Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — July 13, 2006 <br />Page 6 <br />Dick Charest, 12683 Homestead Drive, stated that he thinks the development is being put in a place that <br />does not have anything like it around. Rural Preservation Program is gray in terms of the bonus densities. <br />Mr. Charest also stated that he thinks the development is too dense for the area. He does not feel this <br />development meets the intent of the RPP. <br />John Belisle, 12315 Heather Ave north, asked where the public would park if they wanted to use the <br />public parks. Mr. Belisle also stated that he had questions about the architectural theme and how they <br />were meeting that bonus density. <br />Jim Laumer asked if the open space would be under a conservation easement and who would own the <br />open space. He also asked if the septic area was used in the calculation of open space. <br />The Planner stated the septic was used in the calculation of open space. She also addressed a lot of the <br />comments made stating that the parks are public, the outlots will have easements, the city will work the <br />HOA to develop guidelines for the maintenance of the open space. <br />Shane Sparks from North American Wetlands Engineering talked about the pumping of the wells and the <br />monitoring of the neighbor's wells. He talked about when they monitor and test the wells it is done at a <br />level way above what the development would actually pump. Mr. Sparks also talked about the drain <br />fields in the development. If the developments wells end up showing a drain in the neighboring wells <br />they would be required to lower the wells. <br />Sherre Collins asked if the City has done any traffic studies on County Road 7. <br />The CDD stated that the county may ask for more Right of Way dedication. <br />There were no more comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. <br />Hoffbeck stated that she was contacted by the CDD about her having a conflict of interest with the <br />development because she lives close to the development. Hoffbeck gave Staff a letter she wrote about <br />being contacted about having a conflict of interest. She feels the development has gone too fast, and the <br />development does not have rural character. She recommended not approving the development in regards <br />to density. She is concerned with the property values in the area if the development went forward and <br />contacted the County Assessor and they stated that her property value would go up. She wants the <br />average person to be able to live in the area. Density bonuses should not be given from the architectural <br />theme or the landscape theme. She does not like the idea of the parks in people's backyards, and that the <br />Commission does not have to give these bonuses. <br />Bailly stated the development was a little denser than she expected. Park paths should be connected to <br />the lake and traffic should be slowed on 125th. She is not in favor of street lighting. She wondered about <br />fence requirements and what kind of fences would be used. She also stated that the architectural theme <br />needs to be strengthened. She also suggested more landscaping for homes in view. <br />Weidt stated that the ordinance is on the books and so that is what we are using today. The architectural <br />theme is very vague and needs be strengthened. The "should's" in the architectural theme need to be <br />"shall's" and required instead of encouraged, then he could support this. <br />Kleissler stated that the density bonuses are difficult to grant. She agreed with Hoffbeck. This is not rural <br />