RPUD Ordinance Final Draft for Adoption

Home Browse Search

To: Mayor Peterson and Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Galion, Planning Director Date: February 23, 2001 Subject: #2631 RPUD Ordinance Final Draft for Adoption List of Exhibits A - Final Ordinance Draft in Adoption Format B - Summary Ordinance for Publication Council tabled this item on February 12 for additional review at the February 22 work session. Councilmembers had a few concerns regarding applicability of the RPUD District to Shoreland properties, and about the potential RPUD impact on future development in the City. These were reviewed in the memo of February 16 which was discussed at the work session. Councilmember Flint also suggested some relatively minor changes which were incorporated into a 6"'draft that was distributed at the work session. As a result of the discussions, since the February 12 version the ordinance has been revised as follows: 1. Subd. 5(A)2 on Page 3: 5-acre Minimum. For the second potential finding which would allow Council to allow RPUD zoning for a parcel of less than 5 acres, "public street" has been substituted for"right-of-way"in terms of defining adjacency to an existing RPUD zone. 2. Subd. 5(A) on Page 3: Shoreland Applicability. Council concluded that no property nor portion of a property within 250' of the shoreline of a protected lake or tributary may be rezoned to RPUD. The language has been revised to allow RPRD development within the Shoreland District but not within 250' of the shoreline. 3. Subd. 5(E) on Page 4: Incentives. The language allowing the use of incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing has been revised to require a 20-year assurance rather than merely a "specific period of time" for keeping units affordable. 4. Subd. 5(F) on Page 5: Hardsurface. Maximum hardsurface coverage for a"High-density residential" (>6 units per acre)RPUD site has been reduced from 70%to 50%,matching the standard for low/medium density residential(the senior housing site plan is currently at about 45% and may end up slightly lower depending on final road configuration). 5. Subd. 5(G)2 on Page 6 and Subd 5(H)8 on Page 7: Height of Buildings. The height standard language has been revised to omit the 2-1/2 story requirement, since the language "30 feet or 2-1/2 stories"was confusing and difficult to interpret. For multi-family buildings {Subd. 5(G)6} the height standard will be 30 feet, but for properties currently zoned or guided in the CMiP for commercial use, height may exceed 30 feet but may not exceed 3 stories. For single-family uses in RPUD {Subd. 5(H)8}, building height will be limited to 30 feet.Note:Staff will be proposing a similar Code change to the height standard for all other districts in the near future!