01-06-2014 Council Packet Special Meeting

Home Browse Search

Item #01- Special Council Meeting - 01106114 File #13-3638 & 13-3639 [Total Pages 99] Properties Analysis January 2, 2014 Page 3 neighborhood, although it does serve a dual purpose in providing open space. No other park land was dedicated; but the City did collect in excess of $165,000 in Park Fees for the combined developments. In terms of preservation of open space, it seems fairly clear that the only open space that was `officially' preserved (i.e. via easements or other dedication or covenant) was in the wetland areas. Unofficially, the area not built upon within each two -acre lot might qualify as open space, but it is not protected, not available to the public, and not in a large contiguous tract. While the City does not require that an owner's entire two acres be mowed, many owners within these subdivisions do mow virtually from lot line to lot line, while others maintain only 114 to 113 of their property in lawn. It should be noted that the DNR owns an 18 -acre tract of woods and wetland along the Luce Line trail just east of the Thompson property. This acreage provides a neighborhood amenity in terms of open space preservation, wildlife habitat, etc. Impact of Accessory Structures. Accessory structures such as pools and sport courts also tend to reduce the visual openness of the subdivision. A cursory review of the aerial photos indicates approximately 20 homes have pools, some with associated small accessory buildings and patios, and at least 8 have sport courts or tennis courts. Most do not have outlying separate sheds or storage buildings; if they have such buildings they are kept near the main residence structure. What might we do differently if we had it to do over? The two primary changes in applicable development codes since this area was developed could have impacts on how this would be developed today: 1) There have been a variety of changes in City and MCWD codes regarding wetland preservation since most of this area was developed. The introduction of wetland buffers might impact the development layout slightly if proposed today. 2) Site planning via the Conservation Design process might today result in a different lot layout to better preserve long views, contiguous open spaces and significant wooded areas. For the most part, other zoning code and development standards remain much the same as they were in the 1990s. Lot sizes of 2+ acres have to date have been sufficient to support use of septic systems and wells. The private road system has not become a burden on the City. Individual homeowners have done substantial plantings so that this neighborhood no longer resembles large homes in an otherwise barren landscape. It can be argued that for the Dickey property the same number of homes could have been clustered in much smaller lots at the northeast corner of the site near the Hackberry neighborhood, thus allowing for preservation of as much as half or two-thirds of the property in contiguous open space. This would have required municipal sewer, as well as a comfort level on the part of the Council and public that the remainder could (and would) be protected from development on a permanent basis. At the time, such a concept was not proposed by the developers and likely would not have been acceptable to the City. It would have been a departure from the City's philosophy as to how the rural area should be developed.