Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 30, 2008 <br />owner could put mitigation measures in place such as a rain water garden. <br />However, the property could then be sold to someone who removes the <br />rain water garden. McGraw pointed out the need for the City to be able to <br />ensure that mitigation measures remain in place. <br />Keis asked if there is currently a problem with the amount of impervious <br />surface coverage on residential properties. He suggested that, if not, there <br />was no need to implement this regulation. The City Planner noted the <br />increasing amount of environmental concerns and the fact that cities will <br />move more and more toward these types of controls. Blesener noted that <br />impervious surface restrictions are already in place in the Shoreland <br />District. Allan noted that all property owners live on lakes and wetlands <br />given the run-off from all properties end up in these systems. The Planner <br />suggested that these types of regulations are becoming more the norm. <br />Blesener asked what the north would be for a limitation on impervious <br />surface coverage. The Planner responded that 30 to 35% is a common <br />range. The DNR's restriction for shoreland properties is 25%. <br />Blesener felt that property owners would be more willing to comply with <br />mitigation requirements if they did not have to go through the CUP <br />process. <br />Keis asked about a property that already has 50% impervious surface <br />coverage and applies for a building permit. The City Administrator <br />indicated that the property owner would be required to add the appropriate <br />amount of mitigation to offset the impervious surface coverage over 35%. <br />The Administrator noted that the City Engineer would likely review <br />applications to exceed the impervious surface maximum to ensure that <br />mitigation proposals are adequate. Therefore, he recommended that some <br />type of application fee would be necessary to offset the City Engineer's <br />costs. The Administrator also suggested that enforcement of mitigation <br />requirements could be either through staff inspections and/or deed <br />restrictions. <br />It was the consensus of the Council that a 35% impervious surface <br />maximum should be included in the R-1 revisions. <br />Keis asked how the new lot size and setback standards would apply to <br />simple lot splits. The City Planner replied that as proposed, the new <br />standards would apply only to newly platted property. <br />Blesener suggested that more reasons be added to the Code that would <br />support the City's allowing a temporary cul-de-sac longer than 500 feet. <br />Allan felt that the statement "cul-de-sacs shall not be longer than 500 <br />