2007_0226_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12,2007 Page 16 1 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- S chased their properties expecting their property values to be retained and � stable. 1� �� Leslie Studenski, 3055 Woodbridge Street 1� Ms. Studenski spoke in opposition to the projectprovided a map prepared by 1:� her husband, an engineer, that had been drawn from scale from information 1� provided in the Agenda packet, and a typical car to scale, showing their in- 1� terpretation of problematic issues with the proposed driveway and property 1� setbacks. Ms. Studenski opined that the lot was not subdividable into two ]� single-family lots according to current code. 1� I9 Substantial discussion ensued among Councilmembersregarding interpreta- �.� tion of "substantially at right angles;" strict mathematical determinations; � 1 standard lot shapes based on topography and shoreline considerations; lot �� lines drawn to achieve minimum dimensions; ordinance intent for obj ective �� standards; �`unction of proposed driveway for Parcel B and buildability of �� that parcel; criteria for subdivision; proportion to other lots in area; morato- �5 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 �7 redeveloped. �� �� Further discussion included the notion of substantially perpendicular and ra- �� dial lines, dealing with geographical impediments or roads, and how the � 1 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 interpretationof substantial right angles or radials, and whether 50% �6 was considered substantial or not; and whether efforts of the applicant to as- �� suage economic considerations provided rationale for deviation from ordi- � � nance language. 3{