|
Pile
<br />/�� F,;�,
<br />��� �� �
<br />-- - Celia .3�
<br />l
<br />:�.,,:. 2/1/79
<br />s�,�.��.�r Evergreen L3ay Pi:oject/Development c��v a� r.�-�rer.,r. r.v�-a�rr. �w,sH�r,c,or,
<br />Proposed d.evelopments on Evergrnen kay where ROW Use Permit Applications �vere
<br />made prior to April 1::, 1978, were reauired to install the then existing City
<br />StandaL: (extruded c: 'ate curbs).
<br />April 12, 1978, Couno:..' adoPted new Standards as developed per Evergreen
<br />Way Study.
<br />On that same date, Council tabled demonstration areae.o (Has not yet been��untai;ied).,
<br />All new developments aLter that date, 4/12/78, that I Y,ave approved have been
<br />required to install new Standard, Examples inclu�,e:
<br />d910 T �.r:�ltt:�G.4+�
<br />8810 �� ��
<br />8710 ��
<br />8625 r•
<br />II�117 "
<br />7514 '�
<br />5/16/7II
<br />5/25/78
<br />'/25/78 1
<br />8/19/78 (This permit is Por Holly Drive) -� IJ<. Ck��r� c�, ;�••�:..i� r1
<br />9/21/78 `�.•' � rt..j; •c � l .
<br />10/8/78
<br />Ordinance 555-78 cleared the air of any doubt of what was standardo 555 was
<br />effe�tive October ?7, 1978, as :�C,J�1 �t���jLJt��,�;�cJl�'�c�.C���;.
<br />� ,,,t ��„�., s+,<: f J
<br />13.15.070 Everett C'ty Co3e, Paragraph C, says "Al1 /W's.,, shall be �_�i.. .j�,,,.;,;
<br />constructed in accordar.c�., w.'th City rpeoifications.,,", There are other
<br />parayrap?�s in D/S•: Cod�� tha' xould ma;:e this section a little "gray", if
<br />it were not for Coun� _1's adoption of Standards on 4/12/78a
<br />The Right-of-Way lise Pc�_r,ti.t required for t1:e :dexler Service Station has
<br />no� yet been applied f.
<br />The Euilding Permit fo: tite ser�icn station a�as issu^_d i;i Iday of 197G,
<br />if it cun be stated that t1�i� Right-of-[�lay Use Permit should be dated
<br />mncurrent with the Building Permit, it would be s�,ibject to new Standard
<br />adopted by Council on April 12, 1978.
<br />I do not believe there is any reason that a Building Permit and a Right-of-
<br />t�iGy Use Permit are re�uired to be issued concurrent with each other (although
<br />this is now the accepted procedure). And, if the 2 permits are distinctly
<br />separate, then Ordin3nce 555-7e is nok• in erfect an}nvay and there shouldn°t
<br />be any "9ray" at allo
<br />CIS:is/S31
<br />
|