Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — March 10, 2005 <br />The Commission discussed the minimum parcel size for a cluster development and some felt <br />developers would probably not find it profitable to invest in anything less than forty acres. The <br />draft ordinance provided an option for the Council to waive the minimum lot size requirement <br />and the Commission felt the wording should be changed to make it clear that smaller parcels <br />would be considered. <br />Kleissler felt the total density stated in the draft ordinance should be reduced to ten lots per forty <br />acres. Other members felt it should remain at twelve to make it viable for developers and to <br />reduce the creation of `stovepipe' lots. <br />The Commission discussed accessory structures and what would be allowed and not be allowed. <br />Accessory structures would be discussed as part of the approval and the Commission felt it <br />should be clarified in the ordinance. <br />The Commission considered the impact of development and agreed there should be more focus <br />on neighboring homeowners. The Commission felt there should be a provision in the ordinance <br />that if there were no natural features buffering the properties, the development must provide <br />reasonable screening to adjacent areas. <br />Potential road improvements were discussed and how existing homeowners and developers <br />would be assessed. The Commission agreed that it should be addressed with each individual <br />project. <br />Rosenquist made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to recommend approval of the draft ordinance <br />with the following changes and comments: <br />Minimum parcel size to be 40 acres with the Council having right to waive this <br />requirement. Also, it should be clear in the ordinance that smaller parcels will work. <br />Total number of lots to remain at twelve per forty acres. <br />Change language in the ordinance to make it clear that a Homeowners Association is not <br />mandatory. <br />Potential road improvements and assessing for them would be addressed with each <br />project. <br />Change language regarding use of shoreland and other desirable openspace to allow the <br />City to request it, not require it, to be preserved openspace. <br />Clarify accessory structures, what is allowed and what is not. <br />Require developers to provide reasonable screening and buffering to adjacent areas if <br />there are no natural features available. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />