Laserfiche WebLink
85 p <br /> , <br /> February 29,1954Dixon <br /> Dahl,of 4421 Federal,mas c ned that a group home could be f <br /> constrted with only the approval o ethe Planning Department,but <br /> must f f <br /> v <br /> the other uses had o h ae <br /> public hearing. felt thisplan $? <br /> ouraged high density use of sensitive areas an was concerned <br /> ahout e problem Storing these sensitive areas. <br /> EdithMadsen,of 2209 23rd,spoke in favor of duplexes in R-1 with a <br /> specialproperty use permit. yy <br /> 1 yl V d.ser,of y014 990th St.and representing the Silver loran + <br /> they h h 9 policiesand felt this <br /> a great step in hecrigh direction o working together.Steve <br /> 3425 Tulalip,Chairman f h Association, °;44. <br /> f rmajority of the citizens w tethe xpolicy to change 5 <br /> that would allow duplexes i n R-1 yy <br /> He said Dr.Dv Wendt,a former chairman of the PlanningnComm salon, A <br /> had called h.ansaid he also objected to duplexes in R-1 izon Y <br /> said khat PRD s in a R-1 zone does not work,but <br /> coulathey <br /> e 3 <br /> were designed <br /> 9 a wnau only single y P F <br /> constructed,this would be appropriate. <br /> Tom who Said he livedo in the Gardner area,felt it was <br /> M1 responsibility <br /> of tme council provide dna protect areas which <br /> are ntly single fe ily detaches residential n the policy <br /> cur single family neighborhoods. He felt the Council should 'i <br /> preface <br /> rserve the character o£the neighborhood. <br /> Sharon Koch,of 495 23rd SW said she w member of the y. <br /> Grow.Management Committee. Their inaco cern w predictability <br /> and she felt allowing duplexes in R-1 zone was not following <br /> the <br /> Growth Management's plan. <br /> Syron Re a £1301143rd St.,opposed the group home policy and M , <br /> aaPlexeaain a-: 8a�K. <br /> Chuck Moser,of 2118 Pin a former member of the Growth Management $9x <br /> said they badworkedmany f many h the <br /> grow.management report and when they i h it <br /> it w posed to been followed, instead h <br /> as P been. <br /> L it was time to make a decision this poli 1 <br /> He small part of the growth management's report <br /> d. <br /> the£Coun pass a document and as the citizens toRwo kin a <br /> positive manner with the implementation of the policies. <br /> Vi urslex,of 551 Pilchuck path,felt there should be Some standards j d <br /> et for <br /> the <br /> constructionR-2 ones. She urged the Council tl <br /> x e family policies and that part f the policy the <br /> approve <br /> did not gapp e f could go back to the Planning Commission <br /> �{ <br /> with their concerns and directions as to what the Council wants. 11 <br /> Assistant o ney,said if any of the policy wasen <br /> las,x t civ e <br /> back to the adopted <br /> nun001 Commission for nevi ,no portion 5 of <br /> policy <br /> could be adopts%until section was addressed one war or <br /> h hex a sent be_ to c unnil. <br /> LaurJohnson,representing the Snohom001 County Master 3 3000ra. <br /> £the single family residential policies with <br /> Presentedensainserted by the Master Builders. She pointed out several ,1 <br /> placameneew a they had suggested changes and felt this emphasis <br /> were very <br /> where <br /> detached residences <br /> was day,necessary as <br /> few gsingle family homes being bu r,#. <br />