My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1010 SE EVERETT MALL WAY BASE FILE 2018-01-02 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
>
1010
>
BASE FILE
>
1010 SE EVERETT MALL WAY BASE FILE 2018-01-02 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2023 11:30:09 AM
Creation date
2/13/2017 7:00:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
Street Number
1010
Tenant Name
BASE FILE
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.
/
251
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 /> ` I <br /> �� Bob Landles, Planni�i��D�t,(,� ���� i <br /> : ���� i+'j,��C � <br /> i Public Works Dept.��_,�f' "' i <br /> II March 28, 1580 ___ _� _--__ I <br /> P.esponse to E ansen Letter Dated ' "` '� ' '' <br /> � January 11, 19 re Everett Mall Dusiness Parlc <br /> I I <br /> _____� � <br /> j South Broadway L.I.D. - ho problem with the conclusion reached. ! <br /> � SOOth Street L.i.D. - So that there is no misunderstanding, it should be pointed � <br /> i out that the L.I.D. will indude improvements to the iMersection of 7th Ave. S.E. � <br /> ; <br /> at 100th Street. <br /> I The 100th Street improvemeiit has been identified as a mitigation of significant � <br /> ' traftic impact upon the stre�t. The wiown benefits to the proposed development <br /> inciude safer vehicle and pedestrian usage and easier accessibility and convenience � <br /> I for emFloyees and patrons of the development. I <br /> ' Future NortirSouth Traffic Corridor L.I.D. <br /> ' The "AlternatIve Approach" paragraph provides the necessary elements to mitigate i <br /> � impact of development sheuld the "undependable" status of the current P.U.D. I <br /> j right-of-way access decay, exce t that: <br /> i <br /> � First, there is no provision .or continued maintenance of the P.U.D. access. <br /> ' Second, and most important, �vhen L.I.G. costs are assessed, those costs are I <br /> spread in accordance �vIUi the special beneiits that are corSirmed thereon CSchmitz � <br /> vs Seatile). In other words, it is desired that a covenznt be placed �n the property <br /> , that would prevent the property irom protesting the formation of an L.t.D. <br /> Whll� aY the same time, it is n�t desired to restrain any right� to protest the <br /> amount of the assessment hased on claims Uiat the property is not benefitted <br /> to the exteM of the assessment. ' <br /> The identified nced ior cor.tinuation of a maintained, Norti�-South uaffic corridor <br /> cannot be permanently guaranteed without requiring a no-protest covenant ' <br /> in the event the P.U.D. right-of-�vay is not available. <br /> No Recorded Document <br /> Either, or both, of the suggested alternatives would be acceptable to Public CVorks, <br /> I if Brad Cattle cletermines that they could be eniorced. Perhaps implementing <br /> both alternatives would be most effective. <br /> Sewer Interceptor <br /> � Forrnulas attached. <br /> ! CIS:is ' <br /> ' Attachment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.