Resolution 3197 - Laserfiche WebLink

• 000b08 Bay Ridge Development Order May 26, 1989 Page -4- This issue appears to be moot because at the public hearing of May 18, 1989, it was stated by the Everett Planning Department that pedestrian access to 24th Drive S.E. had been acquired as a condition of a short plat involving another parcel of land. There is no need to address the reconsideration as submitted. II. Silver Lake Action Committee 1. This request refers to th ,- total acreage of the site. It has been adequately addressed above. 2. Finding of Fact #9 of the April 18, 1989, Decision stated: The subject property is flatth minor slope deviations in the steeper slopes. Near the lake and the wetlands there is approximately a 3% grade. The petitioners submit that the 3% figure is an error or inconsistent with other data provided. The petitioners contend that the northern and northeastern portions of the property have slopes of 7% to 15% and the property on the western portion of the site has slopes from 3% to 10%. Finding #9 did not state a specific grade for the entire development. It did note that there were minor sloped deviations in the steeper slopes and the 3% figure was an approximation. None of the slopes within the area are excessive to create developmental limitations in the locations as proposed by the Applicant. 3. The petitioners' contention #3 has been adequately addressed in the density as set forth above. 4. Findings #16 through #20 of the April 18, 1989, Decision addresses wetlands. The issues raised in the motion for reconsideration relate to construction within the wetlands. This is within the jurisdiction of the Washington Department of Ecology. 5-6. Findings #21 through #26 of the April 18, 1989, Decision addresses traffic. Petitioners in their request #5 and #6 raise issues with regard to _the traffic. In support of their contentions, they list figures as set forth in the final draft of the Environmental Impact Statement. These issues raised have been adequately covered in the Environmental Impact Statement and in the findings as set forth in the April 18, 1989, Decision. 7. Petitioners' paragraph #7 requests information on the pervious surface figure. The 54% calculation, as submitted by the Everett Planning Department in their staff report, is the only figure presented at the public hearing. It is presumed that it is correct. 8. Petitioners' contention #8 involves density and has been adequately addressed above. 000040