Laserfiche WebLink
26. All utilities serving the site will be placed underground. Soil stabilization will be <br />provided for all areas disturbed during construction. No new above ground utilities <br />will be proposed for the project. <br />27. The subject property is zoned by the City of Everett as Waterfront Commercial <br />(WC). The proposal is consistent with the parking standards of this zoning <br />designation. According to the Everett Zoning Code, no other zoning requirements <br />must be satisfied with the Shoreline Permit. <br />28. The City submitted that the proposed project must be divided into separate parcels <br />as part of a permit requirement. <br />29. The City recommended approval of the proposed Shoreline Permit contingent upon <br />31 conditions. At the public hearing s representative of the Applicant responded to <br />a question from the Hearing Examiner that the Port of Everett had reviewed the <br />conditions as recommended by the City and was in agreement with all conditions <br />with the exception of conditions #4, #23, and #26. The Applicant's representative <br />testified that with the exception of three conditions, all conditions addressed an <br />impact of the project. <br />30. Condition #4, as recommended by the City, requires that the Department of Fish <br />and Wildlife to identify shading from overwater and floating structures as narrow as <br />8 feet in width. The Applicant requested that this condition be modified to allow the <br />Applicant to satisfy the regulations of the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding <br />shading rather than setting a specific City standard. The City agreed with the <br />Applicant. <br />31. Condition #23, as submitted by the City, requires that detailed drawings in <br />accordance with City Design and Constriction Standards be submitted to the Public <br />Works Department for individual projects that show site parking layout, landscaping, <br />utilities, storm drainage, temporary construction erosion control, and all required <br />improvements of the required right-of-way. These improvements were to be <br />completed and approved before the Occupancy Permits are issued. The Applicant <br />submitted that the City and the Applicant are cooperating in the improvement of <br />Marine View Drive and requested that any improvements not covered by the <br />agreement for the improvements of Marine View Drive be part of the City Design <br />and Construction review process. The City indicated that this is acceptable. <br />32. The Applicant submitted that condition #26 was redundant and should be deleted. <br />Upon review, the City agreed. <br />33. At the public hearing, testimony was received from members of the general public. <br />A summary of the testimony is as follows: <br />