The URL can be used to link to this page

PLN199200039-62698g0.19() CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering October 6, 1992 Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73420 Dear Mr. Kim: Subject: PROCESS FOR SUBMITTAL OF YOUR REVISED REZONE APPLICATION TO PLANNING BOARD FOR RE -CONSIDERATION, FILE NO. R-92-39 As you are aware, the City Council did not take formal action on a decision regarding your request to rezone the property located at approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive, or your modified request. Instead, the Council reacted to your modified request by remanding this application back to the Planning Board for a new public hearing on your revised proposal (see Enclosed). In order for the City to proceed back to the Planning Board with your revised proposal, it is necessary that you submit additional and revised material. Specifically, you must submit the following material for consideration: 1. Revised map reflecting the subject property of the revised rezone request. 2. Conceptual preliminary plat layout for the subject property, and any adjacent property which may be included. 3. Revised permit application form which correctly addresses your rezone request, and which provides the correct legal description of the subject property (see Enclosed). 4. Revised environmental information which describes the potential environmental effects of the revised rezone proposal. Upon receipt and review of the requested information, staff will first determine if all requested material is deemed to be complete. Once all the required material is submitted and complete, your revised rezone application will be scheduled for a new public hearing before the Planning Board. REAP9239/10-6-92.CORRESU.ETTERS • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan i As the Planning Board is becoming quite full for the remainder of the year, I would suggest that you prepare and submit this information at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division 7e frey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor Enclosure PC: Vile No. R-92-39 Dr. Han Z. Park, 7704 Olympic Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 R EAP9239110-6-9 2.0 O RRESTETT ERS Palmer said without a Master Plan, there is very little legal documentation that can be referred to which indicates the appropriate use of the park. Council President Palmer said the Southwest County Park Master Plan provides that documentation. Councilmember Dwyer said the City does not ask the County to contribute to the money the City spends on the beaches, and feels the small portion in the Master Plan relating to the interlocal agreement is unnecessary and could be deleted. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER PETRUZZI FOR DISCUSSION, TO DELETE THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 63 OF THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD DELETE THE POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY. Under discussion, Councilmember Petruzzi asked Council President Palmer for the reason for this being included in the first place. Council President Palmer said he believes that paragraph came out of repeated concerns of the level of the maintenance of the park. Councilmember Hall feels it is important to leave the paragraph in as he feels it is necessary part of the document. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Hall voting no, and Councilmember Kasper abstaining, as he said he recently received the Master Plan and has not had enough time to thoroughly review it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI TO ADOPT THE SOUTHWEST COUNTY PARK MASTER PLAN. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Kasper abstaining for the reasons stated above, as well as his belief that there is a lack of parking in the Master Plan. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY A _REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, said on June 10, 1992, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from RS-12 to RS-8, located at approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson said the Planning Board, after consideration of the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, applicant testimony, and public testimony, adopted a recommenda- tion to the Council for denial of the proposed rezone request. Mr. Wilson recommended the Council adopt the Planning Board's Recommendation and deny the rezone application. Council President Palmer said he is not satisfied with some of the applicant's answers on the Environmental Checklist. Testimony of the Applicant Russell Kim, Agent for the Applicant, Dr. Han Z. Park, said he would like to formally change his application from a rezone of all the lots of 9, 10, and 106, to just 106. Mr. Kim said he would like to reserve his right to come back at another time to request a rezone on lots 9 and 10, however, at this time, he would just like to change his application to contain only lot 106. After discussion amongst Councilmembers, and a ruling from the City Attorney, the Council decided to allow the applicant to amend the application and go back through the planning board process. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER FOR DISCUSSION, TO ALLOW THE APPLI- CANT TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION, WHEREBY GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS. Under discussion, Councilmember Dwyer asked Councilmember Kasper to verify that the effect of the motion would be that Mr. Kim would go back through the Planning Board with his revised request and they would conduct another hearing based on the revised application. At that time, it would come back to the City Council, and that Mr. Kim would not be required to pay any additional application fees, and Councilmember Kasper replied affirmatively. Council President Palmer requested that the Environmental Checklist be updated accordingly and correctly. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Hall voting no. Councilmember Hall said the Council should proceed with the matter and hear what the citizens present for hearing have to say on the new proposal. PRESENTATION BY ARAI/JACKSON ON SPACE NEEDS STUDY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSION- 0- Cjc AL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR SPACE NEEDS STUDY AND APPROPRIATE FUNDING 46,338 �15 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Page 5 September 14, 1992 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 (APPLICANT: RUSSELL KIM AS AGENT FOR DR. HAN Z. PARK / FILE NO. R-92-39) AGENDA TIME: 30 MINUTES AGENDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Board Advisory Report and Exhibits (6/15/92) Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS & RECkEATION PLANNING L� PUBLIC WO FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REOUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REOUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: On June loth, 1992, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from RS-12 to RS-8, located at approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit 1). The Planning Board, after consideration of the Planning Division Staff Advisory report, applicant testimony, and public testimony adopted a recommendation to the Council for denial of the proposed rezone request (see Exhibit 2). , RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board (see Exhibit 2) and deny the requested rezone application. COUNCIL ACTION: 92-39Hl9-10-92AEPORTS\COUN CIL 0 COUNTY PARK • / " xAv,ew �� • t •. •.l 'per tN • �- '— FIRST at S Av/ w3 so.t,ts t ;t s • 3 ADD 00•tl4 te1ST PLi SJw..d S • ~ TG 1 d 3 «o..0 AO IRA Tyrx ACRES A 7 R p C 1 1V _ V, LA ` ST &M. •c • `_ �. OF • I - > -- ' t It a `. TO � w EDMONDS j '• , — w RS " 12 — Q- _ Tn t �L.- � .• BN _ O • TC Av,Ew • • 1 { 1 i(Av,Cw FOREST • • • • y __ Gt. • . • ■ so ti TRACT% av j«o s ° • 185ILl3w as c ' 's r • _• » i a.' is 16 TH $ W ^ 'EA � s • I�T' , I , • � • w w ; • SEAv,Cw 1 ♦ORt ST ♦� n IIof RT ; -•ALC« ` - _. y- y — _ ,f l .. v o r • 1 1 7 TH_ ST. S w. - c a N T, to = j 1 Vicinity Map •0, ,o. VIE W - TR.CTS RM— 3 •Q 1 4 1�1 ma llllll� / h 1 M 1 •1 to CITY OF EDMONDS 2" STET AVENUE NORTH, MMOMS, WA "M PLANNING BOARD ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HankLewis,C J an DATE: June 15, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application.....................................................................:..................... 1 PublicHearings...................................................................................... 2 Recommendations................................................................................... 2 Findingsof Fact..................................................................................... 2 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 2 Appendices..............................:............................................................ 2 Partiesof Record.................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2 of EXHIBIT "A"). 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1 of EXHIBIT "A"). 3. Request: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3 of EXHIBIT "A"). EXHIBIT 2 7. [ Russell Kin, File No. R-92-39 Page 2 of 3 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues• a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS' - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (DARING EXAMHiER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this application on June 10, 1992. C. RECOAUME TDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. The findings of. fact on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report are found by the Planning Board to be supported by the evidence presented during the hearing, and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's findings of fact. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". III. CONCLUSIONS• A. The conclusions by the Planning Division as set forth on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division's Staff Advisory Report, accurately set forth the conclusions of the Planning Board and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's conclusions. