Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br />Bailly said the views of open space make the developments desirable. <br />Hoffbeck commented that the views change with the construction of huge homes. It was not rural with <br />houses tight together and she would prefer one home per ten acres or even one home per five acres, but <br />she was concerned the Council would not support that. <br />McRoberts agreed they had destroyed the rural character on the west side of Hugo. <br />Schumann recalled the same reasoning made it difficult for the Woods of Bald Eagle and Oakshore Park <br />to develop. It was doubted they could get quality homes on the small lots, but it was done. <br />Bailly stated that the open space will disappear if there is no ordinance to preserve it. <br />Weidt said one home per 40 acres was what people wanted but it was not a long term solution. They <br />should adjust it and make it a good ordinance. <br />McRoberts said by adjusting it, they could almost make it result in one home per five acres or one home <br />per ten. <br />Schumann commented that a good ordinance is one that is used. <br />Kleissler was not if favor of the ordinance as it is now because it was way too lenient. She would be in <br />favor of going back to a 10 acre or larger recommendation and questioned if it was possible to go back to <br />the idea of a moratorium. This would allow time for existing approvals to be developed and to see what <br />they looked like. <br />The CDD added that the Council decided there would be no need for the moratorium with the ordinance <br />amendments being proposed. <br />McRoberts said that 12 homes per 40 acres was too many and they should be able to come up with <br />something that would give more than four but less than 12 per 40 acres. He was willing to consider <br />preserving much of the open space with something between four and 12 homes. He said he would <br />withdraw his second to the motion if the Commission agreed to work on that. <br />Hoffbeck agreed they are looking for no public access to private land, wetland buffers, community well <br />and septic and requirement of a conservation easement with only giving bonuses for additional buildable <br />land. <br />McRoberts asked the Commission what the maximum density they would be willing to accept. <br />Kleissler asked why they start with a bonus; they should start at the base of one home per ten acres. <br />Bailly said they probably would not be able to afford to put in a community well and septic. <br />Rosenquist said that once you have roads in and set aside buildable ground, it would be hard to get 12 <br />homes per 40 acres. It would require a larger piece of land. <br />McRoberts agreed with Kleissler on starting at a base of one home per 10 acres. <br />