Agenda - Council - 03/07/1985 - Special Joint with Planning and Zoning Commission

Home

.I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I -2- I would strongly reco~end that the city consider a three-month moratorium on development to allow incorporating needed modifications into the zoning ordinance. This may be viewed by some as inconvenient, but I think the action should be weighed with the long-term benefits of a more orderly and expeditious review process. I have noted that the minimum lot size proposed is one acre--apparently, in keeping with the density already established with surrounding existing development, which is also one acre. I will not go into my usual spiel about urban densities and rural settings, since we have discussed on numerous occasions the long-term problems development at this lot size can create with regard to increasing demands for services, not to mention adequate sizing for on-site septic systems. With regard to adequate lot size for on-site systems, I would suggest that in the PUD agreement, a provision be made that allows establishing an easement in the fairway area if a new system could not be built on the lot. Granted, this would probably be an extreme case and is an option of last resort, but nevertheless would provide additional assurance to the city and homeowner. Overall, the proposed development conceptually is in keeping with the kinds of development that are appropriate in a rural setting. Obviously, the zoning ordinance must be revised to address the density question raised. These revisions should eliminate the Metropolitan Council's role in what essentially is a local development review process. The region went through an extensive planning process under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) which, in my estimation, was a major step in the delineation of respective authority between the Metropolitan Council and the local unit of government with regard to managing development. More specifically, the individual reviews of projects are clearly within the purview of the local units of government as specified by the MLPA and implemented by the city's comprehensive plan and ordinances. This does not preclude, however, Council rev. iew of a particular development project if it is determined to be of metropolitan significance. I don't think that is the case in this particular situation. In my discussions with Ann, I mentioned to her that we would be more than happy to work with the city if you should so choose to establish a moratorium and/or develop a specific method for applying the one per 10 density standard. I realize that in the case of Ramsey, it would be a more difficult task than in other communities that haven't had as much development in the rural area. It is not a new problem. We have talked about it before, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. ~' Finally, I assume you realize this correspondence does not constitute a formal review by the Metropolitan Council. It is my understanding that this is not the purpose of your submittal of the resolution to me. Should the city council seek further clarification or would like to pursue the matter before the Metropolitan Council, we can discuss the appropriate procedure.