CC_Minutes_2024_0408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 8,2024 Page 10 Roseville does a very good job with this. She thought the City had intentionally had their zoning set up and if looking at all of the different types of housing the City has, Roseville has done a very good job. She thought each city had to decide that and to have that zoning authority taken away is very short sighted. She did think that the League of Minnesota Cities letter was excellent and she liked what was pointed out in the letter. She noted those are exactly what some of her concerns were. She would probably support the thought of the City writing a similar letter to show where Roseville stands on this because it was a bad idea for the State to take away a lot of this from each city because one size does not fit all with cities. Councilmember Groff stated he pushed back a little bit on that because Roseville does a good job on it,but other surrounding communities do not. Part of the reason for this is that everyone bears some of the weight and that is the logic behind the bill. He was not supportive of everything in the bill, but he probably would not support a letter that the City is against this. He indicated he would stay neutral on the bill. Councilmember Etten appreciated the Mayor's point on State-determined zoning versus providing parameters that can open up more doors for housing. He thought there was a lot that the State or the Met Council,in their guidance on zoning, could do to ensure there is more housing or more spaces in which housing can happen without this dramatic rewriting of all things. Thinking about allowing housing in business districts but not requiring the largest housing possible but, rather, a scalable piece would seem to be a reasonable adjustment to this. He was concerned about that and about the removal of not just aesthetic things but more substantial code language the cities would be able to create. He thought there could be broad standards that still are not zero standards. He was concerned about things like that and their impacts on good quality homes. He indicated the builders are excited about this because they can then cut corners and there is no guarantee that the price is going to be lower because there will not be cheaper homes, but it is to make homes cheaply. He would support a letter along certain lines. It may be different than the League of Minnesota Cities letter but he did think that the City and the citizens have skin in the game and to discuss and provide information is needed. Mayor Roe commented on potentially having housing in industrial districts, and asked what kind of quality would that be for the people living there. On the one hand,there is talk about affordability but ultimately,the housing needs to be decent. He would support a more general letter along the lines of disagreeing with specific requirements from the State but support providing some parameters for cities and more generalized requirements. He thought the League had done a good job of listing specific objections to specific parts. He did not think the City needed to repeat that. He supported expressing to the Legislature the concern of the City about the level of control for local decision making that is embodied in some of the legislation that has been brought forth.