Minutes 061595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

want to have preservation of rural character. These two groups are not coming together and there is the perception that people wanting to preserve rural character are trying to make the current land owners make all the sacrifices, i.e., you can't do with your land what you want to do.'; Bob Strayhorn said that's often what you hear when you attend. hearings on development proposals. Elio Soldi said preservation of open space and protecting the land owner's rights were two statements on which there seemed to be agreement. He said there was a conflict between the two and the question was if something creative could be found to minimize the conflicts. Judd Edeburn mentioned that some of the plans presented by the students incorporated recommendations such as setbacks that seemed to address some of the concerns being expressed the group. Soldi said it was important to him that the people who owned the land not be forced or prevailed upon to give up what they had worked for. He also said it was important to him that as much of the scenery everyone enjoys now be kept too. He said as the group goes through its discussions it needs to sort out areas of consensus knowing there will be areas of conflict too. As conflicts are identified, the group can then try to identify ways to minimize them. Verla Insko said it sounded like he (Elio Soldi) would like for the two principles (agreed upon statements) to guide the groups's discussions. Bob Hall said it was similar to the notion of takings, that the 'group was opposed to government takings of people's land. Lee.'Rafalow cautioned that "takings" was a loaded term. Hall said that was why he was using it, that we need to be clear that we're not trying to take people's land. Insko suggested more discussion.on the first statement of letting landowners reap benefits. Judd Edeburn asked who owned the University Station lands now, the farmers who once farmed it or investors? He asked if the ability of the investor to reap benefits was any different from the farmer who owned it originally? Insko said this was a good point. Rafalow said this was why the term "reap benefits" was not terribly helpful; he suggested "fair value" as an alternative. He said it had in it some sense that fairness was built in. Verla Insko said t`he statements needed to be re- organized and suggested that 'staff work on them. Lee Rafalow said he didn't want to discount all the ideas group members contributed because he thought there were a lot of good ones presented. He suggested focusing on the two key issues. He said if everyone agreed to the first starred point on the flip chart (retain current character), then the students' option for a transit oriented development was inappropriate for the community. Elio Soldi suggested not taking the discussion that far at this point. Meg McKean asked if this wasn't an example of why this (Rafalow's comments on a development option) was important, i.e., a population cap. Are we talking about a future for 50,000 people or 10,000 people? Insko said it would seem to depend if the population was concentrated in a one mile corridor or spread out in one acre tracts, but she didn't know to answer to the question. 15