Laserfiche WebLink
182 <br /> �.` April 24,1974 <br /> IEk. sanitary sewage discharge figures. <br /> gtr. 1. nate 89 9184. 1 <br /> 'r m. Architectural design elevations of all buildings. <br /> n. A11 legal instruments which are to be established(covenants, <br /> r[',.. homeowners agreement,etc.). <br /> 5. That the Commvsmenand go on ga ea record as indicating that <br /> development of this to in no wayassures <br /> that <br /> the project illwill <br /> I' given final approval of suchdata the welfare ommunv y• <br /> } etrimental tothe health,safety anther gen he project"of he c <br /> } Mr.Shote:said of thea 91 a wound be used <br /> for buildings,d�I. parking, 1 e for acp a t in its n p en space s Presently <br /> n� 55%theance of <br /> of the propee said rtere y could be a air pollutional pbecause of the <br /> 5 density of t f erosion chap will banse de red and there illbd some <br /> be additionaltraffic. <br /> overflowing and <br /> there v a problem with Lift Stat currently <br /> Gia could a99revate that problem also. <br /> Councilman Ranch came in at this time. <br /> Councilman Lanus asked is and <br /> estimate as to te coat to the <br /> Citto provide services o this .Bhockey replied the <br /> developer would have o put in a f t utilities in L development <br /> buthe had n way of knowinwhatthe cost would be for t City <br /> bring g he services the development.o he o <br /> Councilman nth asked to be excused a tis t ashethught hh <br /> possible conflict of interest and wouldhet1 meeting until.ad <br /> afer the heating. <br /> Jer1 g-theapplicant,said they had n h. <br /> any 1of1the x representing <br /> mmendations f he staff with the exception vof the <br /> lnmitatvon of the maximum numbeof r of units. They war requesting <br /> c50 on <br /> 75. requesed theuncfl siders <br /> a maximum off lh0 unit a the said without this figure itowou d not be <br /> feasible economically wise,to proceed v the development. <br /> Meta a Shipley £4929 Glenwood Planning Commissiondid <br /> lnot ahave <br /> Wt report Cham. prior o making'adecision. <br /> memberofthe Planning Commission had stated at therewasthing i <br /> the c f this plan that againstanyordinance,so if bsf <br /> P he could understand why theyd t come <br /> 'l. Counciwere l on a hearing. <br /> ot ore <br /> Pt Councilman Gipson felt that without the <br /> Council approving 8 co ep <br /> II of this,the developer would hesitate to invest money to bringthe <br /> 44 F detailsvbac to the Council later. <br /> S <br /> R.William <br /> d 18 eek Avenue,. <br /> ;f1 Martha <br /> Glenwood Smith W <br /> 1Vreminded' 18 Council that <br /> itionwas <br /> intheir <br /> hands with <br /> sl approximately 0 signatures protestingproposed condominium. <br /> WeweR of Bnohomvsh County eco C Bc vel pok COW he pxopo <br /> Br <br /> endvold of 1020 Pazk Drive and Ar otdal a e fax t sal. <br /> { <br /> .ti=4,[ <br /> ¢iii <br />