Loading...
May 3 Scoping Meeting Minutes.pdf CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUNSET LANDING CONTRACT REZONE (FILE NO. PLN20090051) May 3, 2010 STAFF PRESENT Michael Clugston, Planner Kernan Lien, Planner REVIEW OF CONTRACT REZONE PROCESS Mr. Lien announced that the application is for a contract rezone for the “Antique Mall” site from Community Business (BC) to General Commercial (CG and CG2). He explained that a contract rezone is a specific type of rezone allowed by the City’s code where an applicant proposes conditions to be imposed on the rezone through a contract. A contract rezone is generally done to limit what may otherwise be allowed within the zone without a contract. For example, the applicant for the Sunset Landing contract rezone is proposing that the uses allowed on site be limited to what is currently allowed in the BC zone. Mr. Lien further explained that a contract rezone is a Type IV-B process. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council will make the final decision on the contract rezone. The Planning Board Hearing would consider the proposal in an open record public hearing, but the City Council’s hearing would be closed record. Mr. Lien referred to the diagram staff prepared to provide an overview of the process for a contract rezone. The diagram provides three columns to outline the rezone process, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, and the public process. He noted that the three processes will run parallel to each other. He emphasized there would be several opportunities for the public to comment on various aspects of the proposal throughout the review process. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City received a formal application for the Sunset Landing contract rezone on October 28, 2009, and the application was deemed complete on November 24, 2009. A Notice of Application was issued on December 8, 2009, which began the public input process. The comment period on the Notice of Application expired on January 5, 2010, but the public can still submit comments on the application until the Planning Board has closed their public hearing. Mr. Lien advised that the applicant requested early SEPA notice, and the City issued an early SEPA notice on December 8, 2009 stating that a Determination of Significance was likely and outlining the reasons why. The applicant responded to the early SEPA notice on March 22, 2010. However, because they offered little or no changes to the proposal, the City issued a Determination of Significance on April 16, 2010. The appeal period for the Determination of Significance to the Hearing Examiner expired on April 30, 2010, and the SEPA process is moving forward. Mr. Lien emphasized that the public would have an opportunity to provide oral comments as part of the scoping meeting. In th addition, written comments regarding scoping will be accepted until May 17. He cautioned that they are not looking for comments at this time about whether or not a citizen is for or against the proposal. Instead, the comments should focus on what should be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He explained that once the scoping process has been completed, staff would prepare a draft EIS, which will be the subject of an open public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. He noted this is the only role the Hearing Examiner would have in the process. He added that the comment period for the draft EIS will be 30 days from the time it is issued, with a potential 15-day extension. Mr. Lien clarified that before the contract rezone application can go before the Planning Board for a public hearing, the draft EIS must be available. Once the draft EIS has been generated, staff would prepare a report and schedule an open record public hearing before the Planning Board. At the Planning Board hearing, anyone would be allowed to comment, and new information would be accepted. Before the City Council can conduct a hearing on the proposal, the final EIS must be ready. The City Council would review the application in a closed record public hearing, which means they would review the proposal based on the record established prior to the closure of the Planning Board hearing. No new information can be submitted before the City Council, and only parties of record can comment. He explained that a party of record is defined as the applicant, any person who testifies at the open record public hearing on the application, any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing, or the City of Edmonds. He emphasized that people who have only signed a petition will not be considered a party of record. OVERVIEW OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) Mr. Lien advised that SEPA is a state environmental review that is required for numerous types of proposals, and contract rezones are not exempt. He reported that the City issued a Determination of Significance for the proposal, which means it is likely to have a significant impact on some elements of the environment. As a result of the Determination of Significance, an EIS must be prepared. He explained that SEPA requires the lead agency (the City) to evaluate elements of the environments (21 natural environment elements and 25 built environment elements), and scoping is the first step in the EIS process. The purpose of scoping is to narrow the focus of the EIS to significant environmental issues, identify reasonable alternatives to be covered, and identify potential mitigation measures. Mr. Lien reported that in the City’s Determination of Significance focused on the following elements: Natural Environment Earth: Geology and Soils o Water: Floods o Energy and Natural Resources: Scenic Resources o Built Environment Environmental Health: Potential release of toxic or hazardous materials o Land and Shoreline Use: Relationship to existing land use plans and aesthetics o Transportation: Transportation systems, vehicular traffic, movement/circulation or people or goods, and o traffic hazards. Mr. Lien announced that the Determination of Significance also indicates that the City is planning on conducting a phased review that will focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready. He explained that a phased review is appropriate for non-project and project specific proposals or when a proposal is being developed in clearly defined phases. He further explained that the current