Laserfiche WebLink
558 <br /> COctober 16,1991 <br /> Councilmembers raisedconcerns <br /> that there are few parking <br /> spaces available in that area. <br /> Ms. Farnsworth displayed site map. Discussion ensued <br /> regarding the availability a of parking the The <br /> e that there were 60 units.and only 3 aoff street <br /> load/unload <br /> places available.e There also concerns that a <br /> load/unload z would be necessary in front of nthen building, <br /> thus decreasing e parking. Alsotherewere c about the <br /> ten additional spaces nearby. A definition not s"nearby" was <br /> requested. Councilmembers asked what vacant lots were <br /> available for parking in that area. <br /> Bob Candles, Planning,summarized the code requirements for the <br /> project. <br /> Dave Manley, President of Lojis Corporation, gave a history of <br /> the project and showed site drawings as well as artist's <br /> rendering of the proposed buildings. He emphasised that the <br /> housing would be "affordable" housing, that he had complied <br /> with all code requirements. He read into the x ord a letter <br /> from Business Insurance Concepts dated October 3, 1991, <br /> favoring limited parking in that area. <br /> Mr. Manley made an official request that the 10 ad. <br /> notional <br /> parking spaces that he offered be voluntary, not required. He <br /> related that he is having trouble acquiring those spaces. <br /> City Attorney at this time affirmed that Mr. Manley, Pea <br /> Farnsworth,and Bob Candies were under oath. <br /> Employee adparking for the retail space In the project was <br /> questlon <br /> Councilman Anderson had a question to why they were <br /> klistening to the appeal when all codes had been met. <br /> Lorraine Adrian, 2512 Colby, .spoke in opposition to the <br /> project. she indicated that the area was already short on <br /> parking. She also was concerned that the City continues to <br /> grow and wanted to know how it could grow with such a lack of <br /> parking. <br /> Arnold Hofmann, 0610 78th SW, Hukilteo, the appellant said he <br /> C was appealling because of the inadequacy of the mitigation <br /> offered. He stated that an.agreementfor additional parking shows a cognition that there is a d for more parking. <br /> Vacant buildings e , the street as ethe reason there is <br /> perking available.now. Economics will cause the ovacant lots <br /> (to be used for additional perking)to <br /> C I <br />