CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 23 Mr. Lloyd advised that consideration would be given to rewording or eliminating that section (flag lots), noting that the language had been added back to the subdi- vision code last summer to address lot size and shape parameters replacing provi- sions that at that time were considered too simple and not clear as to whether flag lots fell into those parameter or not. Page 10 In Section 246, as pointed out by Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lloyd advised that this section required more review and consideration for higher classification and functionality for placement of driveway access on one street compared to another with higher function. In Section 247, Mayor Roe questioned if the reference to screening should be in- cluded in the subdivision code. Mr. Lloyd thanked Mayor Roe for spotting that issue,noting that this needed further staff review as well to address instances where a lot with streets in front and back required latitude depending on varying lot depths,or how many instances remained where they needed to be addressed. Mayor Roe suggested it may refer to "through lots" not being permitted where ac- cess was not allowed from both but only from one street or the other. However, Mayor Roe noted there may be topography issues of a lot that may indicate a vari- ance situation(e.g. County Road B). Mayor Roe suggested that whether or not this was a subdivision issue needed further staff review. Pages 10-11 Mayor Roe noted that new language in Section 249 stating"... conforming to Title 10 of this code" seemed obvious and suggested instead saying, "...while conform- ing..." In Section 251, Mayor Roe suggested further review of that language as well; and suggested that this should perhaps be relocated after Item A on page 8, Line A addressing lots for single-family detached residents and the infamous irregular shaped lots to allow for easier tracking. Pages 11-13 Sections 252—259, (1103-07: Park Dedication) In Section 253, Councilmember Willmus noted reference to state statute and asked if proposed language mirrored that state statute. Mr. Lloyd advised that it did mirror state statute language directly; noting that staff had included the statute(Attachment E) in packet materials for reference. Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn't want to see this used as it had been in the past as a point of negotiation to secure a potential development of some type.