Laserfiche WebLink
Bd <br />- May],1984 <br /> �I Della Campb[ 1, o£ 4909 185th Pl growth <br /> in LLynnwood, erah ouwas <br /> representing the Snohomish County League of The <br /> continuous f g h m ag 1 the C <br /> with.special to avbroader base city participation Sin <br /> the decision-making process. She they x taking <br /> osition on any pthe ss discussed, but were <br /> that the <br /> provision o the o meeting slaw be followedscrupulously ensuring <br /> public confidence in the process. <br /> A letter wasread fro® Williams sating that people have <br /> consistently stated they wanted detached single family housing in <br /> R-1 and R-2 leaving x-3,4 and 5 for multiple housing.. <br /> Gail Chism, of 4601 S. 4th, poke favor the Planning <br /> Commission's recommendations fors in family homes. She <br /> r commented on the alternatives for in sections, saying ashe <br /> i referred t original recommendation.larShe sad on pae 14 A the <br /> alternative the <br /> t 'allow single family detached houseso be <br /> mallei and duplexes, attached houses t <br /> ltipletefamily sh n e planned developments" directt <br /> multiple <br /> with the housing <br /> Plan. She a ted was <br /> 5.A, existingnon-conforming s, there cshould be added Section <br /> wording Stating that a Use, <br /> use Unit is <br /> M' fire,etc.,it should go back Stn c original sa t allwancee her <br /> than allow another type of enfbrmin9 u o be cons acted <br /> E., Clara Emory,of 5919 Beverly L decision <br /> the Boulder d sion <br /> which destroys home rule and could ane, <br /> cause the City a problem.' <br /> p ( Sharon each, of 4925 23rd Ave t [remindedon Council of the <br /> umber of citizen man hours t had alreadygone into thesingle <br /> family residential.policies ins t e initial legwork <br /> accomplished by the embers of the men[ <br /> Committee from August m1979 through April ixof ns 1981.Growth This Management <br /> identified two.compelling priorities: oner the Peed for clear-cut <br /> predicability and cohesiveness in the city's c rehensive P and <br /> the desire o the part of the citizens to preserve a Ingle <br /> family neighborhoods. She felt that neither of these priorities was <br /> met by the Planning staffs'alternatives. <br /> 010k Wendt,of <br /> 3527 Shore Ave.,objected to duplexes i and R-S <br /> said he also objet a plan prepared by citizens over <br /> elongperiod of time being changedby'the administration 1n a few <br /> He <br /> weeks. unnecessary to"pet all t of housing in <br /> all typesa cones. a <br /> one-half of the types <br /> zoned for <br /> multiple familyis available for development. ' <br /> Cogdill, of 5910 Beverly L felt t alternatives Fad a <br /> Marciaof predictabilityShe felts there were h incompatible u <br /> p. ious areas which...la destroy the neighborhoods. she uryede the <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission a adopted. <br /> Virginia Miller, o£ 3412 Federal Ave., opposed the duplexes an <br /> multiple family in R-1,R-2 and R-1 zones. Shefeltthe citizens in <br /> the City had made their thoughts known asd d not want this type of <br /> zoning. She also said she id net believe did <br /> Planning sepa£tmeet <br /> should be involved directly beyond the very basic Procedures. <br /> Marlene McKinney, of 11305 N Iverson, w concerned about family <br /> day care home remaining in a residential sin1leeE ily sone. <br /> spokeinof single family detached in R- and R <br /> and asked favor <br /> day care homes also allowed in t R-1 z She <br /> asked particularly where they were located now <br /> F the ones. <br /> L; 4 <br /> by Mr. Gregoire was that they ex a net actually specified xln the <br /> alternatives, but sit was felt they should go in he group bones <br />