|
,
<br /> 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, and 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 I9.06.020.D. Findings 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 23,
<br /> and 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 /> Everett Hearing Examiner
<br /> Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
<br /> Sage Homes Northwest LLC(REV1122-001) page 18 of 22
<br />
|