Agenda - Council - 11/14/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rural density abutting urban density single family development and then look at higher development requirements because there are separate problems with each type Commissioner Johnson stated that there could be different approaches to fituation. One would be to create different rules for different areas up front and the way would be to establish a fundamental rule and then address the unique clearances variance process. He stated that in all situations there will have to be for adj because it is impossible to anticipate all situations. Commissioner Dempsey suggested setting a minimum lot exceeds that requirement, then transitioning would be re( handled by buffering. and if the lot size smaller would be Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he recommendation. If there is a parcel that is zoned wetland regulations the entire parcel is not buildable, the able to achieve the gross density on the remaining portion of the p · mcr Dempsey's )f issues such as not automatically be Commissioner Dempsey replied they should be discussing net development is being only wanted to discuss the impact of ui~b~n single others because there may be different crff~ia there is one criteria that applies to development adjacent"te~..a rural single that maybe medium density )sey stated that he and then discuss the to be in a position where a si of an urban single family' should be'an obligation to transition from,th'e .:~Xi~ti~:..mral develo but the City is also obligated to the landowner and the devel0~e¢"~o alloW'~?i~ ._, ...... ,~::,will be able to profit from. The majority of the costJ:i:':dih be tied to a~;!;~creage cost an osts are not reduced by over sizing atot. The problem:.the developexi~¢an encounter ~s ~:~:iffiey would need to sell the larger transition lot at $100;000"tomake the same:~cm,n.t o money as they would on the urban s~ze lots. ' Councilmember Zi~~ stated ~at ~e deVeloper Will m~e money, but ~e concern is how ~'~t~e,CiW take th~)'~m~ ~endment ~at is akeady in place ~d work it into some~ng ~a ffi ~¢~;~ ~e Ci~'c~ work w~th.:~':i~::;,.:., ,~ ~ Co~ission~'"~pmpsey~Ei~d that he was not mfe~g that ~e Ci~ h~ to ~antee ~at ~e Developer m~':money, ~t the City w~ts to m~e sure ~at they encourage good development ~'~?~ in the ~ea. ~?~ ' '~:q(}}~:~.~go~ission¢~:10~son stated that hs view has generally been ~at the f~st tier of lots is the '%main conc~::'for the existing neighborhood ~d ~ere is less concern with tier 2 ~d tier 3 bec~se fl~e person who purch~es the home in tier one will ~ow what will be in tier 2 ~d tier City Council/September 28, 2000 Page 3 of 5 -11-