Laserfiche WebLink
13. Currently there is parking on-site. While one parking space would be lost to the <br /> expansion, the new community center would have a shop that could accommodate <br /> additional parking needs. (exhibit 4, narrative; Dorris testimony) <br /> 14. There would be no change in the number of parking spaces as the result of the <br /> proposed expansion. The parking area has been designed to prevent through traffic to <br /> other parking areas. This design would remain as originally constructed. (exhibit 4, <br /> narrative; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 15. Existing parking areas adjacent to the community center have less than ten stalls, and <br /> screening is not required. (exhibit 4, narrative) <br /> 16. Because the area of the community center would be increased, approximately 2,700 <br /> square feet of open space is projected to be lost. The addition would reduce the open <br /> space on-site by approximately 2,712 square feet. The loss of this open space would <br /> not impact use of the site. Prior to the modification the subject property has 3.7 acres <br /> of open space, and the proposed loss of open space is less than one percent of the <br /> total open space on-site. (exhibit 4, narrative; Dorris testimony; Jimerson testimony) <br /> 17. The landscaping that would be lost includes loss of a tree and a community garden. <br /> Upon completion of the modification of the community center, a new community <br /> garden would be developed west of the structure. (Dorris testimony) <br /> 18. The expanded community center would serve community needs. Currently the center <br /> has multi-purpose uses, including after school programs and summer programs for <br /> children. With the increased space the center would be able to accommodate the <br /> number of children who attend this facility for its programs and other public uses. The <br /> proposed shop would provide an area for storage of maintenance equipment for the <br /> entire Phase I and Phase II development. (Dorris testimony) <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold <br /> a hearing and to issue the recommendation. That authority is set forth in EMC 15.16.100. <br /> Based on the above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters the following conclusions: <br /> Criteria and Standards for Review <br /> 19.32.200 Final development plan—Amendments permitted. <br /> A. Minor changes in the location, siting and height of buildings and structures may be <br /> authorized by the director without additional public hearings if these changes were <br /> required by engineering or other circumstances not known at the time the final plan <br /> was approved. No changes authorized by this section may cause any of the following: <br /> 1. A change in the use, intensity or character of the development; <br /> 2. An increase in the overall ground coverage of structures; <br /> 4 <br />