10-10-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16-3855 October 6, 2016 Page 3 Issues for Discussion The following potential items for consideration were reviewed by the Planning Commission, and should also be addressed by the City Council: 1. The property has been zoned and guided for 2 -acre single family development for many decades. The current Land Use Plan guiding for Low Density Residential Use indicating a density range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre was established to reflect the various historic densities of development within the defined Rural Area, but was not intended to direct that land historically zoned for 2 -acre lots should be changed to higher densities. The City specifically guided certain carefully -selected properties for higher density in 2010 to meet Met Council goals and create a buffer to allow continued development of the shoreland areas at the historically zoned and guided low densities; the applicants' property was not one of those properties reguided for higher densities. The proposed development is a significant departure from the historic planned development pattern for this site. Does Council support the applicants' proposed higher -density use? 2. If higher density for a portion of the site is deemed to be acceptable, is Council comfortable with the 15,000-20,000 s.£ lot sizes generally proposed in the RPUD portion of the site? Do these lot sizes provide a reasonable transition between the rural 2 -acre lots to the north and the variety of development types to the west and south? Or should a different RPUD lot size be required? Is such a transition even necessary? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek or less than 250 feet from the OHWL of Long Lake are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD nor are they subject to flexibility in terms of lot standards. Applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning in order to allow flexibility due to the physical limitations of the site. Does Council find any reason to vary from this RPUD prohibition? 4. Due to the number of units to be served; the proposed overall density of development; and the use of municipal sewer and water systems, it could be argued that the road system should be public. Applicants are prepared for the road to be private. Council should discuss the merits of this being a public or private road. 5. Council should consider whether this development should be required to create the RPUD standard 10% private recreation area, and whether the proposed internal trail system would satisfy that requirement. 6. Can Council identify any other topics that should be addressed with this concept plan review? Are there other options for development of this site that should be considered? Met Council Sewered Density Analysis The recent Met Council approval of the mixed use reguiding in Navarre has re-established enough `buffer' to allow expansion of MUSA services in areas historically guided for low densities. That buffer currently is large enough to accommodate either the applicants' proposed 25 -unit development or a 10 -unit project with 2 -acre lots. Development of 10 units at the applicants' property will result in a greater decrease in the buffer than if it is developed with 25 units.