01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

.e provide 3,000 square feet for the occupant of each side of a duplex, only half the normal space allotted to single-family homes. Another reason for the dele- tion, he said, was that the Commission felt requiring 10,000 square feet would be a contradiction to the compact urban growth concept and that there were not that many situations existing in the city where vacant interior lots were await- ing duplex construction. Mrs. Shirey commented that she knew of instances where developers had designed streets especially to create three lots, and that, to her, did not seem in keep- ing with the intent of duplex regulations. She didn't agree with the duplex family vs single-resident family reasoning, saying duplexes would generate more cars, and even though the family might be smaller, it would have a greater impact. She thought it important to consider the goal of diverse housing but also thought the existing character of a neighborhood should be considered. She was in favor of including in the amendment the 10,000-square-foot provision for duplex interior lots. Mayor Anderson asked for staff comment on the suggestion that a two- or three- lot gap be allowed between duplexes. Mr. Chenkin thought that would take some consideration. He agreed that as shown by Mr. Jordan there probably could be an uninterrupted line of duplexes facing on one street in a detached, single-family type residential area, and that could change the character of the neighborhood. He said that was one reason the planning staff suggested the 10,000-square-foot requirement for duplex interior lots. - Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Hamel to accept staff recommenda- tion and change minimum interior lot size (between corner lots) on which duplex construction would be allowed in RA and R-l zones to 10,000 square feet. Councilman Keller wondered how many interior lots would be affected. There was no specific information available. Bob Suess expressed the opinion that deed restrictions limiting construction to single-family residences should be honored. He said there definitely were areas in the city that could be used to good advantage for duplex construction, al- though adding the requirement of 10,000 square feet for interior lots, he felt, would only add more vacant land that must be maintained. He said he would rather see site review procedures, landscaping requirements, or some design factor im- posed so as to maintain the appearance of a single-family residence. Ralph Alloway, 2565 Chuckanut Street, remarked that his home was purchased in an area of single-family homes on a cul-de-sac having the same name as the street leading to it and he is faced with having a duplex built adjacent to his property, He felt this amendment, if adopted, would amount to a zone change. Mr. Beglau thought a simple solution would be to adopt the amendment redefining corner lots making it applicable only to newly-created or newly-annexed lots. . Councilman Williams suggested withholding second reading of the amending ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the revisions, to give the opportunity for the Joint Housing Committee to look at the amendment in light of proposals now before it. Mr. Williams said his impression was that there was nothing in this amendment that would impinge on Joint Housing Committee proposals any more than the present code now does. He later withdrew the request for referral of the amendment to the Joint Housing Committee before adoption after being informed that Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, had no particular concerns about the amendment as now drafted. 1/26/76 - 7 '33: