Agenda - Council - 11/28/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

comments were received, Staff has removed these comments from the agenda packet and is re -setting the public hearing and public comment period. Minutes from the October 12, 2017 Planning Commission are attached for review. Additionally, a pubic workshop was also held on October 12, 2017. While a number of attendees of said workshop preferred a project that did not deviate from the R-1 Residential (MUSA) standards, multiple attendees did note a willingness to compromise. At the November 2, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting, attendees re -stated a desire for the Zoning District to remain within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. A restated petition and comment letter were recently received and are attached to this case. Notification: Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property of the Sketch Plan Review. Observations/Alternatives: Sketch Plan Review The project has gone through two (2) rounds of elevated Sketch Plan Reviewed (Sketch Plan was also reviewed by the City Council). The project is eligible to request review of next steps. 1. Zoning Amendment [current step] 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat Conditional Zoning Amendment (PUD) The Planned Unit Development process is outlined in City Code Section 117-123. Additionally, City Code Section 117-50 permits the City to make a Zoning Amendment conditional upon a specific proposal. A concern was raised by the public at a previous public meeting that there was the potential to approve the Zoning Amendment, then have a different project come in based on the new zoning district. These two tools allow the City to protect itself from that scenario. The City Attorney has expressed some hesitation with this approach, but feels the concern can be adequately mitigated with the correct language in an agreement. The City Attorney wants to avoid perceptions of Contract Zoning (approval of a Zoning Amendment in exchange for some material consideration, namely cash), which is not permissible. The Developer (Paxmar) desires to have the Zoning Amendment approved, conditioned on substantial compliance with the current concept, before preparing preliminary plat materials (due to cost to prepare a Preliminary Plat). Ordinarily, the Zoning Amendment would run parallel with the Preliminary Plat, not before. A Planned Unit Development does allow the City the flexibility to negotiate any zoning standard; however, utilization of this tool requires a public benefit equal or greater than the off -setting flexibility. In this case, the working assumption is that the current Property Owner will dedicate the area necessary for the Lake Itasca Greenway at no additional cost to the City. This is separate from Park Dedication requirements and cannot be combined. While the number of lots proposed by the Developer is less than originally proposed, the flexibility utilized to arrive at the current concept plan nets approximately thirty (30) additional lots than without the utilization of the PUD tool. The City can, but is not obligated to, approve said amendment. The City has discretion on how to move forward with the request. It is worth noting that an existing goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for more meaningful density transitioning. This goal was in response to the practice of simply relying on landscaping buffer as a means of transition, as opposed to transition of actual lot size. This goal seems to have been confirmed through the early stages of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. Memorandum of Understanding ?In order to strengthen the clarity of expectations, the Developer has proposed that the City and Hageman (owner) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Both the project site for North Fork Meadows and the area to