Laserfiche WebLink
We discussed the proposed park dedication requirement and whether it should apply to plats of retail or commercial <br />pro perty or on ly to resid ential pla ts. Th ere se eme d to b e sentim ent to restrict such a requirement to properties used for <br />residential purpo ses. <br />Jim McN ulty expressed his desire that Hillary Farm not be subject to any of these rules, eve r, and that the D evelo per’s <br />Agreement be the sole lan d use contro l for H illary Farm . He sa id that he would be making detailed written co mm ents <br />and obj ection s to the p rop osed gener al langu age. He also stated that he would send us language that they would pro pose <br />to add to the Deve loper’s Agre ement to d eal with the site review proce ss. <br />Mr. McN ulty also objected to the suggestion that there was any controversy surrounding two of the three structures he <br />has built and said that they were constrained by the involvement of other owners in their response to landscaping <br />add itions sug gested by M r. Raffer ty. <br />Bryan Harjes made several comments regarding various provisions of the proposed controls but said that his remarks <br />wou ld be ex pan ded upo n and mad e mo re spe cific in their w ritten resp onse . He w as esp ecially concerned about the <br />definition of grad e plan e and the pro hibition of artificial b uild-up of a wa lkout lo t. He w as also unco mfor table with any <br />provision that could allow the City or the site review committee to ask for additional information. <br />Craig Rafferty described our efforts as trying to provide the deve lope r with spe cific pro pos als so tha t they are n ot left <br />to guess what the City wants. Craig, however, expressed discomfort with two p arallel p roce sses. H e said th at he wo uld <br />not vo te for an y pro vision tha t would requ ire a flat 35 -foot limit o n hou se heigh t. <br />Jim Lindner expressed both exhaustion from the length of the process and a desire that no new language be added to the <br />proposal until we can vote on it. He would like the language to be same for two meetings in a row. <br />Jim Mc Nulty also objected to § 11.9.3 requirements for a Shoreland Impact Plan for each lot. He argued that once the <br />Hillary Farm Plat was approved, that should shut the door on such further review. Mr. Magnuso n and M r. Em eott <br />explained that this has always been part of our code and is necessary to deal with specific projects of individual lot <br />owners. <br />There was also discussion of the need for a pool fence requirement since the State Code has none. The propo sed <br />language calls for a 5-foot fence, but the McN ulty team urged a lower fence and the Co mm ission se eme d sym pathe tic <br />to that idea. <br />As the sole member of the public who was present (to the congratulations of all others present) Gretchen Swomley urged <br />an up or down vote on the language. <br />We agreed to set our March meeting for Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at which time we will review the McNulty written <br />objections and c omm ents (wh ich we h ope will be se nt out in a dva nce o f the me eting) an d at tha t time we will likely take <br />at least a preliminary vote o n the prop osed langu age of the land use controls.