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". IV. APPENDICES Exhibits "A" through "D" are attached. A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (6/5/92) �1 Russell Kh. File No. R-92-39 Page 3 of 3 B. Conceptual Plat Layout under the Proposed RS-8 Zoning Designation (submitted by the applicant on 6/10/92) C. ' Conceptual Proposed Topographical Plan for the Conceptual Plat Design (submitted by the applicant on 6/10/92) D. June 101, 1992, Planning Board Meeting Minutes Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division 'Public Works Division Parks Division Fire Department R92-39/6G 15-92. REPO RTST9 r CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DEPARTMENT COAU IUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FROM:C)4" __14 ., Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor DATE: June 5, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: JUNE 10, 1992 AT 7:00 PM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Application........................................................................... Recommendations..................................................................... SiteDescription........................................................................ History................................................................................ State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA)....................................................... Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance ........................................ TechnicalCommittee............................................................................... Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................ Appendices........................................................................................... Partiesof Record.................................................................................... INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION Page 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2). EXHIBIT A R92-39164-92 Russell K y. He No. R-92-39 Page 2 of 6 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 178,596 square feet (4.1 acres) in area (see Attachment 3). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with two (2) detached single-family residences, on lots 9 & 10, with the remaining area of the subject property undeveloped (see Attachment 3). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS - Single - Family Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (see Attachment 1). M-3916-492 Russell Kin File No. R-yt-:O Page 3 of 6 b. Conclusion: The orientation of the subject property is towards the north, west and east which are areas which are zoned RS-12. The property is not oriented or accessed from the south, which is the only adjacent area which is zoned RS-8. Therefore, the existing zoning and development pattern support the continued development of the subject in a manner consistent with its existing zoning as RS-12. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. acts: (1) North: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). (2)South: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1). (3) East: Currently being developed with the new Edmonds Postal facility and zoned BN (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone of the property from one single-family to another would still maintain development which is consistent with the surrounding properties, however, it would result in an island of RS-8 zoning which would not be consistent with the pattern of zoning in the area of the subject property. B. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The applicant has petitioned the City to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way which bisects the subject property (File No. ST-92-38). The vacation request was denied by the City Council on June 2nd, 1992. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on April 21, 1992. The Environmental Checklist, Environmental Assessment, Determination and comment letter are included- as Attachments 4 through 7. Mitigating measures required of the applicant include: (1) The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of preliminary plat application on the subject property. b. Conclusion: The applicant and City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. R92-39/6-4-92 L Russell Kit / File No. R-92-39 Page 4 of 6 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. 2. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to the requested RS-8 zoning designation which the applicant is seeking, are set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. a. Fact: Section 20.40.010 states that at a minimum the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: (1) Whether the proposal is consistent with `the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) The relationship -of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (5) Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and, (6) The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone is not consistent with all the criteria set forth in Section 20.40.010: (1) The proposed zoning classification is not specifically inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property (see Section II.F.I below for further discussion), however, the Comprehensive Plan designation does not provide specific direction for single-family residential densities. (2) The proposed zoning change while consistent with the general land use designation for the site in the Comprehensive Plan, would result in' an isolated area which would be zoned RS-8. The subject property does R92-3916-4-92 Russell Kit File No. R-92-39 Page 5 of 6 not have any direct orientation to the RS-8 zoned property to the south, but is directly oriented to the comparable RS-12 zoned property to the ' north, west and east. Therefore, the proposed rezone would not be consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses. As the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan to comply with the Growth Management Act (G.M.A.) it would be appropriate to deny this current application until a new Comprehensive Plan is adopted which would reconcile the future identified inconsistencies. (4) There does not appear to have been ag recent changes in the zoning designations of surrounding property since 1971 (see Attachment 8). (5) Staff does not have sufficient data to determine the economic viability of the subject property under the present zoning. However, it does not appear that the applicant has attempted to develop the subject property in a manner consistent with the current zoning designation. (6) Approval of the proposed would simply result in the potential increase of available single-family building sites in the City. However, this increase should be weighted against the effects of a change in zoning which would result in an isolated area of RS-8 zoning, in an area which is predominantly zoned RS-12. 4. a. Fact: Chapter 20.100 establishes the procedures and criteria for review of all rezones. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. a. Fact: Comments and requirements placed on the project by other departments are found in Attachments 9 through 11. b. Conclusion: The applicant must follow the requirements of other Departments as set forth in Attachments 9 through 11. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Fact: The subject property and adjacent properties are designated as Low Density Residential (see Attachment 12). 2. Fact: ECDC Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE) states the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City of Edmonds. 3. a. Facts: (1) ECDC Section 15.20.005.B.6 (LAND USE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - Goal) states that it is R92-39/64-92 Russell Kit File No. R-92-39 Page 6 of 6 a goal of the City of Edmonds to: "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." (2) The subject property contains several distinct natural features; including: steep slopes, ravines and forested areas. (3) The effect of the proposed rezone would be to increase the potential for more single-family building sites. b. Conclusion: The potential for an increase in building sites with lot sizes less than the current required 12,000 square foot lot, would increase the likelihood that the natural features would be dramatically changed to allow for development of these new smaller building sites. The result of this rezone would be development in a manner which would not be compatible with the "natural constraints" of the subject property. M. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 12 are attached. 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Application _ 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Environmental Checklist (1/15/92) 5. Staff Environmental Review Memorandum (4/20/92) 6. Environmental Determination - (MDNS) Mitigated Nonsignificance (4/21/92) 7. Comment letter on Environmental Determination from (5/8/92) 8. 1971 Zoning Map 9. Comments from Public Works Division (2/25/92) 10. Comments from Fire Department (2/27/92) 11. Comments from Parks & Recreation Division (2/28/92) 12. Comprehensive Plan Map IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Determination of Community Transit R92-39/G-4.92 IT 23 /• I 1, la IS ��- G8i6' wl0 SOOMO 1, LO PARK 1, 44 COUNTY PARK tI - P._.�4C IT TN • 11 '. L ! N • • 17 to /3 I-•� L 2. TH IT ISIt 3 s s R.10011. S— INIn • f .. .-� f«K: FIRST W S AVI w 3 •s ortw•S I s a _.._ 3 t FL. S• > - let 5L ADD Dom at S1% ---- 104ST VL=SSL"t S • 7-. z S , : i S ---' —T ' —S -- to I— > ------ 3 7 TG -C NONCt AO IRA Ty FE ACRES s W LA C1 Y _ o « ST. 11t. .c • �• A ..-. Q __ OF :• RS" 12 Q 6— ` •• s0 Q i 77 c 11 _ y 73 31 34 o . 