Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 <br />Page 2 <br />setback, but if it is platted as proposed it would become a rear yard setback and a 30 foot setback would <br />be required. <br />Rosenquist asked if the neighboring property owners had been contacted regarding the improvements <br />and if the owners had any opposition to them. <br />The CDD stated there had been neighborhood meetings and the assessment was being discussed with <br />them. There had been no opposition to the improvements. <br />McRoberts asked if the sewer would still be extended if the Kellison property was not developed. The <br />CDD responded that the applicant is providing a majority of the funding. <br />Schumann asked if the time deadline for filing final plat after the preliminary plat was approved could be <br />extended if necessary. The CDD answered that it could, and the Council should be able to order the road <br />project in advance of the deadline. <br />Schumann opened the public hearing. <br />Debbie Anderson questioned if there was going to be a replacement for the wetlands he proposed to fill. <br />The CDD told her mitigation of the wetlands would be required but was uncertain where it would be <br />done. <br />There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. <br />McRoberts asked how many property owners were involved in the assessment and at what cost. The <br />CDD said there were eight property owners including Kellison, and the amount assessed would depend <br />on the level of improvements, around $30,000 per lot. Kellison's share would be significantly more. <br />Bailly asked if the neighbors were in favor of the improvements. The CDD said the neighbors seemed <br />supportive; he had heard no objections. <br />McRoberts made motion, Bailly seconded, to recommend approval of the variance and preliminary plat <br />for Kellison Addition. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />Rural Preservation Program Ordinance Amendment <br />The Commission held a public hearing to consider revisions to the Rural Preservation Program <br />Ordinance. The CDD explained the ordinance was adopted in April, 2005 and there had been two <br />developments that received preliminary plat approval under this ordinance. Numerous discussions, <br />meetings and a listening session had taken place regarding the ordinance. At the last meeting in June of <br />2006, the City Council had directed staff to prepare revisions and hold a public hearing on the ordinance. <br />Revisions focused on density bonuses, development standards, and the calculation of density. The total <br />allowed density remained the same but it was more difficult to obtain the 50 % bonus. The CDD gave <br />examples of how bonuses were calculated. Management plans for open space and shared septic systems <br />were proposed requirements. Additions were made to development standards to require architectural <br />covenants (but not a theme) with the preliminary plat, a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape <br />