02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Saul noted there were 122 lots within the 14,000 to 16,000 square- foot range, which are eliminated by the ordinance because they have residences on them, and could not be panhandled at this time. e Mr. Haws said he would prefer to delete Item 3 which stated a developed parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision would be allowable for a panhandle lot development. He favored an annual review and a slow increase in the number of panhandle lots allowed. Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to increase the square footage in Section 9.095(a)(3) from 18,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to amend the motion under Section 9.095(a)(3) to decrease from 18,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet requirement. Mr. Delay said there were 2,000 possible lots in existence under this section. The current limitation would eliminate 60 percent of them; with his amendment only 32 percent would be eliminated. Mr. Lieuallen felt the staff had done a fine job trying to balance all the interests regarding this issue. However, he did not particu- larly like the outcome. He reviewed the past history and the various appeals that had come to Council. Some appeals had been denied and others upheld, with no apparent consistency. He had supported the moratorium because of the technicality of timing. He served on the Ad Hoc Committee for some time with a high interest and concern in trying 4It to set certain standards for panhandle lots. Subsequently, he came to the conclusion the Committee was being swayed by certain people trying to promote exceptions for certain classes in certain neighborhoods. He was willing to support this amendment to the ordinance. However, he was concerned that this was a retreat from good City policy. He would support it if it would indicate to the community that the Council has shown consideration for their concerns, but at the same time he wanted citizens to assume their responsibility and accept the outcome. Ms. Miller said she was generally inclined to support the amendment based on the need for increased housing density in the city. She noted some resistance from people who do not want to see their parti- cular neighborhoods change, and she expressed sympathy with those people. However, she said the City has a major policy that supports infilling; 16,000 square feet would still allow a fairly large city lot. - 2/26/79--14 \ l'\