02/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

e Principle problems identified throughout included to what extent the prior standards had been enforced. The Committee agreed there had been enforcement problems. Thus, a recommendation was made to improve enforcement by incorporating the standards within the City Code to provide a legal basis for enforcement, with penalties for failure to do so. e A second problem involved the apparent inequity regarding assessments for street improvements. The recommended ordinance for assessments addresses that problem. Specific aspects of the panhandle lot policies included driveways, screening, paving, and those are included in the proposed ordinance. A substantial consideration was that panhandle lots shoul~ not be promoted in established neighborhoods. He said this was expressed in a vari ety of ways from "not at all II to "maybe under certai n ci rcum- stances." However, the Committee did face problems of how to define what constitutes an established neighborhood. Thus, the Committee came up with a standard which would address the concerns submitted. These were the basis for the primary recommendation of graduated standards for minimum lot sizes depending on the location: The panhandle lot development may be approved if the parcel is: 1) A vacant parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision; or 2) a vacant parcel contain- ing at least 16,000 feet located within an existing subdivision; or 3) a developed parcel containing at least 18,000 square feet and a residence located within an existing subdivision; or 4) parcel in an area specifically identified by the Planning Commission and Council as appropriate for panhandle lot development. At the Planning Commission discussion, there was some concern regard- ing graduated lot standards. However, the Commission did feel the Committee's proposal was an attempt to respond to public concerns and something the City should adopt, follow, and evaluate in the future. Mr. Saul distributed a memorandum dated June 14, 1978, regarding the number of lots in the City in various size categories. Public hearing ~as opened. e Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, was speaking only for herself and not the neighborhood group. She did note the neighborhood group had reviewed the ordinance and did support the compact urban growth form. She had watched the growth of plans and policies of the city, supported compact growth, energy conservation, and avoidance of urban sprawl. She was concerned about reducing the number of lots with the present ordinance, but noted she could accept that as a compromise in order to obtain some standards and enforcement for panhandle lots. She referred to a recent Register-Guard article where the real objections seemed to be the idea that "ticky tacky" houses would result. She felt the standards for panhandle houses would be the same as for any other houses in the city. She noted 2/26/79--9 lllf