44 i 1 SlAVI(w • � � 45 -- — P I � _ so • • FOREST . __ EO t '� , • ' .. Q NC N ON S • O • A w • _ _ o N q to • [± TRACTS ON Olv. NO I s { SW IT {7 ii s 1 Z ] . O ♦• 40 i6 TH g ly" r_ E A VIEW 1 — ' a ♦ � . � ] • � • • • ]. « •• n a' •. a --'---..--- St AVICn �.._ •ORC7T Al,(wi 3 ..-, A LC.', - - F � I • • rr O •] a ] 1 • • — 1�77H ST. SW.« — a''' • �!I TRACTS lwwtTs t1*0 a - Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT 1 - FILE NO. R-92-39 city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD �j..........:::::::::..... . =:::::..:::=... :::::::::........ ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE# Q-9239 ZONE t'S-tom ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION GATE `� Z REC'D BY d6, HOME OCCUPATION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FEE �6 tt '" RECEIPT # 11 (C 7 ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. ® REZON ❑ HE (3 STAFF RRB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ APPEAL # VARIANCE 13 RESUBMITTAL FILE # App�)emKIWI. 7S I— ///S Applicant hon�+�) Address / 0 N 1W6'AV&- aK-LA `731 2 Property Address or Location 'UP00 8L-O&KOF QL NI-0_'C VJ&W D/L, Property Owner �� 2 • Zt IA�zK Phone" I ff 4/3'J Address I �d [9-YtIP/G 0 Agent l Phone Address Tax Acc # Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description LOT-5 q, zO t-OGr. / , A-D M tea— 7 y � (�75v 0 t_ Details of Project or Proposed Use `moo &� .s'-/ _ in&� 0 Q n _-Sc,- 7 j Lo rS 1J_iSI C2,5-E-0 OE /3,r0c 0 LOTS. The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspectio ng attendant to this application. ATTACHMENT 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT ' FILE NO. R-92-39 WEST O O 1 o� t ' • is O 0 a. ATTACHMENT 3 FILE N0.-R-92-39 ski m CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: v Ll(m pic 2. Name of applicant:ti" 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: (2-CC,) -{� &� , n 0 1� �-yMIt Ly, L� t)r, M o �J tJs , w A- q 8o?� Co PTP<--i ' yyl5,ell KIM Ln �61 N- May 6416 . , OKLA 10s 7sz - ///S 4. Date checklist prepared: Pty J 5, (q Q Z S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed t ALi g or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 4C— (cjJZ . (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. X (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 1 of 26 ATTACHMENT 4 FILE NO. R-92-39 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 0�� (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your approval, if known. f6P-Ml 6 (AR D i V i SrOeJ RAO-Mr-r ? TZZ--N 06 lPr-2r`�1iT 11 (STAFF COMMENTS) Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. /.<- -7,;A IL, ,1 n -,n 912 i) Y" 11AA / X A --V) I w) ns- T r� r : (STAFF COMMENTS) rriJ9 AS z) CHKLT/10-8-91-MASTER Page 2 of 26 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. Zf a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. ON "Zl+b W4Ss7 DF Ot-YMPIG 'J1r--iJD(= A c ckc.i+eo MA,-e) . (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? '/ //--A '' ,6q (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 3 of 26 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. l.c ray. SQL) . fe--Ao 0 1. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the imme a e^^ vicinity? If so, describe. V . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. y/r-vrVV0%5AV AIV J c-:r�--u&1(-(1v67 7Slz; A be P--C-P-TV- < fcMO 0i�7� 7tt� N '-�;ih6Otut5i0A (STAFF COMMENTS) f.* Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If SNgenerally describe. c/�`{J Q . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKIT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 4 of 26 g. About 'what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings) ? 6 <0 (b _ ��, (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: �/ y © `i e -4--r T f hs 1 lNi W cell ilJe i W t t, L P JMUc 0& (STAFF COMMENTS). 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 de c ibe and give approximate quantities if known. D�� IoT M311 MOP. 7WPfJ D _ Avg 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect.your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CH KLT/ 10-8-91. M A S TE R Page 5 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: jo a (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water 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 strea�m'ior river it flows into. is O (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe available plans. V (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. Indicate the source of fill material. CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Paqe 6 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions. Give general description, purpose, and approxio}ate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note 1pcation on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, propose, and approxxilsp(ate quantities if known. 1 `� `� (STAFF COMMENTS (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 am r humans the systes) are expected to serve. L2 LA (STAFF CONSENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): . (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters7 if so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTFR Pane 8 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree:• alder, ple, aspen, other: yevergreen tree: fir, edar pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cabbage, other•_ cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be remove or altered? 17 CHKIT/10-8-91.MASTER Paae 9 of 26 (STAFF COMMENT -I) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or. -near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if anv: (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Animals a. Check or 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: Q" mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER page 10 of 26 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. •Ii (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the s4te part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: tiJp�c - (STAFF COMMENTS): 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, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Paqe 11 of 26 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent pro ies? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Q ( STAFF COMMENTS) . (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 12 of 26, (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: IN , (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ? o�s� N1 , �oNs'iP--uc7� oat (STAFF COMMENTS) (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)? Indicate what hours noise wou d come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 13 of 26 S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. �Jo- (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 2 s- (2_- CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 14 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. l . ( STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91 WASTER Page 15 of 26 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if.any: rJ o`�1 (STAFF COMMENTS) 1., Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middl or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKIT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 16 of 26 b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? I , ( STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 17 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any; tj,Dob (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? __11 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKtT/10-8-91-MASTER Page 18 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? L s SyK- (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? if so, describe. 00 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: - 1 N �• (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 19 of 26 n 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N / A . (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. di (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. �C SS �0M 6L-m]Pigy �-�,�1rN 070 Su e DM G(Qf3 (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 20 of 26 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? R.t ts�DOA (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or street, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 1 N TO T � '5pN 1 Sra/J (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rai , or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 21 of 26 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: - I - 0 ( ) (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, othe )? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: go, (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-97.MASTER Page 22 of 26 1 16. Utilities a. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. ' (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE abov answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge_ I rsta7 hat the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. �a ) z . Signature of Proponent Date Submitted CHKIT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 23 of 26 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the 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 not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. Now would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: -3!A . 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? ^^tt Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, 'animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? tilA ' CHKLT/10-8-91-MASTER Page 24 of 26 Proposed .measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive area designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: . S. Now 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? 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 services and utilities? 11 NJ�• CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 25 of 26 I 7. