Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/17/1995 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1995 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber, 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCH MEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson,Jr.and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation&Facilities Bob Lambert,Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pidcock added item XI.A.1. UPDATE ON BUS STRIKE. Jullie added Consent Calendar item IV. G. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MEDIA PLAY FOR SALE OF DOWNTOWN PARCEL TO PROVIDE A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF THE PURCHASE DEADLINE. Dietz added item XI.E.1. REPORT ON HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE FEE. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. PRESENTATION OF "AWARD OF EXCELLENCE" TO THE PARKS, RECREATION &NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT'S ADAPTIVE RECREATION LEARNING EXCHANGE PROGRAM, "LEISURE DISCOVERIES", FROM THE MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARKS ASSOCIATION Marcie Padgett, Chairperson of the Minnesota Recreation & Parks Association Awards Committee presented the "Award of Excellence" to the City's Parks, Recreation & Facilities Department in recognition of the Adaptive Recreation Learning Exchange Program, "Leisure Discoveries." Ms Padgett showed a video taken at the Leisure Discoveries days. Mayor Harris thanked Ms Padget and the Awards Committee and commended Tria Vikesland for her work that helped us get the award. H. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3. 1995 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 2 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, October 3, 1995 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION 95-183 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF LOOSEN ADDITION (located south of highway 62 and west of Shady Oak Road) C. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2 FOR WELL HOUSES 11 AND 12,I.C. 94-5356 D. ABRA AUTO BODY 2nd Reading of Ordinance 33-95 for Rezoning from I-2 to Community Commercial on 1.1 acres, Adoption of Resolution 95-184 for Site Plan Review and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Abra Auto Body located northeast comer of Hwy. 169 and Aztec Drive. (Ordinance 33-95 for Rezoning from 1-2 to Community Commercial and Resolution 95-184 for Site Plan Review) E. AMOCO CAR WASH 2nd Reading of Ordinance 34-95 for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 0.9 acres, Adoption of Resolution 05-185 for Site Plan Review and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Amoco Car Wash located at 8100 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance 34-95 for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 95-185 for Site Plan Review) F. APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY CENTER G. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MEDIA PLAY FOR SALE OF DOWNTOWN PARCEL TO PROVIDE A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF THE PURCHASE DEADLINE MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A - G of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. 1995 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING (Resolution 95-186) City Manager 7ullie said the official notice for this Public Hearing was published on September 28, 1995 in the Eden Prairie News, and also was mailed to all owners of record of the properties proposed to be assessed. CITY COUNCIL NIINUM October 17, 1995 Page 3 City Engineer Alan Gray reviewed the final costs for the project and the proposed assessment rates for the seven improvement contract projects to be assessed. 1. I.C. 52-067 Gray said they have received a letter from the Pavelka's stating that they object to the assessment and wish to preserve their right to appeal. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing and to approve I.C. 52-067. Pidcock withdrew the motion with the consent of Tyra-Lukens. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close discussion of I.C. 52-067 and to approve I.C. 52-067. Motion carried unanimously. 2. I.C. 93-5312 Gray said this is a complicated project that is based on an assessment agreement with the developers of Bearpath and Dell Estates and by 100% petition from the Big Woods parcels. He said they have received a letter from Bearpath requesting a continuance of this hearing. Dr. Robert Wetmore, 9054 Belvedere Drive, said he objects to the project and presented his written objection to the assessment. He said no information was given to him that a special assessment would be presented on this subdivision. Gray said the funds should have been escrowed from the closing and the developer would then make the payment. Dr. Wetmore said he did not have an escrow set aside at the time of closing. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close discussion of I.C. 93-5312. Case withdrew the motion with the consent of Thorfinnson. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to continue I.C. 93-5312 to the next Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 3. I.C. 93-5341 Gray said this project is based on a feasibility study and previous public hearings. There were no comments from the audience. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 4 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close discussion on I.C. 93-5341 and to approve I.C. 93-5341. Motion carried unanimously. 4. I.C. 94-5345 Gray said this project is based on an assessment agreement with Centex. Pidcock asked why this project is at 8% rather than 7.5% like the others. Gray said the current rate is 8%, and 7.5% is by prior agreement. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close discussion on I.C. 94-5345 and to approve I.C. 94-5345. Motion carried unanimously.. 