02-27-01 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pathways lead to the Old Village: , ow would he initiate this? Planner Dillo, ad stated the Parks Commission would relook at the trail plan. Secretary of Interior Stds. for adaptive reuse of Ag buildings does NOT prevail. Tom Wiener asked what's the incentive anymore for doing a cluster development? He spent $50,000 on trees in Cardinal Ridge, From a developer standpoint, why wouldn't he just put in 2.5 ace lots? Planner Dillerud explained a developer could come in with a PUD application for an Open Space development. Tim Freeman made the following comments: 4/5ths variation for items in the ordinance is important and removes the hardship requirement. Doesn't see any reason to take it out. Elimination is hampering ordinance. Single Family Attached Housing violates the setback requirements. Wetland treatment systems and Alternative Treatment systems are not allowed by ordinance, your allowing them should be recognized by ordinance. The fact that you've been allowing them should be recognized in the ordinance. Individual septic tanks have not been used in a communal system 3 to 1 aspect ratio and minimum 40 acres site requirements would not have allowed developing of Tana or Cardinal Ridge and the Siverson property next door. Parkland — Donated parkland should be considered part of the Open Space. Section 400: If there is a park designated on the park plan then you have to dedicate a park. If you put the land in then cannot count it as part of the open space. Planning Commissioner Sessing stated the PZ thought if they are not dedicating property you giving the rights to the park. Certain amount of money is dedicated if they are not giving the land. If they give the land they don't have to give the money. That land should be taken out of that, lakes etc, otherwise it is considered this double-dipping and not fair to count the land twice. Dillerud: Section 400 already makes accommodations for OP development where instead of 10% it is 7% park dedication requirements. What happens is some of the open space requirement was being used as park dedication requirements even the 7 percent. The way it is written is that an OP project has a 7% requirement be it land or money regardless of the original building space because they have already been given credit for Section 400. It is not right for a developer to count the same piece of ground toward his preserved open space and his park dedication. Freeman stated there is nothing in the ordinance the OP land belongs to the public. It's private property. A conservation easement is not used for public use. Open Space land does not belong to the public. Parkland cannot be considered open space. Bob Engstrom suggested a flat fee be paid per unit ($900-$1200). Lowering density from 18 to 15 is too drastic. Where's the incentive to place trails, trees, etc. to use OP ordinance when you can develop 2.5 acre lots. Village Greens: Don't take out Village Greens because people like them, for an example, Village Green in Tana Ridge. They need to be encouraged in the ordinance because they are expensive. Flexibiilty would be helpful. Council member Dunn stated there are some good Village Greens, but we are talking about skinny strips in the right-of-way. This is the first time he heard the Planner talk about a PUD as an option for an OP development. Creative developments draw people into Lake Elmo. People want to live in the development like the Open Space around them, but they want to live in the neighborhood. People cannot take care of 2.5 acres. When Heritage Farm was developed at the same time Terry Emerson did a 2.5 acre development in Baytown Township. Both developers had the same real estate agent and the prices were comparable. Terry did not sell a single lot until Heritage Farm was sold out. Planning Commissioner Valerie Brass responded Mr. Freeman just answered the question what is the incentive to develop an OP development. The ordinance works, people like the OP developments and are buying the lots.