The URL can be used to link to this page

21100 72ND AVE W.pdfSUBJ: SR-99, M.P.45.72 Vic. C.S.3101 Traffic Study Review For The 'Adix. Kennel Expansion, City File No. ADB-96-2 FROM: R.A. Josephson, Manager of Planning,& Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation. Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 Seattle, WA '98133 The applicant seeks approval to add approximately 3,000 square feet of building area to an existing kennel -facility. The, location of this kennel is on the west. side of 72nd Avenue West, just north of 212th Street S.W.; approximately 1/4 of a mile west of the SR 99/212th Street S.W. intersection. Our comments on the traffic study (dated February 28, 1996 and January 31, 1997 by Perteet Engineering, Inc.) for this application are checked below: �X we have reviewed the traffic study for this proposed kennel expansion project and determined that it will not have a probable significant adverse impact upon any state highways. We have no further comments on this application. We last commented on this application in our last letter. Our comments on this MDNS are still the same as we stated in our last letter. We have no other comments on the MDNS for this application. -,F.DMONDS BARBARA,FAHEY, MAYOR -0220 -OM 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206)771 FAX (206) 771 ITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT s. U. Public. Works Planning'* Parks an� Recreation Engineering Letter of Transmittal Date', Janu ary 27, 1997 ''To: 'RA.Josephson WSDOT 15700 Dayton Ave. N. MS 122 j Seattle, WA 98133 su biect; File No. j%W; mes Adix) (Ja Transmitting Traffic Study For Your Information: As you requested: XX For your file. Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane Cunningham, Administrative Secretary 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister�, CitieS Inteinaiional— Heki nan.-japap JAN 2 3 1997 Washington State st Region ENGINEERINO Northwe Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Sid Monison Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of TransRortation (206) 440-4000 DATE: January 16, 1997 A TO: Je ffrey S. Wilson, S upervisor �?q I i City of Edmonds Dept. of Community services Planning Division 2 -5th Avenue North SO Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJ: SR-99 M.P.45.72 Vic. C.S.3101 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Application For Building Permit For James Adix City File No. ADE-96-2 FROM: Air-c Aep��so Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 Seattle, WA 98133 The applicant seeks approval to add approximately 3,000 square feet of building area to an existing kennel facility. The location of this kennel is on the west side of 72nd Avenue West, just north of 212th Street S.W.; approximately 1/4 of a mile west of the SR- 99/212th Street S.W. intersection. Our comments on the MDNS for this application are checked below: We have reviewed the site plan and determined that this proposed development will not have a probable significant adverse impact upon any state highways. We have no further comments on this application. _X We request an opportunity to review the traffic study prepared for this application. Without reviewing this study, we cannot determine what traffic impacts will occur to state highways and what mitigation measures are needed to mitigate them. Sh ould you have any questions, feel free to contact Don Hurter (440-4664) or Ed Giraud (440-4912) of my Developer Services section. Perteet Eng-ineerinR9 InCe 2828 Colby Avenue, Suite 410, Everett, WA 98201 (206) 252-7233 FAX (206) 339-6018. February 28,1996 -t *4,P S Mr. John Bissel /-Q. ge City of Edmonds Aft — community Services Department Planning Division 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Trip Generation Analysis for Adix Kennel Expansion JUL i perteet Project No. T9600-01 ENGINEERING Dear Mr. Bissell: This letter documents the trip generation analysis conducted for the Proposed Adix Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats kennel facility expansion in Edmonds, Washington. The project site is located on the west side of 72nd Avenue West just north of 212th Street SW. The expansion would increase the existing 60 runs to a total of 90 runs. Since there are no published trip rates for kennel/run facilities —such as the proposed project —a traffic count was conducted at the existing site to estimate the trip rates for the expansion. The traffic count was performed at the driveway of the existing facility ftorn 11:15am (Tuesday, February 20th) to 5:15pm (Wednesday, February 21st). An average daily rate of 178 trips per day (89 inbound and 89 outbound) was determined for the existing 60 runs or 2.97 trips per run. An average of 22 trips per hour (I I inbound and I I outbound) occurred during the p.m. peak hour for the existing 60 runs, which converts to a p hour trip rate of 0.37 trips per run. Based on the trip rates, the proposed kennel expansion of 30 additional runs will generate 89 average daily trips to the site with 11 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour (6 inbound and 5 outbound). As the existing kennel facility was found to generate 178 average daily trips and 22 p.m. peak hour trips, the expanded kennel facility will generate a total of 267 average daily trips and 33 p.m. peak hour trips, as shown in Table 1. P-AL Peak Hour Land Use Average Daily Trips Inbound Outbound Total .60 Kennel Runs 178 22 (existing) 30 Kennel Runs 89 6 5 11 (proposed) 90 Kennel Runs 267 17 16 33 (total) . 1 -1 perV�e IOM4eejj��' sheet of 6ORWRAIM Pmject No.�4m �Civfl sinA Tr��rtation Coxss�dtmnts Project A4WUA14EFZ= calc. Date dagm Z- -Oolfd -6 g& —re774-L-- ID Date Am Pell A DIf -f S 2-4f 19 0 1- A�Av otDr= /-78 7�e/o-S 7-4 A,C>-r AA-re-.� ?6 -rIC4fOS IOOC-X- 37 ae-4- SO IVE7J -new"ts ecu-- 'ce-mmet- 64 /,?,o eem .0, S) r low A� 'go-, az-rd:� -A ^e-xj all MJI� ns'mm e affic,Dat,a Gath ring �,,Location:.