05/03/1999 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1998 regarding commercial are how much and how fast. The benchmarks relating to residential is how much is too much and how much is too fast. Some Council Members give minimal support �.. for commercial growth. Council Member Bergeson stated there are two (2) issues regarding MUSA. The first is quantity and the second is mechanism. Traditionally, the mechanism used for MUSA is to assign particular parcels. The City added a new type of MUSA Bank in terms of acreage not parcels. This method has served the City well. The mechanism of banked MUSA promotes the infill concept. Assigned MUSA lends itself to a checker board effect. An orderly process of the banking mechanism is favorable. Council Member Bergeson indicated that MUSA quantity is a matter of opinion. There have been many opinions regarding quantity of MUSA that goes from one end of the spectrum to the other. What exists now in the MUSA is adequate for the next ten years. It was initially proposed that all of the area that will eventually be in qualified MUSA would be multiplied by 1.5. There is nothing magic about the 1.5 figure. Council Member Bergeson stated Council has an obligation for life cycles regarding medium/high density housing. Different types of housing are needed. Medium/high density housing can be developed in a responsible way. Medium/high density housing can be an asset if carefully planned. Council Member Bergeson asked if it is possible to leave out the number of houses to be built per year and leave the concepts in. The negotiating area regarding number of houses is not between 50 and 147. The negotiating area is between zero and 250 because there have been no restrictions on the number of homes built. History shows the City has had no interference. The average number of homes built within the last several years is 250. The concept is to let the market determine the number of homes built. There were some members of the Task Force that had the opinion that a specific number of houses should not be included in the Plan. Council Member Bergeson requested the City Attorney walk through the options of submittal of the Plan to the Metropolitan Council. The memo suggested that the Plan could be submitted for comment and review on a 3-2 vote. Because it was attempted to approve the Plan, is it still possible to utilize this option? Mr. Hawkins indicated the City can submit the Plan to the Metropolitan Council for comment and review if the City clearly states the Plan did not receive a 4/5 vote. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the two (2) options available to submit the Plan. One option is to send the Plan to the Metropolitan Council for comments before a vote is taken. This option avoids multiple public hearings. The second option is to approve the Plan and then submit it to the Metropolitan Council. The Plan can be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for comment and review with a majority vote. The Plan can not be implemented or adopted without a 4/5 vote. Mr. Wessel noted the process involved with comment and review of the Plan by the Metropolitan Council is a formal reviewal process. `.. 20