5. I.C. 94-5360 Gray said this is an assessment for street improvements with an assessment for sewer and water to occur in five years. He said they are proposing a credit to the four homes that are getting a different level of service. Mark Zierden, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, said the project looks very nice; however, he questioned why the proposed credit has changed from $3,000 at the previous Public Hearing to $2,685 tonight. Gray explained that the proposed credit would lower the assessment for sanitary sewer for these four homes. A pump system may cost more than the credit proposed, but could be purchased and installed for about $3000. Any further credit would require a reduction in the assessment for water service. The City agreed to credit the four homes because the City benefited from the design through lower costs to construct the utilities and through lower restoration costs. John Dean, 6642 Golden Ridge Drive, said he thought each of the four homes may have different costs because of where their property lies. He said he has the longest run, and he is objecting to the credit allowed because it is going against what the Council said they would cover at the previous hearing. He said he wants to have a quality system and asked if he needs to submit a letter in addition to speaking at the meeting. Gray said that the actual assessment for sewer and water would not occur for five years or until connection. and Mr. Dean would need to file at that time. Roger Windfeldt, 6621 Golden Ridge Drive, said they made a compromise to save the City money. He distributed a letter that showed the initial cost estimate was about $2500 for the pump system. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 5 Dean asked why the Dudycha house was not included in this assessment. Gray said the Dudycha's received sewer and water with the Rowland Road project and their property has been assessed to the full extent. Harris asked if we are assessing only for the streets at this time. Gray said that was true. Tyra-Lukens asked if the homeowners are responsible for the maintenance of the pumps. Gray said they are. Tyra-Lukens said she recalled the reason the City decided to go shallower was because the neighbors wanted to save the trees along the street. She thought we should review the $2685 to see if there should be an adjustment. Dietz noted that they will be excluded for sanitary sewer and water main improvements for five years unless the property owner elects to connect. Case said he would like some more information on the options and on Mr. Dean's argument regarding adjustments per the length of pipe. Thorfinnson said he thought we should be able to compromise and work with the residents on this. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close discussion on I.C. 94-5360 and to adopt I.C. 94-5360. Motion carried unanimously. 6. I.C. 94-5368 Gray said this assessment is based on a settlement agreement with Interstate Diesel. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfmnson, to close discussion on I.C. 94-5368 and to adopt I.C. 94-5368. Motion carried unanimously. 7. I.C. 94-5388 Gray said this is an assessment agreement between Mr. Pufahl and the City for demolition of an existing home. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close discussion on I.C. 94-5388 and to adopt I.C. 94-5388. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Supplementals Gray reviewed the proposed supplementals. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 6 There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close discussion on the Supplementals and to approve the Supplementals as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfumson, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution 95-186 approving the 1995 Special Assessment Rolls as presented, with the exception of I.C. 93-5312 which will be continued to the November 7, 1995, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.47 acres, and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial and Planned Unit Development District Review, Resolution 95-187 for Preliminary Plat and Resolution 95-188 for PUD Concept Review) Dick Putnam, representing Tandem Properties, reviewed the project and the history of development in the surrounding area. He noted that the project has been revised several times in response to neighborhood concerns and recommendations from the Planning Commission. Erik Johnson, representing RLK Associates, reviewed the landscape and screening proposed for the project. Assistant City Manager Enger said this project was reviewed at the Planning Commission meetings on July 10, August 14, September 11 and September 25, 1995. At the September 25th meeting a motion to approve the development as submitted failed on a 2-4 vote. Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of September 22, 1995, the proceedings at the four Planning Commission meetings, and the responses by the developer to the recommendations given at the four meetings. Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the proposal at their October 2, 1995 meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote, subject to the recommendations of the September 22, 1995, Staff Report, and with additional recommendations to fence all natural areas proposed for preservation prior to development, to review the sidewalk behind the building, and to line up the sidewalk on the island with the trail along Dell Road. Case asked if Staff was comfortable with the storm water runoff for the project. CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 7 Gray said the area immediately downstream from the proposed project consisted of ponds excavated in wetland areas. These excavated ponds are in the rear yards of residential lots. The property owners adjacent to these ponds are likely to be concerned with their water quality. The developer has proposed the project without storm water treatment on the basis that to provide the area for treatment would be a hardship to the project. Richard Koehler, 7846 Donegal Cove, said the neighborhood wishes should be considered when dealing with a neighborhood center such as this. There is a neighborhood petition that opposes the proposal, and the neighborhood would prefer an office building in this location because the area is very residential. He said they are concerned about the tree loss, increased noise in the nearby townhomes, and the public safety issue that will result from a commercial area accessing off a residential street. Cascade Drive is not considered a commercial street and is not wide enough to accommodate the proposed traffic for the proposal, especially when cars park along Cascade next to the townhomes. He said they do not need commercial in this area, and the original PUD approval has turned out to be a mistake. Mary McKinsey, 18320 Cascade Drive, said this is a bad idea primarily because of the access problem and the fact that they do not need a commercial area here. She would like to see a revised plan with the day care facility but with no commercial development. Office use would have much less traffic and would not cause problems with activity at night. Richard Smith, 18322 Cascade Drive, said he was concerned about the impact on the environment of the trucks that will have to supply stores in a commercial development. Wade Dillon, 7932 Cimarron Lane, said Cascade is a residential street and commercial traffic should be kept off residential streets. He said a strip mall does not fit the neighborhood. Ted Allman, 18262 Cascade Drive, said the curved nature of Cascade presents a different driving pattern and exacerbates the problems caused by increased traffic. Barbara Boyle, 18322 Cascade Drive, encouraged the Council to deny the project and asked that the turnaround for their driveway be done prior to any construction on this project. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Case said he agrees that the critical condition on this project is the traffic flow onto Cascade. He said he would like to continue this so the neighborhood could CITY COUNCIL N EN UTES October 17, 1995 Page 8 have time to consider the restricted restaurant use and the developer could consider designing a building that would be convertible from office to commercial at some time in the future. Tyra-Lukens said she believed a design as neighborhood retail would be used primarily by the neighborhood and might actually decrease the traffic; however, she was not comfortable with this use if the neighborhood does not want it. She agreed that the access off the residential street is a problem. She thought we should approve the day care center and send the rest of the proposal back to the developer for revision. Thorfinnson said he thought we are dealing with problems that go back five or six years, and we ended up with a road that is going to have to support this development somehow. He asked how many units of medium to high density residential could be built on the site. Enger said it could support ten units per acre which would mean six trips per day per unit. Thorfh nson asked how that figure compares to office use. Enger said that a 20,000 square foot office building would generate 500 trips per day and the Kindercare will generate 832 trips per day. Thorfinnson said he has a problem with the appropriateness of office on this location. He also thought we should approve the day care facility; however, he thought we should have the developer come back to the Planning Commission with some other proposal that would not include office use. Hams said an office park would be considered community commercial versus neighborhood commercial. Enger said it would be hard to say whether a 20,000- 40,000 square foot office would be appropriate for neighborhood use. Pidcock said she was disappointed there was no sign on the property that this was designated as neighborhood commercial. She was uncomfortable in prescribing office to the developer; however, if the day care center is acceptable, she was okay with that use. She also thought the second part of the project should go back to the developer, although she believed it was unfortunate that it has to go back through the system after this amount of time and effort has been put into the design. Case said he has a hard time splitting this up into two projects because he was concerned about the trees and the stormwater treatment plan. Tyra-Lukens asked how tied-in we are to the designation as neighborhood commercial. Enger said we couldn't elect to change it tonight because it has not been properly published. Harris asked if a change in the PUD designation would require a return to the Metropolitan Council. Enger said that might be required if the whole site were to be changed to office but not if only half of the site is changed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 9 Pidcock asked if the other half would be developable as office. Putnam said they haven't submitted an office plan because that would require a great deal of research. He said it was important for them to proceed with the Kindercare portion as soon as possible and designating office space on the balance of the property would probably mean that another developer would present such a proposal. Harris said she was concerned if we approve only the day care center we are subdividing at the City Council level and that would limit the development on the second parcel. She said we would still have to deal with the traffic issue on Cascade. Thorfinnson said there will be a major impact on Cascade no matter what is approved, and he