My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
ROSS AVE
>
2102
>
2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2022 8:50:57 AM
Creation date
2/27/2017 2:51:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
ROSS AVE
Street Number
2102
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
342
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
proposed project subject to the conditions that have been adopted as part of this <br />Shoreline Permit. (see conditions 35-54) (exhibit 1, staff report; Jimerson <br />testimony) <br />33. The reduced buffer is the only alteration of the code standards that has been <br />requested by the Applicant. It is the minimum necessary to allow for the <br />reasonable use of the subject property. (exhibit 1, staff report) <br />34. The natural configuration of the site and the industrial uses of other properties in <br />the area have limited the Applicant's flexibility in the design and use of the <br />subject property. None of these factors was the result of any action taken by the <br />Applicant. The configuration was not the result of an inappropriate subdivision or <br />boundary line adjustment. (exhibit 1, stafreport) <br />35. In the past, the property has been the site of fills and storage activities. The <br />footprint has been subject to a significant amount of disturbances. None of this <br />was caused by the Applicant. (Jimerson testimony, exhibit 1, staff report) <br />36. The most sensitive environmentally valuable parts of the subject property are <br />those areas that are below the OHWM. None of these areas would be used by <br />the Applicant in its operation and would be left in tact. Mitigation is proposed for <br />the disturbed areas on -site. (exhibit 1, staff report) <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />Jurisdiction <br />Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to <br />hold a hearing and to issue the decisicn. That authority is set forth in EMC 15.16.100. <br />Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following <br />Conclusions: <br />Criteria and Standards for Review <br />Shoreline Permit - The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the <br />Washington Shoreline Act (RCW 90.58) and ordinances of the City of Everett, including <br />the Everett Shoreline Management Program. The goals. policies, and regulations <br />applicable to the development on the shoreline are set forth in these documents. The <br />relevant goals, policies, and regulations have been addressed in the City of Everett's <br />staff report (exhibit 1). The City has correctly identified the sections that are <br />jurisdictional to the request. These include: General Regulations (section 3); Cultural <br />Resources (section 3.5); Flood Hazard Reduction (section 3.6); Public Access <br />Regulations (section 3.7); Conservation Element (section 3.9); Use Regulations (section <br />5); Industry (section 5.7); and Parking (Section 5.12). The requirements for each of <br />these regulations are set forth in the Everett Shoreline Master Program. These are the <br />review criteria for the Shoreline Permit. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.