My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3210 36TH PL NE 2018-01-02 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
36TH PL NE
>
3210
>
3210 36TH PL NE 2018-01-02 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2022 3:27:47 PM
Creation date
3/31/2017 8:32:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
36TH PL NE
Street Number
3210
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.
/
171
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
15. The Appeilant has failed to meet its burden of proof, and the appaal of the <br /> August 29, 2005, SEPA MDNS is denied. (findings 13, 14, 17-22) <br /> SPECIAL PROPERTY USE PERMIT CONCLUSIONS <br /> 16. The Special Property Use Permit General Evaluation criteria have been identified <br /> in finding 9. These criteria have been satisfied as set forth in findings 11-13 & <br /> 23-33. <br /> 17. The ready-mix batch plant is needed within the Everett community. The <br /> proposed facility would generate approximately 20% of the County and City's <br /> demand for ready-mix concrete. (finding 2) <br /> 18. The subject property is located within the City of Everett and would be served by <br /> City Police and Fire Departments. It does not have road frontage, but has <br /> access to several two-lane subcoliector roadw�ys and to SR-529. The streets, <br /> utilities, and public services required to serve the proposed use are adequate. <br /> (findings 3 & 12, 25, 26) <br /> 19. The proposed site is located in an industria; area. The tra�c impact mi;igation <br /> fees imposed as part of SEPA would mitigate impacts to the transportation <br /> system in tha surrounding area. (finding 16) <br /> 7.0. On-site circulation and site access has been provided. (finding 22) <br /> 21. The prc�posal is consistent �Nith the development of other propert'es in the area. <br /> It is consistent with the size, height, location, and setbacks of other properties. <br /> (findings 10 8 11) <br /> 22. The Applicant proposes only directionai signage. The signage would not be an <br /> issue with this project. (finding 28) <br /> 23. Landscaping wo�ld buffer and screen buildings, oarking, loading, and storage <br /> areas, and the wetlands would be enhanced. W�th the landscaping, including <br /> several 15-20 landscape strips, the proposed facility would be screened from <br /> adjoining properties. Little, if any, impact would result. The Applicant would also <br /> incorporate an enhancement of wetland buffers, and native vegetation would be <br /> utilized. (findings 30 & 31) <br /> 24. The proposal, after construction, would not result in nuisance irritants, such as <br /> noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, visual blight, or other undesirable impacts. The <br /> Applicant must comply with local, state, and federal air quality standar:is, and the <br /> City's noise standards. (findings 32 & 33) <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.