03/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. from existing and adjacent structures, and the proposed house loca- tion on Parcel 2 reflected this consideration. He said the proposed partition was consistent with the pOlicies adopted in the 1990 General Plan and the 1974 Community Goals and Policies concerning encouragement of a compact urban growth form and more efficient utilization of the land. He said the proposed partition complied with all applicable zoning requirements involving minimum lot requirements, setbacks, and other considerations. - Mr. Hamel asked if the proposal met the criteria in the area with a single residence with one exit and one entrance to the area and parking. Mr. Saul said yes, the streets were fully improved and capable of one additional residence. Mr. Hamel wondered if the 13 other lots could be named as panhandle lots also, and whether this would put stress on the street, noting the safety involved. Public hearing was opened. Bill Kirkpatrick,2230 Sandy Drive, speaking as Vice President of the Willakenzie Neighborhood Association, said the Association was unani- mous in its request that the Council reconsider its Panhandle Policy. He noted that the present policy does not require the Planning Depart- ment to make specific findings for the neighborhood, and there was confusion regarding how many lots would be allowed in a par- ticular neighborhood, that it could double the existing lots, for instance, in this particular neighborhood, and noted the concern for the long-range effects and the consideration it would have on the neighborhood itself. He noted a concern for traffic congestion, a decline in the livability of the neighborhood, and requested that the Council reexamine the Panhandle Policy in regards to safe- guards for the residents of the city. Glen Purdy, 2490 Lariat Meadows Drive, noted his concern for the livability of the area, that he believed in single-family unit areas. He felt this would ruin the Willakenzie area because all of the lots in the area are big lots and thus would be available for panhandle partitions. Herbert Yamanaka, 820 Lariat Drive, asked for reconsideration of the Panhandle policy. Rod Gillilan, 892 Lariat Drive, said he lived on Lariat Drive because of the large lots and the limited access and the livability of the area and was opposed to the present Panhandle Policy. Robert Bolton, 811 Lariat Drive said his concern was with the number of lots that could be developed in the panhandle area, that traffic problems would exist with one exit and one entrance to the area, and he was concerned for the safety of children. e AI3 March 14, 1977--Page 17