Loading...
PLN198700006-2996FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Action of the Edmonds City Council Application No.: R-6-87 Following notice given in accordance with law and ordinance, on January 12, 1988, the Edmonds City Council adopted Planning Board recommendation R-6-87 denying a proposed rezone at 1233 Olympic View Drive. Based upon the record of the proceeding before the Planning Board, the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendation, the Council enters the attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions. DATED this 1Y day of 1988. APPROVED: ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED: J/rLZk,,JACQUELINE G. PARRETT FR687/COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY OF EDMONDS REZONE CITY OF EDMONDS FILE: #R-6-87 After notification in conformance with law, the Planning Board of the City of Edmonds conducted a public hearing on October 28, 1987 on the rezone application of the David and Patricia Page. The applicants have requested approval of a proposed rezone of the property located at 1233 Olympic View Drive from RS-12 (Single Family) to BN (Neighborhood Business). Based upon the evidence presented thereat, the Planning Board makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The rezone area contains approximately 1,285 square feet and is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The subject property is partially paved to provide additional parking for the real estate office. 2. The area is bordered by commercial development to the east; multiple family to the west; and single family residential to the north and south. Olympic View Elementary School is also located to the south. 3. A determination of nonsignificance has been issued by the City on the rezone request. 4. The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial Business. The proposed zoning would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Applicants acquired the subject property by completing a lot line adjustment in 1986, under file #S-4-86. Con4,n was raised at that time regarding the possibility of the parcel being rezoned. II, 6. Opposition was expressed by surrounding property owners. 7. No significant changes have occurred in the neighborhood to warrant the rezone. 8. Due to the size of the parcel in question, it is not suitable for any BN use except landscaping or accessory parking. r Planning Board Re mendation e 2 #R-6-87 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The proposed zoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan map of the City of Edmonds. 2. No significant change has occurred in the neighborhood to justify the rezone. 3. No significant adverse environmental impact will result from the rezone request. 4. Due to the size of the rezone parcel, no practical BN use can be placed on the property. 5. No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL The Planning Board of the City of Edmonds recommends to the City Council that Application R-6-87 be denied. This recommendation was passed unanimously by the Planning Board, PASSED this 28th day of October, 1987. SHARON CLAUSSEN, CHAIR EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD been issued to commence construction. She said that issue should be resolved but did not neces- sarily feel that passage of the ordinance should be delayed. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the citizens who had expressed opposition to additions to noncon- forming structures were aware of the proposed ordinance. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer said the first proposed ordinance was too complex and did not accomplish the goal of formulating a set of criteria that could be applied uniformly or fairly. He said the proposed ordinance before the Council at the present time was superior and capable of being ap- plied fairly. He favored passage of the ordinance, providing that the tangential concerns would be addressed in the future. Councilmember Wilson concurred. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if an adjacent neighbor who protested the issuance of a building permit for a nonconforming structure would be allowed to voice those concerns to the City if the proposed ordinance was adopted. City Attorney Scott Snyder replied affirmatively. He said Staff decisions are appealable, as provided in Chapter 20.105. He said, however, because of the lack of notification procedure under the Uniform Building Code, there is no means for a citizen to be aware of the issuance of the permit and accompanying Staff findings. Mr. Snyder said the proper place for notification would be in Chapter 10. He noted that the addition of a substantive provi- sion to the proposed ordinance would require that the ordinance be remanded to the Planning Board for further review. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2652. MOTION CARRIED. :ADOPTION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PROPOSED REZONE AT 1233 OLYMPIC VTEW. DR-. FROMf RS-12 TO BN R-6-87/DAVID AND PATRICIA PAGE ITEM D ON THE CONSENT AGENDA i Councilmember Kasper said it was the Council's opinion that Planning Board recommendations that are appealed should be placed on the regular agenda as a hearing item rather than the Consent Agenda. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the recommendation was not appealed. City Attorney Scott Snyder said subdivision and rezone matters are recommendations to the Council and may be set for a hearing but the Council is not obligated to do so. Councilmember Kasper noted that it has been the policy to bring zoning matters before the Council. Councilmember Dwyer said the Planning Board recommendation before the Council was an adverse recommendation that the appli- cant abandoned and no one else appealed that recommendation. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ADOPT ITEM (D). MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech raised a point of order. She requested that the Council discuss the Mayor's recommendation for Boards and Commissions positions at that time rather than during item #5 as a courtesy to one of the applicants who was sitting in the audience. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO TAKE ACTION ON THE MAYOR'S RECOMMEN- DATION FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS POSITIONS. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten requested confirmation of his appointments of Diane Monroe to the Architectural De- sign Board (ADB) and Marion Wilkerson and Evelyn Laurine to the Library Board. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS OF DIANE MONROE TO POSITION 1 ON THE ADB, TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1991; MARION WILKERSON TO POSITION 4 ON THE LIBRARY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1992; AND EVELYN LAURINE TO POSI- TION 2 ON THE LIBRARY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. CWC-HDR TREATMENT PLANT MONTHLY REPORT ,y U The proposed colors of the treatment plant are blues and grays with white as an accent color. The administration building is proposed to have a blue metal roof and a considerable amount of soft - looking tinted glass. The concept was presented to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on Janu- ary 6, 1988, and they expressed no objections to the proposal for the administration building and color selections. Bruce Willey, CWC-HDR, Inc, submitted Progress report No. 8 to the Council. Gordon Culp, CWC-HDR, Inc., reported that one of the two weeks that the design was behind sched- ule has been recovered. The value engineering is planned for the first or second week of Febru- ary. The design effort will be on schedule prior to the VE effort and the project remains on budget. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 JANUARY 12, 1988 DATE: CITY OF EDMONDS 250 51h AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 /18/88 TO: David & Patricia Page 1233 Olympic View Edmonds, WA 98020 LARRY S.'NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR TRANSMITTING: Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision R-6-87 AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT CObLMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: REMARKS - XXX PLANNING DIVISION Diane Cunningham PU6uC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY OF EDMONDS REZONE CITY OF EDMONDS FILE: #R-6-87 After notification in conformance with law, the Planning Board of the City of Edmonds conducted a public hearing on October 28, 1987 on the rezone application of the David and Patricia Page. The applicants have requested approval of a proposed rezone of the property located at 1233 Olympic View Drive from RS-12 (Single Family) to BN (Neighborhood Business). Based upon the evidence presented thereat, the Planning Board makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The rezone area contains approximately 1,285 square feet and is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The subject property is partially paved to provide additional parking for the real estate office. 2. The area is bordered by commercial development to the east; multiple family to the west; and single family residential to the north and south. Olympic View Elementary School is also located to the south. 3. A determination of nonsignificance has been issued by the City on the rezone request. 4. The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial Business. The proposed zoning would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Applicants acquired the subject property by completing a lot line adjustment in 1986, under file #S-4-86. Concern was raised at that time regarding the possibility of the parcel being rezoned. 6. Opposition was expressed by surrounding property owners. 7. No significant changes have occurred in the neighborhood to warrant the rezone. 8. Due to the size of the parcel in question, it is not suitable for any BN use except landscaping or accessory parking. Planning Board Recommendation _ae 2 #R-6-87 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The proposed zoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan map of the City of Edmonds. 2. No significant change has occurred in the neighborhood to justify the rezone. 3. No significant adverse environmental impact will result from the rezone request. 4. Due to the size of the rezone parcel, no practical BN use can be placed on the property. 5. No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. I RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL The Planning Board of the City of Edmonds recommends to the City Council that Application R-6-87 be denied. This recommendation was passed unanimously by the Planning Board, PASSED this 28th day of October, 1987. T".lNu Ui%- 2-1- 1 SHARON CLAUSSEN, CHAIR EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD PBRECR6/TXTDVB51 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PROPOSED REZONE AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS-12 TO BN (R-6-87/DAVID AND PATRICIA PAGE) AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: January 12, 1988 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Planning Board Findings 2. Planning Board Minutes 10/28/87 Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES y ENGINEERINGG PARKS & `_ 1 YVATI N PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: On October 28, 1987, the Planning Board held a hearing on the rezone application of David and Patricia Page regarding a small parcel of land located adjacent to their office building at 1233 Olympic View Drive. Their request was to rezone the parcel from RS-12 to BN. The Planning Board voted to deny the rezone request. Attached are copies of the minutes from the meeting and the Board's findings of fact and recommendation. The City Council may adopt the Board's findings and recommendation or set the matter for a public hearing. If the Council adopts the Board's findings and recommendation, the rezone application is formally denied. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Planning Board findings and recommendation.) ��$g 1' PAGEMEM/COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY OF EDMONDS REZONE CITY OF EDMONDS FILE: rR-6-87 After notification in conformance with law, the Planning Board of the City of Edmonds conducted a public hearing on October 28, 1987 on the rezone application of the David and Patricia Page. The applicants have requested approval of a proposed rezone of the property located at 1233 Olympic View Drive from RS-12 (Single Family) to BN (Neighborhood Business). Based upon the evidence presented thereat, the Planning Board makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The rezone area contains approximately 1,285 square feet and is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The subject property is partially paved to provide additional parking for the real estate office. 2. The area is bordered by commercial development to the east; multiple family to the west; and single family residential to the north and south. Olympic View Elementary School is also located to the south. 3. A determination of nonsignificance has been issued by the City on the rezone request. 4. The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial Business. The proposed zoning would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Applicants acquired the subject property by completing a lot line adjustment in 1986, under file nS-4-86. Concern was raised at that time regarding the possibility of the parcel being rezoned. 6. Opposition was expressed by surrounding property owners. 7. No significant changes have occurred in the neighborhood to warrant the rezone. 8. Due to the size of the parcel in question, it is not suitable for any BN use except landscaping or accessory parking. Planning Board R 'mmendation ge 2 rR-6-87 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The proposed zoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan map of the City of Edmonds. 2. No significant change has occurred in the neighborhood to justify the rezone. 3. No significant adverse environmental impact will result from the rezone request. 4. Due to the size of the rezone parcel, no practical BN use can be placed on the property. 5. No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL The Planning Board of the City of Edmonds recommends to the City Council that Application R-6-87 be denied. This recommendation was passed unanimously by the Planning Board, PASSED this 28th day of October, 1987. SHARON CLAUSSEN, CHAIR EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD PBRECR6/TXTDVB51 THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 11, 1987 APPROVAL PLANNING EGARD MINUTES OCTOBER 2S, 1987 PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Sherry Claussen, Chairperson Hark Lewis Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Dean Nordquist Don Lewis Margaret Richards, Recorder Jeff Palmer Richard Kirschner Janet Phillips Bill Mathias Mr. Kirschner arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on approval of the minutes. Mr. Kirschner said he was absent from the September 23 and October 14, 1987 meetings because he was out of town on business. Ms. Block noted that Hank Lewis was ill, and Don Lewis was out of town on business. Mr. Mathias said his absence was not excused from the October 14, 1987 meeting. He said he had requested via a telephone conversation that his absence be excused because he was on vacation. He said, however, neither the Planning Department nor Planning Board received his message. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that the date at the bottom of the page of the minutes should be corrected to read October 14, 1987. MR. PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. PHILLIPS ABSTAINING BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. STAFF/PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman was on vacation. She said she would review the first two items on the agenda with the Board and Parks b Recreation Division Manager Jim Barnes would review item 3. Mr. Palmer said he had not received the last two or three Board packets until a day before or the day of the meeting, which did not allow him sufficient time to review the information. Ms. Block said she would check with the secretary in the Planning Department. Mr. Palmer referred to the memorandum from Mr. Bowman regarding the possibility of rescheduling the November 25 and December 23, 1987 Planning Board meetings. A quick poll was taken to determine who would be available for those meetings. Ms. Block said because a quorum would be present at both meetings, neither meeting would be rescheduled. Ms. Phillips said she was unsure why the Council remanded the issue of the nonconforming building ordinance t,p the Board. Ms. Block said she did not attend that meeting but Mr. Palmer had. Mr. Palmer said the Council gave no clear indication of what their feelings were regarding continuation or discontinuation of nonconforming structures. Ile said he was under the impression that Councilmembers either did not read the Board's minutes or they did not understand the issues that the Board reviewed. He suggested that the Board submit the problems and resolutions/recommendation to the Council. Ms. Block said the issue was confusing and perhaps could be introduced to the Council with more background information. AUDIENCE Chairperson Claussen opened the audience portion of the meeting. Nto audience input was Off e roc Chairperson Claussen closed the audience portion of the meeting. FILE=R-5-81 Planning Divisicn ,Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the requested action was for a rezone of parcel of land from RS-12 to ENl ,neighborhood business) at i233 Olympic View Drive. The proponent/owners are David and Patricia Page. The subject parcel is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The rezone area covers a small 1,285 square foot tract that was added to the Page property under lot lir;, adjustment 5-4-86. The rezone area has been partially paved to provide additional parking for the two-story office building. The rezone area is presently zoned RS-12 (single family residential). Surrounding development is commercial to the east, single family to the north, multiple family to the west and a school to the south. The Official Street Map depicts a proposed right-of-way on Puget Drive of 60 feet and an existing right-of-way of 60 feet. Ms. Block reviewed the rezone criteria as follows: 1) does the proposed zoning change conform with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map designates the subject area as Commercial/Business; 2) is the proposed zoning consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance? The zoning ordinance establishes zones for appropriate land uses. In this particular case, the present zoning on the subject area is the appropriate zoning for the parcel. At the time the lot line adjustment was made, it was anticipated that the area would be used as garden and play area space. Since that time, the residential unit that was formerly located on the second floor of the office building has been removed. Concern was raised by adjacent property owners that the lot line adjustment would be the first step for a rezone; 3) what is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to existing land uses and zoning of surroundine or nearby properties? The subject property is zoned RS-12. Surrounding zoning is BN to the east and south, and RS-12 to the north and west. Surrounding development is commercial to the east, multiple family to the south, and single family to the west and north. The proposed zoning would allow encroachment of BN zoning on the adjacent RS-12 zoned properties; 4) have there been sufficient changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone? There have been no significant changes in the neighborhood to justify the rezone request; 5) is the property suitable both economically and physically for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and the proposed zoning? Due to the size of the parcel, it is not suitable for any allowed BN use except parking or landscaping. The subject area has been partially paved over to provide additional parking, which was done without any approval by the City. The most appropriate use is landscaping. This can be done in the RS zone; 5) what is the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners? No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. Ms. Block said no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified with the proposed rezone, and a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance has been issued. Ms. Block said Staff cannot support the rezone request. Concern was raised when the original lot line adjustment was approved that the subject area would be rezoned from RS-12 to BN. There has been no significant change in the character of the neighborhood to support the rezone. Staff recommends denial of the request. Ms. Block indicated the location of the subject parcel on a vicinity map on the overhead projector, as well as the designated zoning of adjacent properties. Mr. Palmer inquired if the lot line adjustment affected only the subject property. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. Ms. Claussen inquired why the lot line adjustment was made. Ms. Block said it was made at that time to provide a garden and play area. Mr. Kirschner inquired about access to the subject parcel. Ms. Block said access to the parcel is provided by way of Puget Drive. Mr. Nordquist said he viewed the subject property, and it appeared that there was not sufficient room for a car to negotiate the ..turn to park within the striped parking area. Ms. Sloc'.k said a permit was not applied for the parking and so the Engineering Department had not reviewed the plan. She said it appeared to be restrictive. Mr. Kirschner inquired when the subject parcel was paved. Ms. Block replied within the last few menths. Mr. Kirschner inquired if a permit was required. Ms. Block replied affirmatively, noting that a permit was not applied for. Mr. Nordquist inquired if the adjacent parcel, Parcel B, was landlocked. Ms. Block replied negatively. Chair.erson Claussen opened the public portion of the hearing. Patricia ?age, 1233 Puget Drive, said the subject parcel is not visible from adjacent prc�er_`es `ecause there are 8 foot fences on both sides. She said only two parking spaces PLANNING °CARD MINUTES Page 2 OCTOBER 28, 1987 less than i5 feet wide exist on the subject parcel. She said the parking area is only utilized for employees from, the other offices during Monday morning staff meetings. Ms. Page stated that an adjacent neighbor parks a recreational vehicle in his back yard, pointing out that utilizing property in that area for parking is the "norm". Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview Street, said her property is located behind Page Realty. She noted the following changes that have occurred on the subject property: .1) dumpster containers have beer relocated closer to her property line; 2) additional parking spaces installed; and 3) planting material on subject parcel has been removed. Ms. Cunningham said she concurred with Staff in denying the rezone request and requested the Board to support Staff's recommendation. Ms. Cunningham, expressed concern that gradual changes may take place to the subject property which are in violation of Code requirements, thus changing the nature of the residential area. She also expressed concern that traffic has increased on Puget Drive and the left-hand turn into the realty company is awkward and confusing. She suggested that the Engineering Department review that configuration. Harold Schnarre, 1028 Puget Drive, said he was wondering if expansion of the business community in the surrounding area was under consideration. He said expansion of the business sector would polarize the neighborhood. Mr. Schnarre said he believed, as Staff does, that landscaping should be provided on the subject parcel. Mr. Schnarre reviewed the following violations of Code requirements: 1) 15 foot landscaping buffer on the subject parcel has been removed; 2) antenna mounted on roof exceeds height limitation; 3) pavement exceeds permitted paved area; 4) additional parking area violates Code; 5) garbage containers improperly located; 6) light on signage remains on after 11 p.m. Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street, said because Board members are public officials, they are required to disclose any conflicts of interest and appearance of fairness when reviewing hearings. He inquired if Mr. Page or any committee that he was a member of donated to Mr. Palmer's campaign for a seat on the City Council. Mr. Palmer replied negatively. Mr. Tupper suggested.that the Board, in its recommendation, deny the rezone request. He noted that the additional parking encroaches on the required landscaped buffer. David Page, 1733 Cypress Way, Alderwood Manor, said there was concrete debris located on the subject parcel when he first purchased the property. He said he obtained permission from Mr. VanDriel to plant a garden in that location. Because of a neighborhood complaint, the City contacted Mr. Page and suggested that the lot line be adjusted. Mr. Page said his motives were not malicious when he paved the parking strip. He said he had leftover asphalt from a development that he was constructing and decided to pave the 300 foot strip to provide additional parking for staff members during Monday morning meetings. Mr. Page said the thought never occurred to him that a permit would be required because the improvement was so insignificant and would not impact the residents. Mr. Page said the reason the rezone request was before the Board was not because he had desired the rezone but because he had endeavored to plant a garden and was informed by Staff that a lot line adjustment was necessary which subsequently lead to the necessity to file for a rezone application because the 300 foot strip was paved for parking. Mr. Mathias inquired, since Mr. Page was a developer, if he was aware that improvec:ents within the City of Edmonds required a permit. Mr. Page replied negatively. He said he discovered after t^e fact that the City of Edmonds has more stringent policies governing land development than any local city that he is aware of. Mr. Ncrdquist inquired if Mr. Page was aware that the City has stringent requirements regarding the lccatien of garbage containers. Mr. Page replied negatively. He said he would relocate the containers in according with Code requirements. Chairperson Claussen closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. ?a'-er inquired about the standard depth and length requirement for parking spaces. Ms. Block replied 8-1/2'x_8'. Mr. Palmer inquired, then, if only one parking space could be provided in the subject parcel if the required landscaping buffer was installed. vs. Block replied affirmatively. PLANi1l NG BOARD 1M I Nii ES Paqe 3 OCTOBER 23, rg-_ MS. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. MATn;AS, TO DENY FILE 0-6-87 BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PARCEL WAS ONLY LARGE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE TFE REQUiREO LAN SCAPE BUFFER,. Mr. Palmer said he would vote in favor of the motion because he was not convinced that the mitigating conditions of the Declaration of Nonsignificance had been met. Mr. Nordquist expressed concern that approval of the rezone request would lead to further encroachment upon the residential area. In addition, he said the Code must be enforced. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE/SR 104 PLAKt:itiG AREA UPDATE Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the Westgate Committee has recommended that review of the Comprehensive Plan be conducted section by section rather than the City at large, commencing with the Westgate area first. Ms. Block said a recent survey and public meeting revealed that both residential occupants and commercial occupants of the Westgate area were generally satisfied with area development. The Westgate Committee was subsequently formed to review the concerns that were raised in response to the survey and meeting. Members of the Committee are as follows: Morrie Olson, Gerry Lovell, Joe Mazzuca, Barbara Grissom, John Guenther, and John Nordquist. Ms. Block publicly thanked the Committee members for their endeavors. She noted that Mr. Nordquist and Mr. Guenther were present at the Board meeting. Ms. Block said it is important to study the Westgate area because there are inconsistencies between the County's and City's Comprehensive Policy Plan Maps. She submitted a revised copy of the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan Map. She said the County's plan indicates a greater percentage of commercial development in the Westgate area than does the City's, which creates conflicts when Comprehensive Plan Map issues are heard before the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner. She noted, also, that the City's map is inaccurate and in need of updating. Ms. Block said some of the issues which should be addressed when studying the Westgate area are: 1) should the commercial area designations be expanded on the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the existing situation; 2) how should the multiple family designation be addressed; 3) is the multiple family designation appropriate as depicted on the plan; 4) are there any changes that the Board feels would be appropriate; 5) how far north and should should potential commercial development extend. Ms. Block said some of the difficulties in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan are how to incorporate input from the County and how broad should designations be for properties that extend into County areas. Chairperson Claussen said the Board should keep in mind a broader sense of development for the entire City when reviewing the 'Westgate area so that a Comprehensive Plan is, indeed, developed. Ms. Block said the Board may wish to consider two categories in the BN zone or the creation of a new zone entirely. John Nordquist, 7516 - 241st S.W., clarified that he was not related to Dean Nordquist and that he did not cwn property in Westgate. Mr. Nordquist said the Committee was interested in reviewing the area from Highway 99 to the crest of the hill by Olympic Properties and from the cemetery to Firdale Village. Mr. .,ordc,uist said traffic and parking is highly affected during the holidays because the larger ,-erChants must employ a greater numiber of employees. He suggested that review of other areas, such as Five Corners and 212th, also consider parking and traffic issues. Mr. Nordquist said the Ccmmittee discussed the creation of another zone in the 'Westgate area and other congested areas, as well. Mr. Nordquist suggested that the °card tour the Westgate area prior to its review. Chairperson Claussen inquired if a time line had been set to conduct the review. Ms. Block said although a time line has not been set, the Board should proceed as expeditiously as possible. Chairperson Claussen suggested that an introductory meeting be scheduled, a listing of issues to be addressed prepared, minutes from Conn. ittee proceedings submitted, if any, aerial ;hetccraphs provided, and, perhaps invite a County official and Conrnittee rr.ember to attend the meeti no. