Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Frederick Newhouse, 2222 Sandy Drive, noted the number of signatures . <br />on the petition asking for the restriction of the panhandle, and <br />yet all of those signing qualified for panhandle divisions. <br /> <br />Mary Newhouse, 2222 Sandy Drive; and Carl Smith, 2390 Lariat Drive, <br />noted opposition to the panhandle policy. <br /> <br />Everett L. Hall, 1175 Oakway Road; and Joe Greco, 2299 Lariat Drive, <br />said that they lived in the area because they wanted a large lot <br />around their houses, and did not want the Panhandle policy applying in <br />their neighborhood. <br /> <br />Marie Christenson, 2227 Sandy Drive; and Clyde and Carol Greathouse, <br />2359 Sandy Drive, said they opposed the Panhandle policies for the <br />reasons stated on the petition. <br /> <br />John Stenkamp, 889 Lariat Drive, spoke of a concern of maintaining <br />the neighborhood livability as it is. He said he would be opposed <br />to having 40 additional lots and the traffic resulting therefrom. <br />The streets would not be able to handle it. <br /> <br />Adolph Sandin, 2425 Lariat Drive, noted the flight of many people <br />from the adjacent core areas and said that the Panhandle Policy <br />hastens deterioration of the areas around the city, which he noted <br />was bad for the city. He said the more attractive areas served <br />as a buffer for the core of the city and that the Council should <br />look at the possibility of this Panhandle Policy destroying those <br />buffers. He felt the City Council was anxious to <br />see attractive areas remain and not deteriorate, and he urged the <br />Council to vote against the Panhandle Policy and the partition. <br /> <br />Mr. and Mrs. Richard S. Perry, 2433 Lariat Meadows Drive, sa'id <br />they bought their home from the Whitsons and they were will ing to <br />pay the high price for living in an area with large lots. They <br />said they were against the problems that would come about if density <br />were increased in the area. ' <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Those also against the policy, but not testifying were: Herbert <br />Eze1, 2240 Sandy Drive; Thomas Kneisley, 805 Lariat Drive; T. C. <br />Burkhart, 2300 Sandy Drive; and Hope Meados, 800 Lariat Drive. <br /> <br />R. L. Whitson presented his side of the appeal, being the one request- <br />ing use of the Panhandle Policy to subdivide his lot. He noted he had <br />tried to sell off the back portion of his lot three years ago to a <br />neighbor, but without success. He read several letters from neighbors <br />in the area supporting his position. He felt that the appeal should <br />be denied and that the Council should then proceed to change the <br />Panhandle Policy if it wished. He felt this was a case of neighbor- <br />hood discrimination, in that seven panhandle lots had been applied <br />for in the area, and each had been bypassed by the neighborhood <br />association but that his particular one had been singled out for <br />an appeal. He noted that in January, one panhandle application <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />March 14, 1977--page 18 <br /> <br />;tl~ <br />