Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Musgrove asked if the Packers have thought of using the barn to make revenue, <br />such as renting it as a meeting or for weddings. <br /> <br />Mr. Packer commented that there are too many relatives in the mix to agree on something like that <br />and therefore the decision was made to sell the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson thanked the Packers for coming tonight and providing input. <br /> <br />Brian Walker, 17289 Variolite St NW, stated that no one thinks that this property will not be <br />developed. He stated that the residents in that area understand that the property will someday be <br />developed. He explained that people that live in that area, purchased their homes because they <br />wanted to be in an area with a rural character. He stated that he would support some kind of <br />compromise but was unsure what that would look like. He stated that the residents in that area <br />simply want to protect the rural feel. <br /> <br />Commissioner Woestehoff stated that Mr. Walker previous spoke against 55- and 65-foot lots but <br />now has mentioned a compromise. He asked what that would look like to Mr. Walker. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that 55 foot lots would never be supported by the residents in that area and was <br />unsure that 65 foot lots would be supported either. He stated that perhaps lots larger than 80 feet <br />are around the exterior of the development with some smaller lots on the interior of the <br />development. He stated that he does have sympathy for the landowners but also knows that the <br />residents in that area want to protect the rural feel of that area. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that when the Planning Commission discussed this in May, the <br />group was split on whether to support the original proposal by the developer but ultimately <br />expressed support for the developer to work with staff on a mix of lots. He stated that since that <br />time, the City Council reviewed the rezoning request and did not support a rezoning, therefore lots <br />of under 80 feet would not be supported on the property. He stated there is nothing the Planning <br />Commission could do without that rezoning. He asked if the developer could ask the City Council <br />to reconsider the rezoning request. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that the developer/property owner cannot make the <br />same request. He stated that the request was simply the rezoning and therefore that request cannot <br />be brought back for at least one year. He stated that something different could come forward, such <br />as a proposal that includes only 80-foot-wide lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Woestehoff asked if the Council had a good understanding of the options and lot <br />sizes. He stated that he likes the idea of the outer ring having larger lots. He noted that the <br />originally proposed density was lower than the allowed density for the property. He wanted to <br />ensure that the details of the request did not get lost in the passion of the comments from the <br />residents that spoke. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated that she believes that the Council did have an understanding of <br />the various options within the case. She stated that the strongest point was the Comprehensive <br /> <br />Planning Commission Worksession / July 9, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br />