Ordinance 1436-88 - Laserfiche WebLink

• , Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1987 Page 5 "Let me go through each of Mr. Bocek's points. #1 - why does he need a 12-month sunset clause on this action. That was staff's idea. It is actually a 24-month sunset clause because if he finds a buyer, there will be a 12-month extension. We feel this clause is reasonable." "Point #2, on page 8, Section 3, he asks you why does the 1,000 business park transition area have to spill down into his south 40 acres? The answer is that the 1,000 foot transition area follows the topography, it follows the road pattern, it follows the impact zone, and it only impacts an additional 10 acres in south 40 acres. His straight line is just following a section line, what logic is there to a Planning Commission in this?" "Point #3, on page 11, Section 5, on the height limitations, he says he wants to go back to the industrial park concept that Mr. Dearborn proposed to you. He calls the 4-foot difference between his proposal and our proposal to be nitpicking. Our position is that view goes both ways - it is the view from his side and from ours. The neighborhood in its analysis came up with how high the berm should to screen out a 26-foot high building which would be 200 feet away. "Point #4, on page 14, Section 19, he felt the 5-acre lot size was too large a minimum and proposed a minimum of two acres. A two-acre business park would be a choppy development; a five-acre size business park is a typical size." "Point #5, on page 15, Section 20, we do not feel that Powder Mill Gulch should be used as his open space since it is not a developable area." "Point #6, on page 15, Section 21, he was arguing the additional 50-foot building setback was an unfair request. The 50-foot building setback does not increase the buffer to a 200-foot buffer. I am suggesting that a 50-foot setback has some logic behind it. Ken Weber, 5312 Sound Avenue, Everett, WA then told the Commission that he had watched the group develop. They were at first emotional then becoming a very logical decisionmaking group. "I think the proposal satisfies both the needs of the neighborhood and the developer." Mr. Bocek made some further comments, then the Planning Commission started their deliberation. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING At this point, Chuck Moser made a motion to close the public hearing, with a second by Rick Utt. On roll call, the vote was all affirmative. Motion carried 5 - 0. The Planning Commission then proceeded to discuss the whole situation, then making the following motions.