2006/03/01 Council Agenda Packet

7 to the change in the front step backs, the change in the façade affects the overall visual quality of the streetscape, and the proposed bump out into the side setback makes for an unsightly roofline at eye level. He requested that Planning Commission deny the proposed changes because to approve the modifications would be a major step backwards in efforts to improve Everett's image. David Mascarenas, 517 Laurel Drive, stated that a development agreement had already been approved and signed by both parties, and he was not in support of the proposed revisions. He did not want another structure similar to Bayside Condominiums constructed in the neighborhood. He requested that Planning Commission deny the proposed changes. Dan Shelton, 2611 Rockefeller Avenue, stated that he has been renting from Mr. and Mrs. Zlab for approximately three years. He felt that Mr. and Mrs. Zlab were fine people and were attentive to their properties. The neighborhood is largely comprised of small, older homes, many have been divided into smaller rental units. The neighborhood is located adjacent to Everett Avenue and Downtown Everett and there is a lot of crime in the area. The proposal will provide decent affordable housing in an urban area and will add to the safety and well being of the community. He urged the Commission to approve the project. Commissioner Simpson asked Mr. Zlab what he would do if the revisions were not approved. Mr. Zlab stated that they would probably go back to the drawing board. If they had to reduce the square footage, they could construct a three story walk-up with no underground parking; or they could sit on the properties for another five years and speculatively wait for the zoning to change to commercial use. Commissioner Simpson commented that there are a number of citizens concerned with the design of the Bayside Condominiums. Mr. Zlab stated that he was familiar with the building. Mrs. Zlab stated that their proposal was in a completely different neighborhood and felt that the public was taking their frustration with that project out on their project. Mr. Zlab stated that parking in the side setback did meet Zoning Code requirements. The purpose of the bump-out provides a roof over the noses of the cars coming out from the underground parking. Commissioner Trautman asked how many parking stalls were approved under the original proposal. Mr. Zlab stated that the original plan showed 44 stalls. Commissioner Trautman asked about the necessity for the bump-out. Mr. Zlab stated that the bump-out was in the original plan as well and would be available for review by Planning staff in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Trautman asked whether or not that setback encroachment would allow for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Giffen stated that five feet does not allow emergency vehicles to get between a building and property line; however, the Fire Department would likely use a ladder truck to access upper floors. 49