Resolution 5233 - Laserfiche WebLink

• CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a one-year extension of an Intent to Rezone of a 2.9 acre parcel located at 310 West Casino Road, Everett, Washington. The original extension of the Intent to Rezone was granted on November 6, 1996, in City of Everett Resolution #4351. Resolution #4351 allowed for an extension and revisions to a previously approved Resolution (#3592) that had been approved for the site. Resolution #4351 granted the extension for an additional five years with an expiration date of January 29, 2002. (finding 1) 2. The original approval for development of the site included housing units developed with R-3 PRD standards; a wetland buffer width reduction for a 37-1/2 foot buffer from a riparian wetland located in the northwest portion of the site; a building height variance for the building height to be measured from the existing grade on-site, rather than measured from the base elevation of the site. The 1996 extension for the project was approved. The extension also provided that the zoning of the site would revert to R-3 from R-3 PRD if the Intent to Rezone expired. (exhibit 1, Palacios testimony) (finding 2) 3. The proposal has been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the City of Everett and in particular the criteria for rezones (EMC 19.41.140.D.7); the criteria of for variances (EMC 19.41.110); and the criteria for wetland buffer width reduction (EMC 19.37.100.D. (findings 4, 10, 17) All of these criteria are satisfied by the proposed extension. (findings 5-22) 4. The project is developed and ready for occupancy. The project has been developed consistent with the initially issued permits and the previously granted extension. (finding 6) 5. The one-year extension for the Intent to Rezone the 2.9 acre parcel of property at 310 West Casino Road, Everett, Washington, is reasonable; consistent with the Everett General Comprehensive Plan; bears a substantial relation to public, health, safety, and welfare; and mitigates adverse impacts on existing or anticipated land uses. (findings 5-9) 6. The requested variance from the development standards that require building heights to be the vertical distance from the base elevation of a building to the highest point of a roof should be granted. Because of the long-placed fill on-site, the Applicant was restricted with construction opportunities. These are special circumstances that warrant the grant of the variance to allow the height of the buildings to be determined from the fill rather than the original base. (findings 11-16) 7. The reduction of the wetland buffer width is necessary because of the previous fill activity on-site. The wetland and the reduced 37-1/2 foot buffer will enhance the area for a vegetative and animal habitat. The proposal and the improvements to the buffer will also improve water quality and the functional use of the buffer. (findings 18-24) 6