� Adix Bed Ave W. 11410 13th Street SIE Site: Weather Otainy, L.ake 'Stevens. WA 98268 Date:' 02/20/96 —Counter , Fil e: [none].,: Interval D ay Tues6y, Begin. m 'B.D.',' PH - B.D. 2:00 12:* .4 0 12:45:: 0�, 1:00, 6 .0 0 .-.1:30 0 1:4S 6 2:60 4 8, 2 2-30 2 2:45 0 3:15 s 3:30 3:4S 4:00 2 19 4:15. 2 C30 5 4:45 10 3 20 SAS 3 S:30 6 :6:00 1 0 6:30 0 6:45 0 7:00 0 7:15 0 7:30 0 7:45 8:00 .0 0 0 .01 8:30 8:45 0 9:00 0 0 0 0 9:45 0 Am 0 0 10:15 4 0 10:30 0 10:45 0 11:00 0 0 11:15 4 0 11:30 7 0 11:45 5 .0 Totals 16 73 Peak Hour 11:00 4:45 Vol ume 24 Factor 0.54 0.60 Day Total 89 J.'", ka4lData File: 9611401' Printed: 02-21-1996 Page Traffictita Gatheri ng ,,..;,�,Locat on Adix &6ath!6ff 72 AwO. :11410 - th Street, ".1i SitC:' 961, Weather' Rainy, Lake Stivlini. WA Date: File:' Interval Day Wednesday A in M PM - B.O. .12:00 6 9 :15 .12: 30 oe 0.. 112:45 2 1.00 0 0'.!: 13 1:15:� 0 2 0 1:4S 0 8 2-W 0 :0 7 2:15 :0 2:30, 0', 0 2:4S_ 0 3:0D O� 0 6 22 3.15 0 0 '3:30. V 7 3:45 07 9 �4:00 0 0 2 �10 4:16 0 :4:36 6 3 4:4S 0 4 5:60 0: 6 14 5:15 0 6 S:30 0 11 5:45 0 6:00 0 0 0 6:15 D 6 6:30 0 0 6:45 0 7:00 0 7:15 0 -7:30 2 7:45 8 8:OD 3 26 8:15 7 8:30 2 8:45 13 9:00 11 13. 9:15 0 9:30 2 9:45 0 10:00 0 S 10:15 5 10:30 0 10:45 0 11:00 5. 11:15 1 11:30 0 11:45 0 Totals 69 75 Peak Hour 8:15 3:00 volume 33 22 Factor 0.63 0.61 Day Total 134 ta JANtIS Fa�,O& File: 9611401, PO .2 vage �J Washington State Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North Depawtment 6f Wansportation P.O. Box 330310 Sid Morrison Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 DATE: January 16, 1997 49, TO; Jeffrey S.' Wilson, Supervisor City of Edmonds Dept. of Community Services Planning Division 250-5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJ: SR-99 M.P.45.72 Vic. C.S.3101 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Application For Building Permit For James Adix, ity File No. ADE-96-2 'FROM: &�Vo&seijIs*oI, Manager of Planning & Lo Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 Seattle, WA 98133 The applicant seeks approval to add approximately 3,000 square feet of building area to an existing kennel facility. The location of this kennel is on the west side of 72nd Avenue West, . just north of 212th Street S.W.; approximately 1/4 of a mile west of the SR 99/212th Street S.W. intersection. Our comments on the MDNS for this application are checked below: We have reviewed the site plan and determined that this proposed development will not have a probable significant adverse impact upon any state highways. We have no further comments on this application. —X We request an opportunity to review the traffic study prepared for this application. Without reviewing this study, we cannot determine what traffic impacts will occur to state highways and what mitigation measures are needed to mitigate them. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Don Hurter (440-4664) or Ed Giraud (440-4912) of my Developer Services section. REMODEL OF ANEVIAL BOARDING FACILrrY Jim Adix 21100 72nd Avenue West Jim Adix, 21100 - 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, was present. John Bissell presented the staff report and stated that the kenn as xi th el h been in e stence at is location for many years, with primary access off 212th Street SW. Since the City's Public Works facility was installed, 72nd Avenue W. is now open and the kennel, which was previously not easily visible from any public street, now fronts directly on 72nd Avenue W. Mr. Bissell explained that during the preliminary review, the Board had concerns about the choice of different types of building materials and that the detached office building did not seem to tie into the rest of the development. They also suggested a landscape buffer between the open areas and the proposed detention pond. The applicant is proposing to add over 4,000 square feet of new dog kennel space, as well as an addition of a second story cat kennel space. There will also be 1,000 square feet of office space added in a detached structure. The kennels will have red metal pitched roofs with setback second story portions. The grooming portions have flat roofs and the office building has a steeply pitched gray composition shingle roof with dormers. All buildings will have gray lapped wood siding with red trim. No new lighting or signing is proposed. Mr. Bissell stated that the property is zoned General commercial (CG) which allows kennels as permitted use. The applicant has submitted an environmental checklist and the City has issued Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. The existing parking lot is located, and will remain, on the east side of the site. Six parking stalls, including one barrier -free stall, will be added under the proposed office building. Mr. Bissell pointed out that the applicant proposes a wide variety of landscaping in the planting bed between the street and the parking areas, and trees and shrubs along 72nd Avenue W., on the east side of the office and between the office parking and the street. Existing trees and vegetation on the northwest comer of the site will be retained and the remaining area will be planted in sod. He commented that the Board must determine if the proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Design Guidelines. Jim Adix stated that he has added a detention system and eliminated the proposed detention pond which was included in the preliminary plan, and that the area will be planted with sod. He explained that he added rhododendrons along the tree line, and has designated a specific dog walking area. However, he has continual problems with dogs digging the landscaping up and customers walking their dogs in the landscaped area, so would prefer to have only trees in the area between the sidewalk and the fence. Mr. Adix pointed out that any additional landscaping in that section of the property will not last, and explained that he would like to add an additional mature dogwood and remove the low growing shrubs which are being destroyed. There were no audience comments on this proposal. Boardmember Pierce clarified the area where the new dogw6od will be planted, and that the rest of that area is currently planted in grass. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 January 15, 1997 Boardmember Oaklief stated that he liked the building design and the changes that the applicant has made. Boardmember Sullivan agreed and stated that the proposal is consistent with the use. IT WAS MOVED By BOARDME, AME R SULLIVAN, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNK TO APPROVE ADB-96-2 AS SUBMI[TTED, WITH THE, FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A POND AND THAT THAT AREA WILL BE FILLED IN WITH SOD; AND THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF TWO DOGWOOD TREES AND THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING RHODODENDRONS. MOTION CARRIED. ADB-96-106 NEW DRIVE -THROUGH ESPRESSO BUILDING Jack Trogdon 21210 Highway 99 Jack Trogdon, 19517 81 st Place W., Edmonds, was present. John Bissell presented the staff report and stated that this proposal is for a new freestanding building, located on a site currently developed with a printing business, which will be designed to allow for cars to drive up on two sides for coffee service. The application was previously reviewed by the Board and was denied because the materials did not seem to clearly represent the proposal, and because the design did not appear to be consistent with the surroundings nor with the requirements of the landscaping ordinance. The applicant is proposing a triangular building design in order to accommodate vehicle traffic circulation on the site and around the building. The building will have a flat roof with driftwood white lapped siding and green wood trim. No new exterior lighting is being proposed. Signage will include a painted wood sign located on the building below the service windows. The proposed sign has red letters on the white background of the building and will be 4 feet high, where 14 feet is allowed, and 12 feet in area, where 15 square feet is allowed. An additional 0.5 square foot red neon sign is proposed for the window of the building. Mr. Bissell noted that in order to approve this proposal, the Board must End that the application is consistent with the requirements of the Design Guidelines. There were no audience comments on this proposal. Boardmember Goodrick clarified that the location of the proposed planter boxes would face Highway 99, and asked about the side of the building which faces 212th. She also stated that a window box would add relief to the building as well. Jack Trogdon stated that hanging baskets will be utilized on the side which faces 212th due to the setback restrictions and to avoid any interference with vehicles. He also indicated that a window box might be in the way of vehicles driving up to the window for service. Boardmember Oaklief asked about the trim color and indicated that he would prefer that the entire parapet be painted with the same color as well. . Mr. Trogdon indicated that his preference would be for a teat color rather than lime green as presented. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 January 15, 1997 Boardmembers agreed that teal would be a more agreeable trim color. Boardmember Pierce stated that the flowers in the planters should be rotated to ensure a consistent annual display of color and include some evergreen foliage as well. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER PIE RCE, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER OAIKLIEF, TO APPROVE ADR-96-106 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING STIEPULATIONS: THAT THE COLOR TO BE USED IS TEAL; THAT THE APPLICANT STRIVES FOR A 'COMBINATION OF EVERGREEN AND ANNUAL PLANTINGS IN CONTAINERS ON THE SITE; AND THAT THE ENTIRE PARAPET BE PAIINTE D THE SAME AS THE TRIM AREA OF THE BUILDING. MOTION CARRIED WrM BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN ABSTAINING. ADB-96-113 NEW 30,000 SQUARE FOOT MD[ED USE BUILDING INCLUDING INTERIOR PAREING, FOUR DWELLING UNITS AND COMMERCIAL TENANTSPACE Jim and Carrie Markezinis I 10 3rd Avenue North Warren LaFon, 123 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, representative of the applicants, was present. John Bissell presented the staff report and stated that this proposal is for a new mixed use building on two lots, which are each 60 feet by 120 feet in size. The north lot is currently developed with a single- family residence, while the southern lot is vacant. He pointed out that the two lots must be legally combined through lot line adjustment or covenant prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed building will have a total interior space of approximately 30,000 square feet with 10,000 square feet each for parking, office space and four dwelling units. Mr. Bissell explained that the applicant has submitted a SEPA checklist and that the City has issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, with mitigation required to offset traffic impacts. The applicant is proposing a brick building with three stories visible to the west (street side) and two stories visible from the east (alley side), with portions of the second floor (alley level) parking on the north, south and east sides being open. Commercial uses and parking will occupy the street level, with the commercial space fronting on the street and the parking behind. The' alley level (2nd floor) will also have parking and commercial use, with the parking accessing the alley and the commercial space fronting on the street side. The third floor will house four residential units. Mr. Bissell stated that the bulk of the