|
ill ..
<br /> S
<br /> .
<br /> which(again) are required in order for the Applicant to proceed with improvements on
<br /> Parcel 93. It is unusual to proceed to hearing without the consent of the owner of
<br /> necessary property to a given project;however,this requirement can be satisfied with a
<br /> condition of appro.val that makes the consent of Parcel 92's owner the necessary pre-
<br /> requisite to any work being performed under either permit. Findings 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 18,
<br /> 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
<br /> 2. With respect to the general special property use criteria at EMC 19.41.150.C: The t'
<br /> application materials demonstrate that the church provides community services both to
<br /> members and non-members,and that these services would be benefitted by expansion of
<br /> the church. Conditions of approval requiring compliance with all agency comments $
<br /> would be sufficient to ensure that the project would not result in excessive demand for or
<br /> use of public streets,utilities, or services. Only minor traffic increases are projected, and
<br /> these would be mitigated through traffic impact fees. While the number of parking
<br /> spaces is apparently not up for consideration as a result of the proposed doubling in the $
<br /> size of the church structure-because no increase in sanctuary seating is proposed-the k
<br /> parking lot would be required to be reconfigured and brought closer to current standards
<br /> in terms of maneuvering areas,parking stall design and identification, and frontage 1.
<br /> landscaping. With no increase in attendance projected,no alteration to site access or
<br /> number of parking stalls is mandatory. The proposed addition would comport with the $
<br /> maximum height and minimum setback required from property boundaries shared with
<br /> adjacent residential uses. As such,there should not be any greater impact to surrounding
<br /> properties from the addition and parking improvements than already exists from the
<br /> presence of a church in a residential zone. No signs are proposed. Aside from the
<br /> parking lot landscaping,no other screening or landscaping is required. The addition
<br /> would be on the rear of the building, and new wetland plantings would run the length of
<br /> the western property boundary, softening the appearance of the new construction as seen
<br /> from residential parcels to the south and west. After construction is complete,no
<br /> nuisances are anticipated. Construction activities would be required to be consistent with
<br /> applicable state and local regulations. Churches are allowed as special property uses in
<br /> the R-1 zone, and in this way compliance with the goals and policies of the Everett
<br /> General Plan for the area and land use designation is shown. The improvements would
<br /> not impact access to the public transit stop immediately in front of the church. Findings
<br /> 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20.
<br /> a
<br /> 3. With respect to the use-specific special property use criteria at EMC 19.41.150.D.2.b: 1
<br /> The addition would maintain at least a 15-foot setback from the southern property j
<br /> boundary,which is the closest it would come to any boundary shared with residential
<br /> use/zoning. The building as proposed and conditioned would not be taller than 28 feet.
<br /> No steeple is proposed. The existing parking lot entrances are on Dogwood Drive,which
<br /> is the only abutting street. Findings 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
<br /> 4. With respect to the wetland buffer averaging criteria at EMC 19.37.110.D: The proposed
<br /> buffer width averaging plan provides on-site 1:1 replacement of the reduced buffer area,
<br /> just to the north of the reduced area. Credible scientific evidence in the record supports
<br /> the conclusion that the plan,including enhancement plantings, would result in no loss of
<br /> Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
<br /> Everett Hearing Examiner
<br /> View Ridge Community Church,SPU17-005/ESA17-002 page 9 of 10
<br />
|