2A, Pulte Group Development Concept PUD Review Discussion

Home Browse Search

good quality significant trees. Any development of this property that included a subdivision of land would trigger a park dedication requirement. Through early discussions with the developer, it became clear that there is a conflict between the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan in regards to the required density of R-1 property in the City. The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the future land use of the property as Low Density Residential, which is defined as residential property developed at three to five units _ per net acre. In contrast, the City's Zoning Code caps the allowed density in the R-1 District at three units per net acre. Furthermore,the Code requires a minimum of 14,000 square feet per R- 1 lot, which does not allow for a density of three units per net acre. If the applicant develops the property in accordance with the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, they would need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow less than three units per acre. In contrast, if the property were developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan requirements, flexibility from the City's Zoning Code would be necessary. In the case of the — latter, the applicant would most likely apply for a Master and Final PUD so that the City might - grant the necessary flexibilities from the Code without the need for variances. Discussion The applicant has submitted two development options for the Council's review. Both show the same roadway system with connections to Snelling Avenue N, Keithson Drive, and Arden View Drive. The existing wetlands would be preserved, though the setbacks to the wetlands differ on each plan. In both plans, many of the existing trees on the property would be removed; however, the tree preservation ordinance would require a great deal of tree replacement. Both development concepts would require park dedication, which is ten percent of the land, land value, or some combination thereof. Concept 1 is a development option that includes 46 lots and meets the requirements of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan by developing the parcel at three units per net acre. However, this development option would require adjustments to the City's minimum lot size, lot width, and setbacks. Because this option would be reviewed through Master and Final PUD process, the City would have much greater flexibility to negotiate on certain aspects of the development, such as wetland setbacks and tree preservation. Concept 2 is a development option with 39 lots that meets all of the requirements of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, but would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. With this option, the developer would apply for a preliminary and final plat. This development option, because it would not require a PUD, may allow the developer to proceed within existing City's requirements. Because the City's Zoning Code does not currently require setbacks from wetlands, this development option limits the City's ability to negotiate on this point. In addition, it would be more difficult for the City to have a hand in preserving desirable stands of trees, as long as the application met the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for January 31, 2011 Page 2 of 4