CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 22 Mr. Lloyd responded that this was consistent with Section 231 and other areas ad- dressing lot sizes, proposed to be relocated to the zoning code as most had already been, consistent with this proposed removal from the subdivision code. Section 231 Mr. Lloyd opined that while this has not been an issue to-date, and since there ap- peared to be no huge demand for them, suggested that "butt lots platted 5' wider than average interior lots"no longer be included here or in the zoning code. Section 238 Councilmember McGehee suggested a "period" after "residential development;" opining that if this is intended as a technical document, it seemed unnecessarily aspirational. Councilmember Etten agreed with the attempt to guide lots when possible by al- lowing for that potential guidance as long as the subdivision code remains an out- line and doesn't get into too much specificity. Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte agreed, asking that it stay in; and without objection staff was so directed to retain existing language. Page 9-10, Section 244 Specific to flag lots, discussion ensued at the prompting of Councilmember Willmus as to the intent in removing the second half of the sentence: "...not per- mitted." Mr. Lloyd advised that this, as well as the previous discussion with Section 238, was simply intended to simplify language as recommended by the consultants, to address conforming width along the front as being the area of most concern. Councilmember Willmus stated that he hated to prohibit large rectangular lots that may conform to required width but if recombining lots may create an L-shaped lot or two lots. As long as they met proper frontage at the street, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of allowing them. Mr. Lloyd displayed an illustration of two lots and potential combinations; and after further discussion, suggested that be addressed in city code as it had been provided in existing code to get to that point. Mayor Roe suggested that another way to get beyond flag lot language would be to say, "... as long as both lots of any subdivision meet standards," noting that the code already didn't permit front lots less than 85' in width whether or not the lots were wider at the rear.