thought we should approve the day care proposal with specific goals expressed for development of the rest of the property. Enger noted that the amount of traffic generated is about the same for any type of development. Tyra- Lukens said office use would not cause additional traffic on weekends and evenings nor would there be truck traffic. Thorfinnson said he was concerned that the developer has said there will most likely be someone else developing the other parcel if it is designated as office. Tyra-Lukens said that would mean we would lose the ability to keep the tree loss at the level it is now with this plan. City Attorney Ric Rosow pointed out we don't have a proposal just for the day care facility and the developer would need to resubmit a proposal for that portion of the property. Putnam said it is divided into Lot 1 and Lot 2. Rosow asked if the developer would state for the record their willingness to withdraw the western portion from consideration and keep the day care facility as proposed for Lot 2. Putnam said they would agree to do that if the entire project could not be approved. Tyra-Lukens said she would agree to divide it; however, she was concerned that the property line is east of the big stand of trees that proponent has proposed to save as part of the current plan for both parcels. She asked Gray if dividing the property will put us in jeopardy on the NURP pond issue. Gray said that if we are interested in keeping the treatment of storm water in the equation, we would need some understanding that there would be a NURP pond included in the development proposal for the commercial area. Harris questioned whether that would present a hardship to the other site. Thorfmnson asked if the setback required for the new lot line would affect the tree issue. Enger said there is a 50-foot space with the tree line between Lots 1 and 2 and we will be dealing with the preservation of those trees with development on Lot 1. Thorfinnson asked if we know the tree loss on each of the two lots. Enger said we could break it down quite easily. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 10 Case asked if we could ask the developer to place a deed restriction on Lot 1. Enger said we have the original PUD from 1990 in concept and will go forward with the eastern 1.7 acres of this project. Case said he would hate to see the trees get lost in the shuffle. A discussion followed regarding how to preserve the trees on Lot 1. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on Lot 2 of the proposal; to adopt Resolution 95- 187 for Preliminary Plat approval of 1.7 acres into one lot; to adopt Resolution 95-188 for PUD Concept Review on 1.7 acres; to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, and with the following conditions for approval of Lot 2: that Lot 1 will be accountable for the storm water ponding and for preserving the trees as a buffer between the two lots, and that the remedial work on Cascade Drive be put in place prior to development. Motion carried unanimously. Case said he would like to see three or four options for Lot 1 with traffic estimates but without drawings. Thorfinnson asked if Staff could do that rather than forcing the developer to do additional work. Enger said Staff could come back to the Council with some ideas and schematic plans, at which point we could give some direction to the developer. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIH. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FROM MR. CHAPIN HALL, 18554 TRISTRAM WAY, TO APPROVE VARIANCE 95-28 DENIED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS. Mr. Hall reviewed his request for a variance to allow a zero setback from a side and rear lot line for an accessory building. He would be willing to move the shed if the City required access to utilities in the ten-foot easement area. He and one of his neighbors went through West Suburban Mediation on this matter and his neighbor has since written a letter stating that they do not have a complaint against the construction of the accessory building. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 11 Pidcock was concerned about the issue of emergency access to the utility line and the legal liability to the City if the structure is allowed to be on the easement. Hall replied that he would give permission for the City to knock over the shed in an emergency situation. Case was concerned if we deny the request and we don't actively pursue the enforcement, he could still build it at his own risk. Enger said the ordinance clearly states that accessory structures are not allowed within ten feet of the rear and the side yard lot lines. He said there has never been a variance granted for a zero-lot line structure. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals could not find an issue of hardship in this case as Mr. Hall could build it in another area of his property that would be consistent with the ordinance. Enger said the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed the request on September 14, 1995, and voted 5-1 to deny the request. Thorfmson and Harris were concerned about approving this request because we have an ordinance that deals with this situation, and the Board of Appeals discussed the issue of hardship. Tyra-Lukens said a change of ownership in the property next door might result in that neighbor not wanting Mr. Hall to come on their property to maintain the structure. She noted that the neighbor would have to plant screening on his property for the shed. Mr. Hall said it is actually a foot or so from the lot line and, if he moves it ten feet or so off the back lot line, it is more noticeable to the neighbors behind him. Case said he would like to review the options available to Mr. Hall and then take the request back through the process. Hall said he was concerned that an ordinance exists but it is not enforced across the boards. Harris said we do enforce the ordinance if it is brought to our attention, and she thought there are options available to Mr. Hall in this situation. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to deny the request for variance. Motion carried unanimously. B. NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FOUR-WAY STOP AT JACKSON DRIVE AND MEADE LANE Dietz reviewed the request presented by Ms Kathy Wagle at the October 3, 1995 Council meeting to halt installation of the four-way stop sign at the comer of Jackson Drive and Meade Lane in order to study the traffic at the intersection more closely. He said the City places stop signs based on discretionary standards, or "warrants". He said this intersection does not meet the standard of 500 vehicles in an eight hour day, but it does meet criteria similar to those in CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 12 other areas. Two collector streets come together at this intersection and there are some limited sight distances. He referred to the letter dated October 8, 1995, from Ms. Bonnie Moren, reviewing the neighborhood concerns and rationale for requesting installation of four-way stop signs at this location. Bonnie Moren, 11103 Jackson Drive, noted that, while she realized that intersection control may not take care of speeding, there is support for the stop signs from the neighborhood. Kathy Wagle, 10928 Jackson Drive, said there are also people in the area who are not in favor of the stop sign. The stop sign would not solve the traffic problem. Neighbors should just report speeders to the Police Department, and there should be occasional speed traps set up in the neighborhood. Linda Bergland, 10984 Jackson Drive, wanted the stop signs installed because the curve in the road and the location of the mailboxes makes it difficult to see kids in the street. Tyra-Lukens questioned whether a neighbor could report a speeder to the Police Department and if they would do anything about it. Dietz said they would need to know what time of day the infraction was taking place in order to have a directed patrol; however, we have 200 miles of City streets and not all police officers work traffic control. Case agreed there is a sight issue. He agreed with installing the stop signs because of concern for the safety of children. Harris concurred that there is a safety issue here, rather than just controlling speed. Tyra-Lukens noted Ms Wagle raised the issue at the last meeting that, if a stop sign is put on the corner, she would not be able to park. Wagle said they would not be able to park to the south side of the driveway. Tyra-Lukens questioned the need for a stop sign coming out of the cul-de-sac. Hams said that the road will go through at a later date. Wagle asked why we can't wait until that time. Dietz said Staff believes signs should be put up in a consistent fashion. Tyra-Lukens asked why not just put the signs on Jackson. Dietz replied removing stop signs can cause confusion. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock to place four-way stop signs at the intersection of Meade and Jackson. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to continue the meeting for 15 minutes to 11:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 13 C. REPORT ON LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT-Hal Freshly,Metropolitan Council Mr. Hal Freshly from the Metropolitan Council reviewed the Livable Communities Act that was enacted this year by the State Legislature. The objective of the Livable Communities Act is to provide affordable housing in the communities where jobs are located and to address concerns about the aging population. If cities want to apply for funds, they must pass a resolution stating that they are working towards some goals. Funds for the following year must be applied for by November 15th of the current year. Harris said the figures presented by the Planning Department show it is extremely difficult for Eden Prairie to reach the goals, so we have outlined a proposal for our participation in the Livable Communities Act in Mr. Enger's letter to Mr. Chuck Ballentine. Enger said we have very high construction costs and high real estate costs. The amount of resources that would be matched would be only about 15% of what would be necessary to accomplish the low income multi-family goal. He would like to work with Metropolitan Council staff to find a way we are able to productively participate and not sign up for something we can't achieve. Freshly said they have worked with other communities that have increasing land values. The intent of the law is to work cooperatively with cities to meet the identified needs in the City. He suggested that the City adopt a three or five year goal to do what is possible in the direction of the goals and then renegotiate to see what the market has done. Tyra-Lukens quoted a newspaper report that Maple Grove set up reasonable goals but the Metropolitan Council said that was not enough. Freshly replied the situation there is not the same and they have very ambitious goals. Pidcock noted that we have worked hard to have the reverse commute program bring people to the jobs. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF STUDENT/YOUTH MEMBERS TO COMMISSIONS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the slate of candidates for student/youth membership to the City's Commissions as presented in the October 17, 1995, Staff memorandum. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 17, 1995 Page 14 XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Report on Hennepin County Solid Waste Fee Continued to next meeting. F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XHI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.