PLN198300001-29779
THESE M':iUTES SUBJECT
TO FEBRUARY 23 APPROVAL
PLANNING BOARD
February 9, 1983
The regular meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Ken Mattson in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Ken Mattson John Hodgin Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner
Dave Larson Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
J. Ward Phillips Bobbie Mills, Street Division Supv.
Jeanie Johnson Mark Eames, City Attorney
Bob Boye Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Hodgin had indicated he would arrive after 8:00 p.m. as he had to work but he
never arrived, so his absence was considered excused as work related.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of January 26, 1983 were distributed just prior to this evening's meeting,
so approval was deferred until the next meeting.
STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS
Mr. Bowman said he would make a presentation at the February 22 meeting as to what
other jurisdictions are doing about tree cutting. Mr. Larson noted that the solar
issue should be considered also, having come out of the previous night's meeting with
the City Council. Ms. Block commented that she thought the meeting with the City
Council was very productive.
Ms. Johnson suggested that the target dates on the CZM Study be on the extended
agenda.
Chairman Mattson welcomed the new member of the Board, Bob Boye.
Mr. Larson proposed a resolution to the City Council to install two Sanikans in the
Dr. Harry Kretzler Plaza. MR. LARSON THEN PUT THIS SUGGESTION IN THE FORM OF A
MOTION, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN MATTSON. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MS. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MR. LARSON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. PHILLIPS, TO MOVE R-1-83 TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA
BECAUSE THE OTHER ITEMS WERE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND THERE WERE PEOPLE PRESENT FOR
R-1-83. MOTION CARRIED.
AGENDA
S ',R-1-83 STORRI-LOMBARDI - Rezone from RM-1.5 to BC at 226 Dayton St.
The subject property consists of approximately 5,100 sq. ft., located on
the southwest corner of Dayton St. and 3rd Ave. S. On the property is a
two-story frame house, with a driveway accessing onto Dayton St. Surrounding
development is primarily multiple family residential. There is a restaurant
located cater -corner on the northeast corner of the intersection. Surrounding
zoning is BC to the north, RM-1.5 to the south and west, and BC/RM-1.5 to
the east. The BC to the east is about a 120' strip running to 5th Ave.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the rezone criteria: The proposed rezone does not
appear to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as the map designates the
subject property as Commercial/Business. The proposed zoning does not
appear to conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance or the BC zone
district. As to relationship to the existing surrounding land uses and
zoning, the only commercial development nearby is the restaurant on the
northwest corner of 3rd Ave. S. and Dayton St. The remaining development
is either single family residential or multiple family residential. Although
the proposed zoning would be compatible with that which presently exists in
the area, some uses allowed in the BC zone may be inconsistent with the
existing uses. There has been no significant change in the character of
the immediate area to support the rezone request. The property is suitable
for the uses allowed under either the existing RM-1.5 or the proposed BC
zoning. In 1979 the applicant received a Conditional Use Permit to convert
the existing residence into a professional office building, but the permit
expired when no action was taken within one year of the approval. Mr.
Bowman stated the only gain to the public by this proposed rezone would be
a potential increase in tax revenue with commercial development on the
subject property. No substantial detriment is anticipated to the existing
neighborhood as a result of the proposed rezone. There should be no sig-
nificant adverse environmental impact as a result of this rezone action and
a declaration of nonsignificance has been issued. Mr. Bowman stated that
this proposal is a borderline case because the property is designated as
Commercial/Business by the Comprehensive Plan but there has not been any
significant change in the character of the immediate area which justifies
the rezone, and the applicants' intended use is already allowed as a condi-
tional use in the RM-1.5 zone. Also, rezoning this individual parcel would
cause an island of BC zoning to be established in a multiple family zoned
block. He thought that if the rezone were to occur it should include the
lot to the west which is between City property and the subject property.
Mr. Mattson observed that the staff appeared to be rather tentative on this
application, and Mr. Bowman responded that it is a borderline case and if
it is approved the staff would prefer to see the lot to the west included.
A question arose about spot zoning, and City Attorney Mark Eames stated
that spot zoning is generally a term applied by the courts when they find a
rezone action is arbitrary and capricious, and it does not really relate to
the size of the area being rezoned. He said each of the rezone criteria
set out in the staff report should be considered in order for this action
to be defendable in court.
Lisa Storie-Lombardi, one of the applicants, gave a brief history of what
had happened regarding this property since her husband first applied with a
partner for the Conditional Use Permit. She said her husband and she do
consulting work and she writes computer software and he sees only a few
patients. They would like to have the flexibility to have other offices
in the building. She said the remodel would not be feasible for just
themselves but it would be if others went in with them. They had discussed
their proposal with the people who own the lot to the west and she thought
it may be possible to include both properties. She said they were not
interested in having a higher intensity business such as a tavern there.
Michael Storie-Lombardi said the original Conditional Use Permit and remodel
were designed to have living quarters on the top level, with a clinic on
the second floor and storage on the bottom floor, but their plans for the
use of the building have changed and his former partnership has been dissolved,
and they do not need all that space now. He said it has been difficult for
them to get people interested in investing capital in this and with BC
zoning it would be easier. Mr. Phillips told him that he apparently plans
to do something pleasant on the property but in a rezone the Board has to
consider what could happen to the property, not the individuals, and there
is no guarantee it would stay the way he intends to use the property. Dr.
Storie-Lombardi said they understood that and if they did not get the
rezone they probably would try to keep the property as an investment. He
noted that one of the major issues that had come up previously was parking,
and in BC zoning there is the additional flexibility of in -lieu parking.
The size of the lot is 751x 68'. Mr. Bowman noted that there is the choice
of a Conditional Use Permit, but on that the applicant must be specific
about the uses that will go in there. He suggested another possibility
might be a contract rezone, which could give the owner the benefits of BC
zoning but protect the neighborhood from uses not compatible with residential
uses.
Don Williams, 210 3rd Ave. S., adjacent to the subject property, and living
upstairs in the adjacent building, was concerned about parking. He said he
PLANNING BOARD
Page 2 - February 9, 1983
had no complaint about their operation but he was concerned about what
would happen when these people were through with the property. He felt it
would adapt very well to a small tavern, which he would not like to see
there. Therefore, he preferred the Conditional Use Permit option.
