01/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- Planning Commission would review the policy, but mostly in terms of driveway screening and other minor details. Mr. Hamel had asked weeks ago if the City had set up a review of the issue. He referred to a fiasco on Lariat as bringing up the issue that some areas were not livable with panhandles. He felt it important the Council discuss this policy. Mr. Loya asked if William Kirkpatrick could speak. Mayor Keller said he would only be all owed to speak in rebuttal of the prior testimony. Mr. Loya chose to rebut, saying that lots on Sandy Drive which had been subdivided had not put homes in anyone else's back yard. In response to Mr. Winter's statement that the Sandy Drive neighborhood had not taken the case to the Willakenzie Neigh- borhood group, he said that they had not been notified that the group planned to meet. C. A. Boatman, Lariat Drive, referred to Mr. Winter's assertion that he had panhandled his lot, saying the lot had been given a minor subdivision. Fred Newhouse, 2222 Sandy Drive, referring to Mr. Winter's assertion that his lot had been panhandled, said the lot had been given a minor subdivision seven years ago. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Ms. Smith asked Mr. Saul to respond to the last two statements. Mr. Saul said there was no correlation between tax lot numbers and addresses, so his maps did not help him in this issue. However, he said two lots on Sandy Drive did have narrow frontages of about 45 and 50 feet, respectively. Ms. Smith asked if this meant lots had been divided, front and back, to create narrow frontage lots; Mr. Saul replied affirmatively. Mr. Obie felt there was a good case for both sides of the argument. He agreed with the Planning Commission's decision, but expressed concern that had all the Commission members been present at the time of its vote on the issue, it might have been decided differently. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the Council uphold the appeal. Mr. Lieuallen seconded the motion and withdrew his second after the motion was reworded to stand as stated. Mr. Delay said the Council had dealt with the issue before. He said that the policies of the City were adopted to save the taxpayers money. He felt the panhandle policy had been adopted so the whole City would absorb increased density. It seemed people favored this policy until it affected their own neighborhood. For these reasons, he said he would not support the motion. e Ms. Smith said because the City had a panhandle policy on the books, she could not support the motion. However, she asked City Council to clarify its position on panhandle lots. 1/23/78--3 "11.