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. tj JP, CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 26 of 26 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 TO: FILE NO. R-92-39 FROM: :�----- Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Responsible Official DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE KIM REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8, FILE NO. R-92-39 I have had the opportunity to visit the site and review the environmental checklist, a copy of which is on file in the official City file for this permit (File No. R-92-39). Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be issued. The current proposal lacks the specific detail which would be associated with a future preliminary plat application to allow for specific impacts to be measured at the time of this application. Therefore, more detailed environmental review should occur at the time of a future preliminary plat application on the subject property. Based on my review of all information and adopted policies of the City, I am recommending that the proposal be changed or clarified to include the following mitigating measures so that a MDNS can be issued. Recommended Mitieation Measures: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property. This recommendation is based on adopted policies of the City as found in the Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 15. PC: FILE NO. R-92-39 Robert Chave, Planning Manager ATTACHMENT 5 92a9Ew4-20-92.SEPA FILE NO. R - 92 - 3 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 ST13 AVENUE NORTH. EDMONDS, WA 98020 t20Q 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNMCANCE Description of proposal: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from Single Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (RS-12) to Single Residential 8,000 square foot lot size (RS-8), for a potential future subdivision. Proponent: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS 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 is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2xc). 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 May 6th, 1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/litle: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmo s WA 98020 Date: cf /a. 1112r Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to l(obert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than May 20th. 1992, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 21st. 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. 9r2-39DNSr4-�G.92.5erA Page t of 2 ATTACHMENT 6 FILE NO. R-92-39 I - , Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 7X _ Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504-8711 X _ City of Lynnwood Attn: Robert Henderson, Planning Director 19100 44th Avenue West Lynnwood. WA 98036 C7a t _ Stevens Memorial Hospital 2160176th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.- Brian Benzel, Superintendent 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 DEC _ Community Transit Attn: Marvin Freel 1133 164th Street Southwest, #2o0 Lynnwood, WA 98037 XX _ Applies= Dr. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 'X _ Agent: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property - Attachments PC: File No. R-92-39 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 9•-39DNS/6-30.9..S EPA Snohomish County Pubiiic Transportation Benefit Areo Corporation 1133164th St. S.W. Suite 200 Community Lynnwood. Washington 98037 °°) 7100 Transit Kenneth J. Graska Ott Executive Director Mar „ .. V 40 March 241 1992j�v 1992 Dept. Mr. Jeffrey Wilson Department of Community Services Planning Division 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 re: Olympic Park (File No. - R-92-39) Dear Mr. Wilson: CT recommends that the City of Edmonds require a letter of commitment from the developer to provide transit and rideshare information to residents. Every effort should be made to provide safe disabled access from the existing bus stops to the proposed development. As with all such recommended pedestrian facilities, these should be well lit to ensure safety. Improving the transit compatibility of site plans is described in detail in SnoTran's recently published guidebook. Copies are available from SnoTran at 787-1901. If you have any question, please contact meat (206) 348-7187. Sincerely, Marvin Freel Transportation Planner cc: File ATTACHMENT 7 FILE NO. R-92-39 U01- F 1k f. • I ' •��•� "'3 � � x �*� vim. Al Il , t +; z.. 'ese A, { rt ..� c-+r� ♦ 7:ar 5r-.,.F 7, , v y E.z, wb ..> xy � i��":;,��,:v �:�� „�s'�.`� ��, ;�� •,i�r tom„ n jl'"�-�_• �'�.�"t+' . r ,+a• ,'.,+�.�b 3f h >,,E1 ¢ F "k''9t�`,r T qu 184 ST S.W. %r �' "'nt*'+• �'"� ;P �e (r *a .• y. t .. rr 1`/'7,,,a, t "'j ' t c%p�k• i y t.J J 166 ST a v! S.W. Ws A •tea ACM;�fs p Y „ 1ai ST S W ti ^rs;Lwr9* "!y.,-. 'a y�J!' �^.S Vl a"" h. \. ' �if I y+." ; 169 Pt S k, y . ,1. "�iaG..r ,�z� r '� i ' t+:..; A" -* a t4 10 ST. 5 Wit a.L t%1=�1�f o� .k� I i i7x 190 5T. 5-W. + ;.p '4•t•` <y"Y :` a i ark,, �` `�`•�$, > :i+.�,��'N -� - �h' a Ov 191 Sp �O !J `. • � 'J s1. r r t 1rtp. ,.�„r � v p, �� .(i .. O .fi: a._trx.r�K$o ST. S. IY 192 ST S ~W Zt S 1 9 2 P L. S. W, Ph p RS"8 WI I . r t OR. Q 1,93 PL, S. W. SM12 3 _j m y . RD _ r RML m RML RD 1 9 6 ST. S, W, R M H RD 199 S W � ; s a Q 3 RS _ 8 a m MpPLFs 0. N o 199 ST ATTACHMENT 8 CD FILE NO. R-92_39 ROUTED TO: APPLIC. ._A ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE PUBLIC WORKS_ AR S & REC COMMENTS: 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 RETURNED RETURNED RETURNED RETURNED �� ,ty' �,,4�� "sue �+: �:-�►s.,,�w-1-. Owner Russell Kim Doa 2/18/92 FILE# SI-9Z- FROM: J• Wilson INPUT- Yes RECEIVED 4,1 Y uM.,., �,,t- s'4••.� %W% F'E S 2 5 1992 �4se-144s • PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of.184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 x_ APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X FEE —R� SITE PLAN (I1" x 17" (4)) x_ APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) - TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL ## APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING_ HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA POST & MAIL Date ATTACHMENT 9 FILE No. R-92-39 MATT Fn FTmnTN(;C (1F FArT APPLIC. _JN ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# STAND FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 RETURNED FIRE 2/25/92 RETURNED / I-) k l PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 T RETURNED PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: TZ O.A.0'sI- Owner Russell Kim Aco e:3s b�Ji�cd RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1992 EDMONDS FIRE DEPT. Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dt. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By. Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 x_ APPLICATION x FEE _X APO LIST TITLE REPORT X VICINITY MAP ELEVATIONS (if applicable) PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)- X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA POST & MAIL Date ATTACHMENT 10 FILE NO. R-92-39 MATT Fn FTNnTN(_C or rn T ROUTED TO: FEB Z 6 1992 APPLIC. .J ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST ENGINEERING 2/25/92 RETURNED FIRE 2/25/92 RETURNED FEB '_'. R 199Z PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED PLANNING DEPT. PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED FILE# Sy-H-39 FROMWilson INPUT• Yes RECE Ely COMMENTS: Owner Russell Kim - Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 _x APPLICATION X FEE X APO LIST TITLE REPORT X VICINITY MAP ELEVATIONS (if applicable) x_ PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) Comments: SITE PLAN FOR SNORT SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN (I1" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) (8 1120 x 11) RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 11 FILE NO. R-92-39 MAT1 Ffl FTNnTNrt OF FA(-T � Sw zb 16 : 179 TH SZ. 40 , ., .• .� r _ } v� 23 1171�,b I• ; a3 1 3f •• ` .Y � .7 .1 z ^ � •�� ' 18 .171 T• !. to •�. •• • • �.. _ • FIRS t t : • Z 3•` .3 t 1 FIRST It z Avl w orERs ° 181ST PL. SW. 1- > ! - 3Bc .I A00. a fl•/.t s+� wST ►L?s 4 S 4 i4 - n =__ 3 3 0 TO Z S ° ~ AO IRA TY RE ACRES N 1 E w 74 z < NaiEs 1 c T R ` o t` a �: sa 43 • I C I T _ vl LA ST Sa1 .• . • ; , .. Q _ 1 NO ST S W •1•t w• .Sw W 72 73 31 O 00 it • it 10�. ' � • > �' a 42 s a 1 EOMOrM ' ,• , Z. a ^ s 26 4O /, 1 '.35 . Ai 40 sa 3 33 54 ai ..Np N 49 -05 44 ...' __ .. „„3. • , OREST • t • ^ SISO ,T Cl N w w zo V,Ew F x: 1 , > ;- NE*aRs AS LCTS Ow '�- 3 No. ! < 163 PQ SM 24 TH sT s.w« ^► vtw .7. .YR t sr i •. a ""%•'':. -.;:f _ . TT T• ! 1 f t ' • . i 1 f •` • • w ( tf is rt_q _._ :. Y.,(•`.,' . i !SEAWEw tORElT AIQERT "•AIGNS �:�ls ii n ., r� .•'!��. :;. y,A� i:L . - ' .3 • o e 1 a f. Yw J aN' F ij vA �•. 17TH ST Sw. ; • . _ • :•:1 tftACTS' SEAVIE4 ' „-•O' • •• .,iq3. .iti. to • TRACTS -3 _ > TO 6 OTT sw s rf l f a a • "t," i -3 I t woo.LANO ELTES -' i •} a-1. 3 • 3 .2 � ITNNOALAIE t !l 3 . ..'..z--� .. a .r z Q i s «� !1 LYNNWOOD GRACE ' .Noss ' OSGAR E--- --- JENSENS TER AGE s • a _ • ' c :189TH PL. S.W. °o • za CITY PARK 190 TH ST S.W. I_• woo. 1 .) ; a 0�.� - . -•v.� p Z •/ 9 1 p; o SEATTLE — -" —'--- �i`F ! k ]2 1S} •• Q r ) e _ _ t MLYNNDALE S,Ew �� i - ___— ti0 TO , • • •. a '° c i a , .� s• z f 191 ST ST 5. • 4 4, cc ,3 r 1 c ELEMENTARY j 1 ' L191 ST ST. S.W. • + p .. z ,3 ? 1 ` m ` ` • ' -191 ST ST. S.W.Z. SCHOOL SUBURBAN -----TRACTS •--_ VILLAGE NOS YI ° -•G ' • a IE ERR• SiERe� 1.. — ..- f :. ze :RRA1_- _ vgL.GE . .3 • 192 ND PL. + S.W.