Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,May 8, 2017 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Pie 4 <br /> In Section 25, Mayor Roe requested correction in the definition of"pedestrian" for <br /> language"on foot,"rather than"afoot." <br /> Page 5 <br /> In Section 38, Mayor Roe asked why a subdivision was identified as less than five <br /> acres in area. <br /> Mr. Lamb agreed that was a good question; whether it was related to function or <br /> maximum lot size. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned why this was, and if it would preclude meeting the needs of <br /> a particular subdivision, and suggested it may be carried over from original code <br /> and asked for further research; duly noted by Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Lamb. <br /> Mr. Lloyd responded that in his review of State Statute earlier today, it addressed <br /> size parameters,but agreed it didn't match this language. <br /> Page 7, Chapter 1102: Plat Procedures <br /> Page 8 <br /> In Section 57, Councilmember Etten asked that staff talk about common wall du- <br /> plex subdivisions. <br /> Mr. Lloyd advised that he only remembered two times it came up during his tenure, <br /> but reviewed potential division of common wall duplexes into two separate parcels <br /> with the common wall dividing the building and parcel. Mr. Lloyd advised that the <br /> suggestion was to make this currently handled administrative process consistent <br /> with other administrative processes for approval by the Community Development <br /> Department rather than the City Manager. Even though the Planning Commission <br /> recommended removal of this provision from the subdivision process due to the <br /> small scale of requests in which an application or process is necessary, Mr. Lloyd <br /> noted that it could come up from time to time such as with a duplex becoming a <br /> townhome with separate ownership. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd stated staff's recommenda- <br /> tion to allow the provision in the revised draft,depending on City Council direction. <br /> It was the consensus of the City Council to keep this provision in the revised sub- <br /> division code. <br /> Page 9 <br /> In Section 58, Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for no public <br /> hearing required for a recombination. <br />