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 0 - n nr-nnro ?a rcQ THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 11, 1987 APPROVAL' - PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1987 PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Sherry Claussen, Chairperson Hank Lewis Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Dean Nordquist Don Lewis Margaret Richards, Recorder Jeff Palmer Richard Kirschner Janet Phillips Bill Mathias Mr. Kirschner arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on approval of the minutes. Mr. Kirschner said he was absent from the September 23 and October 14, 1987 meetings because he was out of town on business. Ms. Block noted that Hank Lewis was ill, and Don Lewis was out of town on business. Mr. Mathias said his absence was not excused from the October 14, 1987 meeting. He said he had requested via a telephone conversation that his absence be excused because he was on vacation. He said, however, neither the Planning Department nor Planning Board received his message. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that the date at the bottom of the page of the minutes should be corrected to read October 14, 1987. MR. PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. PHILLIPS ABSTAINING BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. STAFF/PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman was on vacation. She said she would review the first two items on the agenda with the Board and Parks & Recreation Division Manager Jim Barnes would review item 3. Mr. Palmer said he had not received the last two or three Board packets until a day before or the day of the meeting, which did not allow him sufficient time to review the information. Ms. Block said she would check with the secretary in the Planning Department. Mr. Palmer referred to the memorandum from Mr. Bowman regarding the possibility of rescheduling the November 25 and December 23, 1987 Planning Board meetings. A quick poll was taken to determine who would be available for those meetings. Ms. Block said because a quorum would be present at both meetings, neither meeting would be rescheduled. Ms. Phillips said she was unsure why the Council remanded the issue of the nonconforming building ordinance tp the Board. Ms. Block said she did not attend that meeting but Mr. Palmer had. Mr. Palmer said the Council gave no clear indication of what their- feelings were regarding continuation or discontinuation of nonconforming structures. He said he was under the impression that Councilmembers either did not read the Board's minutes or they did not understand the issues that the Board reviewed. He suggested that the Board submit the problems and resolutions/recommendation to the Council. Ms. Block said the issue was confusing and perhaps could be introduced to the Council with more background information. AUDIENCE Chairperson Claussen opened the audience portion of the meeting. No audience input was offered. Chairperson Claussen closed the audience portion of the meeting. ;FILE #R-6-87`. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the requested action was for a rezone of a 1,285 square parcel of land from RS-12 to BN (neighborhood business) at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The proponent/owners are David and Patricia Page. The subject parcel is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The rezone area covers a small 1,285 square foot tract that was added to the Page property under lot line adjustment #5-4-86. The rezone area has been partially paved to provide additional parking for the two-story office building. The rezone area is presently zoned RS-12 (single family residential). Surrounding development is commercial to the east, single family to the north, multiple family to the west and a school to the south. The Official Street Map depicts a proposed right-of-way on Puget Drive of 60 feet and an existing right-of-way of 60 feet. Ms. Block reviewed the rezone criteria as follows: 1) does the proposed zoning change conform with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map designates the subject area as Commercial/Business; 2) is the proposed zoning consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance? The zoning ordinance establishes zones for appropriate land uses. In this particular case, the present zoning on the subject area is the appropriate zoning for the parcel. At the time the lot line adjustment was made, it was anticipated that the area would be used as garden and play area space. Since that time, the residential unit that was formerly located on the second floor of the office building has been removed. Concern was raised by adjacent property owners that the lot line adjustment would be the first step for a rezone; 3) what is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties? The subject property is zoned RS-12. Surrounding zoning is BN to the east and south, and RS-12 to the north and west. Surrounding development is commercial to the east, multiple family to the south, and single family to the west and north. The proposed zoning would allow encroachment of BN zoning on the adjacent RS-12 zoned properties; 4) have there been sufficient changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone? There have been no significant changes in the neighborhood to justify the rezone request; 5) is the property suitable both economically and physically for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and the proposed zoning? Due to the size of the parcel, it is not suitable for any allowed BN use except parking or landscaping. The subject area has been partially paved over to provide additional parking, which was done without any approval by the City. The most appropriate use is landscaping. This can be 'done in the RS zone; 5) what is the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners? No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. Ms. Block said no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified with the proposed rezone, and a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance has been issued. Ms. Block said Staff cannot support the rezone request. Concern was raised when the original lot line adjustment was approved that the subject area would be rezoned from RS-12 to BN. There has been no significant change in the character of the neighborhood to support the rezone. Staff recommends denial of the request. Ms. Block indicated the location of the subject parcel on a vicinity map on the overhead projector, as well as the designated zoning of adjacent properties. Mr. Palmer inquired if the lot line adjustment affected only the subject property. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. Ms. Claussen inquired why the lot line adjustment was made. Ms. Block said it was made at that time to provide a garden and play area. Mr. Kirschner inquired about access to the subject parcel. Ms. Block said access to the parcel is provided by way of Puget Drive. Mr. Nordquist said he viewed the subject property, and it appeared that there was not sufficient room for a car to negotiate the turn to park within the striped parking area. Ms. Block said a permit was not applied for the parking and so the Engineering Department had not reviewed the plan. She said it appeared to be restrictive. Mr. Kirschner inquired when the subject parcel was paved. Ms. Block replied within the last few months. Mr. Kirschner inquired if a permit was required. Ms. Block replied affirmatively, noting that a permit was not applied for. Mr. Nordquist inquired if the adjacent parcel, Parcel B, was landlocked. Ms. Block replied negatively. Chairperson Claussen opened the public portion of the hearing. Patricia Page, 1233 Puget Drive, said the subject parcel is not visible from adjacent properties because there are 8 foot fences on both sides. She said only two parking spaces PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 2 OCTOBER 28, 1987 less than 15 feet wide exist on the subject parcel. She said the parking area is only utilized for employees from the other offices during Monday morning staff meetings. Ms. Page:stated that an adjacent neighbor parks a recreational vehicle in his back yard, pointing out that utilizing property in that area for parking is the "norm". Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview Street, said her property is located behind Page Realty. She noted the following changes that have occurred on the subject property: 1) dumpster containers have been relocated closer to her property line; 2) additional parking spaces installed; and 3) planting material on subject parcel has been removed. Ms. Cunningham said she concurred with Staff in denying the rezone request and requested the Board to support Staff's recommendation. Ms. Cunningham expressed concern that gradual changes may take place to the subject property which are in violation of Code requirements, thus changing the nature of the residential area. She also expressed concern that traffic has increased on Puget Drive and the left-hand turn into the realty company is awkward and confusing. She suggested that the Engineering Department review that configuration. Harold Schnarre, 1028 Puget Drive, said he was wondering if expansion of the business community in the surrounding area was under consideration. He said expansion of the business sector would polarize the neighborhood. Mr. Schnarre said he believed, as Staff does, that landscaping should be provided on the subject parcel. Mr. Schnarre reviewed the following violations of Code requirements: 1) 15 foot landscaping buffer on the subject parcel has been removed; 2) antenna mounted on roof exceeds height limitation; 3) pavement exceeds permitted paved area; 4) additional parking area violates Code; 5) garbage containers improperly located; 6) light on signage remains on after 11 p.m. Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street, said because Board members are public officials, they are required to disclose any conflicts of interest and appearance of fairness when reviewing hearings. He inquired if Mr. Page or any committee that he was a member of donated to Mr. Palmer's campaign for a seat on the City Council. Mr. Palmer replied negatively. Mr. Tupper suggested that the Board, in its recommendation, deny the rezone request. He noted that the additional parking encroaches on the required landscaped buffer. David Page, 1733 Cypress Way, Alderwood Manor, said there was concrete debris located on the subject parcel when he first purchased the property. He said he obtained permission from Mr. VanDriel to plant a garden in that location. Because of a neighborhood complaint, the City contacted Mr. Page and suggested that the lot line be adjusted. Mr. Page said his motives were not malicious when he paved the parking strip. He said he had leftover asphalt from a development that he was constructing and decided to pave the 300 foot strip to provide additional parking for staff members during Monday morning meetings. Mr. Page said the thought never occurred to him that a permit would be required because the improvement was so insignificant and would not impact the residents. Mr. Page said the reason the rezone request was before the Board was not because he had desired the rezone but because he had endeavored to plant a garden and was informed by Staff that a lot line adjustment was necessary which subsequently lead to the necessity to file for a rezone application because the 300 foot strip was paved for parking. Mr. Mathias inquired, since Mr. Page was a developer, if he was aware that improvements within the City of Edmonds required a permit. Mr. Page replied negatively. He said he discovered after the fact that the City of Edmonds has more stringent policies governing land development than any local city that he is aware of. Mr. Nordquist inquired if Mr. Page was aware that the City has stringent requirements regarding the location of garbage containers. Mr. Page replied negatively. He said he would relocate the containers in according with Code requirements. Chairperson Claussen closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Palmer inquired about the standard depth and length requirement for parking spaces. Ms. Block replied 8-1/2'x18'. Mr. Palmer inquired, then, if only one parking space could be provided in the subject parcel if the required landscaping buffer was installed. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 3 OCTOBER 28, 1987 MS. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. MATH IAS, TO DENY FILE NR-6-87 BECAUSE THE SUBJECT -PARCEL WAS ONLY LARGE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER. Mr. Palmer said he would vote in favor of the motion because he was not convinced that the mitigating conditions of the Declaration of Nonsignificance had been met. Mr. Nordquist expressed concern that approval of the rezone request would lead to further encroachment upon the residential area. In addition, he said the Code must be enforced. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE/SR 104 PLANNING AREA UPDATE Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the Westgate Committee has recommended that review of the Comprehensive Plan be conducted section by section rather than the City at large, commencing with the Westgate area first. Ms. Block said a recent survey and public meeting revealed that both residential occupants and commercial occupants of the Westgate area were generally satisfied with area development. The Westgate Committee was subsequently formed to review the concerns that were raised in response to the survey and meeting. Members of the Committee are as follows: Morrie Olson, Gerry Lovell, Joe Mazzuca, Barbara Grissom, John Guenther, and John Nordquist. Ms. Block publicly thanked the Committee members for their endeavors. She noted that Mr. Nordquist and Mr. Guenther were present at the Board meeting. Ms. Block said it is important to study the Westgate area because there are inconsistencies between the County's and City's Comprehensive Policy Plan Maps. She submitted a revised copy of the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan Map. She said the County's plan indicates a greater percentage of commercial development in the Westgate area than does the City's, which creates conflicts when Comprehensive Plan Map issues are heard before the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner. She noted, also, that the City's map is inaccurate and in need of updating. Ms. Block said some of the issues which should be addressed when studying the Westgate area are: 1) should the commercial area designations be expanded on the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the existing situation; 2) how should the multiple family designation be addressed; 3) is the multiple family designation appropriate as depicted on the plan; 4) are there any changes that the Board feels would be appropriate; 5) how far north and should should potential commercial development extend. Ms. Block said some of the difficulties in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan are how to incorporate input from the County and how broad should designations be for properties that extend into County areas. Chairperson Claussen said the Board should keep in mind a broader sense of development for the entire City when reviewing the Westgate area so that a Comprehensive Plan is, indeed, developed. Ms. Block said the Board may wish to consider two categories in the BN zone or the creation of a new zone entirely. John Nordquist, 7516 - 241st S.W., clarified that he was not related to Dean Nordquist and that he did not own property in Westgate. Mr. Nordquist said the Committee was interested in reviewing the area from Highway 99 to the crest of the hill by Olympic Properties and from the cemetery to Firdale Village. Mr. Nordquist said traffic and parking is highly affected during the holidays because the larger merchants must employ a greater number of employees. He suggested that review of other areas, such as Five Corners and 212th, also consider parking and traffic issues. Mr. Nordquist said the Committee discussed the creation of another zone in the Westgate area and other congested areas, as well. Mr. Nordquist suggested that the Board tour the Westgate area prior to its review. Chairperson Claussen inquired if a time line had been set to conduct the review. Ms. Block said although a time line has not been set, the Board should proceed as expeditiously as possible. Chairperson Claussen suggested that an introductory meeting be scheduled, a listing of issues to be addressed prepared, minutes from Committee proceedings submitted, if any, aerial photographs provided, and, perhaps invite a County official and Committee member to attend the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 4 OCTOBER 28, 1987 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FILE: #R-6-87 HEARING DATE: October 28, 1987 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone a 1,285 square foot parcel of land from RS-12 to BN (Neighborhood Business) at 1233 Olympic View Drive. II. PROPONENT/OWNER: David & Patricia Page 1233 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit 2 IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject parcel is located on the northwest corner of the Page Realty property at 1233 Olympic View Drive. The rezone area covers a small 1,285 square foot tract that was added to the Page property under lot line adjustment #5-4-86. The rezone area has been partially paved to provide additional parking for the two story office building. The rezone area is presently zoned RS-12 (Single Family Residential). Surrounding development is commercial to the east, single family to the north, multiple family to the west and school to the south. B. Official Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/W Puget Drive 60' 60' C. Rezone Criteria 1. Does the proposed zoning change conform with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map designates the subject area as Commercial/Business. 2. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the purposes of the Staff Report dge 2 Rezone #R-6-87 Zoning Ordinance? The Zoning Ordinance establishes zones for appropriate land uses. In this particular case, the present zoning on the subject area is the appropriate zoning for the parcel. At the time the lot line adjustment was done, it was anticipated that the area would be used as garden and play area space. Since that time the the residential unit that was formerly located on the second floor of the office building has been removed. Concern was raised by adjacent property owners that the lot line adjustment would be the first step for a rezone. 3. What is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties? The subject property is zoned RS-12. Surrounding zoning is BN to the east and south, RS-12 to the north and west. Surrounding development is commercial to the east, multiple family to the south, and single family to the west and north. The proposed zoning would allow encroachment of BN zoning on the adjacent RS-12 zoned properties. 4. Have there been sufficient changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone? There have been no significant changes in the neighborhood to justify the rezone request. 5. Is the property suitable both economically and physically for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and the proposed zoning? Due to the size of the parcel, it is not suitable for any allowed BN use, except parking or landscaping. The subject area has been partially paved over to provide additional parking. This was done without any approval by the City. The most appropriate use is landscaping. This can be done in the RS zone. Staff Report dge 3 Rezone #R-6-87 value to the property owners? No significant benefit to the public will result from the proposed rezone. V. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified with the proposed rezone and a mitigated declaration of nonsignificance has been issued. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support the rezone request. Concern was raised when the original lot line adjustment was approved that the subject area would be rezoned from RS-12 to BN. There has been no significant change in the character of the neighborhood to support the rezone request. Staff recommends denial of the rezone request. REZR687/TXTDVB51 1 DATE: _ FILE# Vl-(2-43-1 CITY OF ED14ONDS REZONE FEE $250.00 APPLICATT014 FOR REZONE CONTRACT REZONE $300.00 ENV.ASSESSMENT FEE W ENV,CHECKLIST RECVD_ RECT NO. HEARING DATE i 1G `L APPLICANT: David and Patricia Page ADDRESS 1233 Olympic View Drive PHONE # 776-2151 1Z Cn APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: OPTION HOLDER RE CONTRACT HOLDER OTHER - Please Specify: OWNER ADDRESS PHONE (If more than one o-ner, attact list or petition) REQUEST REZONE FRoN,- residential TO: BN Statement of reasons for rezone request. (Statement may be attached. Please include any plans for development.) ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: 1 2-1-1 nl =pi'r. Vi Pw 1)ri'vc- F.dmoncls, WA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REZONE AREA: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS (Must be submitted at time of application) 1. Map drawn to scale of the area involved, showing all property lines, dimensions- existing buildings and streets. Indicate North and adjacent zoning. 2. Vicinity sketch of the area with subject property shaded in. Indicate North and adjacent zoning. 3. Environmental Checklist, completed, with the V,0.00 fee- 4. 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 i the Planning D' �n: Legal Description checked and approved by__-�5: Date 97 Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnifv, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harlmess from any and all damages and/or claims 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 e 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 anti posting attendant to this application. P-L&-,1 6�-� ignature of ear or Agent for Owner 11 ' LOT �t '�✓USTMENT MAP / Nunbcr / . vt_ 6 r• 1,3 T•COt�ti -,,W/.0 2 7 Al /?.4N�,E \ I I \ I I —ff I /VO°i2'w14 g` $ 9 G. q 40 e ,�g I S4.89 21 j REZONE M O ° /2 ' iN �'`-ti i gig 9/ &�eEfa♦e �i 20, I9T AiTER � I ,DETi4/L AREA' °2�0 / 75.32 ' Of PROPOSED CONVErANCE h N O ° /Z " W PARCEL 'B TO P.4,fCEL "A 5 /44-.S2 SCALE : J y = ZO ' I I 9 �p j NOTE: I FOR FURTHER /NfORMAT/ON REFER TO t� C/Ty OF EOMONOS SHORT PLAT S - 2R -8/ ��v'�,, &N®CR SNONOM/SH COUNTI AUD/TORS N / °� r ••• ;' ; I F/[E # 8//2230/87. ': `'" i' / •- •� `� I $9 31-17 I /72.00 $t �t N O°/2'w ,~ i /2'W 0.00 7 I I 'N 0°/2'w Uj ( �I aWgl I 40 / I I ,9 TH AVE. I NW COR., SOUTH 70.00 I FEET, WEST /40.00 FEET Of TRACT 5 I r- i FILE#R-6-87 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Rezone request from RS-'(Single Family) to BN (Neighborhood Business) for a 1,285 parcel of land Proponent David & Patricia Pa Location of proposal, including street address, if any 1233 Olympic View Drive Lead Agency Edmonds Planning Division The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by October 27, 1987 Responsible Official Duane V. Bowman Position/Title Assistant City Planner D1, one 771-3202, 4 Address 250 5th Ave..N., Edmonds WA 9802 Date October 2, 1987 Signature X You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance to Hearinq Examiner at 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds, WA 98020 no later than 5:00 p.m., October 27, 1987 by filing a written appeal citing reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Duane Bowman to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. There is no agency appeal. N to CONDITIONS OF MITIGATION FILE #R-6-87 The determination of nonsignificance for rezone R-6-87 is subject to the following mitigating conditions: 1. A minimum 15 foot setback shall be maintained from the R zoned properties to the north and west. 2. The setback areas shall be landscaped with evergreen vegetation approved by the Architectural Design Board. CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TH FILE NO PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION r ZONE DISTRICT. ILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 1 27 19 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: • THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT • D M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252). ' THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING■ OOF LMENT THE AHEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER OCT 27# T THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTIS' NT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE _ANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday , the 28th day of October , 1987 , has been set as the date for hearing by the Edmonds Planning Board on a request to rezone a 1,285 square foot parcel of land from RS-12 to BN (Neighborhood Business) at 1233 Olympic View Drive. Said hearing will be at 7:00 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited to attend. Jacqueline G. Parrett Edmonds City Clerk File No. R-6-87 Publish 10/16/87 F-I A VS T -) P p `-y2- _ Edmonds Planning Dept. 250 5th Ave, N, Edmonds, Wn, 98020 Attn : Duane Bowman 778-2579 i 1031 Grandview St. Edmonds, Wn. 98020 Oct. 26, t. 987 9 1� P� Re: R-6-87 Page Preposed rezone .request from R S. 12 to B N 1233 Olympic Ave Gentlemen: I am very opposed to the above rezone. This.property is now R.S. 12 and should remain so. I am opposed to this persistent pernicious invasiveness of neighorhood business into our residential neighborhood. When ever we think we have it stopped some developer for some excuse or another starts again. Always to enrich their pockets at the neighbors loss. We are only to well acquainted with the effect of neighborhood business on the neighborhood, the tremendous increase in TRAFFIC, NOISE, BRIGHT LIGHTS, AND LITTER, at all hours of the day and night, regardless of business hours, thanks to the businesses already on the corner of Olympic and Puget Drive. Please help us retain the residential neighborhood still left to us. Thank you. Rob Cl Baas ' lla Clare David & Patricia Page 1233 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Charles Tuvey/Resident 1414 9th N. 11202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Iva Over 1414 9th N. #105 Edmonds, WA 98020 Sydney Knutson/Resident 1414 9th N. #305 Edmonds, WA 98020 Nolan Berg/Resident 1414 9th N. #205 Edmonds, WA 98020 Bruce Hubbard/Resident 1020 Grandview Edmonds, WA 98020 Resident 1018 Puget Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Olympic School 1225 Olympic Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 Mildred Winder/Resident Arthur Winder/Resident 1414 9th N. #303 1414 9th N. #304 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 95020 Arthur Jowe/Rssident Stanley Thumpson .1414 9th N. !,'103 1414 9th N. #203 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 E1Iw,ird Ottum/Resident Melvin Koppelsloen/Resident 1414 9th N. #201 1414 9th N. #104 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynda Dixon/Resident DW Brink/Resident 1414 9th N. #204 1414 9th N. #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Gilbert Berg/Resident George Bar/Resident 1414 9th N. #301 1414 91h N, #102. Edmonds, WA 960�O Edmonds, WA 98020 Roger hertrich%Resident Francis Cunningham/Resident 1020 Puget Drive 1030 Grandview Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Robert Applin/Resident Resident 1010 Puget Drive 1418 Grandview Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY OF EOMONOS 250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES (-7 DATE: R TO:7f�`-�� 1 TRANSMITTING: l ,� AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: PUBLIC WORKS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR REMARKS: kgra CJ' "ulz; k c F K o l 7 C A� 4y� Q 1 (Z) Wi PLANNING DIVISION • PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING Pt.ge 3, October 5 - 9, 1987 A-95* DiiC TYPE CH# LEAD AGENCY------------------------------- ** DATE DATE.*** END **** PROPOSAL ISSUED MAILED REVIEW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- „9:; 14 Clark County Rezone 18 acres to nus wrss rack and rezone 4.4 1^u-:::-8-1 10-21-87 acres to Slrgre P81U11y aesiueniial, adjacent to Burnt Bridge Creek, SE of I-205 and the SR-500 interchange (Prematic Service Cusp) 14 Clark County Construct a 2,000 sq ft single family residence in 10-05-87 10-21-87 the flood plain of the Washougal River, 3515 SE Washougal River Road, 1 mile N of Washougal (Alan & Pam Anderson) 14 Clark County Expand an existing mobile home park by 2.5 acres, 10-05-87 10-21-87 stream on site, between Highway 99 and I-5, S of NE 110th St in Hazel Dell (Raymond Ratermann) 14 Clark County Subdivide 10 acres into 2 lots, Gee Creek on site, S 10-05-87 10-21-87 side of NW 254th St, W of NW 41st Ave (Leslie Rapp) 14 Clark County American Auto Stop, construct an auto service center 10-05-87 10-21-87 consisting of 5 bldgs totaling 20,000 sq ft on a 2 acre site, with car wash, tire & parts sales, auto glass, W side of Andresen Rd, 200 ft S of Fourth Plain Rd (SMP Development Fund III) 14 Clark County Construct a sign that exceeds dimensional standards, 10-05-87 10-21-87 8104 NE 78th St, Vancouver (National Self Storage) 1 Whatcom County Replace culverts under various county roads with 10-06-87 10-21-87 backfilling, ripraping and reseeding as needed, 400 ft S of Rainbow Drive on Cain Lake Rd 2 San Juan County Install replacement pilings at an existing float, S 10-08-87 10-23-87 of Lopez Village on Weeks Point Rd on the channel leading to Fishermans Bay, Lopez Island (Cragg Gilbert) 4 Island County Repair a dike in Diking Improvement District #4 09-30-87 10-14-87 adjacent to Deer Lagoon, Camano Island 4 Island County Construct a 60 ft long replacement concrete seawall, 10-05-87 10-19-87 3735 Bells Beach Road, Langley, Whidbey Island (Steve Grey) 4 Island County Construct a replacement log bulkhead 54 ft long and 10-08--87 10-22-87 5 ft tall, Tyee Beach Division 2, Camano Island, adjacent to Port Susan (Niel Bannon) 4 Island County Construct a replacement log bulkhead 65 ft long, 10-08-87 10-22-87 Tyee Beach Division 3, Camano Island, adjacent to Port Susan (Dave Brechlin) 4 WA Dept. of Construct the Possession Point Fishing Reef, place 10-06-87 10-20-87 Fisheries 10,000 cu yds of Large quarry rock, pre -cast concrete, fiberglass modules, or vessels at 60 to 90 ft below MLLW off Possession Point, south tip of Whidbey Island 5 Cedar River Construct 680 ft of 12 inch water main extension 09-01-87 09-18-87 Sewer & Water along SE 231st St between SR-169 and Witte Road, District back fill 225 cu yds 5 City of Construct a 2 story duplex of 2,240 sq ft with 4 10-06-87 10-21-87 Snohomish parking stalls, 627 Ford Ave (Steve & Noreen Dana) 5 City of Auburn Fill 300 cu yds adjacent to the Reddington Levee for 10-01-87 10-16-87 flood protection, adjacent to the Green River, near 37th St NE and 'I' St NE and the Rivers Mobile Home Park 5 City of Bellevue Construct a dock and pier extension of 252 sq ft, 10-08-87 10-23-87 extending 90 ft into Lake Washington, 9437 Lake Washington Blvd (John McCarthy) 5 City of Edmonds Rezone 1,285 sq ft to Neighborhood Business, 1233 10-02-87 10-27-87 Olympic View Drive (David & Patricia Page) 5 City of Everett Construct an interpretive-t.nt�v and shelter for the 03 28-87 10-05-87 10-13-87 historic ship "Equator", 1710 West Marine View Drive, adjacent to Possession Sound (Equator Foundation) 5 City of Everett Wardel Radiator Works, construct a 4,487 sq ft 10-01-87 expansion to an existing auto repair facility, 1206 Hewitt Ave (Duane