CC_Minutes_2010_0726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 26, 2010 Page 22 Setbacks Mayor Klausing questioned the intent proposed that any new construction with a reduced front yard setback be consistent with homes adjacent on either side; or whether that provided a third setback option. Mr. Paschke suggested that averaging new construction with two identifiable structures seemed appropriate, since current code would require a variance appli- cation; and the proposed setback wouldn't encroach further on one side than the other and subsequently block views, and would appear more consistent than hav- ing ahard setback number. Dimensional standards - LDR-1 (page 7) Discussion ensued related to the Table under B (dimensional standards) and max- imum building heights, whether defined as midpoint of the roof; and how acces- sory structures having similar dimensional standards and wall height limitations benefited the City; confusion with sloped roofs and building height and percep- tions of neighboring properties with heights appearing to impose on their yards; with staff noting that all terms would be defined in a separate section of code to provide clarity. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to dimensional standards (page 6, box and footnote) related to the apparent attempt to maximize lot coverage to 50% in residential districts, rather than retaining the 30% impervious coverage limita- tions. Councilmember Ihlan noted that all other districts calculated those percen- tages based on green space, and questioned how this met environmental goals, while increasing potential flooding and pollution run off into lakes and wetlands through increased lot coverage potentials. Councilmember Ihlan opined that it seemed more appropriate to look at ways to reduce lot coverage, and with com- pounding the issue by attempting to reduce minimum lot sizes, there was the po- tential for a great reduction in green space or non-built areas over time; and fur- ther opined that the City needed to support that additional green space beyond the requirements of watershed districts. Mr. Paschke clarified that the City was not attempting to change the maximum impervious coverage from 30% (with shoreline being at 25%) but the intent was to create a threshold for total improved area on a lot (such as decks and other per- vious coverage) to not exceed 50% without mitigation for storm water manage- ment on the site itself through a variety of options; and eliminating the need for property owners to go through a variance process or administrative deviation that would support that same goal. Further discussion ensued regarding the need to define improved areas and im- pervious surface; comparison of DNR definitions; criteria defined in meeting per- vious and/or impervious surfaces; applicable mitigation remedies; current re- quirements consistent with that proposed for single-family residential districts;