Mrs. Storie-Lombardi asked whether a Conditional Use Permit would be
transferable if they remodeled the building, and Ms. Block responded that
it can be transferable but that is determined by the Hearing Examiner when
it is granted. The hearing was closed.
Mr. Larsen stated at this time that he once owned some property to the
north of this but he sold it five years ago and has been paid for it and no
longer has any interest in that area.
Mr. Bowman then explained the contract rezone option. Mr. Eames noted that
there have been some court cases on contract rezones that seem to say the
agreement to limit the uses have to come from the property owner himself,
not imposed by the City. He said this proposal could not be changed --
there would have to be a new application, and that would hold true for
expanding this to the other lot --a new application would be required.
Mr. Phillips then reviewed the rezone criteria and said he concurred with
the staff's comments. His concern was that the zoning does not need changing
from the standpoint of the availability of a Conditional Use Permit in that
the property can serve its purpose in that district as presently zoned with
the flexibility of a Conditional Use Permit. He said the most important
relationship to consider on this property is the immediate property to the
south, and he asked what the setback on the south property line would be if
it were rezoned to BC. Mr. Bowman responded that a 15' setback is required
from any residentially zoned property, and they can construct to a 25'
height limit, with an additional 5' for a pitched roof. Mr. Phillips
thought that would be an adverse effect on the property to the south and
that BC zoning would not be compatible with the condominiums on that property
to the south. As to change in the character of the immediate or surrounding
area, Mr. Phillips said that was a clear no to him and, in fact, there is
an abundance of BC in the area which is underdeveloped with residential
homes on it. As to the question if the property is both economically and
physically suitable for uses allowed under the existing zoning and under
the proposed zoning, he said the property is certainly capable to support
itself under the present zoning and there is no hardship, and there is
nothing that jeopardizes that property from being developed as presently
zoned. As to the tax revenue on the property, Mr. Phillips said due to its
smallness the possibilities of its being appraised higher probably would
not be the case, as compared to an expensive condominium, and because there
is not a large amount of square footage it would not be a high rental
property. He was concerned about the developing traffic congestion at that
particular intersection and he thought BC zoning would cause an adverse
effect on traffic in the immediate neighborhood by increased density of
use. He said the neighborhood to the south and to the east is definitely
residential and that part of the City has kept its residential character.
He said downtown Edmonds has ample BC property and he thought they should
look at the necessity of additional BC property. He noted that the properties
to the north across Dayton St. on both sides of 3rd Ave. are zoned BC on
the corners and property adjoining the corners, and that Dayton St. is
established as a buffer, which he thought to be appropriate. He said if
you cross to the same side of the street as the property is on, you hve BC
joined to RM but it is there because it is a part of that going east, and
it has continuity, but at this location it would be isolated. He said the
other three corners that are BC are adjoining BC property, and this lot
does not have that continuity. He added that the Planning staff's suggestion
of adding the adjacent lot would only add to his concerns. In considering
whether any hardship has been created on the applicant he said the property
was bought as RM-1.5 and can be used economically with that zoning and the
value of the property would not be jeopardized if it were not rezoned. For
these reasons, he said he would vote against the application. He felt the
applicant should further explore the use of a Conditional Use Permit and,
PLANNING BOARD
Page 3 - FEbruary 9, 1983
secondly, explore the possibility of a contract rezone. MR. PHILLIPS THEN
MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BOYE, TO DENY R-1-83, BASED ON THE FINDINGS HE HAD
SHARED. Mr. Larson said he would vote with the motion, but he was very
supportive of what the applicants were trying to do, and he encouraged them
to explore other possibilities for the development. Dr. Storrie-Lombardi
said they had not considered a contract rezone and that option sounded very
good to them. THE MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION ON HELICOPTER LANDINGS WITHIN THE CITY
MR. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LARSON, TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO ANOTHER
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
PRESENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SIDEWALK PLAN
The staff provided a draft of revisions to Chapter 18.90, Sidewalks, of the
Community Development Code, and a a Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan Map, and
Mr. Bowman stated that the streets have been inventoried for sidewalks and
the map will be used to determine the priorities of streets needing sidewalks.
It was noted that sidewalks are not shown on Highway 99 and he asked the
Board to indicate whether it should be stated that they are needed or if it
will be a judgment decision. Another question had to do with corner parks --
where they will be developed, who will pay for them, and who will maintain
them. Mr. Phillips said he was the originator of corner parks and they are
one of his pet projects. He said he had proposed that there be a zone in
which to continue to expand the corner parks and he asked the staff to
propose a zone in which they would be appropriate. He had been interested
in taking Main St. all the way to the ferry dock and also 5th Ave., but he
said they do not have to be on every corner. As to maintaining them, he
said the Mayor is more and more viewing downtown as a park, itself, and
from the standpoint of cost anything you do to enhance the downtown area
visually will increase retail sales and will increase sales tax revenue
which is justification for doing it. In the downtown area he wanted to see
a planting program included in the sidewalk policy, to include street
trees, and he said in all business districts the design, the planting, and
the specifications should be indicated so everyone knows what is expected.
Also, he said he is tired of seeing utility companies putting poles in a
beautiful park. He thought what is done in the business district should
dovetail into all the multi -family districts, with prioritizing dependent
on the safety and use of the walks. He said maintenance, repair, and
replacement should be addressed, and in commercial areas he had trouble
putting the costs after 10 years on the property owner as the damage taking
place is not on the part of the property owner.
Mr. Phillips said he likes what he has seen in various parts of California
in that they always have pedestrian pathways for people, but up here the
pedestrian really has no priority, and that probably is because of cost.
He said the question is what priority should the walker be given on Highway
99, and once that is determined a pathway can be designed to fit that, but
that question never was looked at in the previous study of Highway 99. He
said he would want to see from the Planning Department how they would
approach it. Mr. Larson suggested that if sidewalks are to be on Highway
99 then possibly the property owners would grant an easement so the sidewalks
can be away from the street to protect pedestrians from splashing by passing
traffic. He also thought there should be some flexibility in design criteria,
and he suggested that where the sidewalk would go right along the building
that the sidewalk be allowed to jog a little into the right-of-way to keep
the pedestrians away from the buildings.
