Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES April 27, 2009 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 'a1 additional people would look like here. She believes that exceeds the citizens' vision for the <br /> �2 city. Also low income housing must be examined for its real costs. She suggested that 32% is a <br /> 93 ridiculous figure for that type of housing and would put the quality of life and integrity of the <br /> 94 community at risk. <br /> 95 <br /> 96 Individual council members commented. When a council member asked what would happen if <br /> 97 the Metropolitan Council did not approve the Plan submitted by the city, staff explained that the <br /> 98 first concern about that scenario is that staff would be left without guidance, and further <br /> 99 explained that a rejection of the plan would normally be based on a problem that would impact <br /> 100 the Metropolitan Council's regional systems and that would result in a negotiated solution (and <br /> 101 legal consideration if necessary). <br /> 102 <br /> 103 Regarding Ms. O'Connell's concern, a council member noted that her property seems to have <br /> 104 been treated differently but staff explained that the treatment was the same but the conclusion <br /> 105 was different and was based on analysis of the pipes (sewer) in the area and that called for being <br /> 106 conservative since its not certain it could be included in the system. Engineer Studenski <br /> 107 explained that Ms. O'Connell's property is right on the edge of the sewer district. When asked <br /> 108 if there would be problem with not guiding the property medium density, staff responded that the <br /> 109 property owners don't have to sell for development and also there is little development potential <br /> 110 right now. Staff wouldn't object to changing it to low density now with the idea that it will be <br /> 111 looked at again the future. Regarding surrounding properties, the owner of the property to the <br /> 112 east supports medium density and the owner of the property to west has supported the change to <br /> 13 medium density throughout the process. <br /> X14 <br /> 115 Council Member Reinert suggested that the Plan needs more work and moved to table to May 11 <br /> 116 the resolution approving the Plan. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. <br /> 117 <br /> 118 The Mayor ruled that the council will discuss the motion, notwithstanding Roberts Rules of <br /> 119 Order. There was unanimous consent to the ruling. <br /> 120 <br /> 121 The council discussed the May 29 deadline for submission. They will continue discussion at the <br /> 122 May 4 work session and the May 11 council meeting. <br /> 123 <br /> 124 Motion to table was adopted by a voice vote. <br /> 125 <br /> 126 Community Development Director Grochala asked the council what information they will need <br /> 127 for the May 4 work session discussion. A council member suggested that the 32% figure for <br /> 128 affordable housing is frightening and it is important to deal with that issue by ordinance as the <br /> 129 council has discussed. While staff can't have the specific ordinances ready for the work session, <br /> 130 it is requested that the council should be able to see what they would look like. It has been <br /> 131 suggested by staff that the planned unit development (PUD)regulations would be an area used <br /> 132 for changes so the council would like to see how that element could change. Also a council <br /> 133 member suggested that it would be helpful to review city ordinances on quality and standards for <br /> 134 high density areas. <br /> 135 <br /> 3 <br />