Laserfiche WebLink
October 8"' 2009 <br />Dave Koenig, Manager <br />City of Everett <br />Planning and Community Development <br />2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 8A <br />Everett, WA 98201 <br />RE: CEMEX Property DSEIS 09-001 <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone <br />Mr. Koenig: <br />-Tpt .I j�1 <br />My wife Teresa and I live in the Seahurst neighborhood, just north of the CEMEX property <br />and have attended a number of neighborhood and city meetings associated with this proposed <br />property rezone. We both have lived and worked here in Everett for more then ten years, <br />myself as an architect and my wife as a real estate agent. We are generally in favor of the <br />proposed redevelopment but we have a few questions we would like you to address. <br />We like the overall design concept entitled GLENWOOD MASTER PLAN (page 5), and <br />LAND USE PLAN (page7) as referenced in the Glenwood Master Plan + Design Standards <br />document dated February 18, 2009 DRAFT. We think the developers overall proposal zoning <br />changes works well with this site and neighborhood. <br />1. Setbacks based on use: (Reference page 5, Glenwood Design Standards) They show <br />some single family homes on the west property line backing up to the existing <br />industrial buildings that may be an issue with noise and light pollution. It is hard to <br />tell the setback shown with the landscaping and walking pathway based on the small- <br />scale document at that location. What is a good setback for this relationship? <br />2. South Everett Land Analysis recommendations: Please reference Chapter 2, <br />PROPOSED ACTIONS in the Draft SEIS document, page 2-7 City of Everett <br />Industrial Land Policies. The following three recommended items, and I will <br />paraphrase here... <br />1. ....except in special circumstances related to the suitability of s ep cific sites for <br />industrial use. <br />2. .....cannot be converted to other uses unless it can be demonstrated that the <br />characteristics of the site do not match requirements for size, shape.... <br />3. .....the City should seek to accommodate the larger industrial and warehouse <br />distribution uses, while providing an alternative opportunity.... <br />I apologize for taking these out of context but we would like to know where these <br />recommendations were specifically responded to for these three items? <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />