CC_Minutes_2007_0212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12, 2007 Page 16 of 30 Mr. Heckert spoke in opposition to the project opining that with the morato- rium in place it should provide reason enough for denial; and allow time to address the nature and character of lots in the area related to the size of lots surrounding the property in question. Mr. Heckert further opined that this area was well developed since the neighborhood was platted in 1941, and by allowing hodgepodge development such as this proposal, previous planning was being undone and was a disservice to residents having previously pur- chased their properties expecting their property values to be retained and stable. Leslie Studenski, 3055 Woodbridge Street Ms. Studenski spoke in opposition to the project provided a map prepared by her husband, an engineer, that had been drawn from scale from information provided in the Agenda packet, and a typical car to scale, showing their in- terpretation of problematic issues with the proposed driveway and property setbacks. Ms. Studenski opined that the lot was not subdividable into two single- family lots according to current code. Substantial discussion ensued among Councilmembers regarding interpreta- tion of "substantially at right angles;" strict mathematical determinations; standard lot shapes based on topography and shoreline considerations; lot lines drawn to achieve minimum dimensions; ordinance intent for objective standards; function of proposed driveway for Parcel Band buildability of that parcel; criteria for subdivision; proportion to other lots in area; morato- rium in place, and study ready to launch to look at specific questions similar to this; and need for flexibility for new homes in first-ring suburbs as they redeveloped. Further discussion included the notion of substantially perpendicular and ra- dial lines, dealing with geographical impediments or roads, and how the proposed line cut into the properties over the length of the line; and con- straints of the existing house and garage and options to move them and eliminate those constraints, rather than attempting to request deviation from established standards. Additional discussion included ordinance language and interpretation of substantial right angles or radials, and whether 50% was considered substantial or not; and whether efforts of the applicant to as- suage economic considerations provided rationale for deviation from ordi- nance language.