Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 02/27/06 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing requested that staff, in future reports, provide <br />the history of previous requests related to the parcels under <br />consideration in the current action (i.e., previous variance request <br />in this case), to provide as much background information to the <br />City Council as possible. <br /> <br />Counci1member Ih1an renewed her motion for a moratorium on <br />subdivisions and lot size variations, prior to consideration of this <br />request. <br /> <br />Discussion included Counci1member Ih1an' s concerns regarding <br />continuing requests for subdividing lots and changing the <br />character of established neighborhoods; tree and open space <br />preservation strategies; and Counci1member Kough's interest in <br />preserving large lots within the community, but lack of support <br />for a moratorium at this point as it relates to the current request <br />before the Council. <br /> <br />With no second for Councilmember Ih1an's motion, Mayor <br />Klausing declared the motion failed. <br /> <br />Counci1member Ih1an sought clarification on frontage and back <br />measurements specific to Parcel C; and provided her <br />interpretation of code language related to the code's land use <br />dimensions chart. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke and City Attorney Scott Anderson provided <br />concurrent interpretation of City code related to width and depth <br />measurements and code language related to minimum lot size <br />and function. <br /> <br />Discussion continued among staff, City Attorney Anderson and <br />Counci1members related to interpretations and provisions of <br />dimensions adjacent to public right-of-ways; minimum back lot <br />width and shapes and symmetries; and numerous and varied lot <br />configurations. <br /> <br />Public Comment <br />George LeTendre, 2121 W County Road B <br />Mr. LeTendre, in a letter to the City Council dated January 24, <br />2006, and verbally tonight, noted his objection to the proposed <br />minor subdivision. Mr. LeTendre addressed the impact to his <br />