00182y
the possibility that traffic may be reduced in the area. She noted
that the alley on the south side of the area is very congested and
more use of that alley would create further congestion. Some of the
weaknesses of the proposal were that there already is a business and
an apartment building in the block, and those uses would become non-
conforming; and the traffic problem could be solved by other means
than a rezone. She noted that the congestion in the alley could be
worked out by the owners on the alley if they were to get together.
She also commented that if this were a finger of property extending
into a different use it would be different, but this property is located
only one block from the downtown Edmonds business district and is very
accessible to pedestrians. Ms. Charleson said she recommended the
rezone be denied, but she thought some of the aspects of the neighborhood
could be preserved in other ways. She noted that commercial and apartment
buildings go to the Amenities Design Board for review, and that Board
tries to assure that new buildings are compatible to existing neighbor-
hoods. She said the Amenities Design Board could look at roof lines,
building scale, effect of traffic on adjoining uses, height of structures,
and textures of building facades. She also suggested that the traffic
problems may be solved by the Police and Engineering Departments. Ms.
Charleson said she felt that for the best planning of Edmonds she felt
this block should remain BC. Chairman Naughten then read the petition
which had been submitted, and the public portion of the hearing was
opened.
Jeff Curtis of 657 Bell stated that he had signed the petition, but he
lives a block away from the area under consideration for rezone. The
question had arisen as to how many actual owners of property in the
proposed rezone area had signed the petition, and the public hearing
was expected to disclose this. Gladys Tuson of 508 Bell St., the
property owner who had circulated the petition, said that frequently
they could not get through the'access alley at the back of their yards
because of the trucks parked there. She felt the one-way street was
hazardous, and she felt the people who ,had lived in the area a longtime
wanted to keep it as it has been. Don Westlin, architect; of 19020
Highway 99, Lynnwood, said he was representing Dr. Gerald Dohner who
-owns two parcels of property immediately to the west of the Finnigan
Apartments. Mr. Westlin said he had served on the Lynnwood Planning
Commission and that he was familiar with the procedures for good planning,
although they had not always been able to achieve it. He said that from
a true planning standpoint the area under consideration is immediately
adjacent to the downtown BC district; it is contiguous and separated only
by a 15' alley; and he could not understand how a transition could be
entertained of BC to RS in a 15' distance. His client's two parcels
totaled 90' x 110' and he had owned them for nine years, at one time
having a business on one of them. He noted the antique store at 6th and
Bell and the apartment building at 530 Bell St. which has a real estate
office on the ground floor. He noted that the three properties east of
the Finnigan Apartments are under one ownership. He noted that any new
apartments would require two off-street parking spaces per unit, and that
condominiums usually have one of the two required spaces under cover.
Regarding the structure his client was planning to build, he said it
would use the maximum height allowance for economic reasons, pointing out
that in most cases the client has paid a prime figure for a given parcel
with the proper zoning so he must develop the maximum use of the property.
Herman Michelson of P.O. Box 69, Lynnwood, an attorney representing Mr.
and Mrs. Jack Street of 542 Bell St., spoke against the proposed rezone.
He said his clients own three existing properties in the proposed rezone
area. He noted that Mrs. Cassie Reschke of 506 Bell St. had signed the
petition and then withdrew her signature. He said her reason was that if
it were rezoned it would be spot zoning, and he agreed with that. He said
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 2 - October 12, 1977
an