- = -- - z, PL s HUGE J .) z v,LLA GE o • z> " r. • a. a' z• xo e 1 • ° a I J IN p 3 . o � x, O . s L T a e w ao a. >: . >+ • >. � r. x : >, � . � � � � 4 ' _ •, m � 1 Ytn00-GICN I ,} \INGSv. D,v m A DRIVE - 193 RD PL. S-W. --- ATTACHMENT 12 3� FILE ),,N s ,;> NO. R-92-39 i� -f ^•> J • THE4� I I 1 o_ p.a,c •Loc �. S iG m 600' 1200' 1800' N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATAGONES LAND USES C� LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAUBUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC USES ® PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMUNITY PARKS M REGIONAL PARKS WATER USES NATURAL mil URBAN NOTE: These maps are provided for general informational purposes only. Interested parties should refer to the original documents prior to relying on the information represented. | � . | | 1 �| � |r| |' �\ _-� L-------------' - -- --- sw- ' | | F-' -- --- -- i \ F{LE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT B ' � |'| _ ___-' --]' L-------------'------- � | | � | | FILE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT C Mr. Lewis said he is not opposed to the use proposed, but he agreed with staff that it is not the right time because there is not an updated plan to give the City guidelines to make this decision. Ms. Foreman said she was not a member of the Board at the January and February discussions. However, she has reviewed the staff report and Planning Board Minutes and is prepared to participate in the discussion. Ms. Foreman said she shares Mr. Lewis' concerns and conclusions that it is not appropriate to grant a none of the property at this time. Right now, the City is in the process of revising die Comprehaisive Plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Act and this area will need a lot of consideration. k It appears premature to grant a rezone without the entire area being considered. She did not feel this proposal was consistent with the zoning ordinance, either. She noted the Westgate Study, which is not a legal document, but was created by the Board after lengthy discussion and review. This study has played a role in her decision. She agreed with Mr. Lewis that she would be glad to consider this use as a variance to a home occupation, but not as a rezone at this time. Mr. Capretta suggested the applicant be involved in the public hearing process of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with the Board's hesitancy to rezone at this time. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Cooper explained that the Comprehensive Plan is of concern to him, but upon reviewing the Westgate Study, it appears that this area does not have the choice of a BN zoning classification. It is unfortunate for the applicant that the City Council has not adopted this study. This could have given the applicant some indication as to the direction the City would like to take in this area. Mr. Cooper said he, too, would not be opposed to reviewing a contract rezone or a request for a home occupation permit. He suggested the applicant explore other options to allow them to continue to operate the business. MR. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY FILE NUMBER R-1-91 BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lewis indicated to the applicant that the Board's decision is not final. This application will go before the Council for final review. The applicant will have the opportunity, at that time, to address the Council, as well. Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER R-92-39 June 10, 1992 Exhibit D Planning Board Minutes Page, 5 T 4 Y Mr. Wilson entered into the record Exhibit "A" of the Staff Advisory Report. He presented a transparency of the vicinity map which is Attachment "1" to Exhibit "A". Mr. Wilson said staff recommends denial of the application. He noted that staff feels the property has an orientation to the North, West, and East, and not to the RS-8 zoning to the South. He indicated the surrounding zoning as listed in the staff report. Mr. Wilson said that while the property abuts RS-8 zoning on two sides, it is important to note that the RS-8 zoned property is accessed and oriented towards the South. Access for the subject site would be from Olympic View Drive. He noted that there is an elevation change which distinguishes this property from the RS-8 zoned area to the south and west. Mr. Wilson explained that the criteria is much the same as the previous application. Staff has concerns that a rezone change of the residential density at this point will not fit in the long term plans for what would be appropriate for this area. Mr. Wilson displayed a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Map which includes the subject property. He said the Comprehensive Plan does not give any information as to what RS density is appropriate for each specific area. This creates a problem when the City tries to determine how to meet the density needs. Mr. Wilson indicated that since 1971, there has not been a change in the zoning in this particular location. It appears this portion of property was annexed into the City in 1963. He used the oldest zoning map he could find on record. He felt there has not been sufficient change in the area to warrant a rezone of the applicant's property. Mr. Wilson reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and read the conclusions of the staff which were included in the staff report. Mr. Allen referred to the vicinity map and commented that to the North it appears the lots are oversized for an RS-12 zone. Mr. Wilson said his conclusion is that, given this is an RS-12 zoning designation, he can not imagine the lots are platted persuant to the minimum lot size. He noted that there may be some larger lots than required. If the Board would like, staff can find out the specific information on each of the surrounding plats_ Mr. Lewis inquired if the City Engineer has the opportunity to evaluate the City's utility needs to ensure they can take care of any additional homes if the RS-8 zoning is allowed. Mr. Wilson noted that these are site plan issues. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that there are some water and sewer lines that bisect the property. One is them main transmission line for the water utility. No other information has been provided at this time. Mr. Lewis noted that the applicant has not shown whether or not this property can be divided as RS-8 or RS-12. Planning Board Minutes Page, 6 Mr. Wilson said that he has had some discussions with the applicant regarding a conceptual layout if the RS-8 zoning were granted. He noted that he has a dual role. He is responsible to review plans and provide help and comments to the applicant regarding their plans. He is also responsible to review the rezone request to determine if it meets the Code and make recommendations to the Board. Russell Kim, 7704 Olympic View Drive, distributed some conceptual plat drawings. Mr. Wilson marked them as Exhibits "B". Mr. Kim aslmd for a revision of the application because the applicant only wants to change the zoning on Lot 106. He said the lots to the north would remain RS-12. In doing this, he felt the applicant could optimize more lots. He felt the application was straight forward explaining why he wants to increase the density. The applicant would like higher use of the property. He noted that lots 8, 9, and 11 of the proposed conceptual plat of the subject site can be accessed from 79th Avenue West. Mr. Kim noted that the conceptual drawings can change. He said he does not know when the City annexed this area, but in talking with a representative of the County, lot 106 was previously zoned RS-8 before it was annexed into the City. Mr. Capretta inquired if it is the applicant's intent in the future to leave the northern lots 9 and 10 as RS-12. Mr. Kim said he would reserve the right to come in at a later date to request a rezone. He explained that there is a bigger picture which he cannot foresee because he does not live in the area. He noted that the property has not been developed for many years and they would like to maximize the land value. Mr. Capretta requested a topographical map which Mr. Kim presented to the Board. Mr. Wilson identified this as Exhibit C. The Board discussed the existing structures and where they are located. Mr. Capretta inquired regarding the linear distance between the existing structure on lot 5 and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson said the linear distance is approximately 80 feet and the change in elevation is approximately 50 feet. James Thompson, 18305 80th West, said his property is lot 13 adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed rezone. His concern is getting access to Olympic View Drive from his neighborhood. When he moved into his home, the City acquired property for Seaview Park and when the park was developed, they put 80th Avenue through. Mr. Thompson reminded the Board of the proposed post office and the traffic which will be generated by this use. They City, at this time, owns lot 12 and there is a proposed road going down through the ravine. This road would get a person halfway to Olympic View Drive. The City also owns a road access shown on the map as 184th Street. He suggested the City either Planning Board Minutes Page, 7 A , .. put 184th through to Olympic View Drive or they punch through the raving to reduce the traffic on 80th Avenue. He said he is concerned that the development of the property will interfere with the development of these roads. The Board discussed the traffic issue further. Mr. Wilson explained the request by the applicant for a street dedication and why it was denied by the City Council. John Heuerman, 18419 79th Place West, said that in the Magnolia area when an area was developed, retaining walls were necessary along the street and inquired if this would occur if the applicant develops his site. The neighbors in the area were assessed for these costs. Mr. Wilson said that unless there is an LID proposal, the costs will have to be borne by the applicant If an LID is used, petitions must be signed by the residents. W. Wilson was concerned that the discussion was turning toward developing a traffic pattern. He indicated that this was not relevant to the proposal before the Board and would come later during the site plan review. Mr. Wilson explained that Mr. Thompson's concerns will be considered whether this rezone is approved or not. He did not feel these concerns could be resolved at this time. Mr. Thompson said his only concern is that if the property is changed to RS-8, the City would no longer have the option of providing access onto Olympic View Drive from the ravine. