Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />then that may be where they invest their infrastructure and resources to beef up the performance <br />standards in relation to access, safety issues and traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine observed a lot of people have been planning around the 2 ~ acres; to <br />change that now does not seem right and could be very counter productive in the long run. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he questions whether much will be gained with the 4 in 40, and whether <br />the immediate concerns could be addressed through an increase in performance standards related <br />to infrastructure and traffic issues. He noted there are some areas of the rural developing area <br />that will be more conducive to 2 ~ acre developments than others. Clustering is not working. <br /> <br />Commissioner Trites Rolle commented for clustering to work they would need to look at places <br />where it is successful, and it would need to be discussed through the Comprehensive Plan <br />process in great detail. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy noted a lot of people have talked about looking at individual pieces of <br />land, and the PUD is a way of dealing with that. He agrees that they need to focus on stronger <br />standards and better planning with 2 ~ acre lots. That would be more effective than 1 in 10, <br />which is an extreme response to the issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine concurred. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stressed that all housing types need to be made available in the City, including <br />townhouses, single family within the MUSA, and 2 ~ acre. This will enhance the community. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to recommend denial of the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 26 of 35 <br />