Mr. Phillips asked if it had been explored how to have an overall tax for
this specific purpose. City Attorney Mark Eames responded that general
taxes are collected for a wide variety of public improvements, but he was
not aware of a taxing mechanism that could apply to all the citizens of
Edmonds that would be earmarked for sidewalks. He said State statutes
provide for sidewalk improvement districts which attempt to tax just those
people who are benefited. Mr. Phillips felt that sidewalks are a utility
PLANNING BOARD
Page 4 - February 9, 1983
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
FILE NO. R-1-83
APPLICANT M.C. & L.J. Storrie
Duane.Bowman being first duly sworn,
on oath deposes and says:
That on the �j day of ANUi1VL _, 19V , the
attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance,
and in any event, in the Post Office and Civic Center, and where applic-
able, on or near the subject property.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19'L_
O
Notary Public in and tv'the a e
Washington residing at
FILE NO. R-1-83
APPLICANT M.C. & L.J. Storrie
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Maryanne Townsend being first duly sworn,
on oath deposes and says:
That on the day of ,1993, the attached
Notice of Public of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent
property owners, the names of which were provided by the
applicant.
S igne d2%L� iW�Piiz�
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisday of ,
19�.
.21
Notary Pubes ' 7or the
State of ashingt
Residing at
N
CITY OF EDMONDS
LO-1 I L01,10J Ti, L, IL
L -,,1 1141 "
THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9 19 83 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO., R-1-83
REZONE FROM RM-1.5 TO BC
(MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER
UNIT TO COMMERCIAL BUSINESS)
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION 226 DAYTON STREET
ZONE DISTRICT RM-1 . 5
AT THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7-,30 p'M.,
OF THE LIBRARY BUILDING AT
T.
'IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARINGAAND SPEAK. YOU
MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE
ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED
ONLY AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT-� 251
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
WARN'CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
NG! OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 2-9-83
Howard L. Womer
P.O. Box 425
Edmonds, WA 98(
t
t
f
t
t
c
i
l
Erling A. Helde
210 3rd Avenue South #A
t
Edmonds, WA 98020
i
George Fred Aust
210 3rd Avenue South #B
Edmonds, WA 98020
Earl G. Garrison L
700 Melody Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
Pacific First Federal
Donald T. Williams
221 West Gowe Street
Kent, WA 98031
Ralph H. Sorenson
222 3rd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jack R. Wiggins
152 3rd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
r € Christopher L. Matt
303 Dayton Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Williams Associates
3821 N.E. 86th Street
Seattle,.WA 98115
Heyler A. Davis
22617 108th S.E.
Kent, WA 98031
i
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOi1SISH, ss
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNINGBOARD
All interested persons are
hereby notified that Wednes-
day,the 9th day of February,'
1983 has been set as -the date
for, hearing by the City of Ed-
monds Planning Board on
proposed:
-Rezone from RM-1.5 to
BC (Multiple Family Resi.
'dentiol — 1,500 square
feet to Community Busi-
ness)
of the property located 226
Dayton Street
Said hearing will be. at 7:30
p.m: ion the Plaza Meeting
Room of the Library Building
at 650 Main Street, Edmonds,
Washington, and all interested
persons are invited •to appear.
IRENE VARNEY
MORAN
- City. Clerk,
! City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: R-1-83
Published: Jan. 31, 1983.
Affidavit of Publication
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news-
paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho-
mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper
of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice ....................................
NOTICE„OF-, PUBLIC HEARING
---------------------------.......--..........--..............................................
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
JAN. 31. 1983
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
................ ......................................................
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this .....lst
of
83
Notary ijblic in and for the State of Washington,
residin at Everett, Snohomish County.
B-2-1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING BOARD
All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 9th day
of- February 1983 has been set as the date for hearing
by the City of Edmonds Planning Board on proposed
Rezone from RM-1.5 to BC (Multiple Family Residential - 1,500 square feet
to Community Business)
of the property located 226 Dayton Street
Said hearing will be at 7:30 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Library Building at
650 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington, and -all interested persons are invited to appear.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN
City Clerk, City of Edmonds.
FILE #: R-1-83
PUBLISH: 1-31-83
'PRE -WRITTEN WARRANT REQUESTED
CITY r -t`:`E0M0N S `nNEK_
CIVIC CENTER • EDNw,A)S.WASHNGiON9802() • (706)775-2575
W BLANKET
PAYMENT
PURCHASE ORDER D CHANGEORDER Ix I REQUEST-
v
E
The Everett Herald
N
D
Box 930
0
R
I
VENDOR NO.
Everett, WA 98206
1 30353
THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR
ON ALL INVOICES, * i 'I: - : %. :
PACKAGES. BILLS OF LADING
AND CORRESPONDENCE.
r- SHIP PREPAID TO (OR SERVICE LOCATION)
'ATE REQUIRED,. SHIP VIA F.O.B. ORDER DATE BATCH NUMBER
I 1 1 3/30/83 1 1
PLEASE FURNISH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
4VOIC['14E
Ir
UNIT
CATALOG
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL COST
NUMBER
COST
ACTUAL
':ESTIMATED ACTUAL
Legal Notice Publication:
Pl-anning Board 1/_31/_83-
$10
Hearing Examiner 1 /31 /83
Hearing Examiner & 2/13/83
3
_2/03/83
Planning Board 3/14/83
$ 13 0 5.1v
t"
-4.
SUBTOTAL
TAX
PURCHASING CONTROL
TOTAL AMOUNT
.,FQUESTED BY:
,PPROVED BY:
'::CEIVED BY:
ABLY RELEASE:
OUCHER NO.
YR
_CN_ ®R
r1109350
PE -ISSUED WARRANT NO.
CODE
PROJECT
AMOUNT
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
1
001 000 510 537 60 44
$73
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
21
lD'_!:P/.%9T6AE-*ljlT FILE TOTAL AMOUNT
7=77
Hera
Box 930
EVERETT, WA 98206
(206) 339-3089
F
City of Edmonds
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Civic Center
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
L.
