|
� .: .
<br />�_� ,
<br />,.! %I � �� f I�.: I I I C`l�i Y;_(. ,. ; I j`� '-
<br />August 22, 1990 �/{���I IV ('I `� �� u'7 , f/��C? � � �
<br />Mr. Bob Landles � ; , ,
<br />CITYOFL-VERETT ��.�� �1��'-� I=-X��.��� I� ��I j��( � I r_�
<br />Department of Planning �
<br />3002 Wctmore, Third Floor � . � - � •- . ' �� . -. � I�
<br />Lvcrctt, Wasliington 98201 ��
<br />Re: The Olive Garden appli:aiion (or Building PermiUEverett Malt Plaza
<br />Dear Bob:
<br />This letler, submitled simultaneously with lhe above-caplioned application, is [o acknowledge a
<br />potential impact of Section 35.03.B of EveretCs Zoning Code. We request and understand that the
<br />Planning Deputment will eva:uate and work to resolve any such porential �mpacts wncurcent with the
<br />Building DepartmenCs normal plan review/permi[ processing procedure, per our discussions wilh the
<br />Department.
<br />During the Planning DepanmenCs review phase, kcep in mind the project's history. As a part of the
<br />original development proces�, Gverett Mall Plaza was developed based upon certain condrtcons and
<br />myuirements as specified in SEPA p22-83 Revised. Additionally, the total de��elopmert process
<br />involved the completion and recording of several IIinding Site Plans. Several oi Ihese conditions
<br />relate to landscaping, traffic circulation and establish minima' levels of parl:ing. These standards and
<br />rc�uirements, which exceed the new Zoning Code, are w•nat Everet[ Mall Plaza was designed.
<br />crosWcted, financed and lased to comply with. There are now potential conflicts with certain
<br />scctions of the new Code including azeas of on-site par�ing and landscaping. The Cib�'s approval of
<br />the Rinding Site Plans on this project might be trcated in a manner similar to contract re: ones.
<br />As this application for permit is being processed, the Ciry of Evemtt should not impo:;e conditions
<br />which require us t�� now violale lhe conditiocs of previous Cily approvals and pre-existing legal
<br />agmements tlia� eslabiish cenain minimum padcing raeios. iQor should we now oe required to make
<br />dramatic changes lo existing tra(fic circulation pattems by requiring perimeter lot line landscapc
<br />bu(fers -which,Tn-(heZase��f�uildin ould be in the middle of the existing major vch;cular
<br />:irc'ulation routes. �
<br />/ Tiie entire shopping cenler, exclusive of lhe Tap �nods pazcel (which is no[ owned by us), curtently
<br />( consists of 170,169 square feet and provides SSI parking s�alis, or 5,18 cazs per thousand. This is
<br />� approximately only 3S90 in excess of the original developmcnt requirements, a very thin margin.
<br />� Lot 8 contains a bwlding of 24,774 square feet and 80 parF:ing slalls which is a ratio of 3.23 stalls per
<br />� thousand square fcet. When evaluated as a to�ally scl6su(ficient parccl, IIuilding 8 containsno excess
<br />\�pa�l:ing, which makes it impractical to adjust the existing balance between lands�igand parking
<br />In summary, we main4lin thal Section 35.03.B should not be applicable to the subjecl permit
<br />application because of Ih� previous approvals and related conditions of the DNS and the ➢inding Site
<br />Plan, :u�d also because its application would produce illogical and unintended results. Our landscapc
<br />architcct iclls us it would be impossible to continue to have a functional building, parking lot and
<br />i .. �. � _ .. � . . �..:��� . �:. �,,: i� , .. , i i �,-.,.,,,�, �� �... .,.���.
<br />.� , ...��, �,, ..,,.,.. . ...--� .,,� �. ... .
<br />
|