Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Elvig suggested this topic be included on a future worksession agenda. He <br />would like to tweak the buffer ordinance as to what they can do so this is more palatable and <br />does not indirectly devalue development potential. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated the ordinance allows for the buffer area <br />to be calculated into the density. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig indicated he would like a worksession to discuss a PUD requirement in <br />relation to the buffer requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated he would be happy to add his perspective to those worksession discussions as <br />a resident that is interested in what happens in the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she is not sure that the ordinance fails in that regard. The <br />buffer is allowed to be calculated in the density, and it does not preclude the PUD. If staff <br />determines it is warranted, the discussion could be brought to a worksession, but if it is not <br />missing, she does not know that more time needs to be spent on it. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Olson, seconded by Councilmember Jeffrey, to adopt Resolution <br />#07-05-121 to approve the final plat of Brookfield Third Addition contingent upon compliance <br />with the City Staff Review letter dated May 3, 2007, and the Developer entering into a <br />Development Agreement with the City. <br /> <br />Motion carried. V oting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Olson, Jeffrey, Dehen, Elvig, <br />Look, and Strommen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Mayor Gamec commented the biggest problem is with people thinking they <br />will not be able to develop their land. It is no different than 50 years ago; the City was able to do <br />the same thing and the taking was worse then. Now there are a lot of alternatives for a person to <br />work with the densities, the trails and the PUD's; whatever works in the benefit of the landowner <br />and the City. Councilmember Elvig stated his concern is that neighbors come in and complain <br />about smaller lots next door to them because a PUD has been allowed on a particular project. <br />The Council tries to explain that the City has taken land from the developer to protect open area, <br />and that it is a decision they made as a trade off. However, that is still a decision; it is not part of <br />an ordinance, so it can be swayed by this Board. He is saying to protect the landowners that get <br />this mandate for a larger buffer, perhaps it should be mandated that it go to a PUD. Mayor <br />Gamec indicated he thinks that is the job of the Planning Commission, staff and Council to make <br />that decision. This way they have all of the opportunities available. Councilmember Look <br />suggested in light of Mr. Peterson's comments, a worksession discussion could also consider the <br />effects trails might have on devaluation. Councilmember Strommen suggested the discussion <br />regarding PUD's being mandated and trails wait until the ordinance has been in effect for a while <br />to see what the issues are. They have not had enough development come in under the ordinance <br />yet. Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated there have not been any <br />developments under this ordinance yet. <br /> <br />City Council / May 8, 2007 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br />