03/10/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 0402 Councilmember Carlson indicated she had a discussion with Mr. Kukonen from the Environmental 403 Board on page 6-11, and when doing the math she came up with a postage stamp sized parcel being 404 reserved, so she will refer that issue to him. 405 406 Community Development Director Grochala indicated there were two pieces on that page. He stated 407 with the R-EC district, that is as far as they wanted to go for flexibility. He indicated that when 408 dealing with urban lots, it is hard to get the cluster needed for urban space. In discussions with the 409 task force, they did not feel comfortable going lower than 10,800 square feet per lot. He stated that if 410 they are going to do a PUD, the developer will probably ask for smaller lot size. He indicated this 411 will not give the city 50 percent open space, but that is what the Environmental Board was 412 comfortable with. He explained that if a developer comes in and does all 15,000 square foot lots, it 413 will provide more green space, but not preserved open space. He added that page 2-52, item 2, it does 414 not say someone could not come back and request a PUD, but in R-1 and R-2 the easier process is to 415 go to R-EC. 416 417 Mayor Bergeson asked if there were any situations where lots less than 10,800 square feet would be 418 allowed. Community Development Director Grochala indicated in R-1 and R-2 they would be. He 419 stated that the yield plan shows how many 15,000 square foot lots will be allowed on the parcel, then 420 up to 70 percent can be moved to 10,800 square feet with the remaining land dedicated open space. 421 422 Councilmember Carlson asked if Clearwater Creek came in under this, would they have to go through 9123 a PUD. Community Development Director Grochala indicated it could be done under R-EC. He 424 stated Clearwater Creek is actually an R-1 development, adding that what makes a difference in that 425 development is the significant wetlands that could not be touched. 426 427 Mayor Bergeson stated that some land in Clearwater Creek that was not developed could have been. 428 He indicated the park area is larger than was rquired, and they voluntarily set aside land. He does not 429 know what was given up on the flip side. 430 431 Councilmember Carlson stated she was not on the City Council at the time, but she remembers seeing 432 plans, noting that the developer came in with a traditional plan, then came back with smaller lots and 433 more open space. Community Development Director Grochala noted that they used to allow 434 developers to plat through wetlands, which created lots of open space, but it was private open space, 435 with nothing to prevent the property owners from removing trees, etc. He indicated they do not allow 436 that now. He stated that through the R-EC zoning they may not achieve the same space, but the City 437 tried to maximize the land they would pick up, noting that the developer could come back with a 438 PUD. 439 440 Councilmember Carlson asked if the language was that which was recommended by the Task Force. 441 Community Development Director Grochala stated it was. 442 443 Community Development Director Grochala refered to the memo concerning the Tree Service Alk444 presented to the Council, and reviewed the four options offered. He indicated that any answer, other W445 than no, will have reprecussions, and he is nervous about the possible snowball affect. He added that 10