05/22/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Plater felt there had been some emotionalism associated with the recent panhandle moratorium, with this appeal resulting. He requested approval of the minor partitition be upheld because it conforms to the regulations in effect at the time of application and approval. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to deny the appeal and adopt findings of fact. Mr. Haws acknowledged his opposition to panhandle lots. However, he noted this application had complied with the code, and he reluctantly would vote to deny the appeal. Mr. Hamel said he had not been in favor of panhandle lots in well- established neighborhoods. He said since there was a moratorium on panhandle lots, he would vote against the motion. Mr. Obie felt both parties deserved an explanation as to Councilors' voting. He was going to vote for the appeal and against the motion because the review of panhandle lots now being conducted may result in some further regulations that could make panhandle lots more livable situations. He did not see the necessity of possibly destroy- ing the livability of a particular neighborhood for the sake of expediency. Mr. Delay felt it was a matter of law, not expediency, which Council had adopted and with which the applicant had complied. He said Councilors should remember they are not talking about what they do or do not like, but a matter that has been appealed to it under quasi- judicial proceedings. He did not see that this panhandle lot would undermine the particular neighborhood, and noted the Planning Commis- sion had reviewed it first-hand and had made their recommendation to uphold approval of the panhandle lot. He saw nothing that would justify denying the applicant. Ms. Smith said Council had a policy that it had not yet changed and she supported the motion. e Mr. Saul noted this particular application was not submitted in the last-minute rush, but before Council had even considered a mora- torium. Secondly, he had a concern that the Council might say the application should be denied because Council is presently reviewing panhandle lots. He said if Council took that position, then the staff and Planning Commission should be so apprised. He felt when discussing the moratorium, Council had made it clear that it wanted any applications submitted before the moratorium deadline to be judged solely on the basis of the present code standards. Staff has been so advising applicants, and if that is incorrect, staff should be apprised. - 5/22/78--5 3'7