2006 02-21 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

We discussed the proposed park dedication requirement and whether it should apply to plats of retail or commercial property or only to residential plats. There seemed to be sentiment to restrict such a requirement to properties used for residential purposes. Jim McNulty expressed his desire that Hillary Farm not be subject to any of these rules, ever, and that the Developer's �l Agreement be the sole land use control for Hillary Farm. He said that he would be making detailed written comments and objections to the proposed general language. He also stated that he would send us language that they would propose to add to the Developer's Agreement to deal with the site review process. Mr. McNulty also objected to the suggestion that there was any controversy surrounding two of the three structures he has built and said that they were constrained by the involvement of other owners in their response to landscaping additions suggested by Mr. Rafferty. Bryan Harjes made several comments regarding various provisions of the proposed controls but said that his remarks would be expanded upon and made more specific in their written response. He was especially concerned about the definition of grade plane and the prohibition of artificial build-up of a walkout lot. He was also uncomfortable with any provision that could allow the City or the site review committee to ask for additional information. Craig Rafferty described our efforts as trying to provide the developer with specific proposals so that they are not left to guess what the City wants. Craig, however, expressed discomfort with two parallel processes. He said that he would not vote for any provision that would require a flat 35-foot limit on house height. Jim Lindner expressed both exhaustion from the length of the process and a desire that no new language be added to the proposal until we can vote on it. He would like the language to be same for two meetings in a row. Jim McNulty also objected to § 11.9.3 requirements for a Shoreland Impact Plan for each lot. He argued that once the Hillary Farm Plat was approved, that should shut the door on such further review. Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Emeott explained that this has always been part of our code and is necessary to deal with specific projects of individual lot owners. There was also discussion of the need for a pool fence requirement since the State Code has none. The proposed language calls for a 5-foot fence, but the McNulty team urged a lower fence and the Commission seemed sympathetic to that idea. As the sole member of the public who was present (to the congratulations of all others present) Gretchen Swomley urged an up or down vote on the language. We agreed to set our March meeting for Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at which time we will review the McNulty written objections and comments (which we hope will be sent out in advance of the meeting) and at that time we will likely take at least a preliminary vote on the proposed language of the land use controls. J