Laserfiche WebLink
<br />QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />1. Minimum lot size in the R-1 district <br />Should the minimum lot size for a detached house in the R-1 district be rolled back to what it <br />was previously? It is presently at 11,000 square feet but until 2008 it was 10,000 square feet. <br /> <br />2. Minimum lot width for detached houses in the R-1 and R-2 districts: <br />Should the minimum lot width for a new detached house in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts be <br />reduced? In the R-1 district, it was 75 feet until 2008 when it was increased to 85 feet. <br />Likewise, the minimum lot width in the R-2 district is 75 feet. <br /> <br />We raise this question because a recent preliminary plat for the Sculley property showed most <br />of the lot widths in the 65 to 70-foot range even through the lot sizes were well above the <br />minimum. <br /> <br />3. Two-family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district <br />The new code would allow two-family dwellings as Conditional Uses on corner lots in the R-1 <br />district. The minimum lot size for an R-1 corner lot is 11,000 square feet. The building would <br />have to be judged to be architecturally compatible with others in the immediate vicinity. <br /> <br />4. Increased density for two-family dwellings in the R-2 district <br />In the table shown on the previous page, we have proposed to allow higher densities for two- <br />family buildings in the R-2 district. This change would require a 9,000 square foot lot for a <br />two-unit building; presently, a 15,000 square foot lot is needed. <br /> <br />This change is proposed in order to promote this housing type as recommended in the <br />comprehensive plan and to be more line with the density regulations of neighboring cities and <br />contemporary practices. <br /> <br />5. Accessory dwelling units in the R-1 district <br />Is the Council comfortable with the idea of allowing detached accessory dwelling units in the R- <br />1 zoning district? The minimum lot size for the existing house would be 15,000 square feet, <br />and there would be regulations addressing maximum floor area, setbacks, total lot coverage, <br />building height, exterior appearance, short term rental, parking, owner-occupancy of the <br />principal dwelling and prohibition of separate sale. There are only a few lots in the City that are <br />at least 15,000 square feet in size, and they are almost all north of LaBore Road. <br /> <br />6. Garage setbacks for attached housing <br />Is the Council comfortable with the proposed setback regulations for garages for new plats only? <br /> <br />7. Less Planning Commission and Council involvement in site plan review <br />Is the Council accepting of the idea that certain site development applications will be reviewed <br />and approved by City staff without going through the Planning Commission and City Council? <br /> <br />Under the new code, the only site plans that would be reviewed by those two bodies would be <br />those involving some judgment, namely Conditional Uses, variances, rezonings or plats. If <br />there is no discretion involved, the site plan would be reviewed only by staff. This would save <br />some applicants seven or eight weeks of time. Public notice and comment would still be <br />allowed.