Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairperson Nixt observed staff has done a good job of pointing out the issues. He noted <br />Council has discussed options and concerns have been expressed regarding going back to 2 ~ <br />acre lots. He requested information regarding what those concerns are. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied concerns have been expressed regarding infrastructure and that <br />by allowing 2 ~ acre development they will be limiting options for future development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt questioned how the infrastructure issues will be addressed between now and <br />2008 when the Comprehensive Plan would come into play. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied 2 ~ acre development may come back as part of the 2008 <br />Comprehensive Plan. The residents will be part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Her <br />understanding of the Council's direction is to go to 4 in 40 to take a more complete look at the <br />rural area. There will be more public input and larger property owners will be provided with <br />certainty for what they can do with their property in the future. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the problem he has with 40 in 40/1 in 10 is that it just defers the reality <br />that the City has to deal with infrastructure issues. He does not think they will solve those <br />problems between now and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. To say they will defer until 2008 is <br />not addressing the reality they have as a City, and it is inconsistent with what he sees that the <br />City's obligations are. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy observed it sounds like the direction was given to go back to 4 in 40/1 <br />in 10, basically to put a moratorium on development of these smaller lots, and the concept is that <br />there is an issue with 2 ~ acre lots. He assumes a good portion of the concern regarding 2 ~ acre <br />lots relates to what they tried to fix with the cluster ordinance with the difficulty for future <br />expansion and planning of those neighborhoods. His concern is going from 2 ~ acre lots with <br />people making plans, trying the cluster ordinance, and now going to 1 in 10. The pendulum has <br />swung from one side to the other. The thing that also concerns him is that he does not see any <br />reference to planning, whether it is 1 in 10 or 2 ~ acres. He asked if ghost platting is part of the <br />concept of going to 1 in 10. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied a section of the City Code requests developers to prepare a re- <br />subdivision plan that is not binding. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the 4 in 40/1 in 10 may have a counter productive effect in that if you <br />allow subdivision of a 40 acre parcel into four 10 acre parcels and each of those are developed, <br />you then have taken out of the housing inventory 40 acres to accommodate 4 houses that may at <br />most accommodate less than 50% of its theoretic possibility because of how it has been <br />developed. He does not think this will really have accomplished planning. Given the current <br />state of the housing market, and the fact that they will not solve many of the concerns, he <br />believes that economics will dictate how developable this section of the City is with 2 ~ acre <br />lots. The City needs to have its feet held to the fire to get on with effective planning. The 4 in 40 <br />may actually hurt the City. If the City feels their performance standards in 2 ~ acres is lacking, <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 26 of 36 <br /> <br />P26 <br />