CC_Minutes_2010_0913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 13, 2010 Page 8 l~/Is. Schreurs 3058 Wilder Ms. Schreurs expressed concern with the marketing sign on the property, HUD provisions for the number of units sold before moving forward; whether that was 50% as indicated on the sign, or 60% as indicated for HUD financing; and ques- tioned the viability of the project. Developer United Properties Representative Brian Carey Mr. Carey confirmed that they had received commitments for sales of 60% of the units; but that this difficult economic climate required the developer to seek addi- tional financial resources, thus their request for TIF assistance. With no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 6:49 p.m. 12. Business Items (Action Items) a. Consider a Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment to Clarify the Purpose and Application of Alternatives to the Plat Process (*PROJ-0017) Roe moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1395 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of: Title 11: "Subdivisions," Chapter 1104: "Administration and Enforcement," and Section 1104.04: "Platting Variations and Minor Subdivisions;" (Attachment B), including corrected language on Page 2 of Attachment A, Line 79 as follows: Section E, "Three Parcel Minor Subdivi- sion: When a subdivision creates a total of three or less [fewer) parcels..." Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that it removed some constraints currently used against Minor Subdivisions so they would not be re- quired to follow the full procedure allowing them to come directly to the City Council and be treated mechanically. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that both the restrictions for the unnecessary hardship language and failure to comply with the purpose of platting regulations were being removed, making it easier to qualify for a subdivision. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if anything as it re- lated to review of the City's zoning code, the City should make the subdivision procedure more thorough including a review of environmental and .neighborhood impacts, similar to that used by other Cities, with more specificity rather than making it more open-ended (e.g. City of Edina model). .Councilmember Ihlan questioned the viability of changing the rules when there were pending land use cases already on the table and in the review process, particularly when neighbor- hood concerns about those pending proposals had already arisen, and such revised language could make it easier for the pending cases to receive approval. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; and disagreed with Council- member Ihlan's perception that the City was removing current restrictions, opin- ing that the language was proposed to be changed to be consistent with long-term past practice. Mayor Klausing noted that he had originally suggested the lan-