Laserfiche WebLink
would be comfortable putting covenants on it that would prohibit the association from building <br />on it in the future. He indicated the wetland fill necessary is very small; only one creek crossing, <br />and all other wetlands are being avoided. He stated that with the exception of one lot this meets <br />the wetland burl'er ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission tonight. He noted <br />that one of thc lbur ho~nesteads has been removed, and the other three will be removed after <br />approval. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levinc asked what the value would be of the proposed homes. <br /> <br />Mr. l'cterson stated he believes there will be no homes less than $300,000, and probably up to <br />$400,000. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he is glad to hear the comments about the buffer area and the trees <br />to thc north. I le indicated he has been wrestling with the standards for the interim until they get <br />thc Comprehensive Plan changes, so this type of development is easier to deal with than others. <br />lie noted that at the last session the Planning Commission looked at draft guidelines, and one <br />thing that has been the biggest concern is density transitioning. He stated as he looks at the City <br />Code, thc current alternatives are to look at R-l, or look at it in terms of being in the rural <br />development area, which would require more trees and plantings. <br /> <br />Mr. Petcrson indicated on this site there are possibly two spots that do not meet the spirit of <br />dcnsity transitioning in the ordinance. He stated if the Planning Commission thought it would be <br />better to eliminate those two lots, he would have to start squeezing other lots. He indicated the <br />position they are taking is that they will develop fewer lots and bigger lots, but want to be able to <br />spread them throughout the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Pcterson stated that he is quite sure he could find as many neighbors that would ask him not <br />to buffer as those that want a buffer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer noted that buffering is a requirement of City Code, not optional. He stated <br />this development seems to meet Code in most cases, without the Planning Commission having to <br />ask for modifications. <br /> <br />Mr. Pctcrson indicated this is the way the site laid out. He stated the dilemma the Planning <br />Corem ission is l"acing is how to write something that will work in all or most situations. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated that what Commissioner Brauer has touched on is a fundamental <br />issue they arc lacing. He noted that with that they have situations where there will be urban and <br />rural lots next to each other. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated if Mr. Peterson could give them a similar plan that would meet the <br />ordinance with the same number of lots, he would consider granting a variance due to the <br />wetlands and the conservation of trees. <br /> <br />(;ommissioncr 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 />