Laserfiche WebLink
Vice Chair Davidson agreed with Donlin regarding the desirability <br />for smaller lots if it contains the same amenities, viewsheds, and <br />fewer houses. <br />Asleson asked if lots of that type would sell in the marketplace. <br />Mr. Adolph stated Mr. Hill would be able to answer that question. <br />Donlin stated she appreciates the better viewsheds with this plan <br />but she does not think it is fair to then add 15 units which creates <br />more congestion. <br />Mr. Fairbrother asked when the point of economics of the development <br />and the conservation issues balance out. <br />Vice Chair Davidson noted that Option C was discussed at the last <br />meeting, not Option A. She asked if there is an option somewhere <br />between Option A and Option C, to create fewer lots and more open <br />spaces. <br />Mach stated the role of the Board is to address the environmental <br />aspects and while he agrees not much has been gained <br />environmentally, he is sensitive to the economic issues. <br />Asleson stated they bought the land to develop into houses and the <br />question being asked is how few homes can be built and the project <br />still work. He noted the developer has addressed issues of <br />buffering and greenway. Asleson stated the developer will have to <br />address the density and financial economics. He explained that 2.5- <br />acre lots are not part of a conservation development, as they can be <br />subdivided in the future. <br />Vice Chair Davidson agreed and noted that large lots are also not <br />conducive to wildlife corridors or contiguous areas. <br />Trehus noted that with this plan the number of lots has been <br />increased and the road right -of -way reduced, which is a win -win <br />situation for the developer but not the City. He suggested there <br />should be some tradeoffs for the City to benefit and asked if a <br />formal application has been made. <br />Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made. <br />Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive to <br />older couples and empty nesters so there would be a lower <br />population. <br />HapxQ &J'sxpsanov_Boap5- Xzrt_oO_Aivo Aaxs6 <br />