Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Zimmerman stated that criteria #4 seems to be meaningless. <br /> <br />Councihnember Anderson stated that if the people in the higher density housing have smaller <br />lots, it would allow a location for kids to play and keep them of the single-family lots, plus give <br />the builder certain criteria to follow. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he was okay with criteria #4. <br /> <br />Consensus was reached by the Council that criteria #5 was okay. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson explained that criteria #6 was added as a way to include the Charter <br />Amendment in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that until the charter amendments are tested <br />in an actual case, they don't know for sure the legality of the amendments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that some people don't like the Charter Amendment and <br />will question the legalities. He stated that criteria #2 and #6 open loop holes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson reviewed what is stated in the Charter Amendment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated that the adjacent property should be similar to the existing <br />development and then the interior would be open to a different type of housing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the outer lots need to be the same as the existing <br />neighborhood and then graduate over the next 1,000 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib replied that as a planner they need to justify things and they cannot justify adding the <br />1,000 feet in the Comprehensive Plan, but it could be included in the zoning ordinance. The <br />intent would be to create a similar buffer to the adjacent existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated that she has a problem with allowing trees for a buffer rather <br />than a common size lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib questioned if the two criteria in question were fixed would the Council approve of the <br />plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the issue of a P.U.D and the lower requirements than the <br />current plan is one problem, and if it could be articulated in a way that rezoning would be <br />required, one problem would be solved. In the case of the Pulte development, he has heard the <br />Mayor say he has seen plats for the property that could not meet the density because of the <br />amount of buildable land so a plan was submitted with a higher density. The way the draft plan <br />is presented, it leaves it open for the developer to say he is entitled to the maximum and can <br />make his land smaller and more units. The development would achieve a density figure that they <br />would not be able to achieve if single family homes were built. <br /> <br />City Council/September 23, 1999 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />