Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/20/2002 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2002 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, David Luse and Jan Mosman CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Management and Budget Director Don Uram, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present, except Butcher. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Tyra-Lukens said the Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesday of the month from 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Please note that this portion of the meeting is off-camera. The Council Forum will consist of two parts: scheduled and unscheduled appearances. 6:30 to 6:50 p.m. is reserved for scheduled participants. If you wish to schedule time to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors, please notify the City Manager’s office (at 952-949-8412) by noon of the meeting date with your request. The last 10 minutes of the Forum, from 6:50 to 7:00 p.m. is set aside for impromptu, unscheduled appearances by individuals or organizations that wish to speak to the Council. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Luse added an item under XIII.A.1. DISCUSSION ON ISSUE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING MR. AND MRS. RANNOW. Tyra-Lukens added two items as follows: XIII.A.2. DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUE SITUATION; and XIII.A.3 DISCUSSION ON HOUSING ISSUES. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 4-0. V. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL FORUM, AUGUST 6, 2002 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 6, 2002 MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to approve as published, the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held August 6, 2002. Motion carried 4-0. CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-136 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ANNETTE ESTATES C. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-137 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PIONEER TRAIL/FLYING CLOUD DRIVE AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (I.C. 52-204) FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 D. DECLARE EXCESS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve Items A-D of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. HILLCREST/ALPINE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Resolution) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the July 25 and August 1, 2002, Eden Prairie News and sent to 103 property owners. He said with the assistance of HTPO, Inc., the City Engineer has prepared a feasibility study for street reconstruction in the Hillcrest/Alpine neighborhood. A public hearing is the next step in the consideration of these improvements. In response to a petition for street and utility improvements in 1998 from residents of Hillcrest/Alpine neighborhood, Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study. A study has been completed and based on neighborhood meetings and surveys there is substantial support to proceed with improvements based on proposed assessments. This report is a culmination of neighborhood input and workshop meetings with City Council. The result is expected to be the policy for reconstruction of streets that do not meet current City design standards. The proposed assessment is 40% of the final construction and engineering costs, plus interim financing and an administrative cost of 9%. In 1973 each lot was assessed $2,633 for sanitary sewer and water main improvements. This assessment was less than the full cost of the utility improvements. The City paid the remaining portion and the cost of street replacement in 1973. When the 1973 assessed cost of $2,633 is adjusted, utilizing the Construction Index, its current value is $9,190. When the current proposed assessment of $7,050 is added, the total amount is $16,240, which is below the current maximum assessment of $20,800. The results of the report show an equitable cost distribution in conformance to our assessment policies and a total assessable amount substantially below recently ordered projects in the community. CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 3 Neal requested that Al Gray, City Engineer, give further explanation of the project. Gray gave brief overview and background on the project. He said the central issue for the neighborhood has been what is the appropriate level of assessment for the improvements - what the neighborhood share should be for the neighborhood residential streets and what portion of the cost the City should bear. He said discussions have evolved to the point of establishing a 40% neighborhood and 60% City proposed split. Case expressed concern about future liability of this kind of project and how this would apply to all City streets, including future rebuilds on City streets with upgraded curb and gutter. Dietz said the issue is trying to bring equitable distribution into the system so that everybody is paying for the same thing in front of their home. He said this may involve a future portion of assessments against all reconstruction projects, but tonight's formulation of a policy needs to be done because the 16 miles of roadway in this neighborhood have not participated to the same extent that the rest of the community has. He said what we are doing is trying to develop a current policy for those 16 miles that do not meet current City standards, to get the adjacent properties to pay for