Ardohain) Po:*:: 4, 0,:tuber 5 - 9, 1987 A-95* DATE DATE *** END k*#* DOC TYPE CH* LEAD AGENCY t# PROPOSAL ISSUED MAlt,Eu REVIEW DNS 5 City of Everett Bond Street Park Parking Lot, construct a 39 stall 10-02-87 varking lot on a 39,000 sq ft let, Dond St and Hewitt Ave (William Finley III) 5 City of Everett Construct a 96 unit apartment complex on 3.1 acres, 10-02-87 10-16-87 with open space/recreation areas, W of Walnut and Hawthorne Sts, N of 9th St (R Neil Danard) 5 City of Everett Subdivide 1.3 acres into 4 lots and construct 2 10-06-87 duplexes and a public street, 6111 & 6113 Glenwood Ave (Chester Spelhaug) 5 City of Everett Construct 1,900 ft of 2 lane street with curbs, 10-07-87 10-21-87 gutters, sidewalks, sewer & water lines, along old Interurban right-of-way, N of Everett Mall Way 5 City of Renton Renton Campus, construct 3 single story office bldgs 09-18-87 10-07-87 10-02-87 of 10,000, 17,000 and 32,120 sq ft on a 5.6 acre site, with parking for 284 cars, 2300 to 2700 block of East Valley Road (Gary Merlino) 5 City of Renton Rezone 0.23 acre to Medium Density Multi -Family, 715 09-21-87 10-07-87 10-05-87 Sunset B1vd,NE (James Dalpay) 5 City of Seattle Polyclinic Addition, demolish 2 bldgs and construct 10-01-87 10-16-97 a 2 story clinic addition above 6 levels of parking, 1200 Harvard Ave (Polyclinic) 5 King County Amend the District's Comprehensive Plan, form ULID 09-21-87 10-19-87 Water District #1, construct a booster pump station, 8 inch No. 127 distribution pipe, & 80,000 gal storage facility, . for the SE 48th Street area, SE of Monroe 5 METRO Rehabilitate a bulk fuel storage and warehouse 10-14-87 10-29-87 facility, remove 8 underground pipes, tanks and boiler house, erect prefab metal bldg, adjacent to Lake Union, 1602 North Northlake Place, Seattle 5 Seattle School Place 27 portable classrooms on a field for 10-02-R7 10-21-87 District temporary housing of up to 1,600 students from Franklin High School while it is rebuilt over a 2 year period, Sharples Middle School, 3928 S Graham St 5 Snohomish County Shortplat 3 adjacent 5-acre parcels, North Creek is 09-27-87 10-15-87 on site, 312, 315 and 319 - 138th Place SE (Ward, Carey & Rogers) 5 Snohomish County Grade 1,200 cu yds for a driveway, 12611 - 189th 10-02-87 10-22-87 Drive SE, Monroe (Mark Muld) 5 Snohomish County Construct a 400 x 20 ft asphalt road to 2 private 10-02-87 10-22-87 lots for 2 new homes, construct dry wells for storm water runoff, 13614 SR-9 SE, Snohomish (Jack Clark) 5 Snohomish County Ivar's Seafood Bar, fill and grade 800 cu yds and 10-02-87 10-22-87 construct a 3,000 sq ft restaurant, 14920 Highway 99, Lynnwood (Spotlight Design) 5 WA State Dept. State Route 516 Widening, widen road from 2 to 5 10-02-87 11-06-87 of lanes, widen bridge at Big Soos Creek, fill 30,000 Transportation cu yds, construct drainage, lighting & signal improvements, from 132nd Ave SE to SE Wax Road, E of Kent, King County 23 WA State Parks Approve an aerial applicator request for an area to 10-02-87 & Recreation reload airplanes with agricultural chemicals, Commission Electric City Airport, Grant County 24 Spokane County Modify the dust collection system by constructing 09-30-87 Air Pollution ducts from the baghouse to the prinding and mixing Control areas, Quarry Tile factory bldg No. 12, Spokane Industrial Park (Quarry Tile Co) 25 Washington Graham Farm Coal Ash Disposal Site, establish a 5 10-05-87 10-29-87 State University acre disposal site for coal ash, site to be used for approximately 9 years, Paradise Creek is on site, adjacent to the S edge of the WSU campus & N of Moscow -Pullman highway 26 City of Richland Construct 30 ft of concrete extension to 3 boat 10-06-87 10-21-87 launching ramps, dredge 150 cu yds, adjacent to the Columbia River, Leslie Croves Park, North Howard Amon Park, and Sr,,,`h lf,ward Amon Park STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Duane V. Bowman and says: FILE NO. R-6-87 APPLICANT David & Patricia Page AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes That on the 16th day of October , 19 87 , the attached Notice of'Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19y-. ?otary Public i11 n and for the State of Washington. Y Residing at AU COMMISSION EXPIRES 6-16-89, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Diane M. Cunningham deposes and says: FILE NO. R-6-87 APPLICANT David & Patricia Page being first duly sworn, on oath That on the 16th day of October ,19 87 , the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. S i g ne d1Q C�NhN1ui� t9�'►'t�J Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of�,c] , 19 Notary Public in and for the. State of Washington. ✓� Residing at _ M COMMISSION EXPIRES - City of EdmWds /ik Gary - Fire M. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Bobby - PW Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering TO SUBJECT FROM Duane Bowman DATE 9/16/87 R-6-87 REZONE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS BN . HEARING DATE:, OCTOBER 28, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 1987. THANKS. 1 ky City of Edm#. CINTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE t Gary Fire M. %��� 1 Bobby - PW Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth -Engineering j TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE D/ 6/87 SUBJECT I 1 R-6-87 REZONE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS BN . HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 1987. THANKS. /,J v Cam /14 0 R E C L M .1V E D SEP 17 1987 f EDMONDS FJRE DEP.T,. City of dS Gary - Fire M. CINTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Bobby - PW 'Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth = Engineering 9/16/87 TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE SUBJECT ,..< fie; 6'+ •iFi°a ice+ P �1 P 6 �7 ENGIgERING R-6-87 REZONE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS BN . HEARING DATE:, OCTOBER 28, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 1987. THANKS. CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-3202 'r COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: October 2, 1987 TO: WA Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504-8711 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR TRANSMITTING: DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) REZONE #R-6-87 AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: AS WE DISCUSSED FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: REMARKS: cc: David Page PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION Duane V. Bowman PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING 19�, o ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCS', requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the'proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use .this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not ap- ply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN AD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Dame of proposed project, if applicable: �Qn� w 2. Name of applicant: JDQ_UA Q•,�d 62t i I, CAA 3. Address and phonenumberof applicant and contact person: ICI W tC6 d4/ 000, 4. Date checklist prepared � C)1L4 5. Agency requesting checklis : G Al �{'1s� 6. Proposed timing or schedule (inclu ng phasing, if applicable): r) c) w 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. -1- S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. no 10. List any government "approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific infor- mation on project description.) ( 11,2 *0 131\J ti cv rrNOUA., am Our 4) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).'Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Ct-LA TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other :0641- b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? =2- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOB AGENCN' USE ONLY c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? if you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. �^ na d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. Yl'O e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate source of fill. r\ 10- f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. no g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? YL h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: -3- TO BF COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. Water a. Surface: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Is there any surface %eater body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including Year—round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. no 2) Will the project require anN work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. r� 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. In- dicate the source of fill material. nICL_ 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ND 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100—year f7oodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. ()0 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. n� b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. —4— TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe: 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. �I d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: j/'6ciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs _ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _- water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 110 l'LfL c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. n I a- d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: tMat,""L T"-4 tvc r - to cl �/ cep Pry 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been' observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds:. hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ... ... ............ . mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ................................. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: ......... .... ....... . b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. -5- EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. no d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: n 10- 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe Whether it will be used for heating, manu- facturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: NO- 7. 'Environmental Health a. .Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. no l) Describe special emergency services that might be required. n`c 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) '.'hat types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? n t a - 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short—term or a long—term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. EVALUATION FOR AGENC)" USE ONE_)' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: n I a_ 8. Land and Shoreline Use Y)10- a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? if so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? n Imo- h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. no i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 1'1df\Q. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0� k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: nIo- I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses_and plans, if any: TO 13L COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing a. Approximately how mane units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low—income housing. nio,_ b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low—income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: i'1 I a., 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? n)0'__ b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 010. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 010" b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? In CCA_-- c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? c^I 1 a- d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: P1I& 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? nIa` b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. it N U--- b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. { f n� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans. if any. t a� vv, Tbkk b 4 yr b. Is site currently served by public transit? If, not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 1 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? OtAl 2> �YY1 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets. or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways". If so. generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transports -If so, generally describe. tt f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Y"ta"� TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: nla- 1 S. Public Services a. 'Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. nla- l6. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. n _ �- b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is elyiing on th to make its decision. Signature: ... reQ„Y.A-im .......................................... Date Submitted: ...... 912_t.............................................. —10— TO lili (. opll'I.I:I F.0 It1' AI'I'I.ICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ri. SUI't'I.I:Ntl:t:-I SHEET soli Nl>NPIZOJECT ACTIONS (Rezones, Code Changes, Annexations, etc.) (do not use this shot for project actions) BL:CilIISC these questions are very gcncrul, it may be helpful to rc;id them in conjunction with Ilie list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the .types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were nut implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. I. Ilow would the proposal be likely to incrc;lse discharge to water; emissions to air: pro- duction, storaLe, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? proposed nuuasures to avoid or reduce such increases are. 3. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. Flow would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources'? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or ar- eas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wil- derness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, fluudplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: S. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans'? • TO 13E COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION' FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public ser- vices and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. —12-- CITY OF EDMONL;S PROJECT NA'"1E Po,�p. Ce, ENVIR0:1."!EN7AL ASSESSMENP/AA,. ^! - �9�T DATE SUB 1ITTED11V�T The information on this form will be used�tpefirtermine the effect of your action upon the environment of the City of Edmonds. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible. 1. LAND Area 6q,g9x,36X30.8KJ&.j8 Soils Type Limitations Description of topography (; slope) I�uti� NOTE: If grading or filling will GradiAg: Estimated cubic yards exceed 500 cubic yards a grading and filling plan must be sub - Filling: Estimated cubic yards mitted with the application. Estimated area to be paved (including buildings) y p0 5t= Estimated area in open space (pervious surface) 2. �:ATIR () ia- Streaz - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) k: i 11 strea-: be altered? If yes, to what degree? Other water bodies? Impact on storm drainage Method of handling runoff Ad'Jacent to shorelines zone? Within 200 feet of MHHI1? 3. �'EGETA7I C,': Type and approxi-mate number of trees ` Lw aA.2.., (s, - �c,c,f - �, j0R Minimum diameter of trees to remain I of trees to be removed Ground cover % to be removed Proposed landscaping, if any 4. EXISTING LAID USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Single Multi - Vacant Family Family Commercial Other North X B. CIRCULATION Estimated increase in auto trips daily n oy>v-., Availability of public transportation nia- 5. AREA OF IMPACT Neighborhood '� City-wide Regional 7. EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY n )a- 8. CHANGES IN NOISE GENERATION—n lo.- LOT 4AP-1115rMeNr A414P ITe //4E, 5--C 7-lln'A,- 13 7-i:::,WA1,T1-11xl -'?Al C f R .,v oo/zlw IF -Iegso± Aol 0012'W Oe 7A /Z OF /Rfoposw CONVEYANCE N / 7-1r. 3z /V ol/P7 144.52 :-'S cl 7,, OF -,,ovovos smoRr PLAT s - ez - lllv,O-'R 5NO110,VI511 0011WY .40,01MRS qq 17'e.00 a. 17 V 0 ;V, � 1� gel �� I�� � f j .:� � �, 40 /V *le,mil. .9 ;r# ME. A. AIV ........ Nw co'e., soam/ 70.00 •:W9f sy • G r Aee;-, wwsr W.O� ,wr OF -r,?,*er s. LAW3 (95 - 156 y Ao�lr lh?e 1`" co�7,26,pllo^s lcl-111�1*t the C/'?�, OIC ec'I"0170,& 407' -r,."-Ie eo-75-060 Or — /,Q-, subs jCc�' to WIM "Ae ACA2'1,"O of Sisohoinish County. WES7"EFtN LSVAJVEYOIFS., //Vc.., Iaipee oyw/ 99 .5-, --ve,-e 7070L, ptb "--04 10WOM-0- -, 74F- 159 4 or -455- 2776 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PAGE) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: JOB NO. 85-156.00 (CONTINUED) JANUARY, 1986 REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A": LOT 1, WALLACE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF SNOH(OMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF TRACT 5, WALLACE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 70.00 FEET OF THE WEST 140.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 5; THENCE N.89048'00 "E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 70.00 FEET 230.00 FEET; THENCE N.30°36'32"E., 106.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT; THENCE S.51"26'00"E., ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 120.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF.BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S.51°26'00"E., 38.48 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE S.00012'00"E., 31.17 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE S.89048'00"W., 30.00 FEET; THENCE N.00012'00"W., PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 54.89 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF SHORT PLAT NO. S-22-81, RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1981 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8112230187. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "B": THAT PORTION OF TRACT 5, WALLACE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 70.00 FEET OF THE WEST 140.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 5; THENCE N.89°48'00"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 70.00 FEET, 140.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N.89048'00"E., 90.00 FEET; THENCE N.30036'32"E., 106.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT; THENCE S.51026'00"E., ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 120.98 FEET; THENCE S.00°12'00"E., PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 54.89 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE S.89°48'00"W., 219.08 FEET; THENCE S.00012"00"E., 31.17 FEET; THENCE S.89°48'00"W., 20.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST 140.00 FEET; THENCE N.00012'00"W., ALONG SAID LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF SHORT PLAT NO. S -22-81 RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1981 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8112230187. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 2OF2 1�2'2fBL 4 - 1 U9 Lot " -�B1k, tB, Pfof of ft dinonds / / t / \ \ 4-087 ", 4-09 3�� 4-C ' 4-000 CH D 4-1t2. \ \/ \ \-llo J\4-08g\� 4-0$4 /\ \� \ E s \ i IN / IN % N�N , Z IN4-/0� )o.. 01 Z Qj r 6 . '4 9 46� �` • Q O L �( 5-4 63Y `� ' J 1 ' m WALLA E / 5 � NA 4/sy � ��� � `�� � �,, •` � 17 (6083) \.. 2 Al,� 6 _ THE � 6 � ° SUNSTONE y�� Y� \ ��� a \�' 1� h a \ Tcs 5 1� (42781 : CONDOMINIUM ORIGINA PLAT OF NORTH EDMONDS i %q Sec. Cot(53I9A 0 See Special Sheet for Segs. S. E. Car. Gov. Lot 4 ` -3b NOTE: 3C This is ►1c .gsed toe.-, rox NA a-3 ' 2 4 )D. No.87) 2 1 I o? '+ I N.E. 1/4, SEC. 24, T. 27 N., R.3 E.N I" = 200' PUGET SOUND MACHINERY FIVE ACRE TRAC' vGE-f �I 09 I03 I IZ / /2 07 OZ i 04 05 O I of i- -� — -1 — — 3 /O P14 VIEWLAND WAY /o C„ t b V/EWL AND Pub/iC o/kwoyJ 4 3 2 / 4-51 C / 2 3 4 6 ONOS /EW ES ATES 7,247) ° 3 WIND - N- V EW s- s- y�NDLEY r c Cq N� o 5 i /9 '1 /O 9 5 3 O, e c rZ (5-62 �3 6� 08 09 3 7 6542) 6 a s_3s_76 " 04 BROOKMERE ST.L S-t.�t_65 bIq S-20- 7 5- 0 - G2 i a. o Oh O I 19 O6 O5 01 c5 (s-s-v) oi�5 �1' )01 5.34 6-7- -. i r0 OS /2 \�y-3►-� W , Q OZ i r 3 r s-4- �q i3 rZ r5 i'4 OG 3 $- 2q I !WM' OR v �w S-13o 6 or L D 0 4 2 3 4 5 0u/3 o' oZ �Y 5 0 8J o� i - - o 6 S-�}-62 W TER V/E- a 5 5 z `6 h—j M� 0; ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 1.4 14 a T" #303 C� ►mot ud Wtnd # Z02 � Tuu f o3 C 11 -c ✓ ToLue. K 2.0 3 `' 7 /Yv' fS+ rrJ r t+ ) 0 Ira 0 pv2�6 I ad wa rd ol4ury) -A,:3d.S S;dAA 43;uan 0- 10A �4� �3a1" to s- t0I0_l� pL IG. U i P.t.�1 W. •. � 3 Op .. 13a `i owe On my oath, I certify ihit the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 80 fleet of the subject property. Signature o pp scan or Applicant's Representative 917 Subscribed and swtnto]be l �etday of 9 fl otary c a or t o State o Washington Re ng aIt