HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2008 Council Minutes (4)•1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
• 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
•44
45
APPROVED
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
DRAFT 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
: October 27, 2008
. 7:15 p.m.
. 10:05 p.m.
: Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell,
Stoltz, Reinert and Mayor Bergeson
: None
Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development
Director, Michael Grochala; City Planner, Paul Bengtson; Economic Development
Coordinator, Mary Alice Divine; City Engineer, Jim Studenski.
Mayor Bergeson noted that the purpose of this special meeting is to continue review of
the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). He recognized community members in
the audience who wanted to provide input.
Dan Waldoch, trustee of 1001 Main Street owned by the Dan Waldoch Family Trust,
wants to see the ratio stay at 1 in 10 rather than 1 in 40, keeping the situation more
feasible for the trust to see the property develop in their lifetime.
Community Development Director Grochala confirmed that the Planning & Zoning
Board did make a recommendation, and staff has incorporated into the draft, a change
back to 1 in 10.
Jeff Joyer, Waldoch Group, acreage at Lake Drive and Main Street, offered thanks to the
Planning and Zoning Board for their extensive work and for making the change back to 1
in 10 and also addressed another parcel in the area (guided medium density in the
proposed Plan). Regarding that parcel, it is less than a quarter of a mile from the main
intersection of Lake Drive and Main Street but proposed sewer and water development is
put out 20 years from now (stage 3). This was originally a stage 1 property in the 2010
plan. He suggests that the 11 acre area could be a catalyst for housing development that
will occur. The owners don't currently plan to develop the parcel but want to preserve
the ability to do so. The Planning & Zoning Board discussed a change extensively but
did not pass a change.
Community Development Director Grochala explained that extensive review went into
setting the boundaries. To change the land use would require taking an equivalent land
area from the stage 1 plan.
•
•
•
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 27, 2008
APPROVED
46 In reviewing the Planning and Zoning Board minutes, it was clarified that the board did
47 not approve a change.
48
49 Staff clarified that the Plan is intended to be a guide but assumptions in the Plan aren't
50 fact. Mr. Grochala suggested that there is no way that there is going to be sewer and
51 water in the area under discussion within 20 years without some very major changes, and
52 the city should concentrate on building out its existing infrastructure before considering
53 expansion of the system. It was also clarified that, if a proposal were to come forward for
54 development, a request for a Plan amendment could be a consideration as long as the
55 development is master planned and meets other criteria is met.
56
57 The staff continued review of the Plan, focusing on the remaining schedule and on the
58 full -build plan. Mr. Grochala noted that staff has tried to cover the full -build out as the
59 first review of looking at land use and then the market forecast. They have used the
60 forecast numbers, with the 2010 number turned back from the downtown in market.
61 They used the area, sewer capacity and transportation projections. Looking at the staging
62 map, they decided what could be serviced resulting in the purple areas on the map (what
63 they are looking at in the next ten years for primary growth).
64
65 A council member noted that there are areas within the purple (small two acre lots) where
66 the sewer just won't be going in.
67
68 Community Director Grochala reviewed the housing plan and the goals it is based on.
69 Retaining current residences with attraction of new residences is a goal. Regarding
70 affordable housing, the market in the area is difficult to match but staff plans a goal to
71 offer density of eight units per acre in guided area. The map will be accompanied by a
72 housing development strategy.
73
74 A council member, looking at density, suggested that the standards of construction and
75 quality for housing in Lino Lakes won't accommodate six units per acre much less eight.
76
77 Staff explained that there is a range that the city must meet. To shrink the density, you
78 must expand the area. Also, the Metropolitan Council says that, in order to meet
79 affordable housing goals, eight units an acre are required. It represents one to two percent
80 of the 2030 land use plan (with some mixed use included).
81 When asked what would happen if the city submits a Plan that includes less than the 8
82 units per acre in high density, Consultant Ciara Schlictling of Bonestroo, explained that
83 the Metropolitan Council would send it back.
84 Staff added that both the visioning process and advisory panel did not bring forward
85 concerns about the high density areas; they wanted affordable and life cycle housing.
86 A member suggested that since there is a minimum dictated by the Plan, the city should
87 also look at establishing a maximum density within the ordinances. Ms. Schlictling
88 pointed out that there are controls already present in the city's regulations.
•
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 27, 2008
APPROVED
89
90 Community Development Director Grochala discussed the economic development
91 element of the Plan, including goals. The area within the city that are planned or
92 involved in economic development were identified. Job growth has been ahead of
93 schedule and projections for the future are included in the Plan. Office, retail and
94 industrial space needs are projected also. Economic development strategies for the
95 coming years are included in the Plan and were reviewed.
96 A member suggested that the Plan should include some control over growth management
97 and staff has said there will be control, however, that isn't evident at this point. Where is
98 the ability to say "no" when that is appropriate?
99 Staff reviewed the growth management section. There was recollection of a past
100 challenge from a council member not to change the Plan unless it was an improvement
101 and staff suggested that has been the goal. With that in mind, they have tried to bring the
102 best of the past (147 limit) to be available on day one of this Plan. Staff explained that it
103 would be difficult to explain how the Plan is different (or better) than the 147 because
104 there are many elements past that in the form of policy, process and planning. There are
105 ordinance changes (such as the 147 limit) that will happen (and can be worked on now)
106 that put controls in place based on the Plan.
107 A member suggested that the concern is probably more about quality than pace and that
• 108 high density and affordability could impact quality. Staff suggested again that controls
109 can be built into city regulations and incentive programs can provide some control also.
110 Council comments on the Plan included basic confidence that the Plan is workable with
111 the understanding that the council will have the ability to amend the Plan when that is
112 necessary in the future. A compliment on the process that included ample input from the
113 community, an understanding that some metro requirements are not negotiable, and that a
114 stereotype associated with affordability is not appropriate. A comment of support for the
115 philosophy of the Plan because it does well to represent the ideas that came forward
116 through the visioning process. A comment that an improved plan would be better
117 because this Plan doesn't identify how the important areas of pace, quality and density
118 will be dealt with. Another comment on the quality of the process that brought the Plan
119 forward; also that it is a good idea to base the Plan on what the market brings and include
120 the resource management element but there is an issue with items that are dictated but not
121 driven by the market.
122 It was suggested that, for the next meeting, council members should bring detailed
123 questions (or send them to staff ahead of the meeting).
124 The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
125
126 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
127 November 24, 2008.
128
3
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
129• 13300
131
132 Julianne B 1, City Cler
•
•
4
OCTOBER 27, 2008