CC_Minutes_2007_0611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Summary of Lot Split Comments Before the City Council June 11, 2007 Tam McGehee The Lot Split Study Group (CAG) and its attendant Final Report raise several important policy issues. These are discussed in detail in the attached memorandum. 1. What was the exact scope of the study? If it was as stated on page 2, then many of the recommendations, regarding overlay zones, pre and post 1959 lots, PUD fees, green building, and tree preservation, are clearly beyond the scope ofthe project. 2. What are the definitions? When a typical resident discusses "lot split" it is a discussion of whether or not a single lot can be divided into two smaller lots. When "subdivision" is used, it is taken by most to imply an actual redevelopment of three or more units. A PUD is something that most residents know very little about and certainly do not consider it as part of a "lot split." The purchase of two or more lots and the recombination of those lots and subsequent redivision of those lots as a subdivision or PUD is also very different from the common terminology of "lot split." All of these terms, lot split, lot recombination, PUD, subdivision, have different regulations and processes, some of which are opaque to most residents. To use these all under the heading of "lot split" is misleading. 3. What is the process for important policy decisions? As ones home is the single most important investment most individuals have, to attempt to make major zoning changes in a 90 day window is not in the best interests of the community. This is an important issue and should be dealt with as such. We just concluded the "visioning" process. There is no discussion of lot division or residential redevelopment in the fmal report. 4. What is the policy for citizen input? In this case, sixty-nine residents signed some alternative ideas they wished to have considered by the City Council. The ideas were not included on the "Lot Split Advisory" website where citizens could view them. In fact,