03/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Ms. Smith wondered if 30 days extension would allow the present pending applications to go through the process. Mr. Saul said that depended upon how the ordinance was written and what the intent of the Council was. He said the 31 applications do not represent all the minor partitions or subdivisions that have been submitted. The applications submitted within the last week quite likely would not have approval if the ordinance were passed this coming Wednesday. However, he said if the ordinance establishing a moratorium were worded in such a way that applications would not be accepted after a certain date, then that would allow processing of those already submitted. Mr. Long said that in the past, Council had provided an effective date after which applications would not be accepted. Ms. Smith then asked if the motion would allow those now in process to be completed. Mr. Hamel said the intent of his motion was that those already approved would be allowed, but all others would be null and void. r~r. Bradley felt that it would be fair to allow those applications that had been submitted to be considered and the moratorium should not effect those. However, those which have not been submitted by an effective date will be subject to the moratorium. He felt there should be an ordinance on the moratorium with an emergency clause or Council should decide on a grace period which would allow those that have already been submitted to be processed. e Mr. Lieuallen said he was more interested in a moratorium on growth in the city, in general. He wanted Council to deal more aggresively with the whole issue of growth. He felt neighborhoods were trying to exempt themselves from the burden of growth of the whole city. The only alternative would be annexation of farm land or putting a mora- torium on growth. He felt this moratorium implied that some neighbor- hoods would not have to face up to the responsibilities and problems of density and growth occuring in the city. Mr. Delay said the broad perspective, which Council should be address- ing, was a question of the rapid growth of the entire city. He felt people did not want to face change and did not not want growth and density within their own particular neighborhoods. He felt the question was whether or not there could be some way to make panhandl- ing more acceptable in neighborhoods. He also felt it not appropriate to single out this one vehicle for accommodating growth in the city for increasing density. He felt it was appropriate to set up a committee to see how this density vehicle could be made more viable, but that to single out the panhandle policy was too drastic an action without Council establishing a need. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Delay and Mr. Lieuallen, saying there had not been a case made where a moratorium ought to be established. He said perhaps a study could suggest alternate ways to make the panhandle policy more acceptable. However, the growth pressures e 3/27/78--5 ll3