The first publication of the attached notice appeared
in our issue of........................,Tan.... 31,-...1983...................
Date of last publication ...... jan....316... 1Q$$..................
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
If any corrections or changes are necessary please
return this proof to us immediately with such correc-
tions or changes clearly printed or typewritten. Other-
wise this notice will be published as shown here.
First Insertion ............ ..2,V.-at..$... 4w3-r3--------------------------
................... per ... column ...ineh ........................... $--- 10.$8--
Subsequent insertions................................................................
.......................................................................................$..................
,Total Amount Due .................................................. $...
OY�B..
B-22
PUBLIC Fts__A`NG
PLANNING BOARD
All interested persons are
hereby notified that Wednes-
day,the 9th day of February,
1983 has been set as the date
for hearing by the City of Ed- respectfully directed
monds Planning Board. on scion Laws of 1947,
proposed:.
.Rezone from RM-1.5 to ssary that our affida-
BC (Multiple Family Resl- it of the fee charged
dential — 1,500 square D THAT THIS FEE
feet to Community Busi-
ness)
of the property located 226 any delay in forward-
Davton Street ease remit fee before
Said hearing will be at 7:30
a.m. in the Plaza Meeting ation.
Room of the Library Building
at 650 Main Street, Edmonds,
Washington, and all interested
Persons are invited to appear.
IRENE VARNEV
MORAN
City Clerk,
City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: R-1-83
Published: Jan. 31, 1983.
PROOF OF LEGAL NOTICE
Public Rearing
R-1-83
,.
CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775 2525
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 18, 1983
TO: Chrysal l i s Foundation
P.O. Box 536
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTING: Receipt for Rezone Application (R-1-83)
AS YOU REQUESTED:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND COMMENT:
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF MEETING:
REMARKS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
CIVIC CENTER
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
RECEIPT
i� 3363
Date_8-
ITEM
FILE
NO.*
-BARS ACCT. NO.
ZONE - SUBDIVISION000.
000. 341.82.00
SHORELINE
000. 000. 341,89.00
RECORDING FEE
000.000.341.81.00
S.E.P.A. REVIEW -�/ �
, ��
000. 000.341,88.00
MAPS - BOOKS
001
000. 000. 341.84.00
PHOTOSTATI NG
001
000. 000. 341.86.00
OTHER
001
STATE SALES TAX
Date of Hearing U Lt
Time
001
000. 000. 389.94.00
TOTAL
BY ,-A
AMOUNT
PLANNING BOARD
February 9, 1983
The regular meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Ken Mattson in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Ken Mattson John Hodgin Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner
Dave Larson Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
J. Ward Phillips Bobbie Mills, Street Division Supv.
Jeanie Johnson Mark Eames, City Attorney
Bob Boye Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Hodgin had indicated he would arrive after 8:00 p.m. as he had to work but he
never arrived, so his absence was considered excused as work related.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of January 26, 1983 were distributed just prior to this evening's meeting,
so approval was deferred until the next meeting.
STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD COWAENTS
Mr. Bowman said he would make a presentation at the February 22 meeting as to what
other jurisdictions are doing about tree cutting. Mr. Larson noted that the solar
issue should be considered also, having come out of the previous night's meeting with
the City Council. Ms. Block commented that she thought the meeting with the City
Council was very productive.
Ms. Johnson suggested that the target dates on the CZM Study be on the extended
agenda.
Chairman Mattson welcomed the new member of the Board, Bob Boye.
Mr. Larson proposed a resolution to the City Council to install two Sanikans in the
Dr. Harry Kretzler Plaza. MR. LARSON THEN PUT THIS SUGGESTION IN THE FORM OF A
MOTION, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN MATTSON. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MS. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MR. LARSON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. PHILLIPS, TO MOVE R-1-83 TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA
BECAUSE THE OTHER ITEMS WERE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND THERE WERE PEOPLE PRESENT FOR
R-1-83. MOTION CARRIED.
Ar,FNnA
R-1-83 STORRI-LOMBARDI - Rezone from RM-1.5 to BC at 226 Dayton St.
The subject property consists of approximately 5,100 sq. ft., located on
the southwest corner of Dayton St. and 3rd Ave. S. On the property is a
two-story frame house, with a driveway accessing onto Dayton St. Surrounding
development is primarily multiple family residential. There is a restaurant
located cater -corner on the northeast corner of the intersection. Surrounding
zoning is BC to the north, RM-1.5 to the south and west, and BC/RM-1.5 to
the east. The BC to the east is about a 120' strip running to 5th Ave.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the rezone criteria: The proposed rezone does not
appear to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as the map designates the
subject property as Commercial/Business. The proposed zoning does not
appear to conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance or the BC zone
district. As to relationship to the existing surrounding land uses and
zoning, the only commercial development nearby is the restaurant on the
northwest corner of 3rd Ave. S. and Dayton St. The remaining development
is either single family residential or multiple family residential. Although
the proposed zoning would be compatible with that which presently exists in
the area, some uses allowed in the BC zone may be inconsistent with the
a
l ex5�ting uses. There has been no significan+ `ange in the character of
V mediate area to support the rezone req, .. The property is suitable
fo. she uses allowed under either the existing RM-1.5 or the proposed BC
zoning. In 1979 the applicant received a Conditional Use Permit to convert
the existing residence into a professional office building, but the permit
expired when no action was taken within one year of the approval. Mr.
Bowman stated the only gain to the public by this proposed rezone would be
a potential increase in tax revenue with commercial development on the
subject property. No substantial detriment is anticipated to the existing
neighborhood as a result of the proposed rezone. There should be no sig-
nificant adverse environmental impact as a result of this rezone action and
a declaration of nonsignificance has been issued. Mr. Bowman stated that
this proposal is a borderline case because the property is designated as
Commercial/Business by the Comprehensive Plan but there has not been any
significant change in the character of the immediate area which justifies
the rezone, and the applicants' intended use is already allowed as a condi-
tional use in the RM-1.5 zone. Also, rezoning this individual parcel would
cause an island of BC zoning to be established in a multiple family zoned
block. He thought that if the rezone were to occur it should include the
lot to the west which is between City property and the subject property.
