Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2008 <br />APPROVED <br />0447 6 Ms. Schlichting then discussed affordability and the council's questions regarding strategies. <br />Although the Met Council calls for a certain number, it is expected that it will be spread out. <br />48 The city can be aggressive in accommodating affordable housing through incentives and like <br />49 means to provide affordability as a part of development projects. An approved city housing <br />50 policy can put certain requirements into place for development. <br />51 <br />52 Ms. Schlichting reviewed with the council the Growth Management Tools "punch list". Natural <br />53 resources are one tool — the city has a park plan and uses it. Other tools are the Development <br />54 Suitability Analysis, the Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development, <br />55 Planned Unit Development (PUD) development and the Rice Creek Watershed District Lino <br />56 Lakes Resource Management Plan. The availability of infrastructure will also be used to <br />57 deteuuine the timing and feasibility of new growth. Land use and transportation system <br />58 consideration may be a part of the development pellnitting process. In addition, utility staging of <br />59 sewer and municipal water service will be a key factor to determine the timing of future growth. <br />60 Official controls also will come into plan in growth management, including zoning regulations, <br />61 subdivision regulations and the official zoning map (the rules and regulations that will govern <br />62 city decisions regarding growth and development) and updates to those official documents to <br />63 ensure consistency with the Plan. <br />64 <br />65 The council plans to eventually schedule a joint meeting with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory <br />66 Panel but will continue their discussion in the work session setting as necessary. A council <br />67 member expressed concern that the council should be recommending some changes to the Plan <br />di 68 as it was brought forward by staff. A council member suggested that the following topics could <br />69 be discussed with the panel: incorporation into the Plan of a top end range number on the high <br />70 density and also discussion about the 6600 number and why the panel felt that was the right <br />71 number. In developing a recommendation regarding density, the council discussed the current <br />72 criteria (6-12 per acre), the possibility of using incentives (density bonuses), and if setting a cap <br />73 is appropriate. <br />74 <br />75 The council indicated that they would like to hear from the panel about how they came to the <br />76 6600 recommendation. In the meantime, the council requests more information such as how <br />77 many of those units would be in the "already approved" category; and also what is "in fill" and <br />78 what is seen a new -on -the -fringe. <br />79 <br />80 A member asked that the council be provided with pertinent information coming from the <br />81 Metropolitan Council used to set the founula and establish density recommendations for cities, <br />82 along with any background that went into the formula. It would be preferable to have the <br />83 information for review prior to the next work session discussion. <br />84 <br />85 The joint meeting with the advisory panel will most likely be scheduled for January. The council <br />86 will discuss the Plan again at the regular December work session. <br />87 <br />88 The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. <br />89 <br />90 <br />• <br />