Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 89 Finance Director Rolek explained that the council needs to zero in on overarching goals <br /> 90 and priorities so that they can look at the finite amount of dollars that will be available <br /> 91 and use those goals and priorities to guide apportionment of the funds. The strategic <br /> 92 planning that the council accomplishes in these sessions can guide staff in what <br /> 93 information to bring forward to the council. <br /> 94 <br /> 95 The council concurred that there should be some discussion up front about what needs to <br /> 96 be accomplished in the sessions. <br /> 97 <br /> 98 Review Regular Council Agenda—The council reviewed the May 11 council agenda; <br /> 99 there were no changes to the agenda. <br /> 100 <br /> 101 Anoka County Airport Update (not on printed agenda)—Community Development <br /> 102 Director Grochala responded to a council member question about developments in the <br /> 103 discussion of upgrading the Anoka County airport. Mr. Grochala had attended a recent <br /> 104 Anoka County/Blaine Airport Comprehensive Plan Update meeting. The Metropolitan <br /> 105 Airports Commission(MAC)has received a request from Key Air to extend the runway. <br /> 106 MAC will be evaluating the request to determine if it should be included as a review <br /> 107 alternative in the airport's comp plan update. MAC will hold a second public meeting <br /> 108 with adjacent communities prior to a determination on whether to study the request. <br /> 109 <br /> 110 Comprehensive Plan—Community Development Director Grochala reported that he is <br /> 111 not providing any new information at this point. The packet for the city council meeting <br /> "" 112 does contain just a paragraph change in the staff report but is otherwise the same as the <br /> 113 last staff letter. Regarding the O'Connor property, staff removed her property from the <br /> 114 medium density designation as she requested but is leaving the Joyer property unchanged. <br /> 115 Mr. Grochala then briefly reviewed the process that has brought the Comprehensive Plan <br /> 116 (the Plan) update to this point. The council has been discussing enacting changes to the <br /> 117 city's code(ordinances)to address certain concerns. The discussion of the affordable <br /> 118 housing component was continued. Staff and the council have identified that affordable <br /> 119 housing will probably not happen in the city without incentives and staff has <br /> 120 recommended an approach utilizing the planned unit development (PUD)process already <br /> 121 in place. The council viewed the 2030 future land use proposed map that indicates mixed <br /> 122 use areas that could accommodate affordable units and how the 1275 units could be <br /> 123 achieved. Staff clarified that the ten-year forecast for new units overall increased and that <br /> 124 drives the affordable number. There is a great slow down in development right now and <br /> 125 that may impact the forecasts. At the council's direction, the Plan will be reviewed in <br /> 126 five years. <br /> 127 <br /> 128 A council member asked about the possibility of putting an ordinance in place that caps <br /> 129 the level of subsidy that the city will accept. Is there any way to slow down the pace? <br /> 130 Staff suggested that the site and building design elements should be the major <br /> 131 consideration and the PUD process will allow that type of case-by-case review to ensure <br /> 132 that the city's established values are met. Staff's goal is to have a policy in place that <br /> 133 allows that review. As far as "exclusions", a legal opinion should be sought. On the <br /> 3 <br />