Ordinance 3165-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings: 1. Staff Report 2. Ordinance No. 664-80 3. PRD Development Agreement 4. Project Narrative 5. Site Plan 6. Building Floor Plan and Elevations 7. Fire Department Comments 8. Public Works Comments 9. Original Approved Site Plan (on file in Planning Department) All of the exhibits are available for inspection at the Hearing Examiner's Office located at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, 8th floor, Everett, Washington. Based upon a review of the above record, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions hereby constitute the basis of the recommendation of the Everett Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On February 20, 1980, the Everett City Council passed an ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Everett with a rezone of property at 220 - 98th Place SE, Everett, Washington. With the rezone, the subject property was zoned R-1, Single- Family Low Density Planned Residential Development. The ordinance allowed a PRD that had 34 units with five duplexes and six four-plex units. Included in the PRD was a community center which was approved to be a structure of 1,088 square feet. The Applicant seeks to amend the approved PRD to allow the community center to be expanded to 3,800 square feet. (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson testimony) 2. The facility was constructed in the early 1980's subsequent to the passage of Ordinance No. 664-80. The construction included 34 units that were clustered in several buildings, 3.7 acres of open space, including a tot lot that was used as open space, and other amenities. One of the amenities, the community center, was developed to the maximum of 1,088 square feet. The Applicant now seeks to amend the PRD to allow an expansion of the center. (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson testimony; Baldwin testimony) 3. The PRD was constructed on the subject property consistent with the agreement and site plan. (exhibit 3, agreement; exhibit 9, site plan; Jimerson testimony) It was Phase I of development on the site. Phase II was constructed on a parcel that adjoins the subject property and was developed by a party other than the Applicant. Phase II was developed with housing units similar to that as found on the subject property. After Phase II was constructed, it was purchased by the Applicant and has been treated as Phase II of the entire development. (Dorris testimony) 2