My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6408 EVERGREEN WAY 2019-01-29
>
Address Records
>
EVERGREEN WAY
>
6408
>
6408 EVERGREEN WAY 2019-01-29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2019 11:41:43 AM
Creation date
1/29/2019 11:36:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
EVERGREEN WAY
Street Number
6408
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
building. (Wexler Testimony; Muller Testimony) Planning Staff had no objection <br /> to this proposed revision. (ingaisbe Testimony) <br /> 20. Regarding the recommended required landscaping to be installed between the <br /> use and the multifamily building to the west, the Applicant questioned the <br /> usefulness of this screening (recommended condition three), since the existing <br /> apartment building has very high windows that would not experience an <br /> improved view as a result and because there are no exits from the building to the <br /> area proposed for landscape screening. (Hedahl Testimony) Planning Staff <br /> noted that the owner of the multifamily building did not comment on the proposal <br /> despite having been sent notice and that the accessory structure adjacent to the <br /> apartment building has already been removed. Staff indicated that the <br /> requirement for landscaping there may not be triggered because the costs of <br /> improvements to the buildings would not exceed 35%of the value of the existing <br /> buildings. Staff noted that fencing could be appropriate in place of landscaping to <br /> provide a solid screen and that the Applicant may not park cars on the adjacent <br /> property. (ingalsbe Testimony) <br /> 21. The Applicant noted that all auto repair and painting work would be performed <br /> inside and the proposed expansion would result in nine new jobs. Aside from the <br /> issues noted, the Applicant waived objection to the recommended conditions of <br /> approval. (Hedahl Testimony; Muller Testimony) <br /> 22. Considering all testimony and evidence up to and at the hearing, Planning Staff <br /> recommended approval subject to conditions of approval modified consistent with <br /> testimony on the record. (Exhibit 1; ingalsbe Testimony) <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Jurisdiction <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner Pro Tern of the City of Everett has jurisdictional <br /> authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC <br /> 15.16.100. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tern enters <br /> the following Conclusions: <br /> Criteria and Standards for Review <br /> EMC 19.38.090.A - expansion of non-conforming building use criteria: <br /> (1) The impact of traffic generated by the proposed use on the surrounding area, <br /> pedestrian circulation and public safety, and the proposal's ability to mitigate <br /> potential impacts. <br /> (2) The site has sufficient lot size to provide for off-street parking, landscaping, and <br /> screening from adjacent uses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.