 communities out of the 8 that we're
dealing with that have already accepted the idea that they're going to be involved... communities have gotten
goals already established. The other two we're meeting within this next week. I think it's something to be
looked at. It's something to be taken seriously. I think that's being done here. I think staffs doing everything
they can to come up with something that looks realistic, and if the Council's willing to give you a letter
indicating in that letter that if you've these goals, you establish the action plans to reach these goals and do
everything you can within your action plan, and because the market doesn't come to the city, the Council's not
going to hold the city liable and we can speak for the Met Council but we can't...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
' Councilman Berquist: The four communities, you just mentioned four of the communities have adopted. Who?
Don Bluhm: We've got the city of Waconia. City of Chaska. Savage and Prior Lake have accepted the
' proposal right now. We're meeting tonight with the city of Chanhassen. We're meeting with the city of
Shakopee tomorrow. We're getting with Belle Plaine and was there anyone else? That's it. That would be the
meetings that we're dealing with. My understanding is about, of the communities that 105 that are served by the
Metropolitan facilities, that approximately 25 % -30% have accepted so far and the program is intended that
November the 15th is the dates most council meetings are being established... for final action just before the
November 15th date. But everybody's going to ... and Bob and I are representatives to your Council.
I Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
33
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: If I could just add a little comment, and Steve helped... understand it. The four communities
that he just mentioned. It's a beautiful example of the MUSA situation. I mean Chaska is a community which
has it's own sewer system and has developed freely from the MUSA line. Look at, I mean they don't have any
problem meeting whoever's criteria at this point so those were easy to come at. And you know Waconia. I
mean that's the situation that's been created here and now the ones being caught in the middle effectively are the
outer tier suburbs effectively governed by MUSA and I don't think any of them, Kate tell me if I'm wrong, are
in a different situation than we are right now as it relates to the same issue. Any of the outer ring ones with
potential...
Kate Aanenson: Well we're obviously in that precarious situation when you have the MUSA expansion, that
carrot and the stick means a lot more. Certainly when you compare us to Chaska, Waconia, they've got
different housing stock. A little bit older community. What we've even seen here too is a lot of these
communities are trying to establish their older base, affordable. Keep them rehab so they're in good shape. Our
tax base, I mean our residential in the downtown actually is escalating pretty fast because of the commercial
development and it's now foreseen as a very desirable... Yeah, we do have a little bit different set of problems.
Don Bluhm: Every community I think is a little bit different. The city of Prior Lake has got the Wilds where
they're putting up 450 new homes that are very expensive... another development in the future and they're same
question was similar to your's. Well, what happens if we continue to build the Wilds and don't get the more
affordable housing, and it's pretty much the same thing. They've got to come up with an action plan. They can
have the Wilds but can they come up with an area where they can see same affordable housing as well and
they're ... 60% affordable for a goal. So you know it is something that each community has to look and feel
themselves out of course as to what they're... goals are going and how much land they've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, could I just add something, or is that improper?
Mayor Chmiel: Right at this time, yeah we still haven't come to any conclusions. But Kate, with what we have
here now, do you feel fairly comfortable with all the goals that are indicated? I think there's some concerns as
to some of those percentages yet.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Again, a lot of it goes in the second part which is what Mark was talking about is that
action plan. What are we going to do to accomplish that, and that's why I think, I'm more comfortable getting a
letter from the Met Council that says, if we put the action plan in place and they approve it and we're moving in
that direction and there's forces outside the city that prevents us from getting to that goal, then it's through no
fault of our own because we, through good faith, made the changes to make this happen and if they don't, then
the fault falls somewhere else. Those issues beyond the city's.
Councilman Senn: Don I think this Council should have at a rudimentary understanding of that action plan
before we accept the goals and that's why I really think that work session is important so we all kind of
understand that. We buy off on it and realize that that action plan effectively that's going to follow rather than
precede the goals, at least is going to form a basis for what we're going to come to and I think we've got time to
do that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, I agree with what Mark's saying and that's why we tried to put some of the action
plan in there at the end of our, .ve tried to give you some idea of the direction we're going because that's why
34
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
we were having a hard time and as staff has indicated, we've probably put a lot more work than other
communities but we're in a little bit different situation. We kind of wanted to give you an idea what the
development concepts so you kind of can grasp it. It's a hard thing to get your arms around. Where are we
going. What does all this mean? Again, are we going to approve 5,000 more households in the next 15 years?
I kind of doubt it. Again we have a lot of large pieces that are out of development. One being Eckankar.
That's got some high density on that and it probably won't be developed. I mean those kinds of opportunities
we've lost. They've got to put that somewhere else. But just to keep in mind the timeframe again, by
November 15th, if we are going to participate, we at least have to do the resolution and at that time I think with
the resolution we put that together with a letter. That would be my recommendation. A letter from the Met
Council saying that you know, that we won't be held accountable to the goals and then we have until December
15th to actually put together these goals so that, before then we'd have to have the work session. And actually
specifically put together the specific action plan. These are just the goals by December. Then the action plan
we actually have another 6 months to go through and maybe we have to do some ordinance amendments and
that's something I think we need to involve the Planning Commission and the HRA and some other groups to
talk about specifically the implementation. ...what things we need to do to take a closer look to review the goals.
I certainly don't want to put goals in here that someone's going to say, who are they kidding.
Mayor Chmiel: No ... with the amount of taxes on properties. Do we ever take that into consideration into this
as well?
Kate Aanenson: The taxes on? Well again, what we did is we looked at what the existing land uses were and
that's how they came up with the numbers too. We tried to break out what the existing land uses are and what
we need to do to get to there and so we haven't recommended any land use changes yet. I think that goes back
to what Steve's question was. How does this impact the industrial and the mix of uses right now and we're not
recommending that, although that may be something that we might consider.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what we're going to do is set up a work session on this and try to come up with a
date so we can be consistent with the time scheduling as to what we have here, and I don't think there's any
action that really has to be required this evening.
Kate Aanenson: No. But just so you're aware. We'll have the resolution. We do have to have that in place by
the, on the next agenda and then we won't adopt an} goals at that.
Councilman Senn: Just a suggestion, and maybe even Don and Bob would want to participate in that. I mean.
Mayor Chmiel: It's an open meeting.
Councilman Senn: I wish they would. I mean I think it'd be a big help if we all kind of walked through this
together.
Don Bluhm: We appreciate the opportunity to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. I'd like to entertain about a 5 minute recess.
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELINIINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 12.34 ACRES
' FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (AD TO PLANNED IJNTTDEVELOPMENT (PUD): PRELIMINARY
IN
PLAT OF OUTLOT A. AUTUMN RIDGE ADDITION CREATING 9.1 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT: AND SITE
35