Laserfiche WebLink
201 <br /> May),1984 '...ap„.., <br /> Nik Palladay, of 3628 105th Pl., felt there wsneed for cluster <br /> housing. , <br /> s <br /> also s the developers need to have flexibility in <br /> tvelopingproperty and neighbors nee to have predictability'a <br /> he beat solution or this is through the P anted that <br /> any people had said there is plenty of room 1n A 5 for <br /> multiple family, e <br /> ,dwellings, e..Pointed�o sa <br /> that prefeionel <br /> s <br /> buildingmay,also be Constructed <br /> ted in this a t is more <br /> coat-effective to the developer tha apartment houses. <br /> Dr.Otto Myer,of 5508 S.1st St.,agreed that'duplexes should not <br /> be constructed i single family a they caused parking <br /> and traffic problems. also suggested that when au duplex was <br /> should be a requirement for 3 off-street parking <br /> spaces ufor deach there should <br /> John A f 2117 5th S said he w president of the Board <br /> of R and of <br /> o£St.,said <br /> presented. He <br /> developers 9needed flexibility a shown in these alternatives,feltHe <br /> also thoughthe Comp Plan should regulate density of residential <br /> areas,not housing types. <br /> Bert CrS.E.onin, of 713 all Hay, representing enohomiah <br /> County M Builders, believed the City had a document which <br /> originally w very r tricht <br /> ia and controversial and revised it <br /> into a workable policy.s said housing i in constant <br /> change due <br /> market and financial demands,and the Cityhas acknowledged this <br /> in its current plan as it does reflect an important level of <br /> flexibility. Re urged the adoption of the alternatives. <br /> Byron Reagan,of 1301 33rd,opposed allowing duplexes In en e-1 eon.. <br /> Shirley Vandermeer, of 3014 90th et representing the Silver L x,11 <br /> Community Council, pointed out they had re eviewed the annexation <br /> �.Y l;) <br /> policies ouch n page 26 A. They agreed that <br /> PRD was <br /> acceptable when it x the beet use of the land. However,they were <br /> con was that might be annexed could become <br /> residential tsprawl. She hoped this would be watched very closely <br /> She said theeiehborhood should not be put into the position of <br /> negotiating with he developer. There should be a Comp elan that t�tl <br /> Lae predictability. P <br /> Vi oureler, of 551 Pilchuck path, opposedthe alternatives and <br /> ait <br /> pointed out th b n <br /> attached housing could ea o dl <br /> fourplexee. She f felt the words 'appropriate and s sites, <br /> r GG <br /> desirable characteristics and Criteria' very v She <br /> felt density could be increased by zoning rather than • <br /> usingPRe. +' <br /> She also co s <br /> commented that several things were strictly written0 In <br /> the alternatives but the staff had said it would be interpreted at <br /> the time of installation. <br /> President <br /> Stephenson said a time of the presentation of the <br /> Planning Commission's recommendation the Council had to accept It in <br /> its entirety or turn <br /> a <br /> it b to <br /> the Planning Commission,which they <br /> He <br /> did, said hisproblem was allowing duplexes ie R-1 zones with. <br /> p <br /> Special Property Use Permit. He asked how this would work in the <br /> alternative and Mr.Derickson replied it would be through a planned <br /> development ans,would have public hearingetc. rior t allowing a <br /> duplex 1n R-1 s d <br /> A duplex v t be allowed on a single lot, <br /> but would have to be a larger tract of land. <br /> ..eke..also pointed out this draft m• tput together by <br /> the staff but it was an interpretation of the request From the <br /> Council Committee. <br />