Laserfiche WebLink
16-3822 <br /> April 14,2016 <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br /> Summary of Issues for Consideration <br /> Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning <br /> Commission should include the following topics: <br /> Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br /> In reviewing the amendment, Planning Commission should attempt to set aside the details <br /> of the proposed development and look at the broader picture, consider the following: <br /> 1. Does the amendment further the City's goals for development of higher <br /> density housing? <br /> 2. Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the <br /> density from the current guided density? <br /> 3. Are there any negative aspects to reguiding this site for lower density? <br /> 4. Aside from numerical density concerns, does Planning Commission have <br /> any concerns about revising the development parameters for this site from <br /> multi-family use in one or two buildings to single family individual <br /> homes? <br /> 5. The developers have suggested the possibility of developing a multi- <br /> family building within the landfill site, which would require extensive <br /> mitigation (remove landfill contents in area being developed). That is not <br /> part of their current request. Does Planning Commission find that adding a <br /> multi-family building would be desirable if it helps increase density on the <br /> property? <br /> 6. Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an <br /> approval of the reguiding? <br /> 7. With the proposed amendment, the City's overall density will drop below <br /> 3.0 units per acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for <br /> higher density housing. <br /> Rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD <br /> Planning Commission should consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option <br /> for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable available option for <br /> development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants. RPUD allows for <br /> the level of flexibility necessary to accomplish the proposed development. For <br /> discussion: <br /> 1. Should Block 3 be reconfigured so that no parts of the proposed building lots are <br /> within 250' of the OHWL of Lake Classen? This likely will require additional survey <br /> work to establish the location of the OHWL on the north side of Wayzata Boulevard. <br /> Options are to reconfigure the building sites, or consider a variance to the RPUD 250' <br /> separation requirement. <br /> 2. Should the entire site be rezoned to RPUD, or just the area being developed (i.e. <br /> rezone everything except Outlot A)? <br />