those portions of the project that everybody else in the community has paid for. He said the piece that this neighborhood has never paid for amounts to approximately 40%. He said for the most part, elements of road improvements in front of all homes in the other 250 miles of streets in the City have been paid for. Mosman said there is no sanitary sewer and water that is being upgraded or added on this project. Gray said that repair is expected on some of the sewer constructed 30 years ago. He said in a study, $30,000 was budgeted for that purpose, but it is not proposed that an assessment be done for those costs - it will come from a utility fund that would be maintenance. Barney Uhlig of 16370 N. Hillcrest Ct. quoted parts of Minnesota State Statute 429.051. He said not the cost of the project, but only the benefit received by each individual property is the only permissible basis for assessment. He further stated that according to Minnesota Statute 429.031.1.b, a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels must be available at the required public hearings. He said a market value analysis of the benefits received by each individual parcel needs to be present at this meeting, and that can be the sole basis for an assessment. He said such market-based analysis is not present tonight. He said City engineers have failed to calculate individual assessments, nor have they addressed the market value of the benefits, which he said is the only permissible basis for assessment. He said if the City bases the assessment of project costs as proposed, it will be in violation of Minnesota law. He asked that the mayor take counsel from the City attorney, and not the City engineer. He said if the Council approves an assessment based on "this illegal method," he will file an assessment appeal. Rosow stated he will give a response to and history of this once everyone has had a chance to speak. CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 4 Joe Lupo of 16390 N. Hillcrest Ct. also spoke in opposition of basing the assessments on cost of the project. He said it is based on the benefit received, not the cost. He said nowhere in the feasibility study were benefits received discussed or addressed. He said when the time comes, he will also file an assessment appeal. Terry Tucker of 16350 N. Hillcrest Ct. said she is in agreement of the legal issues involving the feasibility study and would like to address the political issues. She spoke about the history of petitions pertaining to the plan and said she and her husband are in favor of having the project completed as long as it is done within the guidelines of Minnesota law. David and Carol Quanbeck of 16150 N. Hillcrest Ct. said most residents want a solution and a resolution. He urged Council to approve this project without delay. Al Bode of 16090 Alpine Way said the proposed cost of the project is now about half of what was originally anticipated and the considerable majority of people want the streets done. He said he and a number of his neighbors are in favor of the project and hope this is the year it gets approved, and done next year. Sally and Dick Bowles of 16041 Alpine Lane spoke in favor of the project. Sally said they do feel that the 40% is a fair and equitable assessment for the improvements. She said they are very anxious to see the project completed and urged the Council to consider that and move forward as soon as possible. Dick echoed that he is very anxious to see the project move ahead and commended City Staff for their good job on it. He said he feels it is a fair assessment. Michael and Trish Sandness of 7101 Center Drive spoke about the poor condition of the road. Trish said she wants the project to go forward, she's OK with the 60/40, and would hope the Council passes this along to get things rolling. Michael said he too feels strongly about seeing the project finished on the street where he purchased the home he grew up in. Kim Vohs of 15900 N. Hillcrest Ct. said he is fine with the proposal as recommended and said the compromise is a fair solution and something that needs to move forward. He said the present policy is unclear as to what is repair and what is maintenance and the policy needs to be clearer. He urged Council to move ahead. Craig Pixley of 16001 Alpine Way said he is willing to move forward with the assessment of $7,050 and is opposed to having sidewalks as part of the project. Robert Johnson of 16371 N. Hillcrest Ct. said he recently had his home refinanced and it was determined that the value of his property would not increase with the addition of curb and gutter. He said if his property is going to be assessed, he'd like to see a caveat put in that this is not based on an assessment, this is the final figure. He said don't come back a year from now and want more money. Jerry Johnson of 15801 N. Hillcrest Ct. commended of Mr. Gray for how he has conducted himself during the meetings. He said he'd like to see the Council move CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 5 forward on this project and it needs to be done in a fairly short period of time. He said he would be more comfortable with a formula based on the improvements and the categories - the concept that the City would do the streets and residents pay for other things - rather than a 60/40 split. He encouraged Council to get an engineering firm with good quality control to monitor the project. Glenn Hagan of 16351 N. Hillcrest Ct said he regrets signing the petition four years ago because he didn't make the connection to