09/27/2000 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Trehus noted the area is zoned R-1 with the southern part being rural but the proposal for townhomes is at a higher density than single family homes. He stated it appears they are trying to increase the density to townhomes by calling it a conservation development. Smyser stated he told the applicant they would need to justify that question. He noted the proposal is for detached townhomes which is really smaller sized single family homes on individual lots. Trehus asked about the distance between the walls of the houses. Mr. Fairbrother estimated ten feet from the building wall to the property line, or 20 feet between the houses. Mr. Hill stated the homes are 1,400 to 1,500 square feet and will sell for about $150,000 with empty nesters and first-time home buyers being their market.' Asleson asked if the applicant also owns the southern part,. and if they will consider developing the southern part when MUSA expands. Mr. Hill stated this is the full 40 acres and they may consider development in several phases to develop the lots within MUSA first. Smyser advised that staff believes the zoning district line on the draft plan should be moved so this entire parcel is within one zoning district. Vice Chair Davidson stated the, trade off for preservation development is that not all of the upland is developed, however ,that aspect is missing from this project. Donlin concurred and commented on the important aspects that need to be included in a preservation development. Asleson noted the Board needs to address what is important beyond this 40 acres in terms of how it will be developed in the future. He reviewed the alignment of the greenway corridor and explained that such a corridor is to be a green area with buffering and provide connections with people, wildlife, and ecosystems while preserving natural features. Smyser stated more buffer beyond the back yards is desired. The Board agreed. Donlin reviewed the conservation development charrette that had been presented and desire for open and visual viewsheds. She stated the proposed site plan does not provide for that aspect since it only provides a view into another home due to the smaller sized lots and higher density. Trehus concurred and stated a trailway plan will also be needed. He reviewed another project that involved the creation of viewsheds and trails. Trehus asked what incentive the City has to consider higher density townhomes. Smyser stated this proposal would require a PUD since it does not fit any of the actual zoning district criteria. He stated the 8