Mr. Mattson observed that the staff appeared to be rather tentative on this
application, and Mr. Bowman responded that it is a borderline case and if
it is approved the staff would prefer to see the lot to the west included.
A question arose about spot zoning, and City Attorney Mark Eames stated
that spot zoning is generally a term applied by the courts when they find a
rezone action is arbitrary and capricious, and it does not really relate to
the size of the area being rezoned. He said each of the rezone criteria
set out in the staff report should be considered in order for this action
to be defendable in court.
Lisa Storie-Lombardi, one of the applicants, gave a brief history of what
had happened regarding this property since her husband first applied with a
Partner for the Conditional Use Permit. She said her husband and she do
consulting work and she writes computer software and he sees only a few
patients. They would like to have the flexibility to have other offices
in the building. She said the remodel would not be feasible for just
themselves but it would be if others went in with them. They had discussed
their proposal with the people who own the lot to the west and she thought
it may be possible to include both properties. She said they were not
interested in having a higher intensity business such as a tavern there.
Michael Storie-Lombardi said the original Conditional Use Permit and remodel
were designed to have living quarters on the top level, with a clinic on
the second floor and storage on the bottom floor, but their plans for the
use of the building have changed and his former partnership has been dissolved,
and they do not need all that space now. He said it has been difficult for
them to get people interested in investing capital in this and with BC
zoning it would be easier. Mr. Phillips told him that he apparently plans
to do something pleasant on the property but in a rezone the Board has to
consider what could happen to the property, not the individuals, and there
is no guarantee it would stay the way he intends to use the property. Dr.
Storie-Lombardi said they understood that and if they did not get the
rezone they probably would try to keep the property as an investment. He
noted that one of the major issues that had come u and in BC zoning there is the additional flexibilitypofvin-lieuiouslywas parkprk
ing.ng,
The size of the lot is 75'x 68'. Mr. Bowman noted that there is the choice
of a Conditional Use Permit, but on that the applicant must be specific
about the uses that will go in there. He suggested another possibility
might be a contract rezone, which could give the owner the benefits of BC
zoning but protect the neighborhood from uses not compatible with residential
uses.
Don Williams, 210 3rd Ave. S., adjacent to the subject property, and living
upstairs in the adjacent building, was concerned about parking. He said he
PLANNING BOARD
Page 2 - February 9, 1983
Mr-
'LI
— --� ha. o complaint about their operation but ht s concerned about what
would happen when these people were through with the property. He felt it
would adapt very well to a small tavern, which he would not like to see
there. Therefore, he preferred the Conditional Use Permit option.
Mrs. Storie-Lombardi asked whether a Conditional Use Permit would be
transferable if they remodeled the building, and Ms. Block responded that .
it can be transferable but that is determined by the Hearing Examiner when
it is granted. The hearing was closed.
Mr. Larsen stated at this time that he once owned some property to the
north of this but he sold it five years ago and has been paid for it and no
longer has any interest in that area.
Mr. Bowman then explained the contract rezone option. Mr. Eames noted that
there have been some court cases on contract rezones that seem to say the
agreement to limit the uses have to come from the property owner himself,
not imposed by the City. He said this proposal could not be changed --
there would have to be a new application, and that would hold true for
expanding this to the other lot --a new application would be required.
Mr. Phillips then reviewed the rezone criteria and said he concurred with
the staff's comments. His concern was that the zoning does not need changing
from the standpoint of the availability of a Conditional Use Permit in that
the property can serve its purpose in that district as presently zoned with
the flexibility of a Conditional Use Permit. He said the most important
relationship to consider on this property is the immediate property to the
south, and he asked what the setback on the south property line would be if
it were rezoned to BC. Mr. Bowman responded that a 15' setback is required
from any residentially zoned property, and they can construct to a 25'
height limit, with an additional 5' for a pitched roof. Mr. Phillips
thought that would be an adverse effect on the property to the south and
that BC zoning would not be compatible with the condominiums on that property
to the south. As to change in the character of the immediate or surrounding
area, Mr. Phillips said that was a clear no to him and, in fact, there is
an abundance of BC in the area which is underdeveloped with residential
homes on it. As to the question if the property is both economically and
physically suitable for uses allowed under the existing zoning and under
the proposed zoning, he said the property is certainly capable to support
itself under the present zoning and there is no hardship, and there is
nothing that jeopardizes that property from being developed as presently
zoned. As to the tax revenue on the property, Mr. Phillips said due to its
smallness the possibilities of its being appraised higher probably would
not be the case, as compared to an expensive condominium, and because there
is not a large amount of square footage it would not be a high rental
property. He was concerned about the developing traffic congestion at that
particular intersection and he thought BC zoning would cause an adverse
effect on traffic in the immediate neighborhood by increased density of
use. He said the neighborhood to the south and to the east is definitely
residential and that part of the City has kept its residential character.
He said downtown Edmonds has ample BC property and he thought they should
look at the necessity of additional BC property. He noted that the properties
to the north across Dayton St. on both sides of 3rd Ave. are zoned BC on
the corners and property adjoining the corners, and that Dayton St. is
established as a buffer, which he thought to be appropriate. He said if
you cross to the same side of the street as the property is on, you hve BC
joined to RM but it is there because it is a part of that going east, and
it has continuity, but at this location it would be isolated. He said the
other three corners that are BC are adjoining BC property, and this lot
does not have that continuity. He added that the Planning staff's suggestion
of adding the adjacent lot would only add to his concerns. In considering
whether any hardship has been created on the applicant he said the property
was bought as RM-1.5 and can be used economically with that zoning and the
value of the property would not be jeopardized if it were not rezoned. For
these reasons, he said he would vote against the application. He felt the
applicant should further explore the use of a Conditional Use Permit and,
PLANNING BOARD
Page 3 - FEbruary 9, 1983
s dly, explore the possibility of a contr.