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson indicated that no matter what the zoning is, the access issue will be solved when the site plan is presented. Mr. Wilson again said that the subject property is oriented to the existing RS-8 zones in the neighborhood and does not warrant a zoning change. Mr. Lewis said that as much as he appreciates Mr. Kim working with staff, it appears that the issue has been further complicated. He did not notice that the Engineering Staff has had the opportunity to review the plans. He said he not convinced that RS-12 is or is not the proper density for the area. He said he is more of the opinion to deny the request. He felt there is a lot of missing information which should be part of the record before any approval could be granted. Mr. Lewis explained that he is very rigid on out right rezones because there is nothing to bind the applicant to the proposal. He noted the sensitivity of this area. He felt it would be more appropriate to look at this item as a contract rezone. He said that while RS-8 may work on this site, an out right rezone is not justifiable without.specific plans. Planning Board Minutes Page, 8 Mr. Lewis said he would be willing to extend the public hearing which may give the applicant time to modify the application and bring it back to a future hearing as a contract rezone with restrictions. He felt there are some merits to the proposal, but he can almost guaranteed that until the concerns are resolved, any future subdivision would have difficulty being approved. Mr. Cooper said he has some concerns with granting out right rezones, as well. He said that although the applicant has only asked for a rezone of half the property, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from requesting a zoning change on the other half in the future. He agreed that the applicant could request an extension of the public hearing to allow time for modification as suggested by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Capretta did not want to encourage the applicant to go through a lot of work to come back to the Board with a plan if the Board's likely intent is to deny the request until the Comprehensive Plan is redone. He felt that unless there is a good chance this next presentation would be approved, there is no reason to ask the applicant to come back to the Board. He noted that there are many options for this parcel. Ms. Foreman said she agrees with Mr. Capretta. She noted the great amount of change going on in the Perrinville area. She felt it important that the Comprehensive Plan be in place before they ask the applicant to put in a lot of time and effort. She felt the development is not compatible with the natural constraints of the property and is not consistent with the land use designations. She said she does not feel comfortable with granting a rezone at this time. Mr. Lancaster concurred with Ms. Foreman and Mr. Capretta. Mr. Lewis felt the Board did not have sufficient information to make a decision either way. Mr. Cooper said he has concerns about the Board stalling all rezone decision until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. While the concept of waiting is well intentioned, this concept would cut all projects requiring a rezone off. Development would have to be postponed for a long time. He said that while this proposal does not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant, can come back with some modified plans and a site plan, the Board owes it to the applicant to review these plans. I Mr. Capretta said he appreciates Mr. Cooper's logic, but noted that this rezone is not a requirement for development, it is a desire of the applicant. In the absence of complete, clean cut reason for the rezone, he did not see a need for approval. Again, he pointed out that this rezone is not a requirement, it is a desire of the applicant to increase the density of his property. Mr. Wilson indicated that if the Board is suggesting the applicant propose a contract rezone, this would be a separate proposal, not a continuance. Planning Board Minutes Page, 9 Mr. Lewis said he did not mean to suggest that the applicant have the opportunity to modify the application into a contract rezone. However, if the applicant could provide some plans for development, he felt the applicant deserves a fair review. He noted that the Board is required to review the requests using the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Foreman said she would be interested in seeing a project proposal, but it seems she would still be very reluctant to grant a rezone. She felt that flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan process is extremely important. She did not feel that every applicant who could present a good project should receive a rezone. She agreed with Mr. Capretta that the applicant could still develop the property as RS-12. If he wants to provide more information, he can do this. MR: CAPREITA MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. FOREMAN, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT R-92-39 BE DENIED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. LEWIS AND MR. COOPER VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Wilson said the Comprehensive Plan public participation process will begin in July. Mr. Wilson informed the Board that on June 24, Mr. Wallace, the City Attorney, will be present as requested by the Board. The Board will have the opportunity to discuss the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine at that time. Mr. Wilson said the ADB will also be in attendance at that meeting. He said Mr. Wallace will also be discussing the Board's Rules of Procedures. Mr. Wilson said staff is requesting the Board members consider changing the meeting days to the second and fourth Thursdays of each month beginning in 1993. The Board members indicated that there should be no problem with this request. MR. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. PB920610 Planning Board Minutes Page, 10 Sept., 41992 Edmonds City Council 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: R-92-39 It is felt that the rezoning of 4.1 acres from IRS 12 to RS8 would adversely effect the value of our homes and would increase the the traffic volume to an intolerable amount. We have built and bought our homes and have lived under the present zoning code for many years and have expected it to remain this way. To change the zoning thereby incresing the housing without first addressing the added traffic on Olympic View Drive and RECEIVED SEP - 8 1992 'Edmonds City 80th Ave. West and the need for walkways to our Parks would be most inappropriate. Please give this matter your greatest consideration. Sincerely Jameess�Thompson / YZ 0.3 -2 7 Pooh -/� '�'.� 77�- 37, � . ('� I t<,E Dom 8 e v S is l 4 5 , '% -7 (, $ .7`/j ` dab !86 ,�'e' 1 8OGS-- `1��4i 3C�'�i � ..�ec�2 � � —0SzS /0 a Ise 7�/f t 0 bs nt Av, , cd. -T-7 (o - 34{o �s �g(65 776-a3g6 i t�ZZ�o 17 71�/ ST-92-38 R-92-39 Russell Kim 10407 N. May Ave_ Oklahoma City, OK 73120 James Thompson/Resident 18305 80th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 John Nevermna/Resident 18419 79th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Gary Derosa 17222 Greenwood Place W. Seattle, WA 98133 J.F. Street/Resident 7811 188th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Thomas Belt 917 9th Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98026 Dana Gillet 19420 88th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 David Johnson/Resident 7810 182.nd Pl W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Earl Smith/Resident Dr. Han Z. Park 18325 80th Ave. W. 7704 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Norman Barringer/Resident Robert Joss/Resident 18405 79th Pl. W. 18415 79th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 William Oakes/Resident Resident 18427 79th Pl. W. 18501 79th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Laura Thornhill/Resident Steven Slater/Residen- 7831 185th Pl W. 7817 185th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Frank Gebel/Resident Resident 7801 185th Pl. W. 7800 185th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 US Postal Service US Postal Service Real Estate Division 18440 76th Pl W. 850 Cherry Ave. Edmonds, WA 98026 San Bruno, CA 94099 Resident John Meyer/resident 18502 76th Ave. W. 7809 82nd P1 W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 AMENDED HEARING NOTICE HEARING DATE CHANGE INTERESTED PERSONS ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: MONDAY SEPTEMBER 14 1992 IS THE NEW DATE SET FOR THE FOLLOWING: HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 APPLICANT: RUSSELL KIM, AGENT FOR DR. HAN Z. PARK FILE NO: R-92-39 SAID CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE PLAZA ROOM, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER DATE BECAUSE IT IS NOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, DATE OF THE CONTINUATION WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-0245). RHONDA J. MARCH EDMONDS CITY CLERK PUBLISHED: AUGUST 16, 1992 POSTED: AUGUST 13, 1992 MAILED: AUGUST 13, 1992 WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER: SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 F/R9239 PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND DENY A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .19 ACRES LOCATED AT 612 EDMONDS WAY. FROM RS-6 TO BN APPLICANT: PHILLIP RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDAT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND DENY A REQUEST TO The above two items were removed from agenda, as the Council directed Staff to schedule them for a public hearing, versus the Staff recommendation. Planning Manager Rob Chave said according to the Code, the Council is to review the information and if the Council concurs, approve the pro- posed resolution. Mr. Chave said if the Council does not agree, they would then direct Staff to schedule a public hearing. Councilmember Dwyer said this process has never been used, and stated a public hearing has always been scheduled. