CC_Minutes_2008_0128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 28, 2008 Page 13 Ms. Radel noted that, since the last City Council review at their December 17, 2007 meeting, staff had revised two areas as discussed to clarify issues of lot re- combination and subdivision. Specifically, staff had clarified the section pertain- ing to contiguous vacant lots (Section 1009.f) and had added Section 1009.8 to require lots that undergo a replatting to adhere to the standards of the underlying R-1 District, as detailed in Attachment A of the staff report. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her previously-expressed concerns on the dimen- sional requirement chart, 1004.016, opining that the chart would allow for smaller minimum lot square footages, smaller interior lot widths, smaller square footage for corner lots, smaller setbacks and smaller accessory building setbacks. Coun- cilmember Ihlan addressed two specific areas of concern in the proposed lan- guage: Section 1009.03 (lines 126 - 128, line 142, and Section G, line 154) re- lated to standards governing the overlay district, dwelling dimensions, and refer- ences to the chart; opining that the chart and language were in conflict as to intent and inconsistent. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, to ensure that no new mini- mum lot sizes were indicated in the overlay zoning district for future develop- ments, that dimensions of the SRROD District be consistent with R-1 Districts; or that the specific column be deleted from the proposed chart to avoid ambiguity. Councilmember Roe provided his reading of Section 1009 related to any lots plat- ted prior to May 21, 1959, and the need to meet the 70% requirements; and that any lot combinations would remove the property from the SFROD, and be platted as an R-1, and be required to meet the R-1 requirements. Councilmember Ihlan concur-ed that the purpose statement at the beginning of the ordinance stated that; however, opined that the chart was in conflict with that statement, and that the chart set the minimum dimensional requirements, and was applied by staff, property owners and/or developers, and the City Council repeat- edly. Mayor Klausing asked that, since a motion was not currently before the body, that debate be held until that time, and that Councilmembers restrict their questions to staff at this time. Ms. Radel clarified that the proposed changes were legal rights and provisions currently in City Code; and the proposed language would not grant further rights to anyone. Ms. Radel articulated provisions of Chapter 1012, General Require- ments. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the City Code and Chart were in- consistent.