02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e lot size for all vacant lots whether they are in old or new subdi- V1Slons. Also, more creative use of large vacant lots should be considered. It was hoped that Council would have staff prepare ordinances as soon as possible to permit housing types such as duplexes or two attached single-family homes on large undeveloped lots. They recognized that higher density has to have some degree of public support. In order to accomplish higher density and maintain certain amenities of living, it was suggested that innovative design and design compatibility with the neighborhood be encouraged. They also supported the new assessment ordinance for panhandle lots. She emphasized the groupDs feeling that a uniform vacant lot the size of 14,000 square feet for panhandle lots would be a more consis- tent implementation of the City's policy for compact urban growth. Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, spoke on behalf of the Gal Young Neighborhood Association. She noted that this issue had been a primary concern of the neighborhood as many lots are being developed in their area. A major problem was that the 1990 Plan had not been developed before that area started growing. It was felt that if a plan for a panhandle lot development is too specific and not reviewed within a reasonable amount of time it would be highly detrimental to the City's goals. Thus, it was suggested that the City take action which would allow flexibility and revisions of particular requirements. Perhaps certain guidelines could be set up, with a mode for appeal from those guidelines, i.e., perhaps the 20-foot access width would not be applicable to some lots. She questioned why four-parking spaces were required when two were the normal requirement. She noted the lack of money for City parks. If the City continues infilling with asphalt/housing, it will destroy the few green open spaces that do exist. Thus, the livability feature will also be destroyed at the time the City is trying to create infilling in housing. She was concerned about play areas for children, and stressed the Council should look at whether it's eliminating open spaces with too much infilling. R. L. Whitson, 2359 Lariat Drive, spoke to the section in the ordi- nance regarding enforcement. He felt some panhandle lots had been "attrocious," and hoped there would be teeth in the ordinance for enforcement. He felt the 20-foot access driveway to be an error and did not think it fair to increase the access when 15 feet would be plenty wide for such access. He was very concerned about the four-car parking lot requirement. e Rob Robertson, 794 Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of the Crest Drive Citizens. They supported the panhandle lot ordinance and feel there is a need for implementation as quickly as pOSSible. He noted the problem in the requirement increasing 17-1/2 to 20-foot paving width. They favored the 20- to 25-foot access with the 12-foot paving width. He said if a 12-foot paving width was adequate for single- family homes, then it should be adequate for panhandle lots. e 2/26/79--11 116