916 PACIFIC AVE MRI BUILDING 2018-01-02 MF Import

Providence 8ospital SPU 18-87 Page -3- B. The use must not have a serious adverse effect on the ecology and/or environment of the community; ' ' and, C. The use must serve the public co�:venience and necessity. (Everett Municipal Code) 6. The City of Everett Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as a hospital site. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan for hospitals and other related uses emphasizp high quality architectural design and compatibility with adjacent less intensive uses. Part of the compatibility is bufferinq of the hospita?. noise and the lesseninq of the visual of key elements of the building and site design. (Cunningham testi.mony, exhibit 8) 7. The City stated that the Special Property Use Permi.t foc the parking garage contained a condition that required • the side of the garaqe fronting Nassau to be constructed aith a brick facade. The City submitted that to ensi�re consistency and compatibility with the brick facade of the garage, a brick facade or other color blending with the brick color must be provided on the subject property. (Cunningham testimony, staff report) 8. The Applicant submitted that there is no definition of "compatible" and its use by the City is ovPrly vague. The Applicant submitted that it is going to develop for a high quality structure but cannot ensure that the facilit,y will be brick or a brick color . According to the Applicant's representative, brick is a costly construatian expense that may be prohibitive in the Applicant's attempts to keep hospital costs down. (Shockey testimony) 9. A representative of the Applicant submitted that the City is setting architectural standards by requiring a brick facade on the exterior of the building facing Nassau. (Shockey testimony) 10. The Applicant's representative submitted thaL the brick facade of the garage should not be a precedent for the design of olher properties in the vicinity. (Shockey testimony) 11. The City of Everett vas the lead agency on the SEPA review of the subject property. On February 2:1, 1988 , the City reviewed the SEPA Environmental Checklisl and issued a Determination of Non-SigniEicance for the proposal. (staff report) 12. There was no appeal of this Determination. (Cunningham testimony)