Laserfiche WebLink
August 9,1972 <br /> The Regular Meeting_of the Everett City Council was held at <br /> 10 A.m.,August 9,1972,President Rucker presiding. Upon Roll Call it was <br /> found that all Councilman were present. <br /> t d Minutes of the meeting held August 21572 were approved as <br /> HEARINM Hearing <br /> densitylow hopping family <br /> tof <br /> kop Marilyn Avenue between Pucker Avenue and-Evergreen Way. <br /> h h <br /> Reid Shockey,Planning said a � <br /> held-the Cormirssion voting 3 for,1 against,G 20th and Julyhwith : <br /> the time of the aabsent at <br /> decisionconcur in rezone, <br /> � <br /> He said <br /> the time of the,request for rezone, <br /> purchasing 4 <br /> a new and used car agency. Just recently he had been oit informedthat Pigna-targ had decided not to purchase the r <br /> he'd inquired whether the applicant still wanted property �'. <br /> to ask <br /> rni the <br /> proposed rezoneing <br /> he had talked to 2 of the 3 members of the Planning Commission <br /> who had voted for the rezone and they stated <br /> rt <br /> ainly <br /> of like gthere. in the g perhaps a newtype <br /> He said the staff recgmmendation was that the parcel in <br /> Is not suitable for R-1 uses as they are now allowed. The totalr a <br /> could be adapted to several special property uses such as a <br /> church and he understood that prior to <br /> xheni cintooming <br /> a an this <br /> i <br /> m <br /> nsleulcopef <br /> deatial areas and Evergreen Way:however,he said <br /> no matter what <br /> the current plans ware for the property once it is rezoned the <br /> developer has full latitude within the restrictions of B-2 zoning.He said In summary this request ts an extremely <br /> difficult <br /> assess,. It is unique because it involves an regeularnshaped <br /> alternativesidey <br /> parcel which precludes dual development such as tial and <br /> commercial'but which fronts both upon a residential'arad and_at, <br /> commercial arterial. Thus the parcel must ultimately develop in <br /> either commercial or residential uue. Re said the staff could <br /> give no definitive recommendation on paper to the Planning <br /> Commission:however,they did present the following recommendation for the Planning cormission's �`. <br /> review: <br /> 1. If the applicant could indicate his good intention to develop , <br /> this property with no access from Rucker onto the site,ex- <br /> tensive and effective landscape screening along the frontage j <br /> on Rucker,and design sensitivity which <br /> into <br /> accoun <br /> ddl of the g e aftnwpnld reeomm nd <br /> ep theres <br /> 2. c,. lx if r appears at <br /> the cost it his _ gr y benefits <br /> A <br /> i{ <br />