Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />Blesener asked the feeling about increasing R-1 lot sizes to similar <br />dimensions to what Roseville or Arden Hills has. Keis asked about people <br />with 150 foot wide lots who had planned on subdividing their proper some <br />day. Blesener felt there weren't too many lots like this left, and suggested <br />that they could be grandfathered in. Blesener felt, however, that these <br />properties would have to be subject to the 10-foot side yard setback if that <br />setback is re-established. <br />Allan pointed out the Gervais Hills plat and stated that if the City had 10- <br />foot side yard setbacks as well as a more stringent tree preservation <br />ordinance, that development would have had bigger lots. The Planner <br />indicated that in order to comply with a more stringent tree preservation <br />ordinance, developers will not be able to do as much grading, and <br />consequently lots will be larger. <br />Keis did not feel that an increased side yard setback would result in <br />smaller houses. He felt that builders would just align the house differently <br />on the lot. <br />Allan suggested that maximum lot coverage percentage be established. <br />The Planner indicated that this is an option. Iri response to Keis' <br />comment, the Planner indicated that builders want a certain amount of <br />house exposure to the street; therefore, higher end developments will not <br />usually realign the house on the lot. <br />Blesener felt that retaining the 10,000 foot lot area minimum and <br />increasing the side yard setback to 10 feet will result in the development <br />of lesser quality homes in the City. Blesener felt that the City should work <br />to upgrade its housing stock. <br />Keis asked if the 10 foot side yard setback and an upgraded tree <br />preservation standard encourage larger houses. The Planner stated that <br />with regard to the tree preservation standard, it will depend on how the <br />standard is written as well as the terrain of the property being developed. <br />Keis asked the economic impact for developers. <br />Barraclough felt the impact would be substantial as these upgraded <br />standards would likely reduce the number of housing pads for developers. <br />Barraclough again referred to the gated community concept. <br />Blesener noted that he would like to see any proposals for a gated <br />community concept as described by Barraclough handled as a PUD. He <br />was not in support of rezoning property for multiple housing, and noted <br />that when this was done a number of years ago, the City ended up with a <br />lot of apartment development. <br />4 <br />