the cost of what is being discussed here. He said he believes everyone wants a new street, but does not see how his property can increase in value by $7,000 with concrete curb and gutter. Doug Lawver of 16331 N. Hillcrest Ct. said he believes the $7,000 cost is not worthwhile. Luse said he wants to note that whatever the decision is tonight, it is not setting precedence. He suggested a workshop be set to discuss the 16.5 miles in the future and bring in Mr. Lambert's department as it relates to the trail systems. Tyra-Lukens said the Council needs to re-look at the assessment policy based on the situations that have come up. Luse said, as direction to Staff, before any future project were to move in a life cycle that seems to be four years, that it does not come up to this Council or any Council without having the opportunity to go through workshop process to include with it trail systems that he will define as an overall safety issue for Eden Prairie. MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Attorney Rosow stated the test is the benefit to the property, not the cost estimates. He said that is not the end of the analysis. The problem is whether to order the improvement, not whether to make the assessment in the amount of the assessment. He said the feasibility study would be insufficient if it did not analyze costs so Council cannot proceed with ordering the improvements until Council receives the feasibility study which they received tonight, and that is the first step in the process. He said after that plans and specifications can be ordered and after that, ordering the improvements. He said it is still not at the point in time where the amount of assessment can be considered. He said this is not even a determination tonight - this is an analysis in the feasibility study as to what the assessment would be. He said the third major step is that after the project is done and all costs are in, the attorneys tell the engineers that we are no longer talking about cost, but we are talking about benefit and it is at that time that we address the benefit issue while Council is making the actual determination as to the amount to be assessed. Rosow said years ago the Supreme Court forced municipalities for a period of time to have, at that assessment hearing which is down the road after the project is completed, a full-blown hearing before the City Council where he brought in the expert appraiser who was questioned as to the increase in value to the property. He said the hearings were lengthy and residents were allowed to cross-examine the appraiser. He said the Supreme Court has since backed off that process, but we do, during that period of time when you're considering the assessment, address the cost CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 6 issue and if in fact, the costs were grossly out of proportion to the benefit received, then it would be Rosow's advice that Council would have to stay within the limits of the benefit. However, that is not the determination tonight and it would be inappropriate for any resident to, at this point, file an appeal because the assessment has not yet been done and they would be wasting time and money to do that. He said the process has to go to a certain point in time at which Council has a hearing on the special assessment; they have to then come back, under the Statutes, and they have to object, either in person or writing, at that hearing, and then they have 30 days to file their appeal. Rosow said staff is following the process required under State law to present the feasibility study and Council has the option tonight to order the improvement, or anytime within six months of tonight, take up that issue again to allow time to think about ordering the improvement. Tyra-Lukens said according to the project schedule, Council would not even deal with final assessments until March 4. Rosow said he believes that is correct. Dietz said the process to follow would be to order the improvement tonight, prepare plans and specifications, approve those and authorize bids to be received, and then bids would be opened, providing a window between when bids were opened and when we had to make an award. He said at about the same two weeks in time, a public hearing would be held, and with the final cost of bids in hand, we would go back through the proposed assessments to verify what has been estimated tonight and propose the final assessment. He said we would hold the final assessment hearing before the contract was awarded and if the overwhelming sentiment of the residents was to object, Council may choose not to award the project, postpone it or abandon it. Mosman said when the workshop is held, differences between repair and replacement and maintenance will be clarified. She compared the project to roof replacement and said maintenance costs of property are not looked at as adding value - it becomes something like in this case with the road being substandard that the value needs to be added or you will lose value. Luse said he thinks it's unfair that residents have to wait until Council has that workshop discussion to hear whether this is going to happen or not. He said he hopes that Council would award, as language indicates, and let Staff handle it from there. Case said he would like to look at the concept that Council would pay for the road, in this particular development, and take that concept into the future. Luse said he is not comfortable with that concept. Case said the piece of the precedent that would be carried on is that