01-31-11-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—JANUARY 31, 2011 2 2,,4 Planning Case 11-004 — Pulte Group Development Concept Planned Unit Development Review (continued) City Planner Beekman explained the site is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The 2030 future land use designation for the property in the City's Comprehensive Plan is Low Density Residential (LDR). She further reviewed the Zoning Code requirements for R-1 property in the City, and that the minimum lot size was 14,000 square feet with a maximum allowed density of three units per net acre. She explained that this conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan requirements that defined LDR as three to five units per net acre, and that it would not be possible for a development to meet both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. If the applicant were to develop the property according to the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances, they would need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to allow less than three units per acre. Similarly, if the applicant developed the property in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan at greater than three units per acre, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would be required to waive the Zoning Code requirements of lot size, setbacks, and density. Discussion ensued regarding the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Mayor Grant commented that a developer could build less than three units per acre which would comply with the zoning code, but would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This development would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. City Planner Beekman stated this was the case and the CPA would have to be approved by the Met Council. Another option would be to create an Overlay District or Planned Unit Development {PUD). She then reviewed each concept in detail explaining both would require park dedication and a four-fifths vote for Council approval. Staff then questioned how the Council would like to proceed. The developer was present for questions. Councilmember Holmes questioned what points the City could negotiate with the developer regarding trees. City Planner Beekman understood there would be significant tree loss through this development, but the City could establish buffer zones where trees would have to be protected. With a PUD, the City has the opportunity to provide additional conditions for approval. This opportunity would not exist with a development that meets all of the City's zoning requirements. Easements could also be placed on the parcel that would limit development and further protect trees, but only through a PUD process. Councilmember Holmes asked for further information on the side yard setbacks. City Planner Beekman indicated the side yard setbacks would be similar to the R-1 zoning district. She noted the plan set provided was not at a scale to allow measurement of setbacks for the proposed development. The front and rear setbacks were proposed at 30 feet for the concept that required a PUD. Mayor Grant questioned if the proposed development would be similar to the Chatham neighborhood in terms of setbacks. City Planner Beekman noted the density, setbacks and lot size would be similar.