Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 30, 2008 <br />Mr. Blesener inh~oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2008-I-25 -APPROVING THE TRANSITION <br />AGREEMENT WITHSWEENEY, BORER & SWEENEYAS <br />OUTLINED IN THEIR LETTER DATED JANUARY 18, 2008 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Allan. <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />R-1 ZONING The City Planner reviewed his report dated January 24, 2008 highlighting <br />DISTRICT proposed changes to the R-1 Zoning District based on the discussions that <br />CHANGES occurred at the January 10°i Workshop Meeting. These changes include: <br />• Increases in lot area, lot width, and internal side yard <br />setbacks for newly platted lots; <br />• Anew impervious surface threshold for all R-1 lots of 30% <br />with a CUP provision for more impervious surface under <br />specific conditions, including storm water reductions and <br />other improvements; <br />• Anew minimum threshold for tree preservation of 30% <br />with monitoring and penalty provision to regulate <br />compliance. <br />The Planner noted a propose change to the definition of buildable lot <br />requiring access as well as frontage on an improved road. He also <br />included changes to the cul-de-sac language addressing the ability to <br />require longer cul-de-sacs at the direction of the City where natural <br />resource preservation would dictate it, but not with additional lots. <br />The Council reviewed the information presented by the City Engineer <br />comparing existing lot impervious area for some selected residential areas <br />of the City. Blesener suggested that the limitation should be higher than <br />the 30% recommended by the City Planner based on some of the averages <br />reported by the City Engineer. Allan and Keis stated that this could <br />support a 35% limit on impervious surface. <br />The Council then discussed the CUP process proposed by the Planner to <br />exceed the impervious surface limitation. The City Clerk explained the <br />process and pointed out that the escrow deposit for a CUP is $500. Actual <br />costs are charged to the property owner, but they are typically at the $500 <br />level. The City Planner indicated that the Council could require a staff <br />review of requests to exceed the 35% impervious surface limitation, and <br />could establish standards for storm water mitigation measures that staff <br />could use in their review. McGraw expressed concern that a property <br />