My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 09 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2015 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 09 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:08:09 PM
Creation date
9/8/2015 1:00:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7A5
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2015 09 01
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
280
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 18, 2015 <br />Page 6 of 18 <br />Council member Stolzmann asked if subdividing is increasing the density of the corner. <br />Planner II Robinson stated it is not increasing the density in the sense of number of <br />units, but it is allowing more floor area. <br />Council member Stolzmann was uncomfortable with the floor area. She stated the <br />applicant is trying to preserve the home and that is why the lot line was drawn further to <br />the south. She questioned why the applicant is not landmarking the property, which <br />would allow the additional coverage. She was hesitant to increase the floor area ratio <br />and questioned the approach. <br />Mayor Muckle inquired whether three units could be built on the lot. Planner I Robinson <br />confirmed three units could be built. <br />Mayor Muckle supported landmarking the property, which would control the scale of the <br />two lots. Planner II Robinson explained landmarking would allow them to build bigger <br />houses. Without landmarking they are limited to the standards for Old Town. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Dalton moved to approve Resolution No. 57, Series 2015, <br />seconded by Council member Loo. <br />Mayor Muckle stated without the landmarking, he would vote against the resolution. <br />Council member Stolzmann did not see how the increase in the floor area is consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan. She supported the existing floor area ratio for the <br />existing home and a 1,515 SF floor area for the second lot. She was not supportive of <br />the resolution as written. <br />Council member Loo stated her understanding that the applicant does not want to <br />landmark her property and desires to leave the property as is. She understood, by right, <br />the applicant could build more on the property. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton felt the proposal was consistent with the City's zoning. Council <br />member Stolzmann stated the proposal was not consistent with the zoning. <br />Council member Keany inquired whether there were any variances on the lots. Planner <br />II Robinson stated the variances received by the Board of Adjustment were for lot width <br />of Lot 1 and lot area on both Lots 1 and 2. <br />Council member Keany inquired about setback variances. Planner II Robinson stated <br />there were no setback variances. <br />Council member Leh voiced his support for the resolution. <br />VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion carried by a vote of 4 -2. Mayor Muckle <br />and Council member Stolzmann voted no. Absent: Council member Lipton. <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.