SlI
M• SECONDED BY MR. BOYE, TO DENY R- rezone. tiF. DNGS HE THEHAD
N
• SHARED. Mr. Larson said he would vote with�the motion. but he was very
supportive of what the applicants were trying to do, and he encouraged them
to explore other possibilities for the development. Dr. Storrie-Lombardi
said they had not considered a contract rezone and that option sounded very
good to them. THE MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION ON HELICOPTER LANDINGS WITHIN THE CITY
MR. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LARSON, TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO ANOTHER
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
PRESENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SIDEWALK PLAN
The staff provided a draft of revisions to Chapter 18.90, Sidewalks, of the
Community Development Code, and a a Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan Map, and
Mr. Bowman stated that the streets have been inventoried for sidewalks and
the map will be used to determine the priorities of streets needing sidewalks.
It was noted that sidewalks are not shown on Highway 99 and he asked the
Board to indicate whether it should be stated that they are needed or if it
will be a judgment decision. Another question had to do with corner parks --
where they will be developed, who will pay for them, and who will maintain
them. Mr. Phillips said he was the originator of corner parks and they are
one of his pet projects. He said he had proposed that there be a zone in
which to continue to expand the corner parks and he asked the staff to
a
in taking Main St. all the way to the ferrrypdockeandNalsod5theAve., butthe
propose a zone in which they would be
ed
said they do not have to be on every corner. As to maintaining them, he
said the Mayor is more and more viewing downtown as a park, itself, and
from the standpoint of cost anything you do to enhance the downtown area
visually will increase retail sales and will increase sales tax revenue
which is justification for doing it. In the downtown area he wanted to see
a planting program included in the sidewalk policy, to include street
trees, and he said in all business districts the design,
the specifications should be indicated so everyone knows whatpting isnexpected.
Also, he said he is tired of seeing utility companies putting poles in a
beautiful park. He thought what is done in the business district should
dovetail into all the multi -family districts, with prioritizing dependent
on the safety and use of the walks.
e said mai, and
replacement should be addressed, and Hn comnercialenanceareas,heehadrtrouble
Putting the costs after 10 years on the property owner as the damage taking
place is not on the part of the property owner.
Mr. Phillips said he likes what he has seen in various parts of California
in that they always have pedestrian pathways for people, but up here the
pedestrian really has no priority, and that probably is because of cost.
99,
He sand once id the question is what priority should the walker be given on Highway
that aquestiontneverhat swas tlookeddat inttheypreviousan be dstudneodito fit that, but
said he would want to see from the Planning Departmentyhow they wwould He
approach it. Mr. Larson suggested that if sidewalks are to be on Highway
99 then possibly the property owners would grant an easement so the sidewalks
can be away from the street to protect pedestrians from splashing by passing
traffic. He also thought there should be some flexibility in design criteria,
and he suggested that where the sidewalk would go right along the building
the
that
pedestrians laway fromk be wtheed tbuilog dingslittle into the right-of-way to keep
Mr. Phillips asked if it had been explored how to have an overall tax for
this specific purpose. City Attorney Mark Eames responded that general
taxes are collected for a wide variety of public improvements, but he was
not aware of a taxing mechanism that Could apply to all the citizens of
Edmonds that would be earmarked for sidewalks. He said State statutes
provide for sidewalk improvement districts which attempt
people who are benefited. Mr. Philto tax just those
lips felt that sidewalks are a utility
PLANNING BOARD
Page 4 - February 9, 1983
l Wrl:�R-OFFICE COMMUN I F XTIONS
DATE JANUARY 3.2 19 33
To DAN SMITH, PLAN/ENG INSPECTOR FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: R=1-33/STORRIE'-LOMpARDI HEARING DATE: 2-9-33
PLEASE RESPOND WITH COMMENTS REGARDING ATTACHED PROPOSED REZONE,
INT71-OFFICE COMMUNIC "IONS
TO PL p J .3 i 1-�
DATE : A N 1— 1 197 3
FROM It
SUBJECT: Cz - 1 - 'S _5 / i-O�2 c E — L-ocM\rat a i
1
February 2, 1983
MEMO TO: Planning Board
FROM: Duane V. Bowman
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Discussion on Helicopter Landings within the C
In your packets for the December 8, 1982 Planning Board meeting, I
included some information on regulating helicopter landings. For
those of you were not at that meeting, I am enclosing that information.
This topic was generated by the City Council at their August 3, 1982
meeting. The minutes from that meeting are attached.
Please give the staff direction as to how ,you want to approach this
subject so we may set up the necessary public hearings and code
amendments.
R-1-83 STORRIE-LOMBARDI
Rezone from RM-1.5 to BC (Multiple Family Residential - 1,500 square
feet per unit to Commercial Business) at 226 Dayton Street.
Please refer to the attached staff report.
Presentation of Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan
The staff has put together a rough plan governing the development of
sidewalks within the planning area of the City of Edmonds.
The proposal includes adopting a Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan map and
revising the regulations governing sidewalks in Chapter 18 of the
Community Development Code.
Attached are copies of the revisions to Chapter 18.90. Staff will
present the map at the meeting. We are looking for comments from the
Board and audience so we may refine the proposal for an actual code
amendment and public hearings.
DUB/mt
attachments
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING BOARD
FILE #R-1-83
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1983
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Rezone request from RM-1.5 to BC (Community Business) for the
property located at 226 Dayton Street.
II. APPLICANT:
Michael C. and Lisa J. Storrie-Lombardi
P.O. Box 536
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT:
The subject property contains approximately 5,100 square feet of
area. It is located on the southwest corner of Dayton Street and
3rd South. There is an existing two story frame house located on
the property with a driveway accessing onto Dayton Street.
Surrounding development is primarily multiple family residential.
There is a restaurant located to the northeast on the corner of
3rd Avenue South. There is an existing two story frame house
located on the property with a driveway accessing onto Dayton Street.
IV. ZONING -
The subject property is presently zoned RM-1.5
North South East West
Surrounding zoning BC FM-1.5 BC/ RM-1.5
RM-1.5
V. OFFICIAL STREET MAP:
Proposed R/W Existing R/W
3rd Avenue South 60' 60'
Dayton Street 60' 60'
VI. REZONE CRITERIA:
1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property
as Commercial/Business. The proposed rezone does not appear to
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Report to the Planning Board
File #R-1-83 - Page 2
2. Is the proposed zoning conisistent with the purposes
of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the proposed
zone district?
