My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4012 COLBY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
COLBY AVE
>
4012
>
4012 COLBY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2017 2:16:39 PM
Creation date
1/27/2017 2:15:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
COLBY AVE
Street Number
4012
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
; <br /> � - � � '. <br /> ��p � � William R. Weaver <br /> q Appeal i-91 ' <br /> ��� Page -4- <br /> M H <br /> N C] <br /> 12. The Appellant's December 2, 1991, letter of. appeal was timely. The fact <br /> �=p� that it is an illegible letter doea not defeat its purpose. The <br /> �_� supplemental letter of December 10, 1991, was not timely because it is <br /> � not a verbatim copy of the December 2, 1991, letter. <br /> �y� 13. At the hearing the Appellant read into the record the Pecember 2, 1991, <br />, M• appeal letter. It is this letter that this decision is based. <br />, C'�y <br /> 14. In the December 2, 1991, letter, the Appellant claimed that the <br /> � Applicant had an excessive building on-site; that a traffic atudy is <br /> H needed to be done to revieW mitigation; that the Applicant should be <br />�i �G0 r.estricted from obcaining variances; and that the landscaping should not <br /> �y� be reduced. <br /> V 15. All of [he issues raised in the December 2, 1991, letter are irrelevant <br /> � r to the landscaping appeal. Aa noted earlier, the crite:ia for <br /> modification of lan�scaping are satisfied. <br /> 16. Altho�gh the December 10, 1991, letter was not timely filed and is not <br /> I� controlling for this appeal, it has been reviewed and the materials as <br /> set forch [herein do ❑ot change the adainistrat�ve decision. As noted, <br /> the criteria for modification are satisfied and have not been properly <br /> addressed by the Appellant. <br /> /C� � CONCLUSIONS <br />' � � 1. The Applicant requested approval of a modification of landscaping <br /> reqnirements for development of property at 4012 Colby Avenue, Everett, <br /> �'�'� Washington. The landscaping modification wac granted by the City of <br /> I ��� Everett on November 21, 1991, pursuant to the provisions of EMC 35.060. <br /> � 2. The Appellant filed a ticiely appeal of the administrative decision on <br /> � �s December 2, 1991. The iscues raiaed in the December 2, 1991, letter do <br /> �...� not address the criteria for review as set forth in EMC 35.070. <br /> '. 3. The alternative landscaping as proposed by the Applicant and rtpproved by <br /> .� ' the City will provide a superior landscaping [hrough the �se of native <br /> I `1,,,,�� vegetation. It xill preserve an old growth cedar tree on-site. <br /> 4. The saw-tooih configuration af landscaping will effectively landscape <br /> � '�t i the property in a manner consiatent with other landscaping in the area. <br /> � <br /> S. Visual acreens, including a six foot fence on both the north and south <br /> property lines, wlll effectively screen any aesthetic impacts to the <br /> �1s1 ad�oining propertiea. <br /> �� , <br /> I <br /> � <br /> ��i . <br /> y 5._�i. <br /> I Iry��.}' ' .-. - - �� <br /> i t_"h� <br />� i.''' . � ..� � - � I <br /> � ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.