we will be responsible for the parts of the project that had already been previously paid in infrastructure. Dietz said the $2,600 that residents paid back in 1972-73 was not the full cost of what was done out there. Luse said he does not want to handicap future councils and bring this back for review later. Tyra-Lukens said she would hate not to vote for these improvements and potentially delay the project further, and drive the costs up further. She encouraged Council to CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 7 approve this realizing that there are issues that can still be addressed between now and the final assessments. Rosow said the motion before Council is to order the improvements, and that is the resolution, it does not set the assessment. He said the record of tonight's meeting will reflect the divergence of opinion on the Council with respect to the special assessment, but that is not the matter to be decided tonight. He said the record will be clear that what is being done tonight, if so voted, is to order the improvements. He said ordering the improvements is different than the actual determination on the special assessment which is yet to be made. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse, to adopt Resolution No. 2002-138 ordering Hillcrest/Alpine Street Improvements. Motion passed 4-0. B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE AMENDMENT By Hustad Investment Corp. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 3.0 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 8.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.8 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 5.8 acres, Rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 3.0 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.8 acres into 3 lots. Location: Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail. Neal said Official notice of this public hearing was published in the August 8, 2002, Eden Prairie News and sent to 115 property owners. He said this project is an amendment to the approved plan for Bluff Country Village located at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail. A guide plan change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office is proposed for an office building and a daycare. There are waivers from the City Code for building height and floor area for the retail apartment building. He said the proposed plan includes 188 total housing units and the approved plan is 161 housing units; 94 townhouses and the approved plan is 97 townhouses; 45,000 sf of retail and the approved plan is 50,000 sf of retail; 94 apartment units located above 28,011 sf of retail located on the west side of Hennepin Town Road and a 3,200 sf restaurant, and the approved plan is 25,000 square feet of retail, 8 senior units, and 16 live-work units; and 9,900 sf daycare and 9,000 sf office building located north of the pond on the east side of Hennepin Town Road and the approved plan is 40 senior units located above 11,000 sf of retail. Neal said this project was first reviewed at the June 24, 2002, meeting. The Community Planning Board voted to continue the project and directed the developer to address height and mass of the apartment-retail building; location and screening of the outdoor area for the restaurant; drive-thru and bank options; and berming and landscaping along Highway 169. Neal further stated at the July 24, 2002, meeting, the Community Planning Board voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the project based on revised plans, which included the following changes: reduced building height for the commercial- CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 8 apartment building from 45’- 7” to 39’-3’’, with the roof peak reduced by 10’-8’’; moving the outdoor seating area of the restaurant to the west and screened with 12- foot high conifers; eliminate the drive thru and bank options; and on the daycare- office site add a 4-6 foot berm and 18 conifer trees and increase height of the conifer trees from 7-12 feet as well as reduce the size of the office building by 900 square feet and move all parking to the south side. Beth Simonsted with Trek Development, representing Hustad Companies, presented the revised site and building plan. She said additional concerns of the Planning Board have been addressed. She said they need 27 additional units to financially justify providing high quality design with attention to detail, along with high quality products and materials. Franzen said at the conclusion of a long public hearing in June, the Community Planning Board could not reach a consensus other than to list a number of points that they wanted the developer to address in the revised plans when they came back to the meeting in July. He said it passed 4-3 with the chairman breaking the 3-3 tie vote. Jeannette Gunderson of 9922 Balmoral Blvd said this property is surrounded by three separate single family neighborhoods, all of which can be seen from the property. She said neighbors are concerned about the density, height and mass of the buildings, traffic congestion and safety of pedestrians, tree loss in the green space, and appropriate land use and how it will fit in with the current surrounding family neighborhoods. Kim Lindquist of 9933 Balmoral Lane said she is concerned that the definition of what is considered Neighborhood Commercial has changed. She said all other Neighborhood Commercial properties are well below the 50,000 sf cap limit, and said she'd like to hear how the Council gets non-residential