roof is flat, with portions proposed with a 4:12 pitch to give relief and added light to the dwelling units. An alternative design, using a barrel roll or arched type roof has also been proposed, however, this alternative design would require either a code amendment or a variance to be approved. The proposed building has considerable modulation and visual interest� accomplished through the use of a variety of shapes, including arched first floor windows, square second floor windows and peaked windows on the roof line. The north, south and west elevations also include decks with metal railings on the third floor and wall openings with pipe rail on the second floor. The barrel roll roof option also includes arched windows on the second floor, which tie the roof line through the second floor to the arches located on the first floor. He also explained that both design alternatives presented appear tohe in compliance with Design Guidelines, Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 January 15,1997 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT January 13, 1997 ADB-96-2 REQUEST FOR FINAL APP L OF AN DDITION TO AN ANIMAL 'A. Applicant/Property 03yne Architect/Representative Jim Adix 21100 72nd Avenue West Edmonds,'WA 98026 B. Site Location: 21100 72nd Avenue West C. Introduction: Adix Kennel has been in existence on the subject site for many years, with the primary access off 212th Street Southwest. Recently the City of Edmonds installed the new Public Works Facility, and opened 72nd Avenue West. The facility which was previously not easily visible from any public street, now fronts directly on 72nd Avenue West. The applicant is proposing to add over 4,000 square feet of new dog kennel space, plus addition of a 2nd story cat kennel space. The applicant is also proposing to add a 1,000 square foot office in a detached structure. A preliminary application was presented to the Board at the February, 1996 ADB meeting. As the previous presentation was for preliminary review, the application materials did not contain a complete landscape plan, building colors or materials. The Board had concerns about the choice of different types of building material, but believed that these issues could be mitigated with effective use of color. The Board also suggested a landscape buffer between the open areas and the proposed detention pond. There was also some concern that the proposed office building did not seem to tie into the rest of the development. The final plans submitted by the applicant addresses the issues raised by the board. The proposed office building has been modified by changing the originally proposed flat roof to a pitched roof with dormers. The applicant has provided a more complete landscape plan than provided at the preliminary stage and colors have been provided. The Board must determine the appropriateness of the proposal as submitted. ADB-96-2 D. Background: 1. Zoning: The property is zoned General Commercial (CG) which allows kennels as a permitted use. 2. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The applicant has submitted an environmental checklist. The City has issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 3. Issues: Design of the building, site, and landscaping have all been addressed by the applicant in their proposal, and the Architectural Design Board must determine the appropriateness of the proposal. E. Staff Analysis: 1. Building Design: The applicant is proposing one small two story building and one large remodel and addition to an existing building. The larger building being remodeled and added to has two basic design elements; the kennels and the grooming areas. The kennels will have pitched roofs with setback second story portions. The grooming portions will have flat roofs to match the existing. The proposed office building has a steeply pitched roof with dormers. a) Materials: The applicant is proposing lapped wood siding to match the existing siding material for all buildings. A metal roof is proposed for all sloped roof portions for the kennel building. A composition shingle roof is proposed for the office building. b) Lighting: No new lighting is proposed with the application. c) Colors: The applicant is proposing gray for the body of the buildings with red trim, red for the metal roof and gray for the composition roof. d) Signim* No new signing is proposed. 2. Site Design: a) Access I Parking: The existing parking lot is located on the east side of the site. The applicant is not proposing to alter the size or number of spaces in the parking lot. The applicant is proposing to add parking under the proposed office building. The applicant has indicated that six parking stalls will be provided including one barrier free parking stall. The number of parking spaces required for a kennel is one space per daytime employee. b) Lmd&caRi=: During the preliminary review the Board indicated the need for some additional landscaping. The applicant stated that the nature of the business creates adverse 2 0 ADB-96-2 conditions for landscape survival. The applicant stated that he has had problems withdogs digging the landscaping up and defecating in landscape beds. The applicant. stated that he would try create a landscape plan which addressed both the Boards concerns and the maintenance problems. The landscape plan presented uses a wide variety of landscaping in the planting bed. between the street and the parking areas. The applicant has also provided trees and shrubs along 72nd Avenue West, on the east side of the office and between the 0 ce parking and the street. The applicant has proposed to retain the existing trees f fi and vegetation ON the north west comer of the site. The remaining area will be planted in sod. 4. Technical Review: a) F=ineering Divi Storm Water amendments that will comply with Ordinance 3013 will be required. The gravel