Laserfiche WebLink
Our initial review indicates that with the proposed change the City's overall net density <br />will drop below 3.0 units per acre. The 3.0 units per acres threshold is not related to <br />affordability but rather the efficient use of regional infrastructure. Staff does not <br />anticipate any flexibility from Metropolitan Council on this issue. However, staff is <br />working with Met Council on reviewing what land must be included in the calculation. <br />The possible removal of some areas included in the calculation could raise our net <br />density. Alternatively, the City will need to reguide land for medium and/or high density <br />areas to compensate for the reduction in the density range. <br />The City faced this same issue during the last round of comprehensive plan updates. <br />Corrective measures taken at that time included 1) elimination of the Low/Medium and <br />the Medium/High Districts which were changed to medium and high respectively, 2) <br />revisions to proposed density ranges, and 3) reguiding of land from commercial to both <br />medium and mixed use districts. <br />To address Item No. 4 staff is recommending the addition of a policy statement to the <br />Housing goals in Chapter 4 as follows: <br />"Establish requirements to provide for affordable housing in all residential land <br />use districts. <br />The implementation mechanism will be in the form of an ordinance, the drafting of which <br />will necessitate some lengthy conversations with the council. A number of issues will <br />need to be considered including but not limited to the following: <br />1. Does all residential development need to provide affordable housing? If so, how <br />much? <br />2. Is it only required to be affordable for the first owner or also subsequent owners? <br />3. What financial incentives will the City provide, if any? <br />4. What is the potential impact to residential development within the city if <br />affordability is mandated? What is the impact to commercial /industrial <br />development? <br />Staff is of the opinion that the proposed policy statement clearly identifies the council's <br />preference and intent to provide affordability while still providing flexibility as we work <br />through the necessary ordinance requirements. <br />Item 5 proposes to provide increased density as an incentive for meeting higher standards <br />or public values than otherwise required. Provisions for a density bonus are included <br />within the Land Use Policies within the draft plan (pg. 3 -3, Policy No. 5 and 6). It is <br />anticipated that the density bonus concept would get addressed as part of the zoning <br />ordinance update, most likely as part of the PUD requirements. Staff would request <br />further direction/clarification from the council on the issue. <br />2 <br />