application is a non-project proposal. The applicant is requesting a rezone and the buildings shown in the application are examples of what could be developed on the site if the contract rezone is approved as submitted. He referred to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-443, which states that a non-project proposal may be approved based on an EIS assessing its broad impacts. It further states that when a project is proposed that is consistent with the approved non-project action, the EIS shall focus on the impacts and alternatives not analyzed in the non-project EIS. In addition, the scope must be limited accordingly. Mr. Lien advised that all of the elements of the environment that are mentioned in the Determination of Significance will be reviewed as part of the non-project EIS. He explained that some elements will be covered more specifically (scenic resources, aesthetics, transportation systems, vehicular traffic, movement/circulation of people or goods, traffic hazards, and relationship to existing land use plans), and the remaining elements (floods, geology and soils, and potential release of toxic or hazardous materials) will be generally analyzed and more specifically addressed in the Supplemental EIS that will be required at the project phase if the contract rezone is approved. Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Lien clarified that the purpose of the scoping meeting is to solicit public comments about what should be covered in the EIS for the proposed contract rezone. They are particularly interested in hearing if there are other elements of the environment that should be considered as part of the City’s review. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION OF SUNSET LANDING PROPOSAL Michael Spence, Harrison Benis & Spence (HBS), Seattle, said he was present to represent the applicant, the Edmonds Shopping Center Association (ESC), regarding the “Old Safeway” site on Dayton Street and Sunset Avenue. He reviewed that the site is currently zoned BC, which the applicant believes is inconsistent with the following: The State Growth Management Act (GMA) encourages mixed-use transit oriented development. The GMA allows local governments and fast-growing communities to adopt policies and regulations that discourage urban sprawl into undeveloped urban areas, and the applicant believes the proposed contract rezone would be consistent with this goal. A project of this nature is also encouraged by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The applicant believes the proposed contract rezone would be consistent with the goals called out in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The current BC zoning is inconsistent with the goals of the State GMA and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan because is does not encourage high-quality development. Mr. Spence referred to 13 GMA goals that are related to encouraging infill and stopping urban sprawl. He specifically noted the following goals: Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. Transportation. Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of the state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Mr. Spence explained that the GMA required cities and counties to come up with countywide policies by 1992, followed by individual city comprehensive plans. He noted that the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for the subject property in the following sections: Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed-use master plan. . . . Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in the area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between the downtown and the waterfront. This language was used as the guiding Comprehensive Plan policy for the proposal. Downtown Master Plan.The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site) and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site’s situation at the bottom of “the Bowl” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors.The proposed application is intended to accomplish this Comprehensive Plan goal. Mr. Spence reviewed that the existing BC zoning has no minimum lot area, no minimum lot width and no street, side or rear setback requirements. Height is limited to 25 feet, with an extra 5 feet available for peaked roofs, and the maximum floor area ratio is 3 square feet per square foot of lot area. By contrast, the CG zone would also have no minimum lot area or lot width, but a 4-foot, landscaped street setback would be required. The maximum height would be 60 feet, and there would be no maximum floor area ratio. Mr. Spence summarized that although the applicant is proposing to change the zoning from BC to CG, they are also proposing to maintain the uses allowed in the BC zone. The applicant believes the current CG zoning language allows uses that would be inconsistent for the subject property and with what the community wants and desires. Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 3 Gregory Hill, IBI Group, Seattle, said that in addition to being a consultant for the current application, he was also involved in the design of the commuter rail station in Edmonds. He explained that his responsibility was to come up with a viable plan for the site, recognizing the design is not intended to be site specific but to provide general guidance as to what could be developed on the site in the future if the proposed contract rezone is approved as presented. Mr. Hill provided an aerial photograph of the area to identify the location of the subject property. He noted that the property is bounded by the railroad on the west, James Street and the Department of Transportation parking lot on the north, Sunset Avenue and a ferry holding lane on the east, and Dayton Street and the Harbor Square development on the south. He explained that the site is approximately 4 acres in size. Based on the current BC zoning, the property would most likely be redeveloped with about 60 town homes because of the existing height limit (25 feet plus an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof). This type of development would be considered low scale based on surrounding development patterns. He advised that the following Comprehensive Plan goals have become the guiding principles for the development: • Higher Buildings outside current view corridors. • Redevelopment oriented to the street fronts. • “First