Laserfiche WebLink
28 FAT 208728�58] <br />Octobcr2l, �9q7 <br />CfTY OF EVERETT <br />Building ,4c public W'urks Uivision <br />3?00 Cedar Strcet <br />Evcren. Washine�oa gg2p � <br />Attn: Mr. Larcy Crawford <br />RE: Intracarp / King Gstrusions Slopc ;\pprova(. <br />Uear �tc Crawford: <br />i;YTRACORP <br />� 00: <br />I�'TR:�CORP <br />Thank you for your time and effatt in assisting with the pertnit process for King Extrusions. This <br />;� ��.n� correspondence is to confirm Intracurp's position and intent with respcct to the pertnit issue rcsarding thc <br />aos s.::,u :,-�, slope set back. <br />saame .��srrim ps you arc aware, the planning department is requiring a 25' scee, .�!ope setback alon¢ oure¢st propeny <br />se'.'•'+�s line adjacent to CSR Associated parcel. Mary Cunnineham has �:sisted from the outset ofthe permit <br />p� ,3rE� _�:._.;E application, that this issue needed to 6e resolved as part uf her approval. The concem has centered around <br />,j _�6 _�. ,,,. the uncenainry of �he finai grading on the Associated proparty as pan of their mining res�oraeion. <br />Over the past 49 days, Bill Dunlap with Triad Associates and I hace worked dili¢ently wt�h �fary and Bob <br />Landles to reach a reasonable solution. It is our understand'uig that the slope setback requirement of ZS feet <br />docs not apply to slopes of less than 40 percent or to those "en;ineered" by a soils engineer. Intracorp and <br />Associated have agreed ro provide documentation agreein¢ to cuinply with either or both criteria µith the <br />caveat that Associated would be allowrd to complete future rescoration operations ro the site with the all of <br />che options allowea under thc Ciry Zoning code. <br />We ha� e been informed that chis documemntion would not be acceptable. I understand the Ciry's liter�l <br />interprctation and application of the zoning requircments for slopes, however. 1(eel that �hese requirements <br />are bcine applied Ior "poten�ial tiiture canditions" �aitiioue consideratian to what is beine planned or even <br />❑Ilowcd. We fzcl that this "lieeral" approach is not in the best interat of any of the partia involved. <br />Altheu�h ( bclievc that the'S' setback should no� bc rcquircd for ehe King project, I can not afford ro <br />allow ihis issue to continuc to Aelay the processins and issuance of the Site Development and Building <br />pertnits. In the intcrest of continuing funvnrd with ,he projact. we are submitting a modifird site plan that <br />will mcet the requiremcnts as stipulsted by the planning department. ��ty intent is to continuc ro work with <br />the planning department and �iie uiher panies invoh-ed to achieve a mutualiy accepcabie resolution of the <br />slape issue so that original site plan can �� �chieved. In the eurne ihis can not be resolved, Intracorp is <br />preoared eo accept ehe moditied site plan ro mee[ �he code, make ehe appropriate civil chanees required mid <br />complate the project in cumpliance with the Cih• requirements. ' <br />V <br />