09/05/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1979 was one of the most difficult issues to resolve in the land use plan update. Mayor Karth said that it had been demonstrated already. that the fire, police, and road maintenance services were adequate; there was actually more than needed as far as population was concerned but just enough as far as road service was concerned. The size of the City and the fact that it was spilt into two sections required the equipment whether the population was there or not. Because Metro was trying to minimize the population, the City could not afford the services they had now; smaller parcels were necessary to get the tax base to support the costs. The issue had been that Metro felt 22 acres was an urban, not rural, land size, and the City felt it was a more than adequate rural size. Mr. Short recommended that growth in the rural_ area be controlled and the areas that have already developed residential (rural residential) be encouraged to continue development --to consoFiidate'and fill in the holes there before allowing growth in other, undeveloped areas. The rural residential areas already had a greater demand for services such as police, road maintenance and so forth than the rural areas where the demand was low. The controls would be lot size, allowable density, and other general controls. Mayor Karth noted that all three of the rural areas on the map had soil problems; the northwest corner was presently sod farms, the south, wetlands, and the northeast was clay, and also had the poorest access to the freeway system. Also, Metro had wanted one unit per ten acres, and this created a problem for the person owning any amount of land in the rural area --the land value under thoserestrictions drops to nothing. For example, .a farmer who retires has abolutely no use for his land with a ten acre minimum size; he can't farm it and he can't sell it. He noted that there was only 4-5,000 acres left in the City that was developable to provide a tax base, and that at one unit per ten acres, this was not the highest or best use of the land. Mr. Johnson noted that single family homes do not support themselves, so the necessity was to get more residences on a parcel of land,leaving more room for industrial and commercial. Mr. Short noted that as far as taxes , there was a particular level of service the City already provided in the rural residential areas, and that development should be encouraged where the higher level of services were instead of going someplace else to develop. He felt that agricultural was for the present the most logical use of the land but was a short term item. Mayor Karth'felt that the active farm would continue to stay that way for the next five years, but that other areas would sell and develop as one acre lots with or without curtailment as it couldn't be enforced legally. Mr. Locke noted that the cost of providing services was greater at a lower density of development, even at one unit per unit per acre, but that to encourage it at one unit per ten acres was even worse. Mr. Short recommended for the rural area a one acre minimum lot size be allowed, but only permitting 4 Tots per 40 acres, with the remainder left for a later date. It was generally felt, however, that the rural area should be a 22 acre minimum lot size, which would be consistent with what has been discussed with Metro in the past. Mr. Johnson felt that developers would prefer the rural residential one acre lots.rather than'21 acre lots in rural areas, also in view of the fact that the costs would remain the same. Mr. Gotwald noted that any growth encouraged other than the rural area was still one acre, and that anything bigger than a half acre wouldn't work as a tax base. Mr. Short was concerned whether a 21 acre minimum would be enough encouragement for developers to stay in the rural residential area;