Laserfiche WebLink
r✓, tt <br />4A <br />I�1 <br />♦ <br />III <br />a <br />I� <br />February 18, 1981 <br />`k' <br />;;uved by Councilman Langus, seconded by Counci.a.man Pope, to adopt the <br />Findings of fact and Conclusions of the Hearin( Examiner as on file i.;L <br />the City Clerk's Office and approve the Special Property US(!Permit for <br />the Luther Child Center with the following conditions set- forth by the <br />Hearing L'::amir:ern <br />1. That. the Applicant provide landscaping plans to the Planning and <br />Parks Departments showing substantial landscaping on the sough and <br />east sides of the subject structure. The purpose:of the landsca�.ing <br />Is to reduce the visual impact of the project on the surrounding <br />residential properties. Approval of these plans is to be made by <br />the Planning and Parks Departments when, in their discretion:, they <br />feel that the plans provide the necessary visual protection. It is <br />' <br />st.,-ongly recommended by the Ilearinq Examiner that the Applican'c <br />r, <br />and the Planning and Par];:' Departments establish a schedule for the <br />I, <br />landscaping plans so that all parties know the size and the location <br />of the trees to be involved in the landscaping process and that an <br />I' <br />orderly implementation of the plan is called for. This will <br />provide the necessary control or the visual impact of the project <br />whil_,2 at the same time lessening the financial burden placc!d on the <br />Applicant. <br />1_. No further parking spaces or. parking lots are necessary for this <br />project. <br />s <br />3. No additional improvements for control of drainage run-off are <br />necessary for the improvement. <br />Roll. was called with a.11 Councilmen voti.ncq yes. <br />NoLian Carried <br />PUBLIC HEARING - COLBY CROSSING - (CB 81.2-68) <br />i <br />Joe Kozlovski reviewecl some of the background on the closing of Colby <br />at the high school. ]le said several things had been tried in the past <br />and none of these were successful. On December. 17th of: last year Council <br />instructed the staff to proceed with some temporary solutions and a <br />permanent solution on separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. <br />Alternatives for this solution were presented to Council January 28th and <br />rev:i.ewed by the Everett School Board on February 2nd and 9th. At the <br />Fc'.naary 9th meeting the School Board, through a motion, recommended. <br />to City Council that Ilan B (2 lane vehicular overpass) be accepted as <br />i` <br />the final design. At this meeting the School Board set a special mc„!ti.ng <br />for Pebraary 23rd to discuss funding sources for their 50% portion of the <br />project. <br />I <br />f` <br />Ile said they had come up with closing off: the street at 24th and 25th <br />again, and also a stop light which would be activated by the bells !as a tempo- <br />rar.,, solution, but both of these alternatives were not satisfactory to <br />the school.. <br />i <br />lie said any action taken by the Council should be contingent upon the <br />I <br />j <br />School Board providing 500. of the cost of the project. <br />Councilman Pope questioned the use of Colby from the north when, at the <br />time the 1300 block on [.Wetmore was closed, it was stated that all this <br />t-raf•fic %..ould be rerouted to Colby. lie wondered if this would handle <br />all of this. <br />