Laserfiche WebLink
--Tov-- <br /> ( <br /> 1 <br /> 331 : <br /> October 27,1876 1 <br /> councilman Moore questioned the economics in spreading it over several <br /> years due to the fact that inflation would probably increase the Pro- <br /> ject about 308 in cost. <br /> Councilman Ebert asked what other projects would be jeopardized by us- .• <br /> ing 1/2 cent gas tax at this time and Mr.Henning said that he could , <br /> i <br /> not specifically say which projects were in line. However,no projects <br /> would be jeopardised in 1977. r: <br /> 1=gsla (,(Ancilman duckett,seconded by Councilman Langus,to accept : <br /> •. <br /> Roll was called with all councilmen voting yes eAcePt Couneilman : <br /> • <br /> Michelson,Ebert, and Moore who voted no and Councilman Aldcroft who • <br /> was excused. <br /> , <br /> Motion Lost , <br /> Moved by Councilman Michelson,seconded hy Councilman Ebert,that <br /> Proposal 82 be accepted. <br /> .. <br /> Roll was called with all councilmen voting yes except Councilman :' <br /> Gipson who voted no and Councilman Aidcroft who was excused. • <br /> Motion Carried . <br /> . .. <br /> ... <br /> • <br /> PORT OR Eve SHORELINE PERMIT AMENDMENT(037610-328) <br /> Reid Shockey,Planning Department,exPlaived that in(or(oshoP the (. <br /> Council had been made aware of the criteria to be met under the PAC ' <br />• <br />. guidelines which were as follows: <br />: 1. /f local government d.etermines that the proposed changes are <br /> : <br />: within the scope and intent of the original permit,local govern- <br /> ment shall approve a revision. <br />( <br />: 2. Within the scope and intent of the original permit shall be con- I <br />: strued to mean the following( a.)no additional over water con- .. <br />( <br /> struction will be involved(b.)lot Coverage and height maY be in- <br />( creased a maximum of ten percent from the provisions of the origi- i : <br />( nal perrnit( PROVIDED,that revisions involving new structures <br /> not shown on the original site plan shall require a new substantial • • <br />( development permit,and:FURTHER PROVIDED,that any revisions auth- I <br /> c orized under this subsection shall not exceed height,lot coverage <br /> Isetback or any other requirements of the master program for the <br /> area in which the project is located. Landscaping may be added to I <br /> I <br /> a project without necessitating a.aPPlicatio.for a new oobrte(Itial 1 <br /> development permit( PROVIDED,that the landscaping is consistent <br /> with conditions(if any)attached to the original permit and is con- <br /> sistent with the vaster program for the area in which the project is <br /> located.c.)no additional significant adverse environmental impact <br /> will he caused by the PrOjeCt reVisiOr( :; <br /> Mr.Shockey said he had no qualms with 2a.,that b.was unclear as to <br /> 1 I <br /> new structures,not stipulating whether they are temporary or permanent <br /> type structures. He felt under 2c.that a definite significant adverse 1: <br /> envixonment impact will be caused by this Project reoiSioo an88 Port Of (• <br /> Everett should regueSt a new Permit( <br /> • <br /> Lewis Bell,attorney for the Port,said the original shoreline manageo <br /> ment permit allowed for dredging,filling and substantial structuros on <br /> I' <br /> the property. Under the original permit the request was for a wood <br /> chipping operation. The product developed under that type of operation . <br /> would be large stock piles of chips,a conveyor belt,a building,etc. I <br /> Under this new amendment the product manufactured would be of a larger . 1'1 <br /> O <br /> . . <br /> ( <br />