05/11/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES April 27, 2009 DRAFT • 91 additional people would look like here. She believes that exceeds the citizens' vision for the 92 city. Also low income housing must be examined for its real costs. She suggested that 32% is a 93 ridiculous figure for that type of housing and would put the quality of life and integrity of the 94 community at risk. 95 96 Individual council members commented. When a council member asked what would happen if 97 the Metropolitan Council did not approve the Plan submitted by the city, staff explained that the 98 first concern about that scenario is that staff would be left without guidance, and further 99 explained that a rejection of the plan would normally be based on a problem that would impact 100 the Metropolitan Council's regional systems and that would result in a negotiated solution (and 101 legal consideration if necessary). 102 103 Regarding Ms. O'Connell's concern, a council member noted that her property seems to have 104 been treated differently but staff explained that the treatment was the same but the conclusion 105 was different and was based on analysis of the pipes (sewer) in the area and that called for being 106 conservative since its not certain it could be included in the system. Engineer Studenski 107 explained that Ms. O'Connell's property is right on the edge of the sewer district When asked 108 if there would be problem with not guiding the property medium density, staff responded that the 109 property owners don't have to sell for development and also there is little development potential 110 right now. Staff wouldn't object to changing it to low density now with the idea that it will be 111 looked at again the future. Regarding surrounding properties, the owner of the property to the i112 east supports medium density and the owner of the property to west has supported the change to 113 medium density throughout the process. 114 115 Council Member Reinert suggested that the Plan needs more work and moved to table to May 11 116 the resolution approving the Plan. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. 117 118 The Mayor ruled that the council will discuss the motion, notwithstanding Roberts Rules of 119 Order. There was unanimous consent to the ruling. 120 121 The council discussed the May 29 deadline for submission. They will continue discussion at the 122 May 4 work session and the May 11 council meeting. 123 124 Motion to table was adopted by a voice vote. 125 126 Community Development Director Grochala asked the council what information they will need 127 for the May 4 work session discussion. A council member suggested that the 32% figure for 128 affordable housing is frightening and it is important to deal with that issue by ordinance as the 129 council has discussed. While staff can't have the specific ordinances ready for the work session, 130 it is requested that the council should be able to see what they would look like. It has been 131 suggested by staff that the planned unit development (PUD) regulations would be an area used 132 for changes so the council would like to see how that element could change. Also a council 133 member suggested that it would be helpful to review city ordinances on quality and standards for • 134 high density areas. 135