|
2. All units would connect to public sewer and water supplies, and private utilities would be
<br />provided. Through the civil engineering phase, the project would be reviewed to ensure
<br />compliance with current building, zoning, drainage, fire, and other site development
<br />codes. The public health, safety, and general welfare are assured through development of
<br />code -compliant housing units. Findings 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
<br />24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, cnad 36.
<br />3. The project's creation of additional density on an underutilized lot in a commercially
<br />zoned area near a transit corridor would be consistent with and supportive of
<br />Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies 4.1.7 and 4.7.1. The proposal is supported by the
<br />Commercial Mixed -Use land use designation in providing new low rise multifamily
<br />development as an alternative to either single-family detached dwellings or large
<br />footprint apartment complexes. The proposed density of 17 units per acre is well under
<br />the maximum number of units allowed (which is 126 units), but it would bring the subject
<br />site closer to compliance with the housing goals of the Compressive Plan while
<br />remaining more consistent with the established neighborhood character. The record
<br />contains no evidence of any feature of, or impact anticipated from, the proposal that
<br />would conflict with applicable objectives, goals, or policies of the City's Comprehensive
<br />Plan. Findings 4, 5, 6, 7, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36.
<br />4. Addressing the requirements of EMC 19.25.040.D, compliance with applicable
<br />provisions of the Unified Development Code at EMC Title 19, the following conclusions
<br />are entered:
<br />a. The subject property is located within a portion of the City in which structures are
<br />limited to a maximum of height of three floors, pursuant to EMC 19.22.150 Map
<br />22-1. Findings 1, 3, 4, and 15.
<br />b. Development on individual lots within a unit -lot subdivision is not required to
<br />conform to the minimum lot area or dimensional standards in Title 19 so long as the
<br />overall development meets the development and design standards of the underlying
<br />NB zone. All proposed buildings provide at least the minimum required five-foot
<br />side setbacks and at least the minimum 10-foot rear setbacks required in the
<br />underlying NB zone. Additionally, the perimeter landscaping would function as a
<br />front setback for the lots fronting Mukilteo Boulevard, though no front setback is
<br />required. Further, the lots are all setback from adjacent uses to the east, south, and
<br />west by the design that places the looped drive aisle at the outer edge of the project,
<br />increasing privacy for abutting existing residential uses. As shown on the site plan,
<br />all structures appear to be setback in excess of five feet from the internal private
<br />drive aisle consistent with 19.06.020.D. Findings 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 23,
<br />rind 24.
<br />c. Addressing the requirements for unit lot land divisions established EMC Chapters
<br />19.26 and 19.27: Reviewing during civil engineering and building permit processes
<br />would ensure that the private internal drive that meets the City's design and
<br />construction standards and specifications for Standard C and that frontage
<br />improvements are installed along the site's Mukilteo Boulevard frontage consistent
<br />Everell Hearing Examiner
<br />Findings, Conch(sions, and Decision
<br />Sage Howes Northwest LLC (REVII22-001)
<br />page 18 of 22
<br />
|