City Council Minutes 2016 02 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 13 Council member Stolzmann questioned the angle of the lot line. She referenced Section 16.16.050 F, which stipulates "Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines ". She inquired how the lot line was derived. Principal Planner McCartney explained the lot is angled because of the way the house is askew on the lot. The lot line was set so the existing house complies with the 25' setbacks, and was taken parallel to the askew of the house so there would not be any request for waivers. Council member Stolzmann asked if a new structure would be able to fit on the new lot given the odd shape. Principal Planner McCartney confirmed there would be sufficient space for a second structure. Council member Stolzmann addressed the code referencing double frontage: Section 15.15.050 — Lots E. Double- frontage, reverse - frontage, and reverse - corner lots shall be prohibited. She asked Principal Planner McCartney to explain those types of frontages. Principal Planner McCartney explained this request is to create a single frontage and a single lot. A double coverage would have a through lot. A reverse corner would have an indent into the property. He explained the request is to create a subdivision plat to comply with the required zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton called for public comment and hearing none, closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council member Loo moved to approve Resolution No. 9, Series 2016, seconded by Council member Keany. City Attorney Light requested confirmation the vote was on the revised resolution. Council member Loo and Keany accepted the amendment for the revised resolution. COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he would vote against the motion. He did not support subdividing properties within neighborhoods. He felt it is important to preserve the neighborhood lots. He did not want to open the door to development investors on oversized lots and replats. Council member Keany voiced his appreciation of Mayor Pro Tem Lipton's comments, but felt until there is a discussion about changing the ordinance, the Council has to vote on what is presented to them. He noted the application met all the criteria. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated the application did not meet all the criteria and Council has the legal right to vote against the request if it does not meet all the criteria. VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion carried by a vote of 5 -1. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton voted no. Recused: Mayor Muckle.