Laserfiche WebLink
approval recommended by the Fire �darshal would ensure that the proje�:i <br /> complies with current flre code r�quirements. ThF� project would not increase <br /> demand for sewer and water service. (findings 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13) <br /> 3. The remodel would not increase tra�c to ihe site because no increase in <br /> capacity is proposed. Site redesign would to son�e extent relieve current <br /> congestion during drop off/pick up times due to increased on-site areas for <br /> queuing and parking. Pedestrian safety evould be enhanced through the redesign <br /> of on-site walkways. (findings 6, 7, 8, and 9) <br /> 4. The project would nearly double on-site parking with no increase in demand. <br /> The redesign of site access and parking areas would reduce existing congestion <br /> during drop off/pick up times. The increased parking would reduce the need for <br /> visitor parking on neighborhood streets during busy times and events. (finding 9) <br /> 5. The project would not change the nature or intensity of the use as it has existed <br /> on-site since 1969. The remodel would place the new structure �oughiy in the <br /> center of the site. Required setbacks from all property boundaries would be <br /> exceeded. With the structure to be located 95 feei from the north property line <br /> and 120 feet or more from the other three property lines, no light and shadow <br /> impacts would result from the proposed remodel. The majority of existing mature <br /> trees would be retained, minimizing the visibility of any changP to the <br /> neighborhood. (findings 5, 14, 21, 22, and 23) <br /> 6. Signs would be reviewed for compliance with City sign code requirements prior to <br /> installation. (finding 15) <br /> 7. Through retention of exisiing mature trees and addition of new landscaping, <br /> particularly in ihe parking areas, the proposed remodel would be visually buffered <br /> from the surrounding residential uses. Conditions of approval would ensure that <br /> site lighting is not allowed to trespass onto neighboring properties. (findings 10, <br /> 21, 22, and 23) <br /> 8. With no change in the nature or intensity of ihe existing use, the project would <br /> not resuit in nuisance impacls lo neighboring properties. New landscaping would <br /> reduce visual impacts over existing conditions. (�ndings 5, 16, 21, 22, and 23) <br /> 9. The proposed remodel of the existing school, an allowed use in the R-1 district <br /> subject to special property use permit approval, would remain consistent with the <br /> goals and policies applicable to lands designated 2.1, Schools and Churches. <br /> (findings 2, 3, and 4) <br /> 10. By undergoing special property use review, the instant request complies with the <br /> requirements of the zoning code and other applic2t�e City of Everett ordinances. <br /> City approval would not excuse the Applicant from compliance with all applicable <br /> state and federal regulati�ns. (findings 2, 3, and 4) <br /> 10 <br />