Laserfiche WebLink
35. Applicant representatives also responded to public comment,submitting the following <br /> information. The developer would provide sanicans through vertical construction and <br /> secure the site with fencing. The proposed landscape plan does include native species. <br /> The Applicant is working with the City on off-street parking,to ensure the project meets <br /> applicable codes. The proposal does not seek to increase building height above what is <br /> allowed by code. The existing elevation of the site would be reduced between two and <br /> eight feet. Currently there is a high spot in the middle,and all of the height would be <br /> reduced to provide useable building area. The code allows the buildings to be 35 feet <br /> above finished grade so long as they meet setbacks. The Applicant is aware of view and <br /> bulk/mass concerns and is designing features including roof pitch and various façade <br /> treatments to address the apparent scale of the buildings while still meeting density. The <br /> project proposes to prohibit short term rentals of the individual townhome units, which <br /> would be fee simple lots, and owners would otherwise have the same rights as owners of <br /> surrounding residential development. The Applicant does not intend to prohibit long <br /> term rentals. Applicant representatives agreed with City responses regarding the use of <br /> geotechnical engineering to design any required retaining walls,which would have any <br /> necessary drainage incorporated into their design. Addressing the concerns of neighbors <br /> with existing structures with nonconforming setbacks,the Applicant is aware of these <br /> structures and intends to have conversations with those property owners when it comes <br /> time to make arrangements for neighbors to be able to access their structures. Regarding <br /> groundwater from the east, an Applicant representative testified that the offsite basin has <br /> been modeled and the Applicant is aware that there will be a lot of offsite water that goes <br /> through the project's system. The proposed vault is not intended to be an infiltration <br /> vault. The discharge from the project would be required to match the runoff from the site <br /> if it were forested. Testimony of Albert Torrico and Andy Reaves. <br /> 36. Having heard all testimony and reviewed all Applicant submittals,Planning Staff <br /> maintained their recommendation for approval of the unit lot subdivision and the <br /> requested design modifications. Exhibit 1;Niels Tygesen Testimony. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> Jurisdiction: <br /> Unit lot land divisions are Review II land use decisions decided by the City of Everett Planning <br /> Director. EMC 15.02.070.B(9)(a). However,pursuant to EMC 15.02.070.8(12),if the Planning <br /> Director determines that the land use decision should be heard by the Hearing Examiner due to <br /> potential project impacts or public concerns,the Director may require the permit application to <br /> be reviewed using Review Process III per EMC 15.02.030.C. <br /> Criteria and Standards for Review: <br /> Pursuant to EMC 19.25.040,a unit lot land division application that complies with all of the <br /> following general evaluation criteria listed below,the requirements of Chapters 19.24 through <br /> 19.27 EMC and this title,and applicable city standards shall be approved. In any such approval, <br /> the city shall make written findings that the application has made appropriate provisions in <br /> accordance with the requirements of this section. An application that does not comply with these <br /> criteria shall be denied by the city. <br /> Everett Hearing Examiner <br /> Findings, Conclusions, and Decision <br /> Sage Homes Northwest LLC(REJ'1122-OOl) page 15 gf22 <br />