Laserfiche WebLink
Case #7: Proposed Ordinance to Establish Density Transition Methods <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt closed the regular portion of the Planning Cornnfission meeting at 10:06 p.m. in <br />order to call the public hearing to order. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing to order at 10:06 p.m. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated the City has discussed a density transition ordinance for the <br />past several years. This would help mitigate the effect that new residential development has on <br />existing residential development. Last year, during several workshops, the City Council worked <br />on language for a new density transition ordinance. Staff is bringing forward a draft of the <br />ordinance for public hearing at this time. He noted there could be some inconsistencies. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Kociscak, to close the public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Kociscak, Brauer, and Reeve. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners lohnson, Sweet, and Watson. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 10:22 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning CommissiOn back to order at 10:22 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt pointed out text is missing from Section 1, subd. 1 under Purpose. He <br />suggested the words "in the MUSA" should be added. <br /> <br />He stated it seems inconsistent that there is no density transitioning between Multi-Family <br />developments (townhomes and apartments) and Single Family Urban lots. He also noted that <br />"urban" and "rural" is not defined and that the old zoning designations (RI-U, RI-R) are <br />contained in the proposed ordinance. He questioned how urban is defined versus rural. He stated <br />that the City should not be using the MUSA line as the definition of rural and urban. He stated <br />that including clarification of how it applies would be appropriate. He pointed to a chart on Page <br />55 and questioned the meaning of "Options to Achieving Attainment". He stated that there is not <br />enough buffering proposed in the section under "a. Definitions of Vegetative Buffer Yards." <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 6, 2002 <br /> Page 13 of 15 <br /> <br />-247- <br /> <br /> <br />