parking lot will be required to be paved. Parking plan will be required to meet the requirements of the ECDC A site plan that has been stamped by a Professional Engineer will be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. b) Building Divi Compliance with the ADA requirements must be met. Civil Engineered Drawings must match the architectural drawings. F., Summary: The Board must determine if the proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Design Guide. "Jot PEROIT, Coy" NTER L�N wil Fv— mom, ......... .... . oklw�pm�4 =N111— KENNEL EXPANSION FOR ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS rf. 104 jo. PERairco 14 loil 2.196, ewr. L-J r U^ N rAR91— all KENNEL EXPANSION FOR ADIXI S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS laillplialmlill 11111 Jill I'll 11 4"T YAUMN G =-I i Date of Notice: December 31, 1996 File #ADB-96-2 A A* 'canv�l Name of Applicant: ............ Z Jim Adix. Date of Application: ........... * January 10, 1996 (—Jate Application complete: * December 5, 1996 Project Location: ................ * 21100 72nd Avenue West Project Description: ........... 3,000 square foot addition to existing kennel including new and remodeled dog runs, office space, storage and parking. Public Comments due by:.. January 15,1997 City Contact for project: .... John Bissell Required Studies related Traffic b to the project: .................. Related Environmental Critical i Documents: ..................... ''P011c...'Hearing,. nfOemadd Date: January 15, 1997 Time: 7:00 P.M. Place: Comm. Svcs. Conf. Room - 2 Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community � 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sen ne decision on this development application will be made within 120 days of the. date:of the Letter of Completeness, with allo additional information requests. Note that ability to appeala decision, is contingent upon &rtici�atiQn in the perml The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this Varning! notice before the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing Date of Notice: December 31, 1996 File #ADB-96-2 Required Studies related to the project: .................. Related Environmental Documents: ..................... * Traffic trip g :) Critical Aree The decision:on this development application will be,made within 120d4s6f the date ofA'e Letter o.fCompleteness,. with allow'a�ne additional information requests. Note that4bility to appeal a decisionisc�mtingent upon p*icipadon m4hepermildeei The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This Marning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by aftec. fine and imprisonment. :-Garfield:&: Verna,Hildei 'COYOTE CLEANING SYSTEMS Dale D Kathol �22606 88th Ave W PO,Box 11-76, 7228 210th St SW :Edmonds WA, 98026 Lynnwood WA 98046 Edmonds WA 98026 F Richard Diori Miklos & Eva Hubay Jack A Goffette 2346 43rd Ave E� 1235 NW 175th St PO Box 488 Seattle WA, .98112, Seattle WA 98177, Lynnwood WA 98046 I a . NORTH:COAST 14TG CO Allen Leiter Professional Center Edmon 600 University St Ste 291 SW 7315 212th St SW Ste 101 Seattle:WA 98101 98026 Edmonds WA 980216 Terrence.P.Conway E OND OF DX Paul C Stenhanus 4942 NE-180th St ACFY 1250 5t- N 1140 Parksl__ de Dr E Seattle 98155 Edmond7 98020 Se attle WA 98112 STATE DEPT-OF TRANSPORTAT Vince Responte James X Tandoo PO Box 330310 840 171st Pl NE PO Box 3286 �Olympia WA 98133 Bellevue WA 98008 Lynnwood WA 98046 ALLIED,BLDG PRODUCTS CORP Jim,Adix Route 17 North 21100 72nd Ave. W. East Rutherford NJ 07073 Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident 210th St. SW. Edmonds, WA 98026 R6sident 7229 212th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident 7300 - 7309 213th P1. SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 Resident 7 8 S14 L 036 Resident 7207 212th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident 7315 212th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident 21200 72nd Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Resident 7220 210th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 .Resident 7215 - 7217 212th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident 7310 210th St., SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Resident SW 8� 0 3 6 N tVe Stale of on, -ttg at Everett, SnohobiabCounty. 0 resi Emm(DiND's BAV%SAlt^ FAHEY also ovm^vmmLmftofwTm " flamalmos# WA asoac 42001 V71-oaao F^X tzod�l 771-0281 #A^Yc" COMMUNMY 06MV8060 CAWP^KTMBMV Pubtle, Works PlOnnIng o Parke and Recreation a Unalrmarina r>Am=--rRAMSMrrrqo; mumeaFt C)F PAQ -S, is (IncAuding C:OvOr Page) Flac4plarcto T�oleaoplor Mumbler: 5� — .:7 0 Autamatil0knoup it (a.3 Mir mrooup sit if there xkrda uny probilema cluring tramnamloaft1cwt =r dc)cmjmftntft =rft r000tvo6 I lnc=K We) 4 IF -o52M:l=amq"k 4 -relecoplar Number. Sender's (206) 771-0221 1210. o-rnc,orpairatod Awause j 1, 1800 Sister 4=1tion Intorrant1cnal — 14micinon. Japnv% j TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT # 3 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 12063393049 li-20-90 2:35AM 1-32" 3 TOTAL 0:01'32" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 I 4 jk§IS A LEGALADVERTISEMENT A D SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name, of Applicant: Jim Adix File No.:., ADB-96-2 act Location: Proj: 21100 72nd Avenue West Pro' Description: ject Application by Jim Adix to The prop osed add approximately 3,000 square feet of building � area to . an existing kennel facility to., accommodate 50 now dogruns, remodeling,of 32 existing dog runs, additional office, shop, storage space, and two covered parking stalls. -CityContadt: John Bissell Public Com.ment-Perlod Due By: 1/15/96 PUBLIC HEARING INFORmAnON me: 7:010 P.M. Date-:. January16,1997 Location: Community Services Conference Room - 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds Sandy Chase, City Clerk Publish: No. later than December 31, 1997 CITY OF: EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 6TH. AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works oPlanning Parks and Recreation Engineering, Letter of Transmittal Date: December 5, 1996 'T Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology PCI; Box 47703 0 lympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: 21100 72nd Avenue West File No. ADB-96-2 Transmitting Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, Environmental, Checklist.and College Place Trip Mitigation Ordinance For Your Information: xx As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH A�VENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The proposed addition of approximately 3,000 square feet of building area to an existing kennel facility to accommodate 50 new dog runs, remodeling of 32 existing dog runs, additional office, shop, storage space, and two covered parking stalls (File No. ADB-96-2). Proponent: James H. Adix, 21100 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington, 98026. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will riot act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 1996. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 12,1:d9-g Signature��--�J 1 9 XX You may appeal this determination toRobert Chagp Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than 1997 by filing a written appeal citing the' reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on 99 , 1996, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page I of 2 ADB962B.DOC IV4/96.SEPA ,MEMORANDUM sgz Date: December 4, 1996 To: File No. ADB-96-2 'From: John Bissell, Associate Planner Via: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Responsible Official Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 3,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA TO AN EXISTING KENNEL FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE 50 NEW DOG RUNS, REMODELING OF 32 EXISTING DOG RUNS, ADDITIONAL OFFICE, SHOP, STORAGE SPACE, AND TWO COVERED PARKING STALLS; FILE NO. ADB 96-2 I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist, site plan, building plans, and trip generation report which have been prepared for the project. A copy of these documents are filed in the official file for this permit. Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I recommend that a mitigated determination of nonsignificance be issued for the project. The subject property is located within a transportation study area. The study, known as the Bell - Walker College Place Transportation study, indicates that the addition of new vehicle trips within its boundaries create specific impacts. The Study also outlines mitigations that should be required within the transportation study area. In this case, the number of trips generated was determined by a trip generation study submitted by the applicant. The City has adopted the College Place Transportation Study Area as an Environmentally Sensitive area, and has adopted the findings of this study as policy. Based on my review of all information and adopted policies of the City, I am recommending that the proposal be changed or clarified to include the following mitigating measures so that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) can be issued. Recommended Mitifzation Measures: I Based on the college place trip mitigation ordinance, and the number of daily trips projected by the traffic report submitted by the applicant, a traffic mitigation fee of $8,492.00 is required for the proposed project. The applicant paid $1,023.00 at the time of City of Edmonds (-A Planning Division ADR962ADOC 12MM, N" WEN or 9 0 19 4 - Purpose of Checkfist. 'Me State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. lastruclionsforAppUdints. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information k0own, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The chetklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklistfor nonproject proposalse, Complete this checklist for nonprcject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," *applicant," and *pr�lerty or site" should be read as proposer," and "affected geographic area,* respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Ala 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: /a — / Z/— IS — Pare I of 22 CIMM/W25-93AW11it 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. ki o (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. D r (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 100 (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. N tme- (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 2 of 22 CWMT/10-2S-".MAWM 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including -the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeqt those answers on this page. (STAFFCOMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. K a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLE TED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth 0 a. General description of the site (circle one):& rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Af tX (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, day, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? 9 you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Page 3 of 22 . . . . . . . . ..... vi"M (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measure; to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters?, If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdratvals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodpWin? If so,. Vote location on, the site plan. o (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so9 describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. t4ot&e— (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this walter now into other %vatenP If so, describe. 