Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated the comprehensive plan dictates <br />that this area should be developed at a 2 ½ acre density, and this ordinance still allows that. He <br />does not believe the comprehensive plan is being undermined. The density is consistent, and the <br />comprehensive plan does not dictate the lot size. This ordinance does not require a <br />comprehensive plan amendment, which the removal of the 4 in 40 would require. <br /> <br />There was considerable discussion regarding density and lot sizes in relation to the ordinance and <br />the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested staff put together something on the 4 in 40 amendment to the <br />comprehensive plan in addition to this ordinance, to allow the Council to give direction to the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated a lot of the :discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was <br />about whether the ordinance was consistent with the comprehensive plan. He would propose if <br />the Council feels the ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan, that they send a <br />resolution down to the Planning Commission stating it is consistent and to move forward. <br /> <br />There was discussion concerning the direction from the Council and the concerns of the <br />Commissioners about the ordinance in relation to the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Ralph Bauer, Member of the Planning Commission, stated his understanding was that the City <br />Council and the Planning Commission had determined in their joint meeting that the Council <br />would meet with the Planning Commission to discuss this issue together in a work session. He <br />stated the Commission had questions about the ordinance meeting the comprehensive plan. He <br />stated Councilmember Pearson has been wonderful in coming to the Planning Commission <br />meetings and informing them about things. The Commission has discussed that meetings, <br />especially when there are policy issues like ~his, would be beneficial. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated his understanding of the joint meeting was that the Planning <br />Commission wanted input on ordinances, possibly after a skeleton ordinance has been drafted. <br />That is what the Council was doing with this ordinance, and giving the Planning Commission an <br />opportunity for input. He stated as he reviews the comprehensive plan, this ordinance is <br />consistent with the plan. <br /> <br />There was discussion among the Councilmembers as to whether the ordinance should go back <br />before the Planning Commission with direction from the Council to proceed, or whether the <br />ordinance should be voted on at the Council level. <br /> <br />Mr. Bauer suggested if the Planning Commission were to receive an opinion from the City <br />Attorney stating that this ordinance is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, it would serve <br />as direction to the Commission. <br /> <br />City Council Work !Session/November 30, 2004 <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />