My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005/08/10 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2005
>
2005/08/10 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2017 10:14:08 AM
Creation date
2/15/2017 10:10:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
8/10/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
547
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br /> July 12, 2005 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> Marlene Lindstrand, owner of part of the building at 11517, 11519, 11521, on Airport Road <br /> asked why the zoning was proposed to MM rather than C-1, commercial. Mr. Giffen stated that <br /> the industrial land use designation was adopted in the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan and that <br /> the City in extending its land use designation outside the then current City limits did look at the <br /> Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan which also designated the area for light industrial or <br /> business park zoning. Also, in 1991, the City approved the expansion of the Boeing commercial <br /> airplane manufacturing facility and as part of that approval the Boeing Company paid 49 million <br /> dollars in transportation mitigation fees part of which included substantial upgrades and <br /> improvements to Airport Road as a commuter corridor as opposed to a strip commercial <br /> corridor. Those factors lead to the City's designation of Airport Road as an industrial business <br /> park as opposed to a commercial strip. Ms. Lindstrand asked if the current properties that do <br /> not meet the business park requirements would be grandfathered. Mr. Giffen stated that the <br /> properties still could be developed under the MM standards. <br /> Commissioner Trautman asked if there were any property owners that were in opposition. Mr. <br /> Larsen responded that there had been no opposition but he did receive some calls regarding <br /> the MM zone. <br /> Commissioner Dutton asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. There was no <br /> response. <br /> Motion: Commissioner Olivers made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner <br /> Ryan seconded the motion. <br /> Vote: All in Favor. <br /> Motion Carried. <br /> Commission Dutton asked if there was any discussion. There was no discussion. <br /> Motion: Commissioner Olivers made a motion to adopt the resolution recommending for the <br /> Kenney Annexation and recommend to City council that they affirm the existing land use <br /> designations, 5.3 and 1.3 and the MM and R-1A zoning. Commissioner Ryan seconded the <br /> motion. <br /> Vote: Commissioner Olivers, yes; Commissioner Trautman, yes; Commissioner Loup, yes; <br /> Commissioner Ryan, yes; Commissioner Ebert, yes; and Chairman Dutton, yes. <br /> Motion Carried. <br /> Allan Giffen briefed Commission about the upcoming schedule. There will be no July 19th <br /> meeting and a public workshop is planned on August 2nd to discuss the downtown plan. He <br /> asked if Commissioners would be interested in a working subcommittee to address downtown <br /> issues outside of the public hearing process. Commissioner Dutton asked whether or not it <br /> would be okay to just schedule an individual meeting to discuss the downtown. Mr. Giffen <br /> responded that staff would be happy to meet at anytime. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.