Laserfiche WebLink
wou/d be comibrtab[e putting covenants on it that would prohibit the association from building <br />~ it in the future, tte indicated the wetland fill necessary is very small; only one creek crossing, <br />~md all other wetlands are being avoided. He stated that with the exception of one lot this meets <br />Ibc wctlaml buffer ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission tonight. He noted <br />that cmo of thc Four homesteads has been removed, and the other three will be removed after <br /> <br />m issit mcr Levine asked what the value would be of the proposed homes. <br /> <br />ivJr. Petet'son stated he believes there will be no homes less than $300,000, and probably up to <br />%00,000. <br /> <br />('ommissioncr Brauer stated he is glad to hear the comments about the buffer area and the trees <br />~.~ thc ~orlh. He indicated he has been wrestling with the standards for the interim until they get <br />thc ('.omprchensive Plan changes, so this type of development is easier to deal with than others. <br />lie noted lhat at the last session the Planning Commission looked at draft guidelines, and one <br />~hing that has been the biggest concern is density transitioning. He stated as he looks at the City <br />(i{)cl~, tiao current alternatives are to look at R-I, or look at it in terms of being in the rural <br />development area, which would require more trees and plantings. <br /> <br />i;4r. l'clcrson indicated on this site there are possibly two spots that do not meet the spirit of <br />cle~osity mmsitioning in thc ordinance. He stated if the Planning Commission thought it would be <br />better t,) c!iminate those two lots, he would have to start squeezing other lots. He indicated the <br />I,()sition they arc taking is that they will develop fewer lots and bigger lots, but want to be able to <br />~;prcad fl-~cm throughout the development. <br /> <br />Mr. }'ctcr.son stated that he is quite sure he could find as many neighbors that would ask him not <br />1~ bui'l'cr as lhosc that want a buf£er. <br /> <br />(iota missitmcr Brauer noted that buffering is a requirement of City Code, not optional. He stated <br />[his development seems to meet Code in most cases, without the Planning Commission having to <br />a~k I~r mt)difications. <br /> <br />Mt'. I'ctcxson indicated this is the way the site laid out. He stated the dilemma the Planning <br />('cmamission is facing is how to write something that will work in all or most situations. <br /> <br />(;bairpcrstm Nixt indicated that what Commissioner Brauer has touched on is a fundamental <br />b, suc they ~trc fitcing. I Ie noted that with that they have situations where there will be urban and <br />r~u'a[ lots ~;ext to each other. <br /> <br />(%tirpcrson Nixt stated if Mr. Peterson could give them a similar plan that would meet the <br />ordin~mce with tiao same number of lots, he would consider granting a variance due to the <br /> and thc consc~-~,ation of trees. <br /> <br />(:ommissioner Johnson agreed, providing the proposed covenants were placed on the trees. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 <br /> Page 12 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />