Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated there was also a third option, which was to ke ep things the same, but he <br />believed the City did get some valuable things with this conservation development and he <br />believed they needed to be flexible. He not ed his concern with option 1 was that they <br />would have a land rush with no way to limit the lots. He stated his concern with option 2 <br />was that the developers would wa nt to move the lots ahead a nd there would be no lots left <br />in the near future because th ey shifted everything up. He suggested maybe something in <br />between these two options might be more favorable. <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala stated staff had thought of these concerns. He indicated however, if the <br />City was getting what they wa nted and if things were bei ng taken care of at a higher <br />level, there would be no negatives. Howeve r, he believed they needed to develop a <br />couple of these developments to see how they were working. He stated with option 2, <br />they were moving lots ahead on paper and th e developer had to fit into the existing <br />phasing plan as required. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked how long for the infrastruc ture and what was the time for the build <br />out. He asked if there was a need for the development if they allowed for the <br />infrastructure to be completed. Mr. Grochala replied he saw getti ng infrastructure in was <br />important, but there was also a cost for the infrastructure. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated the only th ing they could do was to have some sort of say over the <br />number of lots and when the lots could be developed. He stated he could only go on the <br />number of lots available for developmen t. Mr. Grochala noted no matter how many <br />controls they put in place, they could not control the market or economic factors and he <br />agreed they only had contro l of the number of lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Root noted as the options were writ ten, there were no limits. Mr. Schoenbauer <br />replied it was the Board’s discretion to use the alternative process and if they did not <br />want to approve anymore, they did not have to. He stated th ey could stick with <br />conventional development when they wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated the whole reason this was taking place was because of the value to the <br />City and therefore it would be hard to tu rn down these developments. Mr. Schoenbauer <br />asked why would the City want to turn down a development if it met the highest <br />standards the City wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Root expressed concern that the City would develop too fast and there would be not <br />lots left for future development. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoenbauer suggested they go with the second option, which would give some <br />control and see how the next couple of conservation developments progressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated he was more worried about the larger developments. Mr. Schoenbauer <br />replied they might want to consider limiting acreage. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle stated he was in favor of option 1 because he did not believe they should be <br />“handcuffing” themselves. He noted there wa s MUSA and other regulations in place that