01/04/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Work Program The work program and cost of revision to the plan is largely dependent on the scope of change as determined by the city council. Changes in the density ranges that do not impact land use designations will likely require less work than changes that do impact landuse designations. Under any scenario, changes would require evaluation of the transportation, sewer and water systems and associated modeling. The degree of change would dictate whether systems would need to be remodeled. Changes to land use designations would require remapping, modification to land use acreage tables, and would have the greater potential impact to infrastructure systems and modeling. We would estimate a 9 to 14 month process highly dependent on adjacent jurisdiction review. A public hearing would be required to be held by the Planning & Zoning Board under the amendment process. The hearing may only be needed under the update process if land use designations are changed. Proposed Timeline *: Council Work Session to determine changes: February — March Staff /consultant evaluate impacts, prepare document revisions March - April P & Z public hearing May Council authorizes distribution to adjacent jurisdictions June Adjacent jurisdiction review and comment June - December Council Adoption of preliminary approval (after jurisdiction review) December Submit to Met Council for review (60 days) Jan/February 2012 City Council Final Plan Adoption March 2012 *Assumes adjacent jurisdictions take full review period. Plan amendment process would reduce timeline by minimum of four months. The estimated consultant costs range from $2,500 to $15,000. The low end of the cost estimate assumes no major system modeling work. The estimate also assumes staff completes all text, table and spreadsheet modifications. Gaps Between Residential Density Ranges Following discussions with the City Attorney there does not appear to be any statutory requirements that would preclude gaps in the density ranges. The question would ultimately be determined, if challenged, by whether the city has a rational basis for establishing such requirements. Additionally, the city should determine why it would choose to regulate density in this manner and evaluate whether there are more prudent methods to accomplish that purpose. Upon further review, it appears that any benefits of such a decision are outweighed by the disadvantages it introduces to the development process and housing choices. By narrowing the density range, we could expect to see the loss of development flexibility, limited product variety, and simply a narrowing of choices for our residents. Of the 26 single family residential 2