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Chave why this process is now being used. Mr. Chave said Staff feels that if there is no controversy, it wouldn't need to go through a hearing pro- cess. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the applicant has had a chance to speak to the Council, and Mr. Chave replied negatively. Councilmember Dwyer said he doesn't like the process of placing proposed resolutions on the agenda for Council approval or disapproval on these type of issues. Councilmember Dwyer said the applicant should have the opportunity to come before the Council. Council President Palmer said originally the items appeared on the Consent Agenda, however, he moved them onto the regular agenda for discussion. Council President Palmer said it will be his policy, as long as he is Council President,that no recommendations from the Planning Board will go directly to the Consent Agenda. Council President Palmer said in the future, items like this will proceed directly to a public hearing. Mr. Chave said if that is the desire of the Council, then the Council should change the Code. Mr. Chave said part of the problem is the current planning staff is not aware of what the past histo- ry is with regards to these type of items. Councilmember Dwyer said the people involved in the subject issues have been inconvenienced in this process. It was noted that one of the applicants present in the audience flew in from Oklaho- ma City just for this issue. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SET AUGUST 18 AS THE HEARING DATE FOR THE SUBJECT ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. CLARIFICATION ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO REPEAL SECTION OF RCW City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified that the Resolution, when adopted, should be sent to the Association of Washington Lobbying Committee. r COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 751 RE- QUESTING THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO REPEAL SECTION OF RCW 42.24.180 WHICH RESTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REVIEWING AND APPROVING PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, DEMANDS, AND VOUCHERS AT ITS NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE DESIGNATING THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT AS THE COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, DEMANDS, AND VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2896 AMEND- ING THE CITY CODE DESIGNATING THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT AS THE COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, DEMANDS, AND VOUCHERS. MOTION CARRIED. nn `y SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM 0- 51iCOUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO NOMINATE COUNCILMEMBER KASPER Q I�iLN� AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Hall said the Concerts in the Park Program is once again, a great success. Mayor Hall said she has received many compliments about the Staff in their, dealings with the public during recent street overlay projects. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Page 6 July 21, 1992 m EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item Number: Originator:Planninq Division For Action:X For Information: SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOLUTION # TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND DENY A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.1 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 (APPLICANT: RUSSELL KIM, AGENT FOR DR. HAN Z. PARK/FILE NO. R-92-39) Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials AGENDA TIME: Consent ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA DATE: July 21, 1992 CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES EXHIBITS ATTACHED: ENGINEERING PARKS & RECREATION 1.Planning Board PLANNINGOA Recommendation PUBLIC WORKS FIRE 2. Planning Board PERSONNEL Minutes 6/10/92 POLICE COMMITTEE 3. Resolution MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Board held a hearing on the proposed rezone of approximately 4.1 acres located at approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive on June 10, 1992. The.Planning Board voted to recommend to the City Council that the rezone be denied. Pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter , 20.100.030(B), if the City Council wishes to consider any changes to the Planning Board recommendations the Council shall remove the item from the consent agenda and set a public hearing date. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution adopting the Planning Board's recommendations. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING BOARD ,ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: EDMONI PI, BOARD Hank Lewis, C -rman DATE: June 15, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application.......................................................................................... 1 PublicHearings...................................................................................... 2 Recommendations................................................................................... 2 Findingsof Fact ....................................................... ........................... 2 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 2 Appendices........................................................................................... 2 Partiesof Record.................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2 of EXHIBIT "A"). 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1 of EXHIBIT "A"). 3. R uest: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3 of EXHIBIT "A"). EXHIBIT I R O'f_'i0/l..1 C_09 RFMRTC\DR Russell Kim File No. R-92-39 Page 2 of 3 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this application on June 10, 1992. C. RECOND4ENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. H. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. The findings of fact on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report are found by the Planning Board to be supported by the evidence presented during the hearing, and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's findings of fact. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". M. CONCLUSIONS: A. The conclusions by the Planning Division as set forth on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division's Staff Advisory Report, accurately set forth the conclusions of the Planning Board and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's conclusions. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". IV. APPENDICES Exhibits "A" through " D " are attached. A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (6/5/92) R92-39/!.15-92.R FPO RTt\PR ° Russell Kim File No. R-92-39 Page 3 of 3 t B. Conceptual Plat Layout under the Proposed RS-8 Zoning Designation (submitted by the applicant on 6/ 10/92) C. Conceptual Proposed Topographical Plan for the Conceptual Plat Design (submitted by the applicant on 6/ 10/92) D. June 10, 1992, Planning Board Meeting Minutes V. PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Parks Division Fire Department R92-39/615-92. REPORTS\PB C CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING BOARD ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: EDMOND PLA BOARD Hank Lewis, C 'rman DATE: June 15, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application........................................................................................... 1 PublicHearings...................................................................................... 2 Recommendations................................................................................... 2 Findingsof Fact..................................................................................... 2 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 2 Appendices........................................................................................... 2 Partiesof Record.................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2 of EXHIBIT "A"). 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1 of EXHIBIT "A"). 3. R uest: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3 of EXHIBIT "A"). R92-39/615-92.REPORTS\PB Russell Kh. File No. R-92-39 Page 2 of 3 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this application on June 10, 1992. C. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. H. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. The findings of fact on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report are found by the Planning Board to be supported by the evidence presented during the hearing, and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's findings of fact. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". M. CONCLUSIONS• A. The conclusions by the Planning Division as set forth on pages 2 through 6 of the Planning Division's Staff Advisory Report, accurately set forth the conclusions of the Planning Board and by this reference are adopted as the Planning Board's conclusions. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". IV. APPENDICES Exhibits "A" through "D" are attached. A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (6/5/92) R92-39/615-92.REPORTSTB Russell Kit. File No. R-92-39 Page 3 of 3 B. Conceptual Plat Layout under the Proposed RS-8 Zoning Designation (submitted by the applicant on 6/ 10/92) C. Conceptual Proposed Topographical Plan for the Conceptual Plat Design (submitted by the applicant on 6/ 10/92) D. June 10, 1992, Planning Board Meeting Minutes V. PARTIES OF OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Parks Division Fire Department M39/6.15-M.""RTSTO CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FROM: CIwZ9411 Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor DATE: June 5, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: JUNE 10, 1992 AT 7:00 PM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application........................................................................................... 