Laserfiche WebLink
standa�c�. According to the Applicant, limi!ed parking is needed because <br /> of tne nature of the proposed facility; most of the residents on-site do not <br /> have vehicles. Because of the various times of visits, the parking area i� <br /> rarely, if ever, full. The proposed parking is reasonable Of the 26 <br /> parking spaces, 20 are in the rear of the facility, while six are in front. <br /> The main access for parking will be uff Laka Heights Drive. (Exhibir 1, <br /> Cunningham testimony, DaLengus testimonyJ <br /> 22. There are a number of trees on-site. According to the Applicant's <br /> representative, if possible, a signifcant old cedar tree on-site will be <br /> saved. (DaLengus test%mony) <br /> ;23. Testimony was received irom adj�ining property owners and neighbors <br /> supporting the proaosal. The testimony included an opinion that the <br /> scele of the struct�re is consistent with the neighborhood and that it will <br /> not dominate the neighborhood. 'fhere will be limited impervious surface <br /> on-site. Supporting testimony indicated that the use will not increase <br /> traffic and will be a benefit te the neighborhood. (Zarlingo testimony) <br /> 24. T�stimony was received requesting that there be fencinq around a <br /> wetland on-site to protect it .iuring construction. Also, the witness <br /> submitted that the old, large cedar tree should be saved, and measurFs <br /> should be taken to protect its root:: during construction. �Clafli�; <br /> testimony) <br /> 25. The Applicant in a post hearing memo (per the request c�f the Fiearing <br /> Examiner) submitted that measures coul� be taken to protect the old <br /> cedar tree on-site. However, the ApplicanYs expert, Barghausf:n <br /> Engineers, questioned whether there would be problems with tl:e <br /> stability of the tree and potential safety hazards if the tree is kept on-site. <br /> The engineering company recommended that an arborist be retained to <br /> make these deterrninations. (Exhibit 13) <br /> Jurisdiction: Tlie Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional <br /> authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth <br /> in Elv1C 2.23.f 20. Eiased on the above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters <br /> the (oUowing conchrsions: <br /> CONCLUSIC�NS <br /> 1. The Applicant requested approval of a Shoreline Permit for the <br /> development of the property on the northeast corner of Lake Heights <br /> Drive and 19th Avenue SE (SR-527), Everett, Washington. The <br /> � <br />