05/22/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding appeal statement No.1, he said the Planning Commission's discussion was reflected on page 3; appeal statement No.2 was reflec- ted on page 4 of the minutes. Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, ~. was present to answer questions. II' In answer to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said the panhandle applicant had complied with code provisions. Mr. Haws then wondered if the appeal form complied with the code. Mr. Saul said the code simply states the appeal should be made on a form prescribed by the Planning Department. The handwritten appeal was submitted on the prescribed form (retyped by Planning Department staff). Mr. Haws understood the appeal statement would have to point out specifically where an error had been made, and he felt the present appeal statement did not do that. He requested that in the future that be included. Mr. Saul said it was not staff's function to decide if the information supplied was correct. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. William Zangwill, 1051 East 36th, spoke in favor of the appeal. While generally supportive of the panhandle policy, he felt Council had recognized the policy needs review and some changes. Given the moratorium on panhandle lots has only four and one-half months ~ to go, he wondered why there was a need for such precipitous action as approving this panhandle lot. There may be some changes after the review, and he wished for Council to approve the appeal to allow for any revisions. Two concerns were expressed: that the five-foot fencing may not provide enough privacy for his adjacent lot, and a safety issue, in that cars might go off the driveway of the panhandle lot over the curbing, and down the hill to his house. He requested Council either delay the approval of this panhandle lot until the review is completed by the committee, or make some changes to account for his rights and needs regarding privacy and safety. Daryl Plater, 1135 East 36th, spoke against the appeal. He passed among Councilors five photographs and reviewed them as they related to the panhandle application. A written statement was entered into the record, which he reviewed. He noted the Planning Commission had viewed the property in question first-hand and subsequently unani- mously denied the appeal. Regarding the safety issue raised, the City Traffic Engineer had indicated a curb is not a traffic barrier and that he reviewed the lot split and did not envision any likeli- hood of a car using the driveway to go over the side of the hill. 5/22/78--4 . 3"