1 Recommendations.................................................................................. 2 SiteDescription...................................................................................... 2 History................................................................................................ 3 State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA)....................................................... 3 Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance ........................................ 4 TechnicalCommittee............................................................................... 5 ComprehensivePlan................................................................................ 5 Appendices........................................................................................... 6 Parties of Record.................................................................................... 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2). EXHIBIT A R92-39/6.4492 Russell Kir; File No. R-92-39 Page 2 of 6 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1). 3. R es : Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMN[ENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 178,596 square feet (4.1 acres) in area (see Attachment 3). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with two (2) detached single-family residences, on lots 9 & 10, with the remaining area of the subject property undeveloped (see Attachment 3). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS - Single - Family Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (see Attachment 1). R92-39/64-92 Russell Kim File No. R-9z-39 Page 3 of 6 b. Conclusion: The orientation of the subject property is towards the north, west and east which are areas which are zoned RS-12. The property is not oriented or accessed from the south, which is the only adjacent area which is zoned RS-8. Therefore, the existing zoning and development pattern support the continued development of the subject in a manner consistent with its existing zoning as RS-12. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts (1) North: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). (2) South: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1). (3) East: Currently being developed with the new Edmonds Postal facility and zoned BN (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone of the property from one single-family to another would still maintain development which is consistent with the surrounding properties, however, it would result in an island of RS-8 zoning which would not be consistent with the pattern of zoning in the area of the subject property. B. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The applicant has petitioned the City to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way which bisects the subject property (File No. ST-92-38). The vacation request was denied by the City Council on June 2nd, 1992. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on April 21, 1992. The Environmental Checklist, Environmental Assessment, Determination and comment letter are included as Attachments 4 through 7. Mitigating measures required of the applicant include: (1) The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of preliminary plat application on the subject property. b. Conclusion: The applicant and City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. R92-3916 4.92 ' Russell Kii File No. R-92-39 Page 4 of 6 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. 2. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to the requested RS-8 zoning designation which the applicant is seeking, are set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. a. Fact: Section 20.40.010 states that at a minimum the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: (1) Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (5) Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and, (6) The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone is not consistent with all the criteria set forth in Section 20.40.010: (1) The proposed zoning classification is not specifically inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property (see Section II.F.1 below for further discussion), however, the Comprehensive Plan designation does not provide specific direction for single-family residential densities. (2) The proposed zoning change while consistent with the general land use designation for the site in the Comprehensive Plan, would result in an isolated area which would be zoned RS-8. The subject property does R92-39/64-92 OW Awk Russell Kit File No. R-92-39 Page 5 of 6 not have any direct orientation to the RS-8 zoned property to the south, but is directly oriented to the comparable RS-12 zoned property to the north, west and east. Therefore, the proposed rezone would not be consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses. As the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan to comply with the Growth Management Act (G.M.A.) it would be appropriate to deny this current application until a new Comprehensive Plan is adopted which would reconcile the future identified inconsistencies. (4) There does not appear to have been any recent changes in the zoning designations of surrounding property since 1971 (see Attachment 8). (5) Staff does not have sufficient data to determine the economic viability of the subject property under the present zoning. However, it does not appear that the applicant has attempted to develop the subject property in a manner consistent with the current zoning designation. (6) Approval of the proposed would simply result in the potential increase of available single-family building sites in the City. However, this increase should be weighted against the effects of a change in zoning which would result in an isolated area of RS-8 zoning, in an area which is predominantly zoned RS-12. 4. a. Fact: Chapter 20.100 establishes the procedures and criteria for review of all rezones. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a. Fact: Comments and requirements placed on the project by other departments are found in Attachments 9 through 11. b. Conclusion: The applicant must follow the requirements of other Departments as set forth in Attachments 9 through 11. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Fact: The subject property and adjacent properties are designated as Low Density Residential (see Attachment 12). 2. Fact: ECDC Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE) states the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City of Edmonds. 3. a. Facts: (1) ECDC Section 15.20.005.B.6 (LAND USE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - Goal) states that it is R92-39/&4.92 Russell Kit File No. R-92-39 Page 6 of 6 a goal of the City of Edmonds to: "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. " (2) The subject property contains several distinct natural features; including: steep slopes, ravines and forested areas. (3) The effect of the proposed rezone would be to increase the potential for more single-family building sites. b. Conclusion: The potential for an increase in building sites with lot sizes less than the current required 12,000 square foot lot, would increase the likelihood that the natural features would be dramatically changed to allow for development of these new smaller building sites. The result of this rezone would be development in a manner which would not be compatible with the "natural constraints" of the subject property. III. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 12 are attached. 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Environmental Checklist (1 / 15/92) 5. Staff Environmental Review Memorandum (4/20/92) 6. Environmental Determination - (MDNS) Mitigated Nonsignificance (4/21/92) 7. Comment letter on Environmental Determination from (5/8/92) 8. 1971 Zoning Map 9. Comments from Public Works Division (2/25/92) 10. Comments from Fire Department (2/27/92) 11. Comments from Parks & Recreation Division (2/28/92) 12. Comprehensive Plan Map IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Determination of Community Transit R92-39/6 -92 PARK P COUNTY PARK MAVK1t \t 1 -777 r „ N 1-1 fIRS� t 2 1 � • ) FIRST ¢ 1 AVI W ortA s 3 s ADD 0$161aT Si ---- 18IST POSSE S —T—..—i TO a 3 �' NOYES ~ AO IRA TY ACRES 6 O C 1 Y_ vt LA _ �w• 1 .Sw 12 11 ro EDMONDS 14 > M RS-12-- - 8N _ ..� "I '�N I- 10 SC Av1Cw • iEAV1Ew— FOREST ' t a ► A R r TRACTS--- fotv.lNO 3 o1v. No 1 ° -4 PL�3W zr l Z / s = • 1 T • • o _ t ' zs n I r. • rs 16TH S yy+' s ' EA a ♦ • >A a• �� n a• • 3 — SCA VICw t-- FOREST AL.[AT ; �--{A ICN'{ • . n l u n 1s ' 1 7TH ST. S.W.sm i. • e f ' a1 TRACTS , ^ ' W > - 1 1 a Vicinity Map 105 $0 • VIEW 102 TRACTS RM- 3 N)t 11 21 " I• 1. I _V"OWbAl( SOUND It t0 n tt 22 it ' 17 TN 11 '. • L7 t3 14 13 12 24 I • L 17 TN 23� 17 to RS- 1 woz�x"�,� {3 ATTACHMENT 1 - FILE NO. R-92-39 city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT : .:...>'.::..................:............................... FILE# k-92-,3q ZONE hS IZ ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION L� 1- d- ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT DATE REC'D BY FEE R6 4.`� RECEIPT # _[S'Y G 7 ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. ® REZON ❑ HE ❑ STAFF PLPB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ STREET VACATION APPEAL # ❑ VARIANCE RESUBMITTAL FILE # ``❑ ppl7W) �yt e 5e(r KIWI. 4-0S) q5 I— W-9 icant Phon Address l ® � N ly1 �4-y A-V6. , DIG L--A . C,try / o K r731 a O Property Address or Location 1000 'B L-dGx OE= ©4=)LI4 Cye&w D2. PropertyOwner 2 • �1 � /< Phoner�� 2174 "1 Address 1 LI�IPlG �%i Ery� ��: �OIV'IOND�� f� qsd �6 Agent Phone Address Tax Acc # Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description LL1 TS �, !c7 , C.OG� / , e9-iaM tR-,*J 7- i VOL- t2-1P14)—; � `�i�'��-Z 10(e, rn00c's St-eme-W 12�-75U 0 L. Details of Project or Proposed Use �D �N S' 1 Z -g ,1 p 1D A3k L1 s 0 