Confirm Recommendation Lake Itasca Benefit Related to North Fork Meadows subdivision; Case of Paxmar, LLC (Project No. 17-126)?

The City Council tabled action on this case for additional information. The City Council requested a better delineation of the Lake Itasca Greenway boundary as well as a Park Dedication/Trail Development Fee and Open Space Pro-Forma comparison. Staff is currently working on this request along with the Developer. There are no changes to the proposal from the previous Environmental Policy Board review at this time.

Clarify Boundaries of Greenway

Staff is still working with the Developer on this aspect. Staff has prepared an interim exhibit. The Developer shall include the greenway boundary on their Sketch Plan prior to reviewing with the City Council.

Quantify Public Benefit

Staff has attempted to quantify the return of public benefit in exchange for flexibility in certain zoning standards. Below is Staff's attempt and quantifying. Staff has not received a response from the Developer. Staff ran the scenarios outlined below.

1. Add areas of Lake Itasca Greenway currently owned by Hageman Holdings to be dedicated to the public as part of the PUD to the current Sketch Plan. The Council is wanting the greenway alignment and the development concept on one plan. I would like to suggest that the plan have two (2) sheets.
   1. The current context/scale of the Sketch Plan
   2. A broader view that shows the full geographic context of the greenway.
      1. Please note that we will have to clean up the current planning map.
      2. Remove areas not owned by Hageman
      3. Re-align the areas that overlap with lots in North Fork Meadows
2. Project Pro-Forma Comparison (park dedication, trail development, and open space preservation only)
   1. Scenario 1: PUD (97 lots)
      1. Park Dedication Amount
      2. Park Dedication Increase with PUD
      3. Trail Development Amount
      4. Trail Development Increase with PUD
      5. Cash Value of Open Space Preservation (greenway corridor)
   2. Scenario 2: No PUD (follow existing zoning, no amendments or variances; 70 lots)

 

Type	PUD Amount	Non-PUD Amount	Change
Park Dedication	$271,600	$196,000	$75,600
Trail Development	$77,600	$56,000	$21,600
Lake Itasca Greenway	$100,000*	$0	$100,000 Potential Value of Public Benefit
Total			$197,200 Potential Value of PUD

*Not official. Simply a starting point for discussion.

A piece missing from this analysis is a review of the option to secure this area through normal Park Dedication requirements (land dedication in lieu of cash) for the remaining area owned by Hageman Holdings. It is noted, however, that Park Dedication was paid for the remaining area when it was contemplated to be the future campus of Legacy Christian Academy. Staff will ensure that there is no additional Park Dedication due with the change in planned land use for this parcel.

?The purpose of this case is to consider a introducing a Zoning Amendment from R-1 Residential (MUSA) to Planned Unit Development and entering into a Conditional Rezoning Agreement related to the same. Conditional Zoning Amendments are allowed by City Code Section 117-50 that allow a Zoning Amendment, but require that it follows a specific site plan to avoid the potential for a completely different project to be proposed after said Zoning Amendment.

The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed this project on multiple occasions. The current proposal has been modified by the Developer in order to address comments received by the Public, Planning Commission, and City Council. Key issues at that time included, but were not limited to the following.

1. Density Transitioning
2. Reliability/Consistency of the Comprehensive Plan

The original concept has undergone Sketch Plan Review with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission outlined a number of concerns indicated in the attached minutes from June 13. The City then held a public workshop on August 3, 2017. A follow up workshop was held on Thursday, October 12.

The original proposal was classified as a medium density residential development (4-7 units per acre). This area is guided as low density residential (2-4 units per acre) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The original proposal would have required a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment. There were subsequent revised concepts prepared and reviewed.

The current proposal has been modified in an attempt to remain in the low density residential category. This is the fifth revised concept prepared by the Developer. The Net Density as proposed appears to be less than four (4) units per acre, which allows this project to advance through the review process without the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, the proposal still requires a Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD). While the density of the current concept is within the range of the Comprehensive Plan (planning/visionary document), the actual proposed lot sizes and lot widths are deficient of the minimums required by the Zoning Code (official controls/implementation tool) for the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. Said Zoning District does allow density up to four (4) units per acre with the use of a PUD.

In the interest of clarity and avoiding confusion, Staff is only including the current proposal in this agenda packet. Staff's presentation will provide a very brief overview of the previous concepts and the sequence that arrived at the current concept.

The City has significant discretion in review of this project. Since the project requires a Zoning Amendment, the City is not obligated to approve and the Developer must demonstrate a compelling reason to approve the change. This results in a higher standard of review compared to projects that meet all minimum standards of their respective zoning district.

Finally, since the concept has changed significantly from the original proposal when the current set of public 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.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property of the Sketch Plan Review.

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.

All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Developer. The Developer will be responsible for the costs of construction of all infrastructure internal to the site.

The Developer has requested that a cost share agreement be approved for the final segment of Puma Street. The Developer proposes to share the cost between itself, the City, and Capstone Homes (Owner/Developer of parcel to the west). This will be discussed in detail with the Preliminary Plat. Action at this stage does not obligate or commit the City to any investment in the project.

When considering a Staff Recommendation, Staff is reviewing the revised concept against the following talking points raised during the first stages of review.

1. Consistency of the Comprehensive Plan
2. Needing a more compelling reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan, or leave as Low Density Residential
3. Creating a more meaningful Density Transitioning Plan (wider lots AND deeper lots)

The Developer has chosen to revise the concept to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Developer is requesting a deviation to lot width and lot depth, necessitating a Zoning Amendment to Planned Unit Development. The Developer appears to have attempted to address the desire for wider and deeper lots adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. The Property Owner has agreed in concept to conveying the area needed for the Lake Itasca Greenway.

With these factors considered, Staff feels that this is a reasonable compromise and would support the Planning Commission and City Council in approving this project. That being said, a reminder that the City is not obligated to approve this project. This is a policy-level decision that requires direction from the City Council.

Motion to recommend to the City Council that the additional information supports a sufficient public benefit for the North Fork Meadows Planned Unit Development.