03/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e three blocks down from his particular lot had been applied for with no contest from the Willakenzie Neighborhood Association. He noted that in Lariat Acres, there were restrictions the neighbors could set up if they wished to do so, and he felt there were not any other lots in the area which would qualify as panhandle lots, noting the need for access to the rear and parking space availalbe. Public hearing was closed with no further testimony being presented. Mr. Lieuallen asked who was right in this issue, and what number of lots could be subdivided in the area under the Panhandle Policy. Mr. Saul said it was an unwarranted assumption that there were several lots that could be subdivided under the Panhandle POlicy, that the existing standards and the existing development in the area were considerations. He said he had not counted the number of lots, but that he felt that 50 percent of the lots developed could not possibly be subdivided. He said regarding the size of a lot and the concept of livability, there was a wide variety of opinion as to what constitutes livability. He said the neighbors in an area could enter into a covenant with restrictions for their particular area, and thus protect livability as they saw it for their particular neighborhood. He said it would not prevent partition of this particu- lar lot, but would prevent future partitions in the area. e Mr. Obie felt there was a Question of policy regarding infilling and the concentration of property, that the City Council had to realize the entire city did not believe it was correct. He felt there was a responsibility to spread the thinking concerning the total community, and allow a variety of living environments in the city. He said the Council had a responsibility to uphold the integrity of a neighborhood and felt that a review of the Panhandle Lot Policy should be made by the Council. Mr. Hamel asked whether there had been seven panhandle lots okayed in the Willakenzie area. Mr. Saul replied that he could not recall the figure, but that there had been 139 minor partition applications of which 38 were panhandle lot requests, and this was the first appeal under the policy. Mr. Hamel requested information as to the ingress and egress to this particular area, to which Mr. Saul replied that there was no street problem in that area. He said if a new subdivision proposal was before the Planning Commission with lot sizes that would come in at half the size of these particular lots, it would require no wider streets than were in this area, and the street in question was adequate to handle the traffic. Mr. Lieuallen noted that the Council was operating under existing policy and it should make a decision based on that policy; tJiat if the panhandle lot division meets the criteria, then the City Council should deal with it on that basis. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to uphold the appeal of the petition. Motion carried with Mr. Williams, Hamel, and Obie voting aye; Mr. Delay and Mr. Lieuallen voting no; and Mr. Bradley and Mr. Haws abstaining. March 14, 1977--Page 19 ~'5