Meeting 030496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Elio: Think we are talking about two different things. Maybe the subcommittee should explore other incentives. If there is something that is really a benefit to the community, then it should ._� alloy,; ed without any conditions. But we are looking at uses that currently have been deemed not to be desirable ti r this area and are sayingg we are going to be more flexible, but you have to give something back to the community to onerate. Now there may be uses that are beneficial to the community that we should consider as allowable 'X ithOUt c,"tservation easements. Lee: Not that these uses are undesirable. but that they have trade -outs and trade -of'ts are such that this 're doing to create traffic we otherwise wouldn't want and maybe as a community this is a use that has some pluses and we can live with the minuses under the provision that some additional land is beim, conserved. That's the principle. If there is not support for it, we can take it of the table. Verla: How would this differ from rezoning,? Lee: Under conditional use, presumption is that this use is permitted, you _just have to meet the condition(s). Dan: If you look at the map, substantial part of the rust area already built upon and two areas already identified for commercial - industrial uses. So we're talking about a limited number of properties that would even apply and the owners of those pieces of land being allowed to do something in lieu of purchase of conservation easements and is that something we want subcommittee to do. Haven't heard yes or no. Personally think it should be a yes. It's not that big an issue considering the whole overall area. It's an incentive, it ought to be explored. Verla: Don't hear any objections. Now, to question of lease vs perpetuity on conservation easements. Lee: This is result of strong discussion he and Curtis had at last meeting. Curtis is very concerned about putting conservation easements in perpetuity because things change over time and all easements we have discussed and as proposed in FDO are in perpetuity. In an effort to get things off center, the idea of some type of lease was proposed. Somehow it got put on the table that a lease might be something to consider. Never got to the point where we agreed on the calculus, i.e., if a lease is for 20 years then you get 0.10 tin its. The whole idea of trying to set aside land here is to set it aside. Understand discomfort with how things change over time. Figure of 20 years came up as the common time frame for renewal of restrictive covenants. Very uncomfortable with the idea of 0.10 bonus unit(s) for 20 year lease. Meg: Uncomfortable with idea in general and specifically deciding rate of exchange. Why not let somebody who has sold his development rights buy them back? Bob: At same price? It's going to take a lot of finesse to talk someone into selling their development rights. Elio: I'm seeing economic flexibility that we don't have now. Bob: Support anything that gives another option. Elio: As long as anyone around table can point out there is a danger in the option, then we should discuss it. We should try to talk about what we are comfortable about. He cannot foresee any resident coming to him and saying the group has taken something they could do and now can't do. Dan: It's clearly stated in the FDO that perpetuity is the standard. Does the group agree (without debating the numbers) that there ought to be another option other than perpetuity? If yes, is there guidance to give the subcommittee? Verla: Is anybody opposed to option of leasing? And having open space be available to development again after 20 years or some defined time. 11