The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8I - Density In PUD MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIE\VED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JULY 17,2000 81 JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-XX APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE DELETING THE DENSITY INCREASE ALLOWED IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Case File #00-039) History: Section 1106.401 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to increase the pemlitted density in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by 10 percent. This increase may be allowed if it meets the objectives of a PUD. The City Council recently stated it is uncomfortable with the increase in density, and directed staff to initiate an amendment removing this provision. Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on June 12, 2000. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The Commission believes the potential for increased density is a planning tool that can be used as an incentive to encourage more creative design. This is a discretionary tool, and is not an automatic approval of an increase in density. A copy of the minutes of the June 12, 2000, Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report. The Issues: A modification to the ordinance provisions, such as an increase in density, is a policy issue. The purpose of the provision is to provide some incentive to a developer to be more creative in designing a subdivision. Generally, the idea behind such a modification is a "give and take" between the developer and the City. The City allows additional density for better design. Eliminating the density modification will not eliminate all incentives provided by a PUD, although this may be the incentive developers find most attractive. The City Council must make a decision whether to amend the ordinance based on the following criteria: 162b'8Dt1g~'g<e~i~~d)t8~i~:g?~~?;gweg~~~\\Iiinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Falre12) 447-4245 AN EQl',~\L OPPORTLNITY E",IPLOYER . ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: S\ j', )~) r-J ~ .r-'f' '..:.1' 2.... --c5'-^-, (; ( I ! V,' . , d/ I ? .yfJJ.- S 1v6L f-- I I ! l r ,al/ , REVIEWED BY: . There is a public need for the amendment; or . The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City; or . The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or federal requirements. Conclusion: The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance DO-XX approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny Ordinance DO-XX as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative # 1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance DO-XX approving the amendment as recommended by the Planning commissl,'7' Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of e Cou '. , ~ f Frank Bo e~ Cit Manager I: \OOft les\OOordamd\zoning\OO-03 9\0003 9cc.doc Page 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.401 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: Section 11 06.401 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete the following from the table: Ordinance Requirement Density Maximum Modification Allowed 10% increase This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 17th day of July, 2000. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 22nd day of July, 2000. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\OOtiJes\OOordamd\zoning\OO-039\ordOOxx,doc PAGE I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E.. Prior Lake. Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph (612) 447-4230 / Fa\: (612\ 447-42-\-:") ,\\ Fe)1 .. _ (if'f'( lFT" ,--',- c\I"LO',TC' '-'~-' '--'-'-,----' Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 MOTION BY ST SON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPRO ORDINANCE 00- ENDING SECTION 1102.800 OF THE PRIOR LAKE C Y CODE INCL G THE WORDING CHANGE UNDER "K", TO READ "ONE TACHE CESSORY BUILDING DESIGNED AND USED AS A GARAGE." The Council w' onsidered this ite on July 17,2000. II D. Case File #00-039 Consider an amendment to Section 1106.401 ofthe Zoning Ordinance deleting the density increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department. This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would delete the allowable density increase allowed in a Planned Unit Development. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. Section 1106.401 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to increase the permitted density in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by 10 percent. This increase may be allowed if it meets the objectives of a PUD. The City Council recently stated it is uncomfortable with the increase in density, and directed staff to initiate an amendment removing this provision. The purpose of the provision is to provide some incentive to a developer to be more creative in designing a subdivision. Generally, the idea behind such a modification is a "give and take" between the developer and the City. The City allows additional density for better design. Eliminating the density modification will not eliminate all incentives provided by a PUD, although this may be the incentive developers find most attractive. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Atwood questioned the Council's concern with density. Rye responded density is a very sensitive issue, especially in a growing area. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: . Has seen changes with the attitude from the public hearing at the Planning Commission level to the City Council level. There is a danger if a public hearing is held and the Commission says this is what is agreed to and recommends the Council 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 12.2000 allow some leeway, it may create something very different from what the public or neighbors were expecting. . Supported the issue. Stamson: . Does not support this issue. . Has not seen this as a problem in the past. Council has it in their descretion to decrease the density. . Why not leave it in the ordinance? V onhof: . From a planning sense it is a tool as an incentive. There can be an incentive clause as well as a penalty clause to balance it out. There would be two tools. . The City Council can vote against density, but this sets it up if the proposal doesn't meet the requirements, it automatically gets a 10% decrease. . Why take a tool out of the ordinance? It may be used in the future. . Asked for clarification. Rye read the ordinance. . Had a problem supporting it. Atwood: . Agreed with Stamson and Vonhof. Why take out a tool that could be to the City's advantage? . Agreed with Cramer the issue can take on a different complexion by the time it is heard at the City Council level. . Rye said the application will come before the Planning Commission first as part of the application. . Kansier said it seems the concern is the Planning Commission could recommend against an increase in density and the Council approves it. The public will have the opportunity to see what the developer will probably propose as their ultimate plan with as many units as they can get. Cramer: . Concern that the public may not have the opportunity to give their opinion on whatever the final plan would be. . Rye said if a developer comes in and is told he can have 200 units, here's the plan at the public hearing, forward it on to the Council where the developer says he would really like 220 units. Now everything changes and it should go back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing. Atwood: . Questioned why the Council would take out a tool. I :\OOfiles\OOp 1comm\OOpcmin \mn061200 .doc 7 ".--, -,., ..- ""._~~---'~"~-"'-.-'-'-T"~'""'-_. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 . Rye said he felt the Council did it as a philosophical reaction to density. Something that is perceived as being already high density now, the City is going to reward them by giving more density. The Council wanted this as an option. Cramer: . Has been swayed from his original objection to this. The public would have their input. . Concurred with fellow Commissioners. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 1106.401 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: D.R. Horton applied for approval a Planned It Development (PUD) Final Plan for the property located south and west 0 1, south of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds tic Facility. The total site area includes 165 acres, zoned both R-1 (Low Density R (Ie 'al) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). The development con' s of 54 its, along with a park and common open space. The proposed PUD sists of a mix use development consisting of single family dwellings, two-unit to ouse buildings, two hree- and four-unit coach homes, and four-, six-, eight- and t -unit villa homes. Plan for 165 acres A. Ca ile #00-022 n.R. Horton is requesting a Final P to be develope ith 540 townhouse and single family ho Planning Coordinator Kansier presented the Planni on file in the office of the . Planner. eport dated June 12,2000, Staff recommended a roval of the PUD Final Plan subject to Planning Report. Atwood ques . ned if staff knew what the proposal was for the adjoining 4 acres. Kansier c ented there is no site plan but speculation of multiple family housing. Comments from the applicant: 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200,doc 8