4 -497a -A A tilli A 1) (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters9 If so, generally describe. N " (STAFF COMMENTS) (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Iwo (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. IV*OtA-t,- (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landsciiping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Page 8 of 22 CIOCU/10-2S."MASM (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part or a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 4� (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hw/ards, includinj exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result or this proposal? If so describe. A) rmg (STAFF COMMENTS) equipment, operation, other)? (STAFF COMMENTS) -term or (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed' measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: SC-P-- a-Lize-La-A -- (STAFF COMMENTS) Page I I of 22 CWMT/10-2$M.MASM (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many people would the completed project, displace?. W mAme- T1% 7777777 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. if any: -A) Rt (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (STAFFCOMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. A) (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proptisal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Mau - (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished pnkiect be a safety ha22rd or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) page 15 of 22 CHMT/10.25-93MASM (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed mewsures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the pr(&ct or applicant, if any: KI I Al (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 22 MMO-25M.MMER (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public street,; and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. _p V� S e—vv j —L ZAAA Au, (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop9 I^ L+ Page 17 of 22 CitMT/10-".MASM 7. -77 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. HOW many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the pp)ject eliminate? Ae� AM 4 (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? IT so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per daywould he generated by the completed project? H known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. P-bo"k. V'=UJ u yn e (STAFF COMMENTS) (STAFF,CONINIENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts an public services, if any: IV (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. C'rcl fififits currently available at the site: Celectric�it Y sanitar sew septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 of 22 00 k1w, D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheerfor project actions) Because these qupstions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result fiorn the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal he likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or ha7ardous substances; or production of noise? 2. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: How would the proposal he likely to uffect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal he likely to deplete energy or natural resourves? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Page 21 of 22 CHIMT110-25MMASU How would the proposal be likely to useor affect, environmentally sensitive,areas or. areas designated (or eligible or und I er study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild an I d scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodpWins, or prime farmlands? AIM, Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Aine use, including whether it would allow or encourage land S. How would the proposal he likely to affect land and short or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond (i) such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 22 of 22 CRMT40-2S-".MAnM =WIMINIOMMIM now A Bed & Breakfast for Dogs & Cats 24100 72nd Avenue West * Edmonds, WA 98020 Background 11. It will include an addition of approximately 50 dog runs used for boarding dogs. It will include a remodeling of 32 dog houses and an addition to our present grooming area. it will also include a building for covered parking, of- fices, shop, and storage. Approximately 3,000 square foot- age will be added. 12. Project will be at 21100 72nd Avenue W. Legal descrip-' �tion is Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Seattle Heights Division #5. According to the plat there of recorded in Volume 9 of Plats page K records of Snohomish County, Washington. Ex- cept the Southerly 120 feet as measured along the common line between lots 3 and 4. Noise 2. This site has been used as a dog kennel for almost 35 years. Consequently, there has been a noise level associ- ated with this site for 35 years. 3. This proposed project is not only to add new dog runs and remodel old dog houses, but considerable consideration has been put into the design to reduce the level of noise,,.i.e. dogs . barking. To the west as the kennel is now constructed there is approximately a 75 foot unobstructed area for sound to escape to the west. I will be placing a building on the west side so that it will block that noise. To the north and south, I will add a second story above the dog houses and that will keep the sound from carrying out of the main kennel. The roof line on the north and south ,side will slope down instead of up as it is now. By build- ing this way it will keep the sound from going out. This will greatly reduce the noise impact. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a.' Current use of this site is a dog and cat kennel. Immedi- ately to the west is a light industrial mall with light in- dustrial businesses. To the northwest is a roofing com- pany. To the north is a septic tank builder,and a jani- torial service which maunufacturers floor cleaning equip- ment. To the east is the Edmonds Public Works. To the south is a mini mart and two lighting manufacturers. c. There are three distinct structures on the site. The ken- nel which is concrete flooring and chain link fencing. The dog houses are poured walls with heat in the floor. All runs and dog houses are covered. Second building is a wood frame.that holds the grooming and reception area. Third structure is a wood framed personal residence. CL 2824 ORDINANCE NO. ANORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP AND EDMONDS POLICY PLAN TO INCLUDE THE COLLEGE PLACE TRAFFIC AREA AND FIXING A TIME WHEN SUCH ACTION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City has designated through the Edmonds Policy Plan certain environmentally sensitive areas which are not subject to the exemptions established by WAC 197-11-800 and ECDC 20.15A.100; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the traffic within the College Place area has reached a critical level and has previously commissioned a study know as the Bell Walker Report in order to determine the offsite impacts of development and appropriately assess mitigation fees; WHEREAS, the implementation of mitigation fees are restricted by the categorical exemption relating to the construction of building projects with four or fewer units; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the College Place neighborhood, given the impacts of any additional impact traffic on the already critical traffic situation, should be designated as an environmentally sensitive area in order that all new construction be reviewed to determine whether impact fees are appropriate, NOW, THEREFORE, - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WSS528720 -1- V3343 'L4.3v DEVELOPER MITICATION Eoneral The use of developer funded traf f ic impact mitigation measures has become a necessary component of transportation planning activities in recent years. The City of Edmonds has. approached the point of development that will require developers to provide traf f ic impact mitigation in order to maintain acceptable traf f ic operations on the city street system. Three possible mitigation scenarios are discussed in this report as possible Policy for the City of Edmonds to adopt in the interest of preserving and providing an I efficient, safe and affordable transportation system. Transportation -Impact Fees The process of "charging" developers for the impacts their projects have on the transportation system has become an increasing viable method of allocating improvement Costs fairly over a wide area. Impact. fees are commonly assessed based on peak -hour trip generation of the development and are used to fund immediate or future projects required to mitigate the developer's impacts to the adjacent street system. Los Angeles County, California has established a one-time traffic impact fee of $2,010 per peak hour trip generated for new developments. The fee is deposited into a transportation trust fund and is used area -wide to provide improvements as needed. Montgomery County, Maryland requires a similar fee, but requires annual payments to cover 20-year construction bonds for required projects. Again, the fee is based on peak hour trip generation. Dallas, Texas uses a flat rate fee of $0.50 per square foot of development. While simpler to establish than fees based on trip generation, It is not as equitable due to the wide range of trip generation iharacteristies attributable to a given square foot of development. The "cost per trip" factor calculated for use in the project prioritization section of this report could also be used to establish a cost per peak hour trip impact fee for the College Place Traffic Study study area. The type of improvements to the street system can be divided into those that primarily serve the immediate area (local streets) and those that are Improvements to the arterial streets and serve the entire area. The costs for local streets would be totally the responsibility of the study area. The arterial street improvement costs would be shared based on the contributed traffic volume. The fee is determined as follows: Arterial Local Streets Streets Total Cost of Improvements* Total Additional $1,149,000 P.M. Peak Trips $199,000 $1,348,625 1 745 1,745 1,745 Impact Fee Per Added P.M. Peak Trip $ 658 $ 114 $ 772 * Share of cost traffic determined by Jurisdictional and the ratio of site generated to total traffic. Refer to Figures 6-10, -and Table 7; -28- 0006. WSS/tcp/klt 11/30/90 2824 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP AND EDMONDS POLICY PLAN TO INCLUDE THE COLLEGE PLACE TRAFFIC AREA AND FIXING A TIME WHEN SUCH ACTION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City has designated through the Edmonds Policy Plan certain'envirormentally sensitive areas which are not subject to the exemptions established by WAC 197-11-800 and ECDC 20.15AolOO; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the traffic within the College Place area has reached a critical level and has previously commissioned a study know as the Bell Walker Report in order to determine the offsite impacts of development and appropriately assess mitigation fees; WHEREAS, the implementation of mitigation fees are restricted by the categorical exemption relating to the construction of building projects with four or fewer units; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the College Place neighborhood, given the impacts of any additional impact traffic on the already critical traffic situation, should be designated as an environmentally sensitive area in order that all new construction be reviewed to determine whether impact fees are appropriate, NOW, THEREFORE,. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WSS528720 -1-