Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Nixt questioned if the elimination of the 2 lA acres is only being discussed in this <br />particular corridor at. this time. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon replied presently the way the ordinance is <br />drafted it only affects the Rural Development Area. It does not address the Rural Reserve or the <br />Central Rural Reserve, which are both 4 in 40. There is some question as to whether those areas <br />should be included. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch asked if there is a 10 to 20 year plan for these other areas that are not presently <br />included for general land use and lot sizes. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt replied the City does have a general land use plan, which is the comprehensive <br />plan. They are considering if they should amend the.comprehensive plan and rethink the current <br />10 to 20 year plan. The moratorium that was adopted was specifically geared to evaluate the 2 ½ <br />acre lots. As a logical analysis the question has been raised if they should limit it to 2 ½ acre <br />lots. He stated the City is unique for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is the vast <br />diversity of housing opportunities. Some of the homeowners sitting on this land may look at it <br />differently in saying the City is foreclosing their options by saying they cannot develop it in the <br />way that is attractive to the homeowner. The City needs to determine what are reasonable <br />developlnent standards, and under what circumstances should they allow that particular land <br />owner who desires to cmmnercially develop their property do so in a manner consistent with an <br />overall land use plan that fits in a time frame of more than five years. He noted Mr. Zaetsch's <br />comments are well heard. <br /> <br />Mr. Zaetsch stated part of the process is fine, but they need a total package and it is hard to do <br />this piecemeal. <br /> <br />Ericka Sitz, 6521 154th Lane NW, stated this is the public's first chance to comment on what is a <br />major change. This is not an amendment to the comprehensive plan, it is a major change. The <br />public notice that was sent out was just to people who had more than five acres, but other people <br />are affected by this. There are people with existing lots that are worried about it. She noted in <br />the previous case there was conflict between the h!gher density and the existing homes that are <br />on larger lots. This kind of thing proposes shooting out sewer and creates essentially smaller <br />pockets of the same thing. The same conflict can occur in another place. She stated her major <br />objection is the fact that when the update was done to the comprehensive plan it started in 1997, <br />and that process involved extensive community input, and then a focus group. This amendment <br />has had nothing. This is the first hearing for this and they are discussing a major change. <br /> <br />Chairpcrson Nixt explained this is the Rural Developing District, and the comprehensive plan <br />clearly states the intent was to provide a corridor that would be right for redevelopment at a <br />higher density. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated the comprehensive plan <br />specifically discussed clustering. He explained this is a zoning ordinance; it is not an <br />amendment to the comprehensive plan. There is nothing in this ordinance that allows City sewer <br />and water to be extended; they want to preserve the ability to be flexible in the future. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 5, 2004 <br /> Page 33 of 40 <br /> <br /> <br />