Laserfiche WebLink
► *.r» - V f■'I <br />Wy. ■ ■•■ <br />'rj!'"■!■'■,' ^ <br />ii'>">--. V-** <br />'C^'vK;-^''*;- <br />if". <br />^'V^'V <br />■ <br />I-’'".. <br />m. <br />i <br />:> <br />^it <br />m- <br />P': ■Esj|» • <br />A <br />"4^•V <br />SM.<.V ..te' " m: <br />.H^'v'.' <br />i*V,*-:r^ <br />|t ■-:>«- <br />It, <br />;C-.«,mi- • :• <br />vv^i ^ <br />Table 3 illustrates this exercise: <br />TABLE 3 <br />SPRING PARK <br />MAXIMUM SHORELAND DENSITIES <br />Tier <br />I <br />Net Area <br />Standard <br />Allowed <br />Units <br />Maximum <br />Density <br />Increase Maximum <br />Allowed Units <br />1,415,997 94 50%141 <br />II 1,089,098 109 100%218 <br />III 460,998 46 200%184 <br />IV 244,000 24 200%96 <br />V 100,000 10 200%40 <br />3,310,093 283 679 <br />Existing Housing Units:937 <br />As can be seen from Table 3, there is over development in the <br />n\imber of residential units allowed in the shoreland area based <br />upon the DNR density standards. There are currently 937 housing <br />units (252 single units and 681 units in multiple family <br />structures) in Spring Par)c while the model ordinance would only <br />allow 283 single family units. Even with the provision of the <br />density increase multiplier, which allows for 679 units. Spring <br />Park is still 258 units above this limit. Due to the number of <br />existing multiple family buildings. Spring Park cannot comply with <br />the density standards in the DNR Ordinance. <br />Multiple family accounts for 73 percent of Spring Parkis total <br />housing, while single family accounts for only 27 percent. <br />The loss of these existing multiple family units to Spring Park, if <br />they were not allowed to rebuild to their existing density, would <br />be detrimental to the City's population base and tax base. A loss <br />in population would affect Spring Park through reduced State and <br />local aid. The current population is aluo necessary to support the <br />local economy. The City's tax base would be affected through the <br />loss of these revenue generating properties which are needed to <br />cover the City's debt structure of municipal services. <br />The City has historically viewed high density residential in a <br />positive light and as a result, would not adopt an Ordinance which <br />would make these multiple family units non-conforming and thus <br />limit their redevelopment potential. <br />i <br />_S-