Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 14 <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson cautioned the need for more specific <br />findings as a basis for denial. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in support of the motion to deny. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion to deny, based on <br />the proposal's use of one parcel to achieve the minimum lot size <br />for the adjoining parcel. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka spoke in support of the motion to deny; <br />opining the need for further Council discussion at the upcoming <br />Study Session. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust expressed concern in supporting the motion <br />to deny, based on how the motion was framed; opining that she <br />thought Lot B met the square footage requirements. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion ensued regarding language for the <br />findings, with Council concurring on the following findings, with <br />language provided by City Attorney Anderson. <br />Findings for Denial: <br />2) The proposal requires an 11,000 square foot lot size; and <br />the definition of a "lot line" within the Zoning Ordinance <br />suggests that when talking about access issues, lot size is <br />determined without including that area included in the <br />access easement. Therefore, the City Council determines, <br />consistent with that zoning ordinance interpretation and <br />intent and purpose of minimum lot sizes, that the lot size in <br />the proposal as submitted is insufficient under code to <br />support the Minor Subdivision proposal. <br />3) Considering specific language in S l104.04E, related to <br />conforming parcels not becoming nonconforming, the City <br />Council believes the lot split will cause the existing lot A to <br />be in violation of regulations within Zoning Code. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Kough, Maschka; Ihlan; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing expressed concern that the finding of the <br />