20110919170126826.pdfNVV, `15 y61,lYti)) 1145 6AU ANIMAL) ILL�LUb'40 `4M Y. UUl
SENT BY i 0-22-5> ;10!10AM CITY OF E NOS" 205 441 2910; 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 24, 1998
To: Members of the City Council
From: Gary Grayson, Chair
Edmonds Planning Board
Via-, Mayer Barbara S. Fahey
Subject: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION
13Y EASTERN kT'INESTMENT9 CORPORATION TO REZONE
APPRO MMATELY 2..9 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATRLV
SINT AVENUE WEST AND 140' ST'PXET 8OUTJJWWr FROM
"AM -3.0" TO "RM -1.5" E KO. R-98�81j,
In accordtutcc with thr. Council's dolcgation pursuant to RCW 35A63 MO the Planning Board held a
public hearing on October 28, 1998. a request by Eanei-A Inveatmenta Corporation to
rezone the approximately 2.9 acres located at approximately 81" Avenue West and 240"' Street
Southwest from "RTS -5.0" to 'IRM -1.511
.
Official Natiec of'thjiv hoariiRg was previously published in accordarim with ECDC 10.90.010 and
a&ranced copies of the proposal "vert made available through the City Clerk and Planning Division.
Eleven (11) poople testified at the hearing. Their names, the atm report vrith attachments, and all
CxMbita cntored into the Planning Board record are in the official file W have also been submitted
to the City Clerk. The audio recording of their testimony was also deposited with the City Clerk.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED REZONE
the applicant is mquasting a non -project specific rezono for the subject property from the current
RM -3.0 - Multifknily Rmidential (I unit fbr each 9,000 square feet of lot area) designation to a
bigher mul0l hmilly designation ofRM-1,5 (I unit for cath 1,.500 square feet of lot area),
Fixidin , Conclusionw, and Staff' Recommvetdatiom wore subraittcd by Planning Supervisor Jeff
Wilson. R's analysis is attached, Mr, Wilson stated that it is the Planning Division's
anon- nidation to decry the requested ruone.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tho applicant made a presentation during the public hearbig to support his requesred rezone. During
his presentation, he discussed the history of the slit and the adiarznt commercial property to the
wast, which is also under the same o`:vncrship,
City Of Edmonds eQ PIarming Eosrd
NOV. -25' 98(WED) 11:40 BAU ANIMALS 'I'LL ?UU-V291U Y. uv�
SENT BY: 0-22--5> ;10',20AM ; CITY Of E ,NDS- 205 "1 2510 tt 3
Ten (10) purple spoke in opposition to the proposed note -project rezone citing their oonaem with
traffic resulting from an increase in density on the subject property, as well as tlicir conecm with the
potential for an tncrease in crime that might be maociated with a large multifamily devciopment,
Additionally, they expressed concern with the po=tial ,for an increase in Storm water runoff',
especially in fight of sumo of the problems experienced by some of the downhill neighbors,
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed the merits of the proposed non -project rozono, with a majority concluding
that the proposed rewnc is not comiatent with the adopted rezone criteria and that the proposed
rwont. would be detriinmtal to the public health, safety and welfare. After consideration of the
request, the Board determined that the present zoning designation provides a transitional zoning
buffer bstwsbn the Intone camtxrarcial zoning to the west and the single-t'amily zoning to the
east of the subject property and that this transitional zoning is conalstantly used in areas north of
the subject property.
The Board spePifIcally cited the following a@ the basis of their denial of the requested rezone.
1, 7ha �pplicaation is not in kBeping with the goals and policies of rhe Compteekensiw Ph2a.
2. lire proposal ds star in keepink w?;h the intent ethe zoning ardfnancs as to projecting the
aistP;g uses,
3_ dere has not been any real changes in the area to justiry doubling tate dellsily.
4. Thera hes been no change in the area or city polity ro JuErtfy the rp-zone,
S. The cuTreni toning allows for adeguatie developmew Of the site and current condirtons
protect the netghborhoeds,
5. There is no gain to the public health, safety and vaeare and the ptibihcfactories in the
area cannot tuppon the additional demands created by this applicatton,
4 3914 ►rfe
Based upon public testimony, written infotrwi�o, and gta#f` analysis, flte Plarming l Garai voted
unanimously to recon=cnd, denial of the requested rezone to the City Council.
Submitted on behalf -of the Board by,
Gars+ O syson,
Planning Berard Chair
Attachments, Pluming Division Stel'i Advisory Report dated October 22, 1998
Additional Exhibits submitted to the Flare ing Hoard
Cictober 28, 1990, Planning Beard M=ttrg Minutes
pa; Filo No, R-98-81
Planning Board
Rob Ohave, AICD, Plannii g Manager
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AMP, Planning Sijperyisor
Pafle 2 of 2
Pq,gt.ccc