Laserfiche WebLink
761 1. <br /> • <br /> June 20,1984 <br /> Roved by Councilman OVerstreet,seconded by Councilman Michelson,to <br /> approve the vacation as recommended and authorize the preparation of <br /> an ordinance subject to an exchange of rigAt-of-waY in lieu ol the <br /> eee-helf aPPraisal fee. <br /> • <br /> Roll wee called With all Councilmen voting yes, except Councilmen <br /> Gipson and Pope,who were excused. <br /> MOtion Carried <br /> • <br /> PUBLIC HEARING-SINGLE FAMILY RES/DENTIAL POLICIES <br /> Tanis Marsh, of the Planning Commission, said each of the aeven <br /> members of the Planning Commisaien were very Unique and there had <br /> been much discussion and many compromises but the vote was F <br /> unanimious on the policies in front of the Council tonight. <br /> Gary Doughty, of the Planning Debartment, pointed out the first <br /> change Was in the resolution in Section 2 whereas the•Commission had <br /> adopted the request of the City Council making the Southwest Everett <br /> Comprehensive Plan the controlling dochment to resolve conflicts <br /> with single family residential policies. <br /> He then said in Section 1.A.3, it allows single'family detached <br /> houses to be constructed on smaller lots. This was determined to <br /> mean that in an R-2 zone generally a lot is 5,000 square feet,which f. <br /> amnia he reduced some for a smaller lot,or in R-1 the present 7,000 <br /> square foot could be reduced a emall amount. <br /> Under Section 2.81, the Planning Commission had agreed with the <br /> Councilmen's recommendations as far as project density <br /> calculations. Section 3.B.2, again the Planning Commission had <br /> concurred with the Council regarding designation of environmentally <br /> sensitivr sites. <br /> Under Section 4, planned developments, A,.trieCceeMaion felt the <br /> statement should remain the same as they had preViously recommended -• <br /> ••• <br /> reading d0OpOrtunities ShoUld be provided to the surrounding <br /> neighborhood to participate throughout the project formulation and • <br /> reView process'. • <br /> He pointed also in Section 4.C.1, single family detached housing <br /> • <br /> . structures may be allowed in planned developments in R-S and R-1 • <br /> zoned areas. Single family detached hoUSing structures and <br /> structures may be allowed in planned developments in R-2 duplex zoned <br /> areas. Under Section 6, single family neighborhood designations, <br /> 0.4, it was pointed out that well-establiehed appropriately <br /> designated single family residential areas should be protected at <br /> • suCh time as an annexation adjacent to that property. Under Section <br /> 0, neighborhood maintenance and appearance, A.2, controlled <br /> regulations regarding storage of commercial vehicles on public <br /> • <br /> right-of-way. <br /> • <br /> • <br /> Gail chism spoke of the Lowell area and said it is being impacted • <br /> with duplexes and there are several areas undeveloped whiCh are <br /> . zoned so there could be more duplexes or PRD's. She asked that <br /> duplexes be removed from PRD's and environMentally seneitive area. <br /> • in R-2 zone.. <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br />