CC_Minutes_2010_0726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 26, 2010 Page 21 Councilmember Pust questioned if a separate shoreland designation was consi- dered to meet existing DNR regulations. Mr. Paschke advised that the City's current code did not meet the current DNR standards, and that part of the zoning district update would look at shoreland as a separate chapter under new DNR regulations when they were available, but was unsure of when their new model would be complete. Within the Lot Split Study itself, Mr. Paschke was under the impression that the meeting summary dated April 19, 2001 (page 3 of those notes) with the overall Study generated on May 14, 2007, the summary discussed zoning issues and a discussion to consider re- viewing lot standards as they related to minimum setbacks and building heights. Councilmember Roe opined that, in relation to the recommendation for a small single-family district and current two zoning districts of this group, roughly half of the City's properties would fall into the small lot group and the remainder would not. Mr. Paschke advised that he would need to review the map and additional infor- mation, but opined that it would be greater than half to get to 93% compliance by reducing the minimum lot size to 9,500 square feet with a 75 foot width; and fur- ther noted that there were a number of lots with some form ofnon-compliance. Councilmember Roe noted the concern of the public and some Councilmembers that reducing the minimum width and square footage and questioned whether it made sense to have neighborhoods with varying lot sizes, and whether that was manageable or made sense from a land use perspective. Mr. Paschke advised that, in an effort to eliminate confusion, it would be more ef- fective to be broad and create broader zoning designations and to identify them as small, large or regular; however, he opined that he didn't consider 9,500 square feet to be small; and that nonconformities were a product of pre- or post-1959. Councilmember Roe questioned which standard applied if there were several lot size situations on one street and which standard would apply on combined lots of varying sizes. Mr. Paschke noted that interpretation in those situations would be problematic. Mayor Klausing suggested the need to realize the intent of the Planning Commis- sion and staff to design the City's new zoning code with reality, while it appeared that it was instead it appeared to be driving a new reality. Mayor Klausing sug- gested that the minimum lot size be retained as is, and perhaps at a later date re- consider whether it needed refinement or not; but in an effort to move forward on those areas of the proposed zoning code that were not controversial, it be removed from consideration at this time.