City Council Minutes 2015 05 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 6 of 33 agreed it is unlikely such a home would be built, but noted there is a large home on the mesa with a flat roof, and there is nothing preventing such a structure being built. City Attorney Light responded to Council member Loo's question relative to the control mechanism to prevent such large homes being built as follows: Council could direct staff to negotiate with the applicant as to whether they would be willing to include language in the annexation agreement amendment to address this issue. The current controls in place are provisions in the annexation ordnance; the initial zoning ordinance; in the contract and in the PUD. All four of which would need to be amended to allow the 2 stories within the 26'. He noted Council's direction at the last meeting was for staff to negotiate with the applicant on a lot coverage requirement. He noted a roof pitch requirement has not been negotiated. Council member Stolzmann explained the Council is tasked with looking at various criteria, making sure the view corridors are protected and other items the HOA does not look at The applicant presented information relative to their proposal, but was unwilling to document certain information. She would approve what was presented with some flexibility, but without documentation, would not approve amending the ordinances or to modify the PUD. Mayor Muckle agreed with Council member Loo's comments. He called for public comment and hearing none, closed the public hearing. ORDINANCE No. 1687, SERIES 2015 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Dalton moved to approve Ordinance No. 1687, Series 2015, seconded by Council member Leh. Roll call vote was taken. The motion failed by a vote of 5 -2. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton and Council member Leh voted yes. City Attorney Light explained with the disapproval of Ordinance No. 1687, Series 2015, Ordinance Nos. 1165 and 1166 and the amendment to the addendum to the annexation agreement shall rem. ain as currently written. He offered language for the motion for Resolution No. 22, Series 2015. RESOLUTION No. 22, SERIES 2015 MOTON: Mayor Muckle moved to disapprove Resolution 22, Series 2015 on the basis that with the disapproval of Ordinance No. 1687, Series 2015, the proposed PUD amendment is inconsistent with existing annexation and zoning ordinances and the annexation agreement that governs the property. The motion was seconded by Council member Keany. Council member Stolzmann requested clarification on the amendment in the motion. City Attorney Light explained the disapproval of Resolution No. 22 clarifies the reason for disapproval is if the existing ordinances and annexation agreement stays in place,