Laserfiche WebLink
Everect Gospel Missio❑ <br /> SPU 7-90 <br /> Page -5- <br /> H (]�H <br /> 19. In addition to the conditions oi approval in [he staff report, the <br /> A �� Everett Plaanins Department submieted informaeion for developers with <br /> G y y regard to Public Works Depart�eut, Police Departmen[, and Fire <br /> �, Deparcoent requirements �•ithin the ci[y. The Applicant is advised of <br /> N � H Chis information. <br /> fC c] <br /> O S O 2�• Testi�ony was received from witnesses. A summary of the testimony is as <br /> '�M '� fol_o�rs: <br /> [n ti <br /> = A. Bob Long - The witoess suboitted that since 1962 he has operated a <br /> H <br /> �� d business near the existing s:te of the Applicant. According to <br /> H�g t:�e w±taess the �pplicant haz bee❑ a good naighbor and has <br /> y�„ � responded i�edia[ely whenever there were any problems. The <br /> zy �ritness recommended approval of the facility. <br /> ��.,.iy D. Gail Chism - The .itness opposed the project because of its <br /> ✓� locaeion near the Locrell neighborhood which she claims has a "fair <br /> H <br /> c�Cy V� �hare" of facilities and developmeut. She stated [hat she fears <br /> [hat the [enants will roam the Lowell neighborhood. She xas <br /> � y y concerned about the cumula[ive effect of this type of development <br /> H O [n cext to a Block Grant Neighborhood. The witness also s•�bmitted <br /> � tl.at the property could be zoned Nith adulC entertaiomen[ and Chus <br /> was not [he pl.�ce to put this type of facility. She stated that <br /> the Lowell Plan of the Ci[y of Everett calls for clean industry <br /> and the Riverside Redevelopment Pla❑ calls for a clean-np of the <br /> � area and [hat the proposal Was not consistent With these plans. <br /> � �� She further submitted that [he homeless should not be located in <br /> ��� the same facility as transients. <br /> C. Pete Bargreen - The witness submit[ed that he aor!:s for Crown <br /> • Distributing. He contended that Crowa Distri6uting fuels their <br /> i ��� trucks 15 - 20 times a day and uses the roads in ehe area, <br /> including 37th Street. He contended that this traffic could 6ecome <br /> a problem with tiie Cransient tenaats oi tne faciiity. also, <br /> vaudalization of trucks could occur. He submitted that Che <br /> �1 Q ealarging of 37th S[reet for future use v:ill cceate addi[ional <br /> � problems. <br /> � D. Wilma Betts - The witness submitted that truck traffic will not be <br /> =1 � a problem a�� vandalism will be reduced. She contended that the <br /> residents of the facility will be off-site during the day and will <br /> be in a controlled environment in ttte evening. <br /> �=1 E. Enid Norlund - The Witness submitteu that she has lived in the <br /> neighborhood for 76 years aud generally opposed the request. <br /> 21. At the public hearing, le[ters uere su6mitted as part of the official <br /> re wrd. (exhibit 6) A synopsis of these letters is as follows: <br />