03/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

about a fundamental change to an existing policy that both the Plan- ning Commission and City Council reviewed at some length. Once the committee has recommendations, those would have to be referred to the neighborhood groups for review; then to the Planning Commission ~ for review; and then back to Council for acceptance. He felt that ~ amount of review would take three of the six months once the subcom- mittee had made recommendations. He continued, when the committee is in the process of making recom- mendations, it will be facing a problem the City has faced for ten years. He wondered if it might not be unfair to expect a committee to resolve those problems in a few weeks. Also, he said Council would have to be more specific as to the issues it wishes the committee to address. He felt the six-month time period was probably most unre- alistic for a definitive resolution on the problem, and felt a year would be more realistic. Also, he cautioned Council that when it was contemplating that sort of study, other currently committed projects will have to be reassigned and he questioned on which of those would Council be willing to delay action. Mr. Haws was not sure what the Committee was supposed to do, as he had not heard Council make specific suggestions as to what is unsatis- factory in the panhandle policy. Mr. Haws moved to direct staff to prepare documents to eliminate the Panhandle Policy. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Obie clarified in his motion made March 8 to set up a committee, ~ he directed it to review the panhandle lot standards. He noted on ~ the recent tour Council had taken, there had been good and bad examples of panhandle lots. He hoped that some standard could be set up using the good panhandle lot examples to establish a better system. He felt that to ensure property values was more important than to ensure the availability. He felt Council was not talking about eliminating the panhandl e pol icy, but rather how to improve the envi ronment they are creating. He felt there should be some consideratlon in delaying the implementation of the moratorium for 30 days, as many people had relied on the City's policy and were making long-range plans. Those people should have the opportunity to carry out the plans. . Mayor Keller said Council's action tonight should be either to reject outright the moratorium or to instruct staff to prepare an ordinance exercising a moratorium. Mr. Long said Council should also set up a specific time and effective date. Hr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to instruct staff wi thi n 30 days to prep'are an ordi nance for a moratori urn on panhandle lots for six months; with that date to be extended another six months if needed. 3/27/78--4 tit IB1.