Laserfiche WebLink
The idea of eliminating some or all of the bonus densities allowed by the <br />ordinance may put the city in jeopardy of being accused of "taking without just <br />compensation". My understanding of the current system of base density and <br />bonus units was to use the bonus units to not only compensate for requiring <br />50% Open Space being set aside, but to also encourage the design features that <br />would make these developments unique. This system has worked quite well. <br />Elimination of modifications to the development standards with four <br />affirmative votes on the City Council will discourage the creativity that was <br />intended when this provision was added. This provision is a standard feature <br />in Planned Unit Developments. Since the OP Ordinance is designed to have <br />some of the flexibility found in Planned Unit Developments, it seems like a <br />good way to encourage flexibility, without the City Council giving up any <br />control over the process. <br />Requiring buffer zones is a feature of this ordinance that is not found in the <br />other residential zoning districts in the city. Some might view buffer zones as <br />an additional taking from the land without compensation. I understand why <br />buffer zones are popular with the existing residents that may have built on <br />there own property without concern for what may happen on adjacent <br />properties. Many communities have existing residents that wish to control the <br />use of adjacent properties with zoning regulations, instead of purchasing the <br />land.and preserving it's use as they wish. Residents seldom recognize that if <br />the same restrictions they propose for the adjacent properties were in effect on <br />their land, perhaps their home may not have been allowed to be built as is. <br />The proposed language that would not allow roads to be built in these buffer <br />zones seems to go beyond the intended principle of preventing homes from <br />being too close to existing neighborhoods. <br />There are a few items in the Utilities section of the Ordinance that need to be <br />looked at. Under paragraph I., the reference to individual septic tanks and <br />communal drainfields, is not in keeping with the accepted past practice on <br />many of the past OP Developments. The use of individual septic tanks is not <br />used when sanitary sewer pipes are used to collect sewage for the Wetland <br />Treatment Systems. This oversight should be corrected. Under paragraph 4., <br />the wetland treatment systems are not considered a part of the required Open <br />Space. This seems to be contrary to the whole idea of preserving Open Space. <br />As we all well know, Open Space is intended to be an area without homes <br />built. An area that looks and feels open. Having a subsurface use should not <br />preclude an area from being open. These treatment areas are not open sewer <br />lagoons, but landscaped areas with wild flowers and plants. Certainly the type <br />1815 Northwestern Ave. 2 <br />Stillwater, MN 55082 <br />651439-8833 Office <br />651-430-9331 Fax <br />ffdsum@Aa.net <br />