Laserfiche WebLink
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 />16. Housing Review Guidelines. (pages 19-30) <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 />-page 2. the AMM committee believes that the Met Council <br />should not review projects for internal consistency with <br />local comp plans. The review should be cond.cted to <br />determine consistency with regional plans and etc.(see <br />general concern 5.) <br />-page 2. Guidelines for Accessibility of Cervices and <br />Facilities. The AMM believes the paragraphs pertaining to <br />schools need to be modified extensively. Cities have no <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 AMM does <br />not object to the statement but wants to note that compliance <br />with these guidelines could add to housing costs. <br />17. Subsidized housing review guidelines. (pages 31-38) <br />-Special needs. The AMM believes this criterion may be premature <br />since the ;d)a1wgJ 1 ' is recommending that a study be donthdLimo-a i <br />determine the- ttandd.•capped housing needs. hmn&--r <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 />-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" oft^,i <br />change after the Council has completed its review. <br />18. Community Development Review Guidelines <br />( paE;e 39 ) The AMM <br />-n - <br />