The proposed zoning does not appear to conflict with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance or the BC zone district.
3. What is the relationship of the proposed zoning change
to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or
nearby property?
As noted earlier, the subject property is zoned RM-1.5, along
with the properties to the west and south. The properties to
the north and east are zoned BC. The only commercial development
nearby is the restaurant or the northwest corner of 3rd Avenue South
and Dayton Street. The remaining development is either single
family residential, or multi -family residential.
Although the proposed zoning would be compatible with that which
presently exists in the area, some uses allowed in the BC zone,
may be inconsistent with the existing uses.
4. Has there been sufficient change in the character of the
immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify
the rezone?
There has been no significant change in the character of the
immediate area to support the rezone request.
5. Is the property both economically and physically suitable
for uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the
proposed zoning?
The subject property is suitable for the uses allowed under either
the existing RM-1.5 zoning or the proposed BC zoning.
In 1979, the Applicant received a Conditional Use permit to convert
the existing residence into a professional office building. The
permit expired when no action was taken within one year of the approval
of the permit.
6. What is the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare
as to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property
owners?
The only gain to the public by this proposed rezone would be a
potential increase in tax revenue with commercial development on the
subject property. No substantial detriment is anticipated to the
existing neighborhood as a result of the proposed rezone.
Staff Report to the Planning Board
File #R-1-83 - Page 3
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
There should be no significant adverse environmental impact
as a result of this rezone action. A declaration of non -
significance has been issued.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This proposal is a borderline case. While the property is
designated as commercial/business by the Comprehensive Plan,
there has not been any significant change in the character of
the immediate area which justifies the rezone. The Applicants
intended use is already allowed as a Conditional Use in the
RM-1.5 zone.
Furthermore, by rezoning this individual parcel, an island of
BC zoning would be established in a multi -family zoned block.
If the Planning Board feels that there is merit to this rezone
proposal, the rezoned area should be expanded to the west, to
include the one lot not in City ownership.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST
PLEASE LIST ALL NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE,
City of Edmonds Water
Civic Center
Edmonds, WA 98020
Howard L. Womer
P. 0. Box 425
Edmonds, WA 98020
Erling A. Helde
210 3rd Avenue S, #A
Edmonds, WA 98020
George Fred Aust
210 3rd Avenue S, #B
Edmonds, WA 98020
Earl G. Garrison
700 Melody Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
Pacific First Federal
Donald T. Williams
221 W. Gowe St.
Kent, WA 98031
Ralph H. Sorenson
222 3rd Avenue S.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jack R. Wiggins
152 3rd Avenue S.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Christopher L. Matt
303 Dayton Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Williams Associates
3821 N. E. 86th Street
Seattle, WA 98115
Heyler A. Davis
2/9/32MT 22617 108th S.E.
Kent, WA 98031
232703-4-094-0008
232703-4-093-0009
6464-000-001-0005
6464-000-002-0004
6464-000-003-0003
(210 3rd Ave. S, Edmonds, #C)
6464-000-004-0002
(210 3rd Ave. S, Edmonds, #D)
232703-4-095-0007
232703-4-084-0000
232703-4-056-0004
232703-4-057-0003
232703-4-059-0001
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of
1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local
governmental agencies to consider environmental values
both for their own actions and when licensing private
proposals. The Act also requires that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for all major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies
involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a
major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as
you can with the information available to you. Where
explanations of your answers are required, or where you
believe an explanation would be helpful to government
decision makers, include your explanation in the space
provided, or use additional pages. You should include
references to any reports or studies of which you are
aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide.
Complete answers to those questions now will help all
agencies involved undertake the required environmental
review without unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal,
not just to the permit for which you are currently
applying or the proposal for which approval is sought.
Your answers should include the impacts that will be
caused by your proposal when it is completed, even
though completion may not occur until sometime in the
future. This will allow all agencies involved to complete
their environmental review now, without duplicating
paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state
and local agencies in the State of Washington for various
types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply
to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just
answer it "not applicable" (N/A) and continue on to the
next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent M. C. & L.-J. Storrie-Lombardi
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P. 0. Box 536, Edmonds, WA 98020
(209 Dayton St., #205) 778-3888
3. Date Checklist Submitted Ix 11 g
4. Agency Requiring Checklist Planning Division, Edmonds, WA
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Remodel main floor of house at
226 Dayton Street for use as Chrysalis Scientific Services, Inc. office space.
6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal (including but not limited to
its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an
accurate understanding of its scope and nature:
Remodel interior of maiih floor of existing building for office space.
Reroof existing garage and repaint entire structure. Driveway entrance
will be added on 3rd if extra parking is required.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
The property is located at the corner of Dayton and 3rd Avenue S. The
exterior will be painted and bay windows will replace most existing
windows on the main floor. The lawn will be taken up on the east side
and replaced with bark and more low plantings. Awnings will be added
to the walkways to give the building a nautical look.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal Scpa-, 1983
9. List of all Permits, Licenses, or Government Approvals Required for all
Proposal (federal, state, and local — including rezones):
Commercial rezone
Environmental impact
Building permit
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further
activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
VI o _
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered
by your proposal? If yes, explain.
no
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the
proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at
some future date, describe the nature of such application form:
&t i I& nA perm 1-1- A rCG y Ze-Sltni G n &O-rA PoomaJ b r- -�i k(l
-1-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and
"maybe" answers are required).
YES
MAYBE NO
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modifica-
tion of any unique geologic or physical
features?
X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel or a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake?
Explanation: IL additional park.i,nq is required area will be. added in the.
southeast corner of the property.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
XX
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
XX
Explanation•
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of sur-
face water runoff?
'
XX
XX
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
k
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
�(
h. Deterioration in ground water quality,
either through direct injection, or through
the seepage of leachate, phosphates, deter-
gents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or
other substances into the ground waters?
i. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
x
Explanation:
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora (in-
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)? c�C
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora? iK
c. Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of exist-
- ing species?
d. Recution in acreage of any agri-
cultural crop?
