Laserfiche WebLink
4. The development of Phase II did not include a community center. The residents of <br /> Phase II have used the community center of Phase I. The community center, as <br /> developed, is too small to serve the needs of the residents of Phase I and Phase II. <br /> (Dorris testimony) <br /> 5. Admitted at the public hearing are the plans that depict the proposed expansion. <br /> (exhibit 6, building plan and elevations) As shown on the plans, improvements to the <br /> community center would include: interior improvements for storage, lockers, a <br /> computer room, work spaces, a kitchen, a shop, and other amenities. The shop would <br /> be used as part of the maintenance of the entire Phase I and Phase II facilities. <br /> (exhibit 6, building plan and elevations; Dorris testimony) <br /> 6. Everett Municipal Code (EMC) Chapter 19.32 establishes procedures for a PRD in the <br /> City of Everett. The PRD process allows for a flexible option for meeting housing <br /> needs'of the community. In the development of a PRD, the code established <br /> development parameters are relaxed and supplemented by a development agreement. <br /> (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson testimony; Baldwin testimony) <br /> 7. The PRD approved for the subject property allowed for the development of uses that <br /> would not necessarily have been permitted under the zoning in place in the 1980's. <br /> Development standards, including setbacks, building heights, and densities as <br /> established in the EMC were not strictly applied but were specific to the site plan that <br /> was approved. The PRD development agreement for the development of the subject <br /> property set forth the initial building requirements for the structures. The Applicant now <br /> seeks to modify these requirements and more particularly modify the requirement for <br /> the size of the community center and the loss of a minimal amount of open space. <br /> (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 3, agreement; exhibit 9, site plan; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 8. The proposed limited modification of the PRD would not increase density on the <br /> subject property. It would allow for the expansion of a facility that is an amenity to the <br /> existing development. (exhibit 4, narrative; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 9. There are identified critical areas on-site. The critical areas would remain untouched <br /> and would not be impacted by the proposed modification of the PRD and the <br /> expansion of the community center. (exhibit 4, narrative; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 10. While there would be landscaping around the existing community center that would <br /> have to be removed to accommodate the larger structure, most of the landscaping on- <br /> site would remain. All landscaping that would be removed during construction would <br /> be replanted. The landscaping that would be removed includes a 12" diameter tree <br /> that would later be replaced. There would be no changes to the perimeter landscaping <br /> or screening of the proposed development. (exhibit 4, narrative; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 11 . Setbacks would not be impacted or changed by the proposal. The community center <br /> is located near the center of the subject property. (exhibit 4, narrative) <br /> 12. The expanded structure would include improved design for windows which would <br /> provide natural light into the building. (exhibit 4, narrative) <br /> 3 <br />