Laserfiche WebLink
12. The City of Everett Planning Department submitted a memo addressing <br /> streetscape issues in multi-family neighborhood infill areas. The City submitted <br /> that it is required to address "reasonable measures" to ensure that the City can <br /> accommodate population allotted to it pursuant to the Growth Management Act <br /> process. As a result, the residential areas around the downtown area have been <br /> zoned for higher densities. (exhibit 9, long range comment, page 1) <br /> 13. The City hired consultants to develop strategies to encourage quality <br /> redevelopment in the Core Residential Areas around the downtown area. <br /> Included in the consultant's analysis were comments that the streetscapes in the <br /> area were not sufficient to attract new quality development. The consultant <br /> recommended enhancing bicycle/pedestrian access, improving streetscape <br /> conditions, addressing safety issues and adopting design standards to increase <br /> the desirability of the area. The City acknowledged that the redevelopment has <br /> been slow and has met some resistance. (exhibit 9, long range comment, <br /> page 1) <br /> 14. The multi-family neighborhood infill portion included the subject property and <br /> surrounding areas. The City submitted that the low streetscape quality in this <br /> area is a significant constraint in attracting desired development. The City also <br /> indicated that in an enhanced pedestrian environment, setbacks and adopted <br /> sign guidelines are necessary and be included as part of the Comprehensive <br /> Plan. In part, because of a need for adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and <br /> the desire to make streetscapes more pleasant and desirable, the City <br /> recommended denial of the requested variance. (exhibit 9, long range comment, <br /> page 1; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 15. The grant of the permit for the variance would not adversely impact the rights of <br /> adjacent property owners or tenants. As previously noted, the properties on <br /> Wetmore Avenue are multi-family, and some of these properties, including those <br /> north and south of the subject property, have access off Wetmore Avenue for <br /> parking purposes. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 4) <br /> 16. A property owner in the area submitted a letter opposing the installation of the <br /> proposed driveway because it would remove on-street parking. (exhibit 8, <br /> comment letter) The City, when questioned about the parking for the multi-family <br /> and commercial structures on Colby Avenue, indicated that parking is available <br /> for those structures, and according to the City's information, little, if any, parking <br /> for these structures occurs on Wetmore Avenue. (testimony of Mr. Brick) <br /> 17. The terms and limitations of EMC 13.16 would create some hardship to the <br /> Applicant in that the cost of the access for the garage would be more expensive. <br /> It would involve a more detailed construction project with significant engineering <br /> having to be done because of the difference in slopes. It would also require a <br /> detailed storm drainage plan to control the storm drainage of the water in the <br /> r' <br /> 5 <br /> i <br />