Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />profits. The City Planner suggested that it may mean higher profits for the <br />developer, not necessarily the builder. <br />Blesener asked the group's feelings about the R-lA District. The Planner <br />suggested that a strong tree preservation ordinance would result in larger <br />lots and would avoid the need for the creation of the R-lA District. He <br />noted that the more wooded a piece of property, the larger the lots will <br />need to be. The Planner suggested that requiring 40% of trees to be <br />preserved is aggressive, but 25% would be too weak. McGraw was <br />concerned that if a property was too densely wooded, the tree preservation <br />ordinance would have a punitive impact. He noted that contrary to this, <br />the discussion is to allow someone with a 150 foot wide lot an exemption <br />so the property could be subdivided. <br />Knudsen noted that tree coverage varies by property and pointed out that <br />requiring the preservation of 25% of trees on a property with no trees <br />doesn't do anything for the City. <br />The City Planner noted that with heavily treed properties, developers will <br />try to create pockets of preservation that are not touched. There may also <br />be the need to build retaining walls to protect stands of trees. The Planner <br />felt that a 30% standard for preservation was reasonable, but suggested <br />that 25% was also an option. The Planner stated that the impact to the <br />Richie Place project would have likely been the loss of 3 to 41ots. <br />Helmeke noted that the City is at risk that a developer will cut down trees <br />before applying for the platting of a property. <br />Blesener suggested the 25% tree preservation standard at this point. <br />Blesener also suggested that the impervious surface issue be studied. The <br />City Administrator indicated that he will have the City Engineer look at <br />some single-family lots in the City and estimate what is typical impervious <br />surface coverage. <br />I-1 ZONING Blesener noted the previous discussion about allowing outdoor storage by <br />DISTRICT Interim Use Permit rather than Conditional Use Permit. Blesener stated <br />STANDARDS that his position is that outdoor storage should continue to be governed by <br />Conditional Use Permit. He felt that a CUP would give the City the <br />control it needs. Blesener pointed out that property owners agreed to the <br />conditions placed on their CUPs, and if compliance is not achieved, the <br />property owner can ask for a CUP amendment or the City will take <br />enforcement action. Blesener suggested that enforcement action will <br />move quicker with a period of time given to achieve compliance. If <br />compliance is not met, the City will issue citations. If there is no response <br />8 <br />