Laserfiche WebLink
16. <br /> <br />with respect to establishing housing courts and does not believe <br />that sufficient data and information has been provided to Justify <br />this recommendation or this policy. <br /> <br />Boustng Review Guidelines. (pages 19-30) <br /> <br />-General housing review guidelines. All "reviews" cost money <br />and therefore the committee questions if this set of review <br />guidelines is necessary for projects and proposals within the <br />MUSA. The AMM believes that the factors to be considered in <br />this section will be considered elsewhere in the other sets of <br />review guidelines. If the Council does keep this set of <br />review guidelines, however, we do offer several concerns and <br />comments. <br /> <br /> -page 2. The AMM committee believes that the Met Council <br /> should not review pro~ects for internal consistency with <br /> local comp plans. The review should be conducted to <br /> determine consistency with regional plans and ~oals~ etc.(see <br /> <br />general concern 5.) <br /> <br />-page 2. Guidelines <br />Facilities. The AMM <br />schools need to be <br /> <br /> for Accessibility of Services and <br /> believes the paragraphs pertaining to <br />modified extensively. Cities have no <br /> <br /> control over school closings and this statement could be at <br /> odds with desegregation guidelines in force for central <br /> cities. Also, the distances for walking and bussing, etc. <br /> should be checked to see if they are consistent with the <br /> guidelines established by the State Board of Education. <br /> -page 26. Highway accessibility and Design, etc. The AF~M does <br /> not object to the statement but wants to note that compliance <br /> with these guidelines could add to housing costs. <br /> <br />17. Subsidized housing review guidelines. (pages 31-38) <br /> <br /> -Special needs. The AMM believes this criterion may be premature <br /> since the Council is recommending that a study be done to <br /> determine the handicapped housing needs. <br /> <br /> -In Conflict Recommendations. (page 33) The AMM does not <br /> support the inclusion of C.1 because of its concerns with the <br /> Community Index concept. (See General Concern 1.). <br /> <br /> -Design Features. (page 37). and Capabilities of Housing <br /> Sponsor (page 36). The AMM does not feel the Council is <br /> staffed to evaluate "design features" or the "capabilities of <br /> the Housing Sponsor". Also the "design" and "sponsor" often <br /> change after the Council has completed its review. <br /> 18. Community Development Review Guidelines. (page 39) The AMM <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br /> <br />