Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

~ Creating a moratorium would be a more cost effective use of city staff because it would allow staff to develop a standard of protection in a thoughtful and rational process that can then be applied to all PUD applications. I am most concerned about the last point described above. Without a moratorium, there will be extensive input from citizens about each piece of upland habitat proposed for development. Whether or not you believe these parcels should be preserved, you will be pushing the process of protecting resources into the PUD process and forcing staff to repeatedly determine the questions of protection for each parcel being considered for development. Not only is this not a thoughtful and comprehensive way of determining how to best preserve irreplaceable and valuable resources, it will undoubtedly create gridlock and uncertainty in the land development process for builders and developers. I also support the concerns expressed by developers at the September 26th Public Hearing about the increased costs directly associated with building homes on steep property ($35,000 additional cost cited for homes on sites with slope of 15% or more). These same developers also expressed concern about increased erosion and storm water runoff, both issues that could affect surrounding properties and potentially increase maintenance costs for these property owners and the City. A temporary moratorium on development would allow city staff to complete the Goal 5 Inventory with upland wildlife habitat included as intended and required in this process and to create a well-constructed and comprehensive plan for developers and property owners to depend on. Thank you for your consideration of our request.