My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3702 W MUKILTEO BLVD HARBORS EDGE TOWNHOMES 2025-08-13
>
Address Records
>
W MUKILTEO BLVD
>
3702
>
HARBORS EDGE TOWNHOMES
>
3702 W MUKILTEO BLVD HARBORS EDGE TOWNHOMES 2025-08-13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2025 1:17:43 PM
Creation date
8/13/2025 1:14:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
W MUKILTEO BLVD
Street Number
3702
Tenant Name
HARBORS EDGE TOWNHOMES
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
is only 18 inches from the shared boundary between his land and the site; he is also <br /> concerned about being able to access his structure for maintenance. <br /> Several neighbors expressed dismay that the City would recommend approval of <br /> residential development, when the site is zoned Neighborhood Business and it formerly <br /> housed a neighborhood commercial use; these commenters are concerned over how few <br /> • <br /> vacant parcels there are that could be developed with commercial neighborhood uses, <br /> which provide walkable retail options and jobs. <br /> Comments included the concern that the project would increase both pedestrian traffic <br /> headed for the park,the deli,or the dog park near the bridge, and vehicular traffic, <br /> which together would exacerbate their existing concern for pedestrian safety. The <br /> school bus stop is across the street in front of the deli where there is no sidewalk, and <br /> more traffic would pose increased risks for kids crossing to the bus stop. <br /> Several neighbors were primarily worried about whether the proposed structures would <br /> alter or eliminate their existing waterward views. One such neighbor noted that the <br /> parcels in the R-S zone have a 28-foot height limit and asked that the proposal be <br /> limited in height so that it would not block existing views. <br /> Testimony of Breahna Zahler, Nicole Heins, Donald Schwab, Alberta Solano, Svetlana <br /> Filippov, Josiah Harlon?, Edward Steennum, Cathy Brown, and Noel Garrett. <br /> 34. In response to public comment,Planning Staff offered the following information. <br /> The application must comply with regulations in effect on the date the application was <br /> complete,including regulations pertaining to use, building height,and setbacks. There <br /> are no design guidelines or standards beyond those in code. This required compliance <br /> addresses City concerns about the project blending in with the surrounding <br /> neighborhood. The proposed density is an increase over the number of dwelling units <br /> that were on site historically, but it would be under the maximum number of units <br /> allowed by code. The development would be required to comply with regulations <br /> regarding minimum number of off-street parking places. <br /> Buildings would be restricted to the maximum height allowed in the zone,but the City <br /> Code does not protect view corridors outside of maximum building height standards. <br /> The zoning code does not provide roof design standards. Staff noted that a flat roof <br /> design could reduce view conflicts,but the City has no authority to require it. <br /> As proposed, the development would provide more open green space than is required <br /> by code. Staff asserted that while the use of native plant species would be smart,the <br /> Code doesn't require native species outside of critical areas. Perhaps with neighbor <br /> view concerns in mind, the Applicant might landscape with species that would end up <br /> at a lower mature height;the minimum mature height required is 20 feet. The City's <br /> critical areas ordinance allows off-site wetland mitigation. <br /> Residential uses are permitted outright in the NB zone,and no provisions in the City <br /> Code require non-residential use on the subject site. The Applicant would be required <br /> to pay impact fees to Mukilteo School District. The Planning Department reviewed the <br /> proposal pursuant to SEPA and determined that an EIS wasn't required. No provisions <br /> Everett Hearing Examiner <br /> Findings, Conclusions,and Decision <br /> Sage Homes Northwest LLC(REIPI122-1101) page 13 c f 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.