Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Chairperson Nixt commented whether that is practical would depend on whether Mr. Becker could convince someone to bring the MUSA into his neighborhood, which is beyond what is being contemplated tonight. Mr. Tim Curran, 17640 Eaton Street NW, stated he hopes cluster developments are eliminated. It is a backdoor way to leave open for developers with enticement to bring in sewer and water. Irregardless of the lot sizes he would recommend eliminating cluster developments from the zonmg. Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner VanScoy, to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. V oting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners VanScoy, Cleveland, Hunt, Levine, and Trites Rolle. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Brauer. The public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m. Commission Business Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 9:34 p.m. Chairperson Nixt indicated staff is advocating 1 in 10/ 4 in 40. The cluster ordinance did not get the job done and he does not support keeping it alive in its current format. He struggles with 2 ~ acre lots, although he has clients that have real estate in the south metro areas that are developing 2 ~ acre lots and having success marketing and selling those lots. His concern about the 2 ~ acre lot size is that you still have to potentially emasculate the surrounding land to allow for the development to occur. It presents issues for preserving trees and other natural amenities on the site in order to get roadway in. There is a balance that goes with that and he is not opposed to looking at that. He requested staff s thoughts on why 1 in 10 is the right answer. Associate Planner Geisler explained infrastructure, long range planning and the Metropolitan Council recommendation are the reasons this recommendation has been brought forward. If the Planning Commission is interested in something else staff needs to hear that as well. Chairperson Nixt questioned how the Metropolitan Council's support of the 4 in 40 is balanced against their mandate for increased density in Lake Elmo. He stated this is not consistent. Looking ahead to 2008 and the summer of 2007 there needs to be a decision to get aggressive about the planning. They should have ideas on what will be suggested for this area. Associate Planner Geisler explained the intent is to go to 4 in 40 until they can get into the Comprehensive Plan process and talk about the vision for the rural part of the City. They are hearing tonight there are different needs for different portions of the rural area, and a one size fits all solution is not working, whether it is 4 in 40 or cluster. Different options will be looked at, but there is a need to get into the Comprehensive Plan process with public involvement and hear from the City Council. Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 Page 25 of 36 P25