3606 EVERETT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

,. ,� ' � 1 Conclusion: In order to ensure consistency with SPU permit#1-92, no access wiil be permitfed from the east-west ailey oif iiarrison Avenue. Ofr-street parking, on-siie circulation, and site access are adequate. 5. Compatibility of proposed structures and improvements with surrounding properties, incfuding the size, height, location, setback and arrangement of all proposed buildings and facilities, especially as they relate to fight and shadow impacts on more sensitive land uses and less intensive zones. Findings: The proposed location of the covered parking structure is approximafely five feet from the south property iine (Railway Avenue). No building setbacks are proposed adjacent to the east and west prope�ty lines. The maximum height of the proposed building is approximately 10 feet. For truck parking facilifies, the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of �i 0 feef from all properEy, lines except from the rear lot line. The rear foi iine for this site is the north lot line. The SPU permif required a minimum building sefbaci; cf 10 feef from Railway Avenue, 10 feet from the west property line abutfing tne alley, and 5 feet from the easf prope�ty line, abuffing a vacant parce(. Tne proposed buiiding focation does not meet fhese requiremenis. Conclusion: The proposal would be reasonably compatible wiih the surrounding uses, if building setbacks are consistent with fhe standaras oi tne Zoning Code. The building location shown on the site plan must be revised io provide a 10 foot setback from the south, east and west property lines. 6. The number, size and Iocation of signs, especially as they retate to more sensitive land uses. Finding: No additional signs are proposed. Conclusion: There will be no impact on adjacent land uses. 7. The landscaping, buffering and screening of buildings, parking, loading and storac,e areas, especially as they relate to more sensitive land uses. Finding: Landscaping and screening have been installed on this site pursuant to SPU permit#1-92. Additional landscaping is not required in conjunction �vith this proposal. Conclusion: Existing landscaping and fencing improvements will be adequate to provide buffering and screening of the site. 8. The generation of nuisance irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, g(are, visual blight or other undesirable impacts. Finding: The proposal involves containment of an existing truck parking activity. The proposaf will improve the aesthetics in the area by screening of the trucks from view of adjacent streets and properties. Conclusions: The proposal will not generat2 any lang-term nuisance irritants. 9. Consistency with the goals and policies of the Everett General Pfan for the area and land use designation in which the property is located. 3