03/08/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ e Ms. Smith expressed disagreement with not including a moratorium, noting it was obvious the Council was not satisfied with the present policy and there would be additional requests for panhandle lots that would be coming in. She felt this would put Council in a difficult position. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion by deleting the word "no" in Mr. Williams motion, thus calling for a moratorium. Mr. Saul cautioned Council that in the past there had been concerns regarding the imposition of moratorium; namely, those were always referred to Planning Commission first. Also, the Council should schedule a public hearing to consider such a moratorium. In addition, he said there are a number of requests already submitted and the question would be raised as to whether these would be covered by the moratorium. Finally, he said the City Attorney has always advised if a moratorium were established, that Council should set some time limit. Assistant Manager said City Attorney's concern regarding the moratorium was a procedural change and people should be given the opportunity to react to that change. Mr. Delay also noted the City Attorney had advised Council earlier that a moratorium should be used only where there was a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. He was not convinced that this was an appropriate vehicle. e Regarding a pUblic hearing, Mr. Hamel noted in the past the public hear- ings had been on individual panhandle lots; however, this public hearing would be on the entire policy and standards. Mr. Lieuallen said the issue is one of density and it should be addressed to the overall city, not just certain parts. ,He felt perhaps the mora- torium should be on the density issue and the public hearing should be on density and the growth issue in general. He felt it important for all of the city to share the burden. Mr. Haws disagreed with a need for a public hearing and further stated he was against continuing the Panhandle Policy. Mr. Saul said if a Council subcommittee did recommend changes, that might be the appropriate time for a public hearing. The point now was that any change would be a direct modification to the existing City Code. Assistant Manager said regarding moratoriums that it is procedural and does not go to the substance of the issue. Public hearings usually are held for addressing the substance of an issue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the amendment to call for a public hearing on March 27, regarding whether or not there should be a moratorium on panhandle lot applications during the review process. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to close debate. The motion carried unanimously. - 3/8/78--] 153