Minutes - Council - 03/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

language, protection against higher density development, should be protected against. Then the ISTS language was revised. Now they have taken away area and want it studied before they will put 2.5 acre lots back in. He reviewed the boundaries of the study area and indicated that all citizens within that area should bear in mind the Metropolitan Council wants a study of the extension of sewer and water to their homes. He stated the Metropolitan Council was proud of an example development with large lot developments and redrawn property lines which changed to 20-30 homes on urban sized lots in the middle of a neighborhood. He noted that maybe you won't get sewer and water but other neighbors will want an urban development in the middle of the neighborhood. Also, the ordinance contains no language on urban density transitioning to provide protection. He stated he knows there are three votes to support the Comprehensive Plan but he will not vote in support because of issues and the artificial hurdle the Metropolitan Council is putting up to say if you don't do this we will take the grant away. Councilmember Hendriksen stated Ramsey has offered to designate on this plan a "study area" that would be used to do the very study they are talking about but that is not what they want. The Metropolitan Council wants and demands the City pass a Comprehensive Plan that designates certain areas consistent with the goal of their study so even if the City doesn't like it they are obligated to allow the uses in that area. Ms. Haas Steffen stated it is common practice if the City wants its Comprehensive Plan passed by the Metropolitan Council that they keep sending draft plans or portions of plans to the Metropolitan Council to make sure they will have an approved Plan when they finally get it completed. That is what Ramsey did. She explained that when a formal ~)lan is submitted, it triggers a timing mechanism as required by State Statutes so no Plan is allowed to languish. She stated the study that Councilmember Hendriksen is referring to was done as an "infomercial" that showed where cities, not the Metropolitan Council, had done redevelopment. Ms. Haas Steffen clarified that the Metropolitan Council does not go in and redevelop; cities decide they want to redevelop and ask the Metropolitan Council for money to do that. She stated the purpose of the opportunity grant site was very clear when it was negotiated on November 7, 2000, and that has not changed. It says specifically that the City would identify a minimum of 100 acres mixed use and the Council knew what it was applying for. She stated if the Council does not want it, the Council could have told her but she took the Council at its word. Councilmember Kurak stated she has not made many comments while it was studied since she has only been on the Council for two months. But she believes she owes an explanation of what she likes and does not like. Councilmember Kurak stated there are four remaining issues from last night since one, ISTS, was resolved. She stated the remaining issues are the Central Planning Area, Density Transition, Land Use Map and classifications on the map. She read the following prepared statement: "ISTS, Independent Sewage Tracking Systems, cesspools. I have stated my views on the ISTS clearly along with my reasoning I have not changed my mind on this item but I do want to have staff identify what type of City based fees will be charged in relation to the inspections. I do not want the City to charge our citizens any more than the cost incurred by the mailings and record keeping. The Central Planning Area is not a problem for me for these reasons. The greatest advantage that I see is removing the 4 in 40 from our citizens in the northern part of the city. This allows them to realize some income from their property City Council/March 13, 2001 Page 27 of 31