01/24/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 4, 2011 DRAFT 45 4. Comprehensive Plan — Community Development Director Grochala reported 46 that the council recently requested additional information on residential land use densities 47 in the proposed comprehensive plan (the Plan) along with information on the impact of 48 changes to those densities. He explained the difference between making a major 49 modification to the Plan (requires Metropolitan Council review and authorization) and 50 making an administrative change (does not require full review and resubmission to the 51 Metropolitan Council). A change in residential land use densities would be a major 52 change and would require a restart of the Plan update process. Another option for a 53 change is to adopt the Plan as is and then proceed with a Comprehensive Plan 54 Amendment, allowing elements not affected by the density discussion to go forward and 55 also shortening the review period for other jurisdictions. 56 57 Mr. Grochala also reviewed the work and costs that would be associated with a change to 58 the Plan, both being largely dependent upon the scope of the change that is sought. A 59 process could take up to 14 months and cost up to $15,000, depending on the scope. 60 61 The council had asked for a determination on whether there could be gaps between 62 residential density ranges. Mr. Grochala reported that the city attorney has stated that 63 there does not appear to be any statutory requirements that would preclude gaps in the 64 density ranges, but the city's basis for a change may be scrutinized. Mr. Grochala 65 reviewed the disadvantages to making a change and also the history of what single family 66 developments approved since 1999 fell within the proposed range. He also recalled 67 previous council discussion and decisions relative to residential densities and 68 recommended that if modifications are to be made, the council should establish clear 69 objectives. Mr. Grochala used land use maps on file to assist with his report. 70 71 Council members commented on the process required for an amendment to the Plan. The 72 mayor suggested that lowering the high density is a good idea but he'd like something 73 accomplished without going through a major process. A council member noted the 74 benefit of doing a comprehensive plan amendment that would allow other elements to 75 proceed and not require as much involvement from the Metropolitan Council. 76 77 Mike Trehus, Lino Lakes resident, offered comments in favor of more change; the 78 tweaking that the council is discussing is too much in line and he'd like the city to press 79 for more change. 80 81 5. Weekly Progress Report — City Administrator Karlson reviewed the report. 82 Regarding RFP's for Contractual Services, the council would like to receive the proposed 83 RFP for engineering via email for their review; finalists should come to a council work 84 session and give a presentation on their services. Regarding the Organizational Review, 85 Mr. Karison reviewed the interview and benchmarking elements of the review; the mayor 86 indicated that he remains interested in having an outside influence in the study. 87 Regarding the Sign Ordinance, the council asked that the YMCA issue relative to signage 88 should be included in the discussion; staff should speak with the YMCA staff on their 89 needs. Regarding the Motorsports Facility Race Track Proposal, Council Member Roeser 2 -33- • • •