12/04/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-2- I wOu1 rongly reco~end that the city consider a three-month moratoriu,~ on d~v lo~ment to allow incorporating needed modifications into the zoning 0rd'i~a icej This may be viewed by some as inconvenient, but I think the actidn shOUld be weighed with the long-term benefits of a more orderly and expedil:iO~s review process. I haVe~ no(ed that the minimum lot size proposed is one acre--apparently, in k~e~tn~ with the density already established with surrounding eXisting.. deve)o~me~t, wflich is also one acre. I will not go into my usual spiel ab'oUtNrb~n densities and rural settings, since we have discussed on nume~s bccasions the long-term problems development at this lot size can crea~ wi~h regard to increasing demands for services, not to mention adeqg~te ~izing for on-site septic systems. 6. With ~bgaKd to adequate lot size for on-site systems, I would suggest that in th( PUp agreement, a provision be made that allows establishing an ease~(nt ~n the fairway area if a new system could not be built on the lot~! ~rahted, this would probably be an extreme case and is an option of last!~eso~t, but nevertheless would provide additional assurance to the city!(nd homeowner. Overall,i,~he Proposed development conceptually is in keeping with the kinds of development ~at are appropriate in a rural setting. Obviousl~ tffe zoning ordinance must be revised to address the density question raised. 'he~ revisions should eliminate the Metropolitan Council's role in what esS~ ti~lly is a local development review process. The region went e~tensive planning process under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act through~a~ (MLPA) ~ :hi'in my estimation, was a major step in the delineation of respectiiv( aqthority between the Metropolitan Council and the local unit of governm~n~ with regard to managing development. More specifically, the individda' r~views of projects are clearly within the purview of the local units o~ !)ov~rnment as specified by the MLPA and implemented-by the city's comprehen;ive plan and ordinances. This does not preclude, however, Council review df a ~articular developmen~ project if it is determined to be of metropoii[an!significance. I don t think that is the case in this pa)-ticular situati~nL i In my d)s~us~ions with Ann, I mentioned to her that we would be more than happy to wor~i~jthi[the city if you should so choose to establish a moratorium and/or developi~ specific method for applying the one per 10 density standard. I realizei~atiin the case of ~amsey, it would be a more difficult task than in other c~n~n, unities that haven t had as much development in the rural area. It is not a ~ew(problem. We have talked about it before, and it shouldn't be a surprise )to ~nybody. Finally~ I a~sume you realize this correspondence does not constitute a formal review:)) th~ Metropolitan Council. It is my under'standing that this is not the purpose ~f your submittal of the resolution to me. Should the city council seek further(clarification or would like to-pursue the matter before the Metropo! tan[Council, we can discuss the appropriate procedure.