Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />Barraclough again suggested that this type of development be considered <br />for the larger tracts of undeveloped property in the City, noting that it <br />would be a transitional-type of housing. <br />Blesener stated that he did not want to see 6,000 square foot lots backing <br />up to wetland areas. <br />The City Administrator felt that increased setbacks also control lot size. <br />Duray asked how the R-lA process would work. The Planner indicated <br />that the City would identify the tracts of land that it would like to see <br />R-lA standards applied to with the idea of protecting existing residential <br />areas, protection of wetlands, etc. The City would then have a public <br />hearing to consider the rezoning of these properties to R-lA. <br />Barraclough agreed with the Planner's comment that an improved tree <br />preservation would help. He noted, however, that at the end of the day if <br />the developer cannot make money, a project will not be proposed. <br />The City Planner noted that the City of Mendota Heights has zoning <br />districts that require one-acre minimum lot sizes with some additional <br />restrictions. He noted that these larger lots have proven to be more <br />valuable than the smaller lots. <br />Blesener asked the feeling of those present relative to increasing single- <br />family lot sizes. Montour and Keis stated that they could support 85 foot <br />minimum widths. Keis stated that his worry was few existing larger lots <br />in the City that this could negatively impact. The Planner noted that it <br />would be possible to exempt these properties; however, it would be a <br />tracking issue for the City. Montour noted that this would be fine for an <br />existing 150 foot wide lot. He asked about the 140 foot lot that wants to <br />purchase an additional 10 feet from the neighbor in order to then subdivide <br />into two 75-foot lots. The Planner suggested that this would not be <br />exempted from the 85-foot minimum width. The Planner indicated that <br />the idea of an exception is to protect someone who had something that was <br />allowed under the current Code. <br />Blesener asked about the establishment of a minimum lot depth. Montour <br />suggested discussion on the limitation of impervious surface on a <br />property. The Planner indicated that the R-1 A draft provides a maximum <br />of 25% impervious surface coverage for a lot. The Planner noted that the <br />Shoreland District has a 30% maximum. The Planner noted that in areas <br />where this limitation is in place, property owners have been forced to <br />install pervious surface driveways in order to achieve compliance. <br />McGraw was concerned that if the maximum impervious surface <br />