2006.09.21 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 2 After this clarification, McRoberts withdrew his second to the motion and Schumann withdrew his motion to amend. McRoberts questioned what the people wanted and said he had not heard of anyone speak in favor of cluster housing. Bailly disagreed saying people don't complain about something if they are not upset by it. It was noted there had been many public hearings. Schumann pointed out other communities such as Maplewood and Edina that probably wished they had considered open space preservation. People seemed okay with the ordinance as long as development did not occur near them. The ordinance would be a good long-range planning tool. McRoberts commented that if the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the rural character, one house per ten acres is more rural than 30 homes on 40 acres. Hoffbeck and Rosenquist agreed. Hoffbeck said she had comments from people pointing out that she had voted to approve the ordinance but stated she was not happy about it at the time but was looking for a compromise. She doesn't want to pass something the Council would not approve and questioned why the Council did not consider the Commission's recommendations on the Enchanted Waters plat. Hoffbeck didn't think the Council would approve one home per 40 acres or one home per ten acres so the Commission needed to respond to an ordinance amendment. Rosenquist asked what would happen if the council did not accept a motion to rescind the ordinance, would it come back to the Commission for amendment. The CDD said the Council could send it back for more discussion or act on their own. Bailly said she was in favor the ordinance but it did need tweaking. She had studied urban planning and could foresee three lots per ten acres. The Commission should focus on the idea of an "Open" space program, not a "Rural" Preservation Program. Schumann agreed and said he had suggested creating a Rural PUD and an Urban PUD. McRoberts questioned what the message was that had been received from the public hearings. Schumann said the best case scenario is that it's okay but the number of lots was too great. The problem was that economics show the ordinance may not be used with less density. Rosenquist said the housing market does have an effect. Schumann said if it is an ordinance that no one will use, we may as well rescind it. Hoffbeck said she looked at the profit of development under the RPP and there was a big difference in the value of property. Land is worth more if it is developed under the RPP. The ordinance did not preserve the land into perpetuity and did not consider the neighborhood. It had been tried out east and it was found it did not work; it was not beneficial and the homes were not that desirable and the land was eventually developed. Large homes on small lots did not fit our landscape or community.