uses into the Neighborhood Commercial to be over and above the 50,000 sf. She said the other issue related to the Neighborhood Commercial concept is the apartment issue. She said neighbors were surprised at a 4-story building, and it is a 4-story building to public views. She said it is not an appropriate use, massing and size for Neighborhood Commercial use. In addition, she said when it was stated that the project needs to be economically viable it was a disappointment and not appropriate decision-making criteria. She said it is poor to use that as the basis for a major land use amendment. At the request of Luse, Tyra-Lukens allowed Simonsted to respond. Simonsted stated that Lincoln Park is over twice the size of this project. As far as the process for approvals, she said this is quite a long process as it goes back beyond six years ago. She said through the last part of the approval process, a series of changes have been made to the project based on neighbors concerns. She apologized for coming up through the process again, saying it's not something that they wanted to do but they have always felt it would be an excellent location, knowing the freeway was coming, felt it was an appropriate place for Neighborhood Commercial. She said the product has changed from the last approval to the revised plan and, after research, it is now a much more viable product. Luse asked why they would seek approval if it were not economically viable to begin with, without the additional units. Simonsted said through the process of CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 9 compromises, they ended up with a somewhat different product, and also she acknowledged they were trying to do something more innovate and creative and felt there was a need. She said most of the projects they have done in Eden Prairie have been large lot, single family, and more recently it has been low density townhomes. She said she thinks it's very appropriate because a major freeway is right there which she thinks will help as a sound barrier and also for privacy. She said it has been a well thought out process. Simonsted said as far as the economic viability, it is extremely important for the community and neighborhood and for the developer. She said they do not want to build a project that is not going to be successful. Bruce Webster of 9953 Balmoral Lane said the project is inappropriate in a residential setting. He said the density of non-residential property exceeds the 50,000 sf limit, and additional traffic to be generated is excessive for the site. He asked Council to vote down the amendment. Richard Schultek of Arden Hills, a licensed realtor, said he has been selling this project for the past year, with 45-50 units sold and with one exception, those people are very excited about the development. Jennifer Scott of 10252 Normandy Crest asked Council to deny the project. She said the need for 27 additional units is not justified in her mind. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed 4-0. Luse asked Franzen where he sits on this project. Franzen said in his 18-year history with the City, all Neighborhood Commercial properties tend to go the same way - long, drawn out processes and very confusing. He gave a history on these types of projects. He said this project is kind of a policy shift in how we view Neighborhood Commercial in that we don't really have an example of a Neighborhood Commercial property that incorporates a mixed use. Case said he believes the area, mitigated correctly and transitioned correctly, can take a lot more intense use than this plan. He said he thinks that the transitional pieces of whatever goes on in the middle have been accomplished and to some degree mitigated and he thinks this is a 'tweaking.' He said once it is decided what's best for the City, then we decide what's best to help the neighbors. He said he thinks this revised project is best for the City and it's a much better quality, more organized, project that makes more sense. He said he'd be prepared to vote for it. Mosman said she's concerned with traffic in the area causing congestion. She said there is extra mass that is creating more traffic on a road that is rather heavily used now. She said it is a good looking project and she likes the mixed use, but she is not totally comfortable approving it with all of the extra things like the apartment building on top of retail. She said it seems to be more profit and more density than is necessary. She said she would hate to go ahead with it when Planning Board members are split on it because they did have some good concerns. CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 10 Luse said he sees it as more of a cutting edge project. He asked for clarification on the vote sequence for the zoning change. Rosow said on the resolution for the comprehensive guide plan change, the first item under closing a public hearing requires a 2/3 vote of the entire Council, therefore requiring 4 votes. He said all the other actions require a simple majority so he would recommend the procedure of taking up the resolution for the comprehensive guide plan change first, and, if Council is going to deny it, do not do that tonight, but direct Staff to prepare findings supporting a resolution of denial. He said if the matter is going to pass, Council does not need to take that extra step. Case pointed out that three years ago a 4-1 vote was required and Council had a 3-2, and this is a problem tonight if it were to come out to a 3-1 vote. He said Council would then not