Laserfiche WebLink
April 2,1986 <br /> PIBLIC BEARING <br /> Councilman Overstreet stated the applicant in the public bearing on <br /> Veleeloayer„dis r eTes=trte ex= 'p":r gcri'pa=g"in"tg <br /> discussion and decision. President Gipson excused Councilman <br /> Overstreet at that time. <br /> 1' on Wood,Planning Staff,opened the public bearing and stated that <br /> the purpose of the hearing was to consider the appeal of Condition <br /> 1 A-5-3 which requires the applicant, Boyden/Sebinett, to provider <br /> one-car garage for each unit of every duplex in the proposed plat of <br /> Pine Terrace. ' <br />. . President Gipson reviewed a letter from the applicant stating that <br /> Zecred'oUtelle'e!OlYage"kei2 leer=;1=ale <br />. • <br /> • size and finished to match the exterior of the buildings. <br />• President Gipson stated that everyone would be allowed to comment <br />• either at the public hearing portion of the appeal or after a motion <br /> fled been made on the the disposition of the appeal. He stated the <br /> process is to provide an exchange of ideaa but that the only the <br /> condition A-5-3 requiring the garages was to be considered. Bruce <br />• Jones, City Attorney, stated that the subject of storage would be <br /> I . considered aPPlicable for discussion under the garage requirement <br /> condition. <br /> Viola dueler, 551 Pilchuck Path, stated in her opinion the garages <br /> should remain a requirement. It is important to the upgrading of <br /> the neighborhood that minimum standards be maintained. A new duplex <br /> is going up in the area with garages no the requirement is keeping <br /> with the neighborhood. She stated the developer could do more to <br /> upgrade the neighborhood. <br /> X !, <br /> j Ms.dueler also stated that contrary to the statement in the letter <br /> referred to byPresident Gipson, she had not discussed the storage <br /> unit proposal with Mr. Boyden priot to receivinusag a copy of the <br /> Samoan. no. <br /> didC:IT = eceiet!'th"e"e" ale <br /> ts:etrnowayPpOterrPropol <br /> • <br /> • Anne ROW.80011, 1631 Cedar, stated that dUe to the upgrading in <br /> process in the neighborhood,nothing new should be allowed that does <br /> Ott conform to this process. Garages should be a necessary <br /> requirement fot this development. <br /> Gary Wight,2722 Colby,representing the applicant,stated that CEPA <br /> guidelines were used as the authority for requiring garages. Under <br /> SEPA economic factors are also to be considered and SEPA <br /> requirements are based on keeping with the neighborhood not <br /> upgrading. If this is required on this project,why then would it <br /> not be required or create ramifications on single family housing <br /> units. <br />.. <br /> • Dennis Derickson, Planning Director, stated that the requirement is <br /> consistent with what has been done in the past as far as garage <br />•, requirements in duplex subdivisions. Auto storage is a problem. <br />• <br /> Recent decisions have stated that the obligation is to address <br />•• <br /> esthetics slanted oval economics. <br />• • <br /> I- <br /> I <br /> k , <br />