Laserfiche WebLink
32. As part of the review, the City of Evereit Fire Department considered the <br /> proposal and determined that the condi6ons, as recommended, are reasonable <br /> a�d applicable. The Fire Departmert's participation inciuded review of conditions <br /> ior fire lanes being provided and properly Identi6ed; Fire Department access <br /> being ensured during construclion periods; buildings being clearly identified and <br /> visible and legible from access roads; piacement of fire hydrants with fire <br /> hydrants having adequate waler pressure; fire hydrants being located in a <br /> manner consistent wilh the EMC and International Fire Codes; approved <br /> automatic fire detention systems and fire suppressions (sprinkler systems) in all <br /> buildings; Fire Department access roads and hydrants being in service prior lo <br /> construcGon;limitalions on hazardous malerials;and restrictiuns on commercial <br /> cooking operations. (exhi6it 146-Comments by Fire Department) <br /> 33. The City of Evereti f'arks and Recxeation Deparlment reviewed the proposal and <br /> recommended that an handicap accessible restroom be incorporated into the <br /> amphitt�eater/plaza fadlity and the restroom be located as close as possible to <br /> tl�e site . The Parks and Recreation Department noted some discrepancies of <br /> design: (1) thal the current site plan layout encouraged pedestrians to cross <br /> traffic in order to access both perking and resUoom facilities; (2)tliat there was <br /> no slorage for chairs;and (3) that acce.�s to stage areas for trucks had not been <br /> inrorporaled into lhe plan. (exhib�7 14o-Comments by Parks and Reaeafion <br /> De�a��',nenQ <br /> 34. The Snohomish County PUD Utilily District submitted ihat at full build-out the <br /> proJect would create a demand of approximately 4 MW. The PUD has sufficient <br /> sysiem capacily to provide up l0 4 MW, but may not have the system capacity for <br /> lhe projects of other new developments comrnencing operation pdor to the <br /> development of the Port Gardner Whar1. The PUD would require lhe Ap icant lo <br /> provide suilable siles and easements for any elecUical facilities ►hat may e <br /> required, and the Applicant would be responsibie for all portions of the cosls of <br /> inirastruclure necessary lo serve the proposed projecl. (exhibd 14d-Commenfs <br /> by Snohomish County PUD) <br /> 35. Wriilen and oral comments were subn�itted from ihe public on the requested <br /> Shoreline Permit. Most of the comments supported the North Marina <br /> Redevelopment projecl. There were comments, however, that parking may be a <br /> problem with the availability of public parking versus the!�arking reserved for the <br /> marina slip holders. Also, the density of the proposed condominium <br /> development was queslioned, as were impacls on view corridors. (exhibit 15a- <br /> Pubfic Comment Letter by Kim Ratlifn In addition, tes4mony was given at the <br /> hearing supporting the proposal, including the plans for providing for a craftsmen <br /> work area, a mixture of uses, and public access. (LaLone festimony;Hatch <br /> (esfimony) <br /> 36. The Applicanl must se�ure other permils irom Slate and Federal JurisdicUons. <br /> Those permits are idenUfied in ^xhibit 2, JARPA appiication, page 3. <br /> 37. Adequale public nolice was given prior lo ihe public hearing. (EMC 15.24.110; <br /> Jimerson tesfimony) <br /> 6 7Lis is consi�la�l wilh the Disabilily Acl(ADA,Title 3,42 U.S.C,Sation 12181-69 and TiUe 7 Regu!ations of the <br /> Dcpartmmt oCJusticc. <br /> �Z�a3 <br />