Impression” from railroad side. • Art work, landscaping and modulated design. Mr. Hill provided an illustration of the view corridors that exist down Main and Dayton Streets. He noted that the Main Street view corridor would not come into play with this particular application because the view is blocked between Main Street and the subject property. However, he acknowledged that the Dayton Street view corridor runs along the edge of the site. He explained that to address the concerns about view, the applicant is proposing to divide the development into two separate pieces, which would be more in keeping with the scale of existing blocks in the downtown commercial areas. He provided a drawing to illustrate the potential design of development on the site. He noted that the gray areas represent the footprints of the first two floors of the two buildings, and the darker areas represent the residential components that would extend above the lower two floors. The podium design of the two separate buildings would provide a commercial street front around the edge of each of the buildings, as well as an entrance to the parking garage from a new street located between the two buildings. He noted that because of the high water table in the area, it is not possible to construct an underground parking garage. In the current design, the parking garage would be located on the lower two floors, along with the commercial space. The residential units would be located in the upper stories. He emphasized that his goal was to illustrate a potential design that would be consistent with the existing development found on other properties in the vicinity. The spaces would be relatively small (500 to 2000 square feet), which is similar to the type of commercial development that currently exists on Main Street. Mr. Hill announced that, as per the design, a new view corridor would be created in the area that divides the two buildings. He observed that if the property were developed under the existing zoning, no additional view corridor would be required. He noted that the proposed new street would create an additional access to the existing train station. He provided several ndrdth , 3 and 5 Avenues. He also provided drawings to drawings to illustrate views to the west along Main Street from 2 ndrdth illustrate views on Dayton Street from 2, 3 and 5 Avenues. Mr. Hill summarized that the four acre parcel would be divided into two pieces, with a new mid-block street in between. While there would be no destination for the new street, it would serve the commercial businesses that front on the street and provide access to the commercial parking. The parking garage would be divided into a commercial component that would have access from the new street and a residential component that would have access from Dayton and James Streets. Mr. Hill advised that CG zoning has been proposed for the southern parcel, which would allow a height limit of up to 60 feet. He provided an image to illustrate a 60-foot tall building. He said the north parcel is proposed to be CG2 zoning, which has a 70-foot height limit. He also provided an illustration of a 70-foot tall building constructed right at the property line. He explained that the CG zone would allow the building envelope to extend from property line to property line, with the exception of a 4-foot street setback. However, the proposed rezone application specifies a working envelope that is significantly smaller than what a straight CG or CG2 rezone would allow. He provided a drawing to illustrate what the proposed working envelope would be for the portions of the buildings that are both below and above 25 feet in height. He Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 4 noted that the portions of the buildings that are less than 25 feet in height would be set back from the property line in some locations, and the portions that are taller than 25 feet would be stepped back an additional amount. He summarized that the buildings shown in the design would be smaller than the working envelope. He emphasized that the designs are not intended to represent a final design. While the working footprint of a final design could not be any larger in square foot area than what is shown in the preliminary drawings, the buildings could be located anywhere within the working footprint. He stressed the importance of allowing sufficient flexibility for a future developer to design a viable project. While the building configuration might be different, the development could not be any larger in square footage, and the buildings could not be located outside of the working envelope. Mr. Hill referred to the Dayton Street view corridor, and noted that the southern edge of the property borders Dayton Street. He explained that as a person walks down Dayton Street, the view makes a V. Therefore, the further buildings are located away from the view, the more they should be set back. The applicant is proposing to set back the building envelope on Dayton Street to provide a better view down the street. He summarized that the setbacks and step backs proposed in the application are intended to help preserve the view to the water. He expressed his belief that the development would likely be primarily residential, and each residential developer has his/her own formula for determining the appropriate mix of units (size, shape, and design). The goal is to allow enough flexibility for a future developer while placing limits on how much can be built on the site and what the configuration should be. Again, Mr. Hill provided a drawing to compare the building envelope of straight CG and CG2 zoning with the proposed working envelope, which would further restrict the potential building envelope. If the CG and CG2 zoning is approved as proposed, the building configuration would be allowed to change, but the buildings could not be located outside of what has been identified as the working envelope. Mr. Hill advised it is estimated that the current design would provide 306 residential units and 331 parking spaces for the residential uses. There would be approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial space, with an additional 91 parking spaces to serve the commercial uses. In addition, 31 spaces could be provided via on-street parking on James Street, Dayton Street, and the new road that divides the two buildings. He expressed his belief that providing on-street parking for the new development would be consistent with the character that currently exists on Main Street. In addition, the on-street parking areas could serve as a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. He noted that on-street parking was not proposed along Sunset Avenue because they do not believe the Department of Transportation would allow it. Mr. Hill advised that landscaping and pocket parks are mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He provided a drawing to illustrate the corner of James Street and Sunset Avenue, where the corner of the building would be setback and a plaza would be created. The new street would also include a plaza area, and a plaza area would be located at the corner of Main Street and Dayton Street, as well. Each of the street facades would provide overhead weather protection and street trees. Where it is not possible to provide on-street parking, planters would be added to separate the pedestrians from the street. Mr. Hill acknowledged that the scale of the proposed buildings is tall, but he observed there are other tall buildings in the vicinity. Mr. Hill briefly compared the requirements of the existing BC zone to those of the proposed CG and CG2 zones. He noted that there is no minimum lot area or minimum lot width in any of the zones. There is no street setback requirement in the BC zone, but the CG and CG2 zones require a 4-foot street setback. The maximum height allowed in the BC zone is 25 feet, with an extra 5-foot bonus for a pitched roof. Given this height limit, 3-story town homes would be the most likely development for the site. The CG zone that is proposed for the southern half of the property would allow a height of up to 60 feet, and the CG2 zoning proposed for the northern half of the property would allow a height of up to 70 feet. The current BC zone allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3 (3 square feet per square foot of lot area). In theory, this would allow a developer to construct a 3-story building over the entire site, but in reality, it would be impossible to actually build to that intensity. There would be no maximum FAR in the CG and CG2 zones. However, the current proposal represents an FAR of 1.8 for the commercial and residential space, with an additional FAR of 1 for the parking component. Applying CG zoning to the two lots would result in an average FAR of 2.8 compared to the FAR 3 that is currently allowed. Neither the BC nor the CG zones require open space, but creating a new street with plazas in all corners would result in 30% of the site Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 5 being set aside for open space. In addition, all of the areas on top of the parking structures would be open space that is available to tenants of the building. Balconies would be provided for the residential units, as well. Mr. Hill pointed out that, as currently proposed, there would be a significant amount of modulation on the building, which the Comprehensive Plan has called out as desirable. The modulated design helps mitigate issues related to building scale. Lora Petso, Edmonds, asked which elements of the proposed design are part of the proposed rezone application, and which ones would be addressed in the future. She noted the applicant’s architect earlier commented that the property may be turned over to another architect who may want to do something different with the property, and there is no guarantee that a future architect or developer would provide the same level of open space and modulation. Mr. Hill emphasized that the square foot area of the ground floor would be fixed and could not be changed. There will be public areas as part of a future proposal, but he acknowledged that they may not be provided in the same configuration as shown on the plans he prepared. He noted that these issues would be addressed as part of a future design review when a development permit application has been submitted. He explained that the building configuration could change, and some of the niceties shown on the plan are not necessarily required. However, the building would go through design review, where staff would look closely at all elements of the plan that create scale and potentially require setbacks, modulation, etc. The working envelope represents the maximum building envelope allowed under the contract rezone, and the footprint of the current design is less. He explained that the City’s Architectural Design Board would have the ability to maneuver the buildings around, using the same total working area. However, he emphasized the need to allow flexibility for a future developer to move the buildings around to create desirable public amenities. Mr. Spence recalled that GMA requires early and continuous public participation in development proposals, and this hearing is related to the EIS. When the project proceeds to the design review phase, there will be another round of public participation where the citizens would be invited to provide more detailed input. James Lockhart, Edmonds , asked if the information from the applicant’s PowerPoint presentation would be available to the public. Mr. Lien answered that the information could be accessed from the City’s website. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he missed the applicant’s presentation, but he is concerned about the proposed contract rezone to CG and CG2. He asked the applicant’s representatives to identify where in the City the nearest similar type CG zoning. Mr. Hill pointed out that the Harbor Square property to the south is zoned CG, with a 60-foot height limit. Mr. Lien clarified that the Harbor Square Property is a contract rezone, with a height limit of 35 feet. He said most properties in the area are zoned BC, and the CG zoning is generally located on or near Highway 99. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, said the way the applicant described the podiums, it sounds like they could cover the entire property. If that is the case, she questioned what portion of the property would be dedicated to the 30% of open space noted earlier by the applicant’s representative. Mr. Hill answered that all of the area that is not used for the podiums would be public space. This includes the area around the perimeter of the buildings and the new street that would run between the two buildings. Ms. Bloom summarized that Mr. Hill is really talking about sidewalks around the perimeter of the building, a few landscaped areas, and the road down the middle of the site. Mr. Hill pointed out that, currently, there is little public right-of- way for sidewalks in the area. Ms. Bloom expressed her belief that sidewalks and streets should not be considered public space. While the public uses the streets, they should not be considered the same as public gathering spaces, plazas or parks. Mr. Hill pointed out that the sidewalks would be located on the applicant’s property and there would also be landscaped areas. Ms. Bloom referred to Mr. Spence’s earlier comment that the Comprehensive Plan calls out affordable housing as a goal. However, because of environmental constraints associated with the site, it will be costly to construct residential units to capture the view. She questioned how the applicant could think a development of this type could meet the Comprehensive Plan’s goal for affordable housing. Mr. Spence explained that affordable housing has a lot to do with density on the site and unit size. He agreed it is probably not going to be feasible to build low-income housing on the subject property, but there is a difference between affordable housing and housing affordability. The GMA talks about housing being available to all segments of the community through a range of housing types and densities. They are hoping that development of the subject Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 6 property could help address some of these different types of housing needs. They also hope that by adding more density, they would address the issue of affordable. He explained that one of the goals is affordable housing for all segments of the community, and they hope the project contributes to that. Ms. Bloom expressed her belief that a reasonable person would never believe that affordable housing could be built on the subject property. Mr. Hill explained that there are three ways to build housing. The north tower would consist of a more expensive construction approach, and the south tower would be constructed of wood on the top and concrete on the bottom. Wood construction is less costly so the south tower units would be considered more affordable. However, he acknowledge that none of the units would be considered low-income housing. He noted that low-income housing must be subsidized and the subject property would likely be developed by a private, non-subsidized developer. He summarized that, generally speaking, the only affordable housing is existing housing. It is virtually impossible to build new construction that meets the definition of low-income housing. Ms. Bloom pointed out that she was not the one who made the comment that the project would meet the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing affordable housing. Ms. Bloom asked how tall the proposed podiums would be. Mr. Hill answered that the podiums would be approximately 22 feet in height, and the working envelope would be 25 feet. This is enough space for two stories of commercial space and parking. Ms. Bloom observed that the podiums would be almost as high as the current BC zoning allows. Mr. Hill agreed. Ms. Bloom observed that the proposed podiums would cover the property right to the lot line. Ms. Bloom referred to Mr. Hill’s previous comment that there are existing structures in the vicinity of the subject property that are greater in height than currently allowed in the BC zone. She asked him to identify those buildings he was referencing. Mr. Hill said every residential building on the east side of Sunset Avenue is taller than 25 feet, and there is a condominium near the water (Ebb Tide) that is five stories tall. Ms. Bloom agreed there are some existing building that exceed the current height limit for the BC zone, but they are not as tall as what the applicant is proposing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out that because the applicant is requesting a zoning change, the application must go before the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation would go to the City Council for a final decision. Mr. Lien clarified that the code is very clear. Title 20.02 lists the types of processes, and a contract rezone is a Type IV-A process. The final decision would be made by the City Council, but the Planning Board would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation. Rosalie Ginnett, Edmonds, asked what happened to the 30-foot height limit the citizens voted on recently. She questioned why they are now being required to vote again. She said she and her husband live on Dayton Street, and the proposed rezone and project would end up blocking their entire view. Mr. Lien clarified that the proposal is just an application at this time. Nothing has been approved. The application is in the early stages, and the ultimate decision will be made by the City Council. Jonathan Hatch, Edmonds, said he is an attorney representing Karen Wiggins, the property owner to the east of the proposed contract rezone. He said he would submit written comments before the deadline. However, he expressed concern that the statute cited in the Determination of Significance and the meeting notice was Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21.030(2)(c), and this statute does not exist. The correct citing is RCW 43.21.C. He summarized his belief that the Determination of Significance and notice are defective, and therefore, the meeting is defective. He said he would leave it up to the City Council and Planning Department staff to decide how to fix this problem. PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS Gary Ginnett, Edmonds, said he first lived in Edmonds in 1960, and he moved to Alaska for 20 years in 1974. He came th back to Edmonds in 1992, and they currently live on 4 Avenue between Main Street and Dayton Street in the top floor of the Copperstone Building. He expressed concern that the proposed contract rezone would result in development that blocks their view. He observed that housing close to the water or with a view of the water is more costly than housing that is further away or does not have a view. He said that in recent years, his condominium has dropped in value from $1.4 million to below $1 million. He summarized that the real estate market in Edmonds has collapsed, but affordable housing is still not in the cards for the City. He recalled that developers in Richmond Beach, Shoreline, and Mukilteo have tried to develop similar Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 7 projects as what is now being proposed for Edmonds, and the communities’ reaction was not favorable. While he recognized that no developer could construct condominiums on the property at the 30-foot level and make the project a successful endeavor, he questioned how the citizens of Edmonds would benefit from allowing a greater height. He emphasized that their view would be flat out lost if the property is allowed to develop as proposed, and the value of his condominium would be significantly reduced because it would longer be view property. He expressed his belief that a number of citizens of Edmonds will not be disposed to support the application. Many people would be harmed as opposed to the few people that will be able to purchase the nice view condominiums at the top of the proposed buildings. Mr. Ginnett said he has a prejudice against the proposed project because it would impact his financial interests. The reality is that the closer a residential unit is located to the beach, the more it will cost. He questioned who would be able to afford the new residential units, especially in view of the current economic situation. He questioned the wisdom of the applicant putting money into the project. He said he is vehemently opposed to the application and wants to maintain the 30-foot building height limit. Todd Parker, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for a long time. He said he has loves Edmonds and will continue to do so all his life. He said he lives in the downtown and loves the demographics (older citizens). If he wanted to live in downtown Bellevue or Kirkland or in Bell Town in Seattle, he would do so. He and his wife chose to come to Edmonds because they like the people and the small town coastal feel of the environment. He expressed his belief that the proposal would be an abomination for Edmonds, creating a highly populated area like Redmond, Seattle and Bellevue. He agreed that the common areas proposed by the applicant would be merely 4-foot setbacks from all property lines, along with a new road down the middle of the property. The project would be a monstrosity, and he hopes he has not missed the chance to vote on the proposal. He disagreed that future redevelopment of the property would be limited to 2 and 3-story town homes based on the current zoning. He questioned why the current zoning could not be maintained and the property developed into some type of strip mall like Cannon Beach. This type of development would be more in keeping with the character of Edmonds. Mr. Parker recalled comments by the applicant’s representatives regarding view corridors on Main and Dayton Streets. He expressed his belief that although the proposed project would maintain these view corridors, it would eliminate the view from numerous properties that are not located on Dayton and Main Streets. Property owners in the downtown are not just concerned about protecting the view corridors. He summarized his belief that it is not appropriate to rezone the property to allow development to occur similar to downtown Bellevue. This large development would be located across the street from single-family homes. Approval of the contract rezone would not be fair to the surrounding property owners and would not be in keeping with the small town environment of Edmonds. Mr. Lien pointed out that the public would have additional opportunities to provide input regarding the subject property. He noted that the contract rezone must go before the Planning Board for an open record public hearing, and then it will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, said she is not a long-term resident of Edmonds, but has lived in the City since 2006 Regarding the decision to utilize a “phased review,” Ms. Tipton cited WAC 197-11-060, which states that a phased review is not appropriate when “it would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussions of cumulative impacts; or it would segment and avoid present impacts that are required to be evaluated in a single environmental document.” She suggested the arbitrary relegation of certain elements (geology, hydrology and ecology) to a generalized discussion would downplay the importance of those elements in making an informed decision. Due to time constraints, Ms. Tipton advised she would confine her remarks to the natural environment. She pointed out that the existing soil on the subject property is “Mukilteo Muck,” which is made up of decomposed sedges, reeds and rushes. Because the soil is composed of organic aquatic plants, it is easily saturated and poorly drained. The site is prone to puddles of standing water, and the problem is exacerbated by the high water table. In order to deal with the flooding, the developer will need a perpetual pump to flush out the ever present water. Since the water constantly flows, it will be almost impossible to keep it from entering underground crawlspaces, basements or parking areas. Ms. Tipton noted that the existing soil is also prone to liquefaction, which is defined as the process of transforming a soil from a solid state to a liquid state. This process occurs in an earthquake when shaking begins and the wet Mukilteo Mud Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 8 takes on the characteristics of a liquid, thus taking a toll on structures. She suggested that only a geotechnical study of the site will reveal the liquefaction potential along with the depth and tilt of the bedrock below the mucky soil. Based on the proposed height of the buildings, the engineer would calculate the amount of rebar and concrete needed to withstand an earthquake and determine the type of anchor to secure the building to the bedrock. This will be an expensive study that cannot be done by a civil engineer. Ms. Tipton recalled the applicant has labeled the site as “transit oriented.” However, calling a site “transit oriented” does not mean that future Sunset Landing residents would use mass transit to commute. One cannot assume a higher rate of ridership among Sunset Landing residents in comparison to other residents of the City. It is also important to keep in mind that the new development would be marketed to retired, elderly people, who would not likely need transit facilities to commute to work each day. She further advised that when conducting a