Explanation: Lawn will be removed on the east side of the property and
be replaced with beauty bark and low shrubs such as ivy and junipers.
-3-
YES
MAYBE NO
5. Fauna. WIll the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna)?
x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
c. Introduction of new species of
fauna into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
x
Explanation:
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase
existing noise levels?
Explanation:
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce new fight or glare?
Explanation:
J
9.
xx
Land Use. Will the proposal result
in the alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Explanation: The property is in the long range city plan for commercial
property so it will not alter the planned land use. It is presently a
single family dwelling so the change will alter the present use.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
b. Depletion of"any nonrenewable
natural resource?
Explanation:
-4-
YES MAYBE NO
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or release of hazard-
ous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset condi-
tions?
Explanation:
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
oh using, or create a demand for additional
housing? X
Explanation: The property is currently zoned for multiple family living
and has been used as a single family dwelling. The house is presently vacant
and will be used for an individual business with no living space provided.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement? xx
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? xx
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems? xx
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or
goods? xx
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? xx
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? xx
Explanation: Chrysalis Scientific Services provides computerized practice
management services, generally at the client's site. One office will be
used by Dr. Storrie-Lombardi two afternoons per week to see psychiatric
outpatients at a frequency of 1 person or couple per hour. These services
should result in very little change in traffic movement.
-5-
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? k
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? k
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? x
f. Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? X
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a nee or new systems or alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
-6-
YES MAYBE NO
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result
n the creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
,
mental health)?
K
Explanation:
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
n the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Explanation:
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quan-
tity of existing recreational oppor-
tunities?
k
Explanation:
20.
Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposal result in an alteration of
a significant archeological or his-
torical site, structure, object or
building?
Explanation:
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is
true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration
or non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there
be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
-7-
226 Dayton St.
Edmonds, WA
ICINITY SKETCH
i
( E
! C. Bc-
DAY TDti STRE ET
lit
rµ �.
3
c�� -- Co��domi„•
I
< i <
S p �, ♦w
i.
�_+.a...+_.--..csavawrne-«...»./
�Llc� 5t
AREA INVOLVED (Dimensions taken from survey of 9179
done by Hammond, Collier & Wade -Livingstone.)
.Qay+o n Str-e-e-
� ,QPft.VEI,
� ttJ,rtYG • �� U1
covered port k 1
t
�-5iary �ra���a�SG
3s
Ut �pA ,
A
Ci ysalis Scientific Services, Jc.
209 DAYTON STREET, SUITE 205
POST OFFICE BOX 536
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
(206) 778.3888
DIRECTORS
Michael C. Storrie-Lombardi, M.D.
Lisa J. Storrie-Lombardi
January 4, 1983
City of Edmonds
505 Bell Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Duane V. Bowman
Assistant City Planner
Dear Duane:
LIFE SCIENCE CONSULTING SERVICES
AGING AND DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHIATRY
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
MICROCOMPUTER SOFTWARE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY
re: 226 Dayton St.
rezone application
CHRYSALIS FOUNDATION
We have finally completed the rezone application forms for our
property on Dayton street and they are herewith enclosed. At
present we are going to be doing some minor repairs and renting
the house as a single family residence while our applications
are in process. We had hoped to move along faster with our office
remodelling plans but we have run into some unexpected hitches in
our financing arrangements. I am also contemplating starting
graduate work at the University which may cause some changes in
our plans.
We still feel that is in our best interest to move ahead with the
rezoning and planning process as the other corners are already com-
mercial and it appears there may be some other activity in the area
soon. We will keep the City apprised as our plans develop.
Thank you for your assistance and advice on our project so far.
Sincerely,
Isa J. Storrie-Lombardi
Director
LJS:cs
Enclosure - rezone application
- adjacent property owner list
- environmental checklist
- vicinity & area sketch
- application fee-$205.00
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICATION FOR REZONE
APPLICANT: M. C. 6rL. J. Storrie-Lombardi
LATE: % 1411 F.3
FILE# / R _�5
REZONE FEE $165.00
CONTRACT REZONE $220.00
<,�ENV . ASSESSMENT FEE 4 000
ENV.CHECKLIST RECVD
RECT NO. 3 3(p�
HEARING DATE —�-
ADDRESS 209_ Dayton. St. , Su i,te„205/P.,0 Box ,536, Edmonds PHONE # 778-3888
APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: OPTION HOLDER
RE CONTRACT HOLDER OTHER - Please Specify:
CHRYSALIS FOUNDATION
OWNER(M.C. & L.J. Storri.e-Lombardi) ADDRESS P.O. Box 53�, EdmondsPHONE
(If more t an one owner, attach list or petition)
OWNER
778-3888
REQUEST REZONE FROM: RM.; I.5 TO: BC
Statement of reasons for rezone request. (Statement may be attached. Please
include any plans for development.) We plan to remodel the interior of the main floor
for office space for Chrysalis Scientific Services, Inc. The other three corners are
already zoned commercial.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: 226 Dayton Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REZONE AREA: Beginning at the SW corner of Dayton and 3 rd i n
the City of Edmonds, Washington; thence S alonq the W boundary line of 3rd Avenue S. for
75 feet; thence W 68 feet; thence N 75 feet to he point of beginning; being a part of the
NW k of Section 23, Township 27, N.R. 3 E WM, Snohomish, Washington.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
(Must be submitted at time of application)
Map drawn to scale of the area involved, showing all property lines,
dimensions- existing buildings and streets. Indicate North and
adjacent zoning.
Vicinity sketch of the area with subject property shaded in. Indicate
North and adjacent zoning.
3. Environmental Checklist, completed, with the $40.00 fee.
Names and addresses of all property owners and street addresses within
80 feet of the boundaries of the proposed rezone site.
This space to be completed by the Planning Division:
Legal Description checked and approved by Date
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for
the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and
old thc: City of Edmonds harlailess froma any and all dallages arld/or clui1^s for
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or
inaction of the City whenever such action or inaction is based in whole or in
part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the
applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission to Enter Subject Property
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public
officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property
for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
cy�
S�Onaturto Owner 6t Agent tor
Owner j�G'-cycJ—r