City Council Minutes 2016 04 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes Apnl 19, 2016 Page 4 of 17 City Attorney Light noted it was a hard question to answer in general; each specific ask would have to be looked at, amended and applied to the parcel. Mayor Muckle noted the citizens concern about high density development and the potential of commercial becoming residential. He understood there was discussion of the Comprehensive Plan having language to affect future SRU's being in conflict with the Comp Plan. Planner Robinson stated just changing language in the small area plan and the Comprehensive Plan leaves you in a gray area, because of the language about the SRU having to be compatible with the Comp Plan. Zoning allows one thing, and the Comp Plan as a policy document says something different The recommendation is once the small area plan is adopted to come back with regulatory change so everything lines up and property owners know what their rights are. Council member Stolzmann wanted to give clear direction on zoning on the property's current uses and if redeveloped, could they retain those uses. She supported not having to change uses with future redevelopment. Mayor Muckle agreed existing could be redeveloped at the same level Mayor Pro Tem Lipton wanted to allow redevelopment at current density but not allow raising the density. Mayor Muckle asked if there was consensus on this issue. Council member Loo felt there was consensus from the community to not see any more high density developments in this area. However, throwing out the SRU process is not the answer. If a developer brings a high density development, it would probably be defeated She supported leaving the SRU process in place as a tool. Council member Leh felt the arguments were compelling to leave out the SRU process in this area. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton wanted to leave SRU rules alone and in the Comp Plan it would have to be compatible. Most high density residential would not meet the Comp Plan guidelines Council member Leh thought the question was whether the SRU process was going to be used in this area. He didn't want the process removed entirely, but include language to effectively remove it from the area. He thought the consensus at the last meeting was the SRU process was not even going to be a possibility