Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Gamec asked if the whole area under the bridge could be an open space area, which <br />would be a decent size for a park. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon agreed it could and stated the City could purchase <br />the development rights and then Mr. Nathe has a commodity to sell. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that is a great concept because it is better if there is a larger piece to <br />master plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that it may be helpful to look at other examples, as presented <br />by Associate Planner Geisler. She stated the Council should look at how they made it work in <br />other areas. <br /> <br />Nathan Franzen, Plowshares Development, stated he has looked at this property in depth for <br />several months to find solutions. He stated that he has listened to the discussions of the Council <br />and Planning Commission about clustering zones and densities that work for the tax base. Mr. <br />Franzen explained they looked at the collector road system, which will have a big impact <br />because there will be no land left to develop. He noted the area does not have enough access for <br />commercial development. He felt the large lot on the River is not good for townhomes and <br />would be better for single-family residential. However, it would have an overpass collector <br />running over it to tie into the new Highway 10, which will isolate the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Franzen stated it will be an urban area when the bridge comes through and it is developed. <br />The City is caught between trying to appease the landowners by transferring density but you <br />can't do that because townhomes do not fit there. He stated it is their opinion that the best <br />solution is to work within the current PUD ordinance that requires 50% private open space. The <br />problem is how the City defines "private open space." <br /> <br />Mr. Franzen suggested that the best way to resolve it is to fix the 50% requirement and go to the <br />PUD ordinance which requires 20% public open space or 50% private open space, or a <br />combination of the two methods. He noted if the City requires 50%, then you are taking one-half <br />of the land, whether public or private. The transfer of development rights is a good idea but he <br />would ask who will pay for it, the Pearsons or Boikes, which hurts property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Franzen suggested that the goal of the ordinance is to protect the River from detrimental <br />effects of urbanization. He stated he does not know if the DNR will work with them but a <br />possible solution is to look at performance standards and effects it has on the River. If you can <br />prove you are increasing storm water treatment into the River, then there would be reduction in <br />the open space requirement. Mr. Franzen noted the rules as written are so strict that the net <br />effect will be a lot of density in an area that doesn't need it. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated the more he looks at the map, the more he thinks it should be a PUD. He <br />stated if the roads go in with the diamond access lanes, it is a difficult development. Mayor <br />Gamec asked if the surface road will be MSA. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / April 4, 2006 <br />Page 15 of 19 <br />