02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Charles Kennedy, 2706 Sorrel Way, favored the ordinance. He felt if it was the best the staff could come up with, then it was necessary ~ to pass it tonight as there is a need for that land to be available. ~ He noted most of this land will end up with small developers and the City needs that kind of small capital investment. Regarding the increase in driveway width, he cited that as an example of what happens when engineers set standards based on optimum conditions. He felt this would drive up the cost of housing. He said it was not necessary under any conditions to make driveways 20-feet wide. He felt it might be an optimum condition, but it might not be workable. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul said regarding the assessments, that by increasing the assessable width for the panhandle lot, it would reduce the assessment for property fronting the lot in excess of 60 feet. Regarding the access width, several factors should be noted. The paving width for two or more lots actually represents a reduction from existing stan- dards which now require 20 feet. The ordinance reduces that standard to 17-1/2 feet for two or more lots. The Committee did modify the access and paving width requirement for one lot. The requirements to provide four parking spaces is not a change. The present requirement requires four off-street parking spaces on a rear lot. The only change is that two may be within an enclosed garage. Regarding design review, he said the Committee did debate that and determined not to include it for several reasons. One was inability ~ to arrive at an adequate standard. Concerns were expressed about costs involved in design review, both for the developed housing and direct cost to the City. He noted during 1977, 110 panhandle applica- tions were reviewed. Using the City's normal costs for initial review, the City costs were $48,510. However, he noted design review had been a concern of the Committee. Ms. Smith questioned whether yearly review of the proposed ordinance was discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul said the Commis- sion recognized that both it and the Council will be involved in a review of panhandle requests. Ms. Schue moved to amend the motion to retain one-lot access width at 15 feet and retain the paving width at 12 feet. Mayor Keller suggested Ms. Schue wait until the main motion was on the floor before offering an amendment. Mr. Delay asked if the only thing that prevented development of half of the possible panhandle lots was the inability to provide 25-foot access, would the existing variance code be applicable for these situations? Mr. Saul said the panhandle ordinance simply deals with a question of land division. The provisions and variances e 2/26/79--12 \n