Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />Barraclough noted that the detached living concept calls for lots that are <br />much smaller, yet are single-family living with an association. The City <br />Planner indicated that under this concept lot widths may range from 50 to <br />70 feet. The fact that there is an association in place that manages exterior <br />maintenance is what appeals to potential buyers. <br />Allan felt that the City's R-1 development looked O.K. except for around <br />wetland areas. Allan felt that there should be an upgraded zoning district <br />for any land abutting wetlands. Allan suggested that the existing R-1 <br />regulations were fine, and that an additional zoning district should be <br />added for areas adjacent to wetlands. <br />The City Planner indicated that this is what he had in mind in developing <br />the R-lA Zoning District. The Planner noted that in changing the R-1 <br />District standards, the City may end up with a lot ofnon-conformities and <br />may have to add a lot of exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance. It is also <br />possible to lose track of these exceptions over time or the exceptions <br />become more difficult to manage. <br />Allan stated that the only issue she had with the existing R-1 regulations is <br />that the side yard setback should be increased back to the 10 feet that it <br />had been. <br />Blesener noted that the problem with increasing the side yard setback is <br />the impact that it will have on recent plats that have been approved. <br />Blesener noted that a developer comes in and obtains plat approval based <br />on the standards in place. The developer then sells to a builder, who must <br />construct houses on the property in compliance with the zoning standards. <br />To change the side yard setback will have a negative impact on the <br />undeveloped lots in these plats. <br />The City Planner pointed out that tree preservation is also an issue that the <br />City has faced with recent development. He pointed out that if the City <br />increases the amount of tree preservation that has to be achieved, <br />developers will have to plat larger lots to meet those standards. The <br />Planner indicated that the City would establish a percentage of tree <br />preservation that must be met, and developers will then have to design <br />their plats around that percentage. Allan asked if the City would establish <br />a specific tree size that would have to be saved. The Planner noted that <br />the City's ordinance currently says that non junk trees of 6 caliper inches <br />or greater must be saved. The City could establish a percentage of trees to <br />be saved and then require the developer to do a tree inventory showing <br />compliance. The Planner felt that addressing the issues of lot sizes <br />adjacent to wetland areas, side yard setbacks, and tree preservation within <br />a separate zoning district and applying that district to whatever areas the <br />City sees as a problem was the easiest way to address the concerns. <br />3 <br />