2006.09.21 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 4 Bailly comment it would not be used if not higher density. She recalled at one meeting where developers were brought in and stated so. Schumann said he had developed property in the past and the cost of development is astronomical. Eight home on 40 acres would not work. Rosenquist questioned if they were putting together a developer's tool or if they were preserving land. He added that residents surrounding cluster developments needed to be taken into account. Bailly pointed out the Rural Reservation plats that they had approved showed existing homes on roads. When the ordinance was envisioned, there were berms and trees buffering the homes. Hoffbeck said developers in Afton were happy with the ordinance. They found it could be done and they could make money with less than 12 homes per 40 acres. Schumann talked about the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and if you looked at the big picture there would be a lot of land left open. He said they could consider eight homes per 40 with 50 % open space, ten per 40 with 65% open space or 12 per 40 with 75% open space, and the removal of a non -conforming use could substitute for open space at the Council's discretion. He suggested removing the density bonuses and make the existing bonuses mandatory or eliminate them. Bonuses should only be given on open space or if substantial off-site improvements are made. McRoberts withdrew his second to the original motion because he had heard enough consensus they could do something with the ordinance. The original motion died for the lack of a second. The Commission agreed to meet again on the ordinance amendment and review the CDD presentation at the beginning of the meeting and review the ordinance page by page. Rosenquist made motion, McRoberts seconded, to adjourn until the following week. Dale Good, 12581 Homestead Avenue North, asked for the Chair to open the public hearing again. Schumann opened the public hearing. Good said he lived on Sunset Lake. He had been trying to see both sides of the ordinance and he wanted to make it clear he was not complaining about the two existing preliminary plats. He said he could not understand why the City could not put conservation easements on individual lots. He said he was bothered by the Commission being concerned about the developer and the Commission basing their decision on what the Council would approve. Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, pointed out there were people who had approved of the ordinance at previous meetings and there was a petition given to the Council of residents in favor of the ordinance. If the City and residence were in favor of preserving open space, perhaps taxes should be increased and open space purchased. Schumann closed the public hearing. The Commission unanimously voted Aye on the motion to adjourn at 8:20