Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 13 <br /> <br />questioned staffs interpretation of City Code, opining that it was <br />wrong; and further opined that the City Council had the ability to <br />interpret their own laws; and spoke in support of a moratorium to <br />conduct a study and analysis related to legislative intent rather <br />than haphazardly reviewing individual cases in a piecemeal <br />fashion. <br /> <br />Rich Sedro, 167 Woodlynn <br />Mr. Sedro expressed concern with the existing easements on the <br />parcels (i.e., power and gas lines); expressed concern in property <br />values not appreciating due to the subdivision and area aesthetics; <br />precedents being set; and questioned the home design being <br />considered for Parcel B, given existing easements and lot <br />configuration and limited space. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.rn. <br /> <br />Considerable Council, staff and attorney discussion ensued related <br />to existing easements on the property (power and gas lines); <br />setback requirements; findings for granting or denying; whether or <br />not a standard home could be supported on the lot and applicable <br />City Code requirements; legal tests for application reviewed by <br />City Attorney Anderson for government agencies in considering <br />whether to grant or deny pursuant to this section of code; and <br />similar case law. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson addressed S 11 04.04E (Three Parcel <br />Minor Subdivision) language and noted the lack of a clear <br />definition for "lot" in the code related to the total space and need <br />for City Council interpretation. City Attorney Anderson further <br />reviewed Chapter 102.02, and the definition of "lot line," in that <br />context related to private access, and intent of the law. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the issue was not complicated, <br />and the subdivision request should be denied, based on the failure <br />to meet the minimum lot size requirement without the easement. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Maschka seconded, DENIAL of the minor <br />Subdivision at 156 Woodlynn Avenue, based on the grounds that <br />proposed Lot B doesn't meet minimum square footage <br />requirements. <br />