traffic flow analysis, it is important not only to evaluate the impact of future traffic on surrounding streets. It is also necessary to examine the traffic flow within the site, itself. Ms. Tipton suggested the following additional elements that were not cited in the Determination of Significance, but should be within the scope of the EIS: Calculation of the cost of public services and utilities. This calculation should provide costs for wastewater and stormwater management, schools, policing, fire protection, etc. Stormwater runoff . The EIS should identify the environmental costs and the cost of potential property damage that might occur from the stormwater runoff. Impact of sea rise . This is a very necessary element to address given the site’s close proximity to the shoreline. Ms. Tipton cautioned the applicant that when analyzing surrounding land uses, they should not make the mistake of citing non-conforming uses such as the Ebb Tide high-rise residential building. This building would not be permitted based on the City’s current zoning regulations, nor would the building be legal under the Shoreline Management Act. Ms. Tipton also referred to Mr. Hertrich’s question about where other CG and CG2 zoned properties are located in the City. She noted that CG and CG2 zoned properties are located exclusively along Highway 99, and the City’s zoning code states that the two zones are designed for high-capacity arterials, specifically mentioning Highway 99. She expressed her belief that Highway 99 is a good example of where transit-oriented development could go. The SWIFT Bus runs at regular intervals along the highway, providing opportunities for people to travel from Everett to downtown Seattle, and this is true transit-oriented development. Regarding the comments made earlier by the applicant’s representative about low or moderate-income housing, Ms. Tipton suggested that given the high cost of actually constructing a building on the subject property, she cannot see that moderate or even middle class people would be able to afford to live in the units. Mr. Spence asked for clarification about exactly what Ms. Tipton would like the applicant to address regarding the issue of traffic flow. Ms. Tipton said that, typically, when planners complete a traffic flow analysis, they look at traffic flow around the site, as well as traffic within the site. In addition, they also traditionally look at whether fire trucks and other emergency equipment can maneuver safely on the site. Lora Petso, Edmonds, suggested City staff address the issue raised earlier by Mr. Hatch about the failed notice. She expressed her belief that it is deceptive for the applicant’s representative to show a building rather than the working envelope. She said past experience in Edmonds is that the entire building envelope is typically filled. Not only is it filled, but the developer often wants to overhang balconies, etc. While she recognized the applicant’s representative attempted to show a potential building design that provides modulation rather than the typical boxy design that exists in Edmonds, development in Edmonds has typically maximized the building envelope. It is deceptive to think that anything different would result on the subject property. She suggested that the corner plaza areas be extended. She suggested that the EIS should be very clear as to what is required under the rezone and what the applicant is hoping, wishing or think they will get in a best case scenario. Otherwise, there would be no guarantees as to the end result and there are numerous scenarios for potential court cases. Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 9 Ms. Petso said she does not like the proposed project, and she has always supported the existing height limit. However, she suggested it would also be helpful for the EIS to evaluate an option that is not as high as what is proposed, but is greater than the existing height limit. The proposal should require that the buildings be set back on Dayton Street and Sunset Avenue, and a much larger plaza should be provided in the southeast corner of the site. In addition, the EIS should keep in mind that the City may have to purchase some of the property to address the drainage issues. The idea of pretending the property is not underwater several times each year is beyond comprehension. While she does not expect the applicant to fix all of the drainage problems that exist in the area, they should not be allowed to ignore the issue. Ms. Petso expressed her belief that the concept of “affordable housing” is being used as a decoy to get everyone excited about the wrong things. She expressed opposition to the City’s decision to allow the applicant to use a phased approach. She asked that all of the paperwork and written comments she has submitted to date be included in the public record. Mr. Lien answered that they have already been made part of the record. Ms. Petso suggested that a phased approach is backwards. While the applicant has presented drawings to illustrate the aesthetic appearance of potential development on the site, staff is stating that aesthetic details will be addressed at a later time. If the purpose of the first phase is to address the allowed building envelope only, the applicant should refrain from providing comments related to design and aesthetics. Ms. Petso emphasized that drainage must be addressed up front for this site. Using the proposed building envelope, the applicant could identify the anticipated drainage impacts. She cautioned against the applicant trying to use sneaky tricks to get things by the City staff and the public. She asked that they proceed with the application in the right order. If not, it could end up costing the applicant, the City and surrounding property owners a lot of money and they still won’t end up with what they want. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested that when the application is forwarded to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation, the following issues should be addressed: traffic impacts, road improvements, public safety, cost to the area, and crime watch. The Planning Board will need answers to these types of questions before they can formulate their recommendation to the City Council. He said he likes the small town atmosphere of downtown Edmonds. He noted there are already projects in Firdale Village, Highway 99, etc. that will bring more residents into Edmonds. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested that the “phased concept” is really a backward way of going about the proposal. He said he would like to see less information dealing with the environment and more on the project, itself. The current application puts the applicant’s foot in the door, but it does not really answer the questions that need to be addressed. He observed that while the applicant has suggested that the BC zone does not encourage high-quality development, no explanation was provided. He noted that most of the downtown is zoned BC, and he does not have a problem with the quality of development that has occurred. Mr. Hertrich referred to his earlier question about what existing CG zoned areas the applicant was comparing the property to. He noted that, currently, the CG zoning has only been applied to properties in and near Highway 99, and Highway 99 is intended to develop on a completely different principle. He said it is difficult for him to compare property on Highway 99 to the pristine lower property that is located close to the waterfront. The applicant indicated that the Harbor Square property was also zoned CG, which is not true. Harbor Square is currently zoned under a contract, which allows a slightly greater height to accommodate marine lofts, etc. The zoning was changed further to allow commercial and retail uses. However, the 35-foot height allowed at Harbor Square cannot compare to what is being proposed by the applicant. He summarized that if there is no comparable zoning surrounding the subject site, then the rezone would be considered a type of “spot zoning.” Mr. Hertrich disagreed with the idea that the proposed rezone would benefit the community based on the types of housing that would be provided. The comments have been clear that the cost of redevelopment would be such that the housing units would not be affordable to the majority of Edmonds residents. If the units are intended to be marketed to retired citizens, they should keep in mind that elderly residents would not be using the train to commute to work. Mr. Hertrich said that when he viewed the drawings of the buildings, his first thought was about their bulk. Even with some setbacks and step backs, he sees high structures that would create a shadow on surrounding properties. This is not the type of development they want in the City of Edmonds. The character in Edmonds is lower buildings with a lot of light on the streets, and the height of the proposed structures would eliminate light. In addition, the development would not likely Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 10 provide public space, so there would be no public benefit to the community. The proposed design is in direct contrast to the idea of having openness. So far, the applicant has not provided any points to the positive to support the proposed rezone. Mr. Hertrich recalled that the City has new regulations to deal with the issue of stormwater on site, and he questioned where the stormwater would be retained on the subject property. He suggested the applicant provide more information as part of the EIS about how this particular issue would be addressed. He also suggested that the EIS address the issue of traffic flow. He noted that Dayton Street is a main arterial to the Port of Edmonds and the waterfront. There is a fairly fixed movement of traffic that is inhibited by the railroad tracks. He said he does not envision successful on-street parking on Dayton Street. Using this street to address some of the parking requirements for future development could result in a dangerous situation. Mr. Hertrich cautioned against the applicant comparing the proposed rezone to other non-conforming structures in the area. He reminded the applicant that the citizens decided that these existing buildings were too high, and the height limit was reduced. The structures are now considered non-conforming. If anything were to happen to the structures, they could never be replaced to their current height. He suggested the applicant consider other options for the property that does not require greater heights than the current zoning allows. Bulky and tall buildings do not fit in Edmonds. He said he does not believe a single citizen of Edmonds would endorse the current contract rezone proposal. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, inquired when the specific studies would occur in a phased review process. Mr. Lien referred her to the flow chart provided at the beginning of the meeting. He said the detailed reviews would be conducted at the project phase. Ms. Bloom agreed with the points raised by Ms. Tipton, Ms. Petso and Mr. Hertrich about the phased approach. Each of the detailed studies could impact the cost of the project. She questioned why an applicant would want to proceed with the environmental review when they do not have enough detailed information to know if the project can proceed within a reasonable cost. They should also keep in mind that tides are expected to rise in the future. She expressed her belief that the more detailed studies should be done first. She questioned how the City could approve a contract rezone if they do not even know if the project would be financially feasible to develop. She said it makes no sense to hold off on the studies until the contract rezone has been approved. Ms. Bloom referred to the Gregory Building, which partially blocked or completely eliminated the view from 45 homes. Yet the Gregory Building is fairly small when compared to the enormous building that would be constructed if the contract rezone is approved. Protecting a view corridor does not mean that the view from private properties would be maintained. She expressed her belief that the proposed project would impact many views from private properties and would completely change the aesthetic quality of the town. It will block all views, impacting everyone who comes to the City. Traffic would increase enormously and no one will want to visit. She said she cannot imagine anyone wanting to visit Edmonds to shop at a development such as the one proposed. She summarized that the proposal would not offer anything to the City economically or any other way. The project would result in a complete disaster. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Public Scoping Meeting Sunset Landing Contract Rezone File PLN20090051 May 3, 2010 Page 11