01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ D. Code Amendments 1. Definition and regulations on corner lots and V1Slon clearance, definition of private and public parking areas and exemptions from parking area improve- ments, and appeal from Zoning Board of Appeals decisions Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1975. Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, explained intent of amendments with regard to ~ision clearance regulations, the appeal process, definition of public and private parking areas, and exemptions from parking area improvements, all more or less housekeeping measures. .Public hearing was held on this portion of the proposed amend- ments. No testimony was presented. Mr. Chenkin then explained that the proposed amendment on definition of corner lots was to clarify code provisions with regard to what is meant by two or more streets. The amendment would provide that a roadway would be considered as two intersecting streets forming a corner lot when the abutting property lines form an angle of 1350 or less. He explained that the change would af- fect about 30 undeveloped lots in the city. With regard to defining where duplexes could be built, Mr. Chenkin said the recommendation was to add to the present code the requirement for a l60-foot frontage. Duplexes then could be built on property of at least 10,000 square feet having frontage on two streets totaling 160 feet and forming an angle of 1350 or less. In response to Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, Mr. Chenkin explained that the Planning Com- mission did discuss the possibility of allowing duplexes on lots located between two corner lots. However, the Commission dropped any particular reference to amending those requirements. . Public hearing was opened. I - B-1 David Jordan, 2895 Wingate Street, opposed the proposed amendment with regard to corner lots and duplexes, saying it was designed to help a few land de- velopers. He said the current zoning ordinance does not permit rental units in his neighborhood, adding that if the amendment was adopted, duplexes could be built along almost all of one street. He felt that would invite transient :families and counteract stability of the neighborhood. He said he was told the reason for changing definition of intersecting streets was to permit more 'living units in the urban area, and he found it hard to believe more rental units were needed in view of the number in the community now vacant. Mr.Jordan pointed out a safety factor involved in allowing duplexes on corner lots as proposed - permitting two driveways on a curve - in view of continuous vehicle speeds traveled on that type of street. He also felt there was some contra- diction with the stated goal of growth control. He suggested that if duplexes 'were allowed on interior lots, the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet. He favored, however, retaining the present code requirements defining corner lots as properties formed by two intersecting streets, and that at least two or three lots be required between duplex lots. e Roger Breedlove, 2566 Chuckanut Street, pointed out that corner lots in his 'neighborhood had been withheld from sale because of deed restrictions limiting : building to single-family homes. Homes in that area now, he said, are all : single-family dwellings of comparable value. He said he had been told the Planning Commission did not want to become involved in enforcing those deed , restrictions and that the only recourse for homeowners was through the courts. He thought it interesting that one corner lot on a cul-de-sac in his neighbor- , hood was being prepared for construction even before the Council had acted 'upon the proposed amendment. Mr. Breedlove said adoption of the amendment ~:31 1/26/76 - 5