Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Riley asked if there was anything from the regular meeting agenda that could be <br /> moved as it is a long agenda and two weeks ago was very short. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich replied there are a lot of ordinances and adoptions that need to come <br /> forward in that process. He stated that a lot of the cases have been discussed in the past so shouldn't <br /> need a lot of discussion. Deputy City Administrator/ Community Dev. Director Hagen is <br /> presenting them tonight and promised to be brief. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if, in the interest of time, if there would be consensus to move <br /> the item 7.1 on Support Housing and Local Decision Making Authority to the consent agenda or <br /> if there would be discussion around that. <br /> The Council agreed. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich asked about the Legislative Priorities and if that could go on the consent <br /> agenda. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove stated she had a question about specifying one item and asked that it <br /> not be moved to the consent agenda. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich stated there was also a request from Councilmember Musgrove to move <br /> 5.4 from the consent agenda. <br /> Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen offered to give the update now. He <br /> stated the Comp Plan Update that was in essence approved by the City Council, however there <br /> was a condition to add having the Planning Commission hold an additional public hearing on it. <br /> He stated that the Planning Commission did have the public hearing and based on discussion and <br /> feedback there was one revision regarding certain criteria for when a project could fall on this new <br /> Comp Plan district. There were two sections that were very similar. The Planning Commission <br /> recommended combining those two. At this point it is essentially approved and after revisions <br /> will be ready to send off to Met Council. The update is that the Planning Commission had the <br /> public hearing and a minor revision was made which makes it more difficult for a property to <br /> utilize this new tool because the criteria was to meet two of the following and because the two <br /> were similar it was easy to check two boxes at the same time. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if the case was informative but asked if Deputy City <br /> Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen was clarifying that the actual case that was voted <br /> on has been changed and the changed one is the one that has gone to the Met Council for review. <br /> Deputy City Administrator//Community Dev. Director Hagen replied the case that was presented <br /> at the last Council meeting, that was what was brought forward for the Planning Commission <br /> meeting to hold the public hearing on. In conjunction with timing, the case that the Council saw <br /> and adopted with conditions has been sent out to neighboring jurisdictions for their feedback. Five <br /> jurisdictions of 15 have yet to send their feedback. He stated so far there have been no comments <br /> or objections. With the Planning Commission public hearing and that change, once they receive <br /> all the neighboring jurisdiction's comments they will send the revised version to the Met Council. <br /> City Council Work Session/February 8, 2022 <br /> Page 10 of 12 <br />