Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Bauer commented that he believes that a buffer should be created to prevent the City <br />from dipping below the three units per acre threshold. He asked if an applicant could meet two <br />criteria to apply. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl confirmed that an applicant could apply for a Comprehensive Plan <br />amendment if two of the criteria are met. <br />Commissioner Dunaway stated that he has a similar concern with the proposed language, noting <br />that E and F are very similar in meeting a threshold. He asked why similar criteria were added. <br />He stated that if only two criteria are required, if an applicant met E, it could most likely also meet <br />F. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl provided clarification noting that the intent was related to existing <br />rural residential development. She suggested merging E and F into one criteria. <br />Commissioners VanScoy and Dunaway confirmed that they would prefer to merge those items. <br />Commissioner Walker commented that the City Councilhas stated that it does not want smaller <br />lots in this area. He stated that only two options are provided, and he does not like either option. <br />He stated that he was told that once there is an open development case, the Comprehensive Plan <br />and/or zoning could not be changed, yet here is a request to change both. He asked if this would <br />be a great time to try to come up with a compromise to have larger lots on the outside and smaller <br />lots on the inside to create the desired density. <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that was the initial proposal. <br />Commissioner Walker disagreed and believed that the original proposals included 55-, 65-, and <br />75-foot lots. He commented that there has never been a compromise for the existing residents and <br />asked if this would be the perfect time to provide larger lots on the outside of the development. <br />He stated that if the density could be increased, the Comprehensive Plan would not need to be <br />changed and everyone would get what they want. He stated that he would not even say full acre <br />lots on the border, although ideally that would be preferred, but stated perhaps 120 foot lots are <br />placed on the border to protect the existing residents. He noted then perhaps 70 or 65 foot lots are <br />placed in the middle of the development. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that they did review that option with the applicant and <br />even with larger lots they cannot get over the density threshold. She stated that the Preliminary <br />Plat has already been approved and therefore the discussion tonight is related to density and <br />whether the Commission would support the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She noted that the <br />alternative would be to amend the zoning to allow smaller lots to meet the three units per acre <br />threshold of the Metropolitan Council and the City Council has already stated it will not support <br />that option. She stated that if nothing is done, that would be considered a taking and therefore <br />these are the only two options to consider at this time. She stated that staff supports the lower <br />density as that is desired by the existing residents and City Council. <br />Planning Commission/ January 27, 2022 <br />Page9of22 <br />