have the majority of people accepting findings of denial. Rosow said the Court of Appeals has ruled that a 3-1 approval when you need a 4-0 approval is not a denial, so if you don't have a denial, then the project is approved by default. Rosow said the second bullet point is substantial to be taken up next. He said Council does have time to table discussion until the next meeting when a full Council is present. Tyra-Lukens said this plan is nice and she understands concerns about intensity, the and visual impact of the building, but any building of that size will be visible until the trees grow and greenery thickens. She said the building has a lot of good architectural design. She said she feels a great effort was made on transition of this property, and she would be in favor of the project. Tyra-Lukens noted that one of the places that has been done with a building of this size, perhaps larger, that backs right up to residential is the senior housing on Flying Cloud Drive. She said that is not only a 3-4 story building but it sits up above the homes that are behind it. She said this project's transition is much better than the one of Flying Cloud Drive. Rosow suggested Council 1. not take action until they had a full Council at the second meeting in September; 2. see if you could proceed as a Council with a 4-0 vote on the policy question on the change and then deal with the other issues as to whether there are 'tweaks' to the project that you can make; 3. take the vote on the comprehensive guide plan and if it is a 3-1 vote, it needs to be recognized that will not pass the guide plan change. Therefore a 3-1 vote will not be obtained to support denial of the project because 3 have voted in favor, but that was not enough to approve it. So, if challenged, a court would have to understand that it was a denial because there was no possibility of getting an affirmative vote or denial when a majority of the Council had voted in favor. So, Rosow said he would remove his suggestion for findings and go with with what we have tonight and it would pass or not pass. Mosman asked how often has the City taken a residential neighborhood and changed it over to commercial to office to commercial, adding square footage and density. She said the transition was there, but it was manufactured - it wasn't there when the residents moved in. She said not having met many of these neighbors, she is unsure how they would feel about it. She said it's a somewhat subjective amount of apartment units and amount of office and childcare on top of the Walgreens. CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 11 Neal said it can be put off and there needs to be an affirmative action to that effect by September 27, so it could be tabled until September 17. He said the default decision, as he understands it, is that if Council does not take an action to deny it, then the guide plan change is approved. MOTION: Luse moved to table until the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting the Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution for Preliminary Plat. Seconded by Case, motion passed 4-0. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse, to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Case, Luse, Mosman, and Tyra-Lukens voting “aye.” IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. DISCUSSION ON ISSUE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING MR. AND MRS. RANNOW . Luse stated that he does not think this now needs to be discussed because her issues have been addressed tonight by Neal. Neal said he and Dietz will meet tomorrow to satisfy her concerns. 2. DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUE SITUATION. Tyra-Lukens announced that over the last Legislative Session, people who are concerned about transportation have made a strong effort to get all parties together to work towards solutions. She said a problem has arisen in that the Minnesota Transportation Coalition, organized through the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the League of Minnesota Cities was indirectly a member of this organization. She said the League of Minnesota Cities has membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. She said the Transportation Alliance was a member of the Transportation Coalition and the problem has been that the coalition has taken the platform of saying that member organizations cannot advocate for any issue that is not part of the coalition's platform. She said the issue for the League of Cities is that one of their platform items is to reduce local input on highway projects by changing the process known as municipal consent. So the League has suspended its CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 2002 Page 12 membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, something that she would support. But, she said it is too bad the Transportation Coalition took such a strong stance in denying members the ability to make their own voice heard. 3. DISCUSSION ON HOUSING ISSUES. Tyra-Lukens said she attended a mayor's housing task force meeting Friday morning and Ted Mondale mentioned that suit had been brought against the Met Council and the City of Eagan by two housing advocacy groups, MICAH and the Community Stabilization Project. She said their contention was that they feel that the Metropolitan Council is remiss in not being more affirmative in working with cities to have specific numbers that they have to come up with for affordable housing. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.