Four development options for waterfront EVERETT - The city has four development alternatives mapped out for the former Kimberly-Clark mill site known as the Central Waterfront Planning Area.
One alternative sticks with current zoning regulations. The other three include a combination of water-dependent and heavy industrial uses, a business park and public access land use layout and a mix of water-dependent and non-water-dependent industrial uses.
The planning commission may make a decision on which alternative it prefers at its Tuesday, Sept. 18 meeting. The meeting is at 6:30 p.m. at Everett Station’s Weyerhaeuser Room. There will be a public hearing on the development alternatives at the meeting.
The preferred alternative will shape what regulations the city may put in place for future development on the site. Right now the site is under a City Council-imposed development moratorium that lasts through February.
The 93-acre site is the largest chunk of developable land on the waterfront.
A June planning department report states industrial uses would be the best use of the site, which is in line with a city mandate to keep industrial land zoned industrial.
The land use alternatives report is available on the city’s planning and development website under the title “Central Waterfront Planning Area.”
Alternative 1: No action alternative
The Kimberly-Clark site is zoned for industrial use, and the type of zoning it sits on allows a broad variety of uses on the site.
This alternative doesn’t change any zoning regulations and doesn’t require much review.
The zoning allows for basically all uses except housing. The zoning allows for a deepwater port, a community college, a business park and almost anything else.
There is no requirement to include public access to the waterfront with this alternative unless a non-water-dependent use — something that doesn’t utilize shipping — is built. If a non-water-dependent use is built, the new buyer could place an off-site public access area in lieu of putting it on the mill site.
Alternative 2: Water-dependent and heavy industrial
The second alternative envisions “a working waterfront job center including cargo handling, water-dependent manufacturing supported by rail access, marine services, marine commerce and construction” among other things.
A pier is mapped out at the site as part of this alternative.
This alternative would add regulations to prohibit or mitigate noise and pollution, to account for aesthetics and air quality impacts.
Public access would be allowed off-site.
Alternative 3: Business park and public access
The third alternative relies on the idea a commercial business park locating on the former mill site. Manufacturing would be limited to light industrial use to minimize impacts to neighbors.
The public could be given a trail and parkland setting on the site as part of this alternative. Public access on the site would be required, and if non-water-dependent uses are established, then additional environmental habitat areas would be required on site.
Alternative 4: Water-dependent and non-water-dependent industrial mixed use
The fourth alternative envisions the site having marine uses along the waterfront with non-water-dependent uses, such as commercial buildings inland. The alternative introduces design standards and regulations to keep the site looking nice.
Public access would be encouraged on site, but it would be allowed off-site as a form of mitigation.
Public access off-site
Some of the alternatives allow public access to be built off-site. The mill owns a piece of open land at the tip of the Everett peninsula that it suggests could be used for off-site public access points.
Have your say
People can submit written comments on the alternatives through Friday, Sept. 14. The planning commission will hold a public hearing on the alternatives and potentially select a preferred alternative at its Sept. 18 meeting.
