|
(3) Provides a service to the general area.
<br /> (4) The adequacy of streets, utilities, and public services to accommodate the
<br /> proposed use.
<br /> (5) Compatibility of proposed Use or building to surrounding properties, especially as
<br /> it relates to size, height, location, and setback of buildings.
<br /> 6) The number, size, and location of signs, especially as they relate to more
<br /> sensitive land uses.
<br /> (7) The landscaping, buffering, and screening of parking, loading, and storage areas.
<br /> (8) The generation of nuisance irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare,
<br /> visual blight, or other undesirable environmental impacts.
<br /> (9) Consistency with the goals and policies of the Everett General Plan and the
<br /> purpose of the zone in which it located.
<br /> (10) Consistency with the environmental policies as stipulated in the City's SEPA
<br /> Ordinance.
<br /> (11) Compliance with other provisions of this Title and other City, State, and Federal
<br /> regulations
<br /> CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS
<br /> 1. The proposal would not significantly alter existing traffic and would not change
<br /> site access points. The change of commercial use inside existing buildings
<br /> would not result in substantial impacts to the neighborhood. The Applicant would
<br /> have the opportunity at building permit review to provide evidence that the
<br /> proposal would not result in the 4.2 new PM peak hour trips projected by Public
<br /> Works. Traffic impact fees would be finally determined at building permit
<br /> issuance. For the purposes of land use approval, the record demonstrates a lack
<br /> of significant impact. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 17)
<br /> 2. Aside from the 1,150 square foot addition (built in 2008), approval would not
<br /> result in increased square footage. Parking available to the proposed expanded
<br /> use would exceed minimum requirements. Conditions would ensure landscaping
<br /> is brought into compliance with requirements. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 18, 19,
<br /> 20, and 21)
<br /> 3. The auto repair business has been in operation since 1981 providing a service in
<br /> demand in the City. (Finding 1)
<br /> 4. Approval would replace existing commercial uses in the two buildings at 6500
<br /> Evergreen Way with the Applicant's expanded operations, rather than adding
<br /> new commercial uses or buildings. Traffic generated by the use is not expected
<br /> to expand noticeably as a result of approval. Streets and utilities are adequate.
<br /> Building permit review subsequent to land use approval would review the
<br /> expanded use for compliance with fire code, which would ensure public services
<br /> are not adversely impacted by the proposal. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19,
<br /> 20, and 21)
<br />
|