CC_Minutes_2010_1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 24 of the need to consider adjacent land uses and the need to create a buffer and not make things too dense or unlivable. Councilmember Pust suggested that code may need to state that an HDR -2 would not be envisioned next to LDR. Councilmember Roe suggested that topographical differences also be taken into consideration for impacts to adjacent properties. Councilmember Ihlan questioned how HDR -2 related to the Comprehensive Plan map; with Mr. Trudgeon advising that anything zoned HDR -2 would need to be guided accordingly and require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her serious concern in this HDR -2 District, noting past vigorous discussions with single family residential homes ad- jacent to multi family units; and the huge change this proposed district created. Councilmember Ihlan questioned why staff was proposing to create a new district in the abstract, when no examples or placement had been thought through, not just those of dimensions and setbacks. Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation for tonight's discussion and the need to be sensitive to existing neighborhoods; however, he spoke in support of and noted that consideration needed to be given to future redevelopment in the City and higher density, different uses, and a more urban redevelopment of the City than currently known; and the need to have forethought and provide flexibility for that development as a first -ring suburb. Councilmember Ihlan questioned the inclusion of minimum lot size, considering previous City Council discussion and her recollection of the consensus to keep the minimum lot size at 11,500 square feet. Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustra- tion in not being able to track the multiple drafts of the zoning document to ad- dress proposed revisions from the existing code to the proposed code. Mr. Trudgeon noted the challenges in reviewing the existing and proposed given the revised formatting; but assured Councilmember Ihlan and the public that past discussions had not been ignored, but that no vote or direction had been provided, and the minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet and 75' minimum lot width had been included as a point of discussion, recognizing the variety of opinions. Mr. Trudgeon noted that including the proposed language was not an attempt to change lot sizes or to attempt to cram more density in, but was a way to attempt compliance for 93% of the City's existing properties. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, more importantly, discussion should be directed to how it impacts new lots, and that portion had yet to be resolved until a future rewrite of the City's Subdivision Code was undertaken, which addressed any new subdivisions and continued to re- tain the 85' lot width and 11,500 square foot requirements; and the requirement for any new subdivisions to continue to meet that standard.