Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />areas to address as well as the City Planner's draft of an R-lA Zoning <br />District. <br />The City Planner indicated that his R-lA District would require that the <br />Council identify the tract of lands that it wants more stringent standards to <br />apply to and rezone those tracts to R-1 A. <br />Blesener suggested that the Sculley property, Fahey property, Richardson <br />property, Heinel property as examples where the more stringent standards <br />were needed. Blesener suggested that these properties be rezoned to <br />Shoreland District so that the more stringent standards of that district <br />could be applied. The City Planner indicated that the DNR has to approve <br />the designation of any properties as shoreland. He indicated that <br />properties abutting a wetland would not qualify for these shoreland <br />standards. <br />Blesener pointed out that most new houses being constructed today are <br />large and have three-car garages. He felt in order to accommodate the <br />house sizes of today and meet 10-foot side yard setbacks, lots needed to be <br />100 feet wide. Blesener felt the Council's action a few years ago <br />decreasing side yard setbacks to 7 %2 feet was a mistake. He also noted <br />that the issue of temporary cul-de-sac versus cul-de-sac will be addressed <br />when the proposed changes to the City's Zoning Code and Subdivision <br />Code are finalized. <br />Blesener reviewed the lot sizes that he proposed in his report. He noted <br />the recent Richie Place Plat which has 10,000 square foot lots that are 100 <br />feet wide by 100 feet deep. He noted that there is no depth to these lots <br />and they will have shallow backyards. Montour stated that he liked the 90 <br />foot lot width suggestion, but noted that some property owners may have <br />150 feet of frontage and are relying on the City's 75 foot lot width <br />minimum planning to subdivision their property some day. Blesener felt <br />there were few situations of this nature, and suggested that these lots could <br />be grandfathered in under the 75 foot lot minimum. Montour felt that the <br />problem was the setbacks that that 7 %2 feet was too close. <br />Barraclough noted that many cities are going to the gated community <br />concept and developing detached single-family homes on small lots <br />governed homeowners associations. Barraclough noted that this is <br />affordable housing that appeals to baby boomers. <br />Blesener noted that the recent single-family plats that have been processed <br />by the City have had a great deal of opposition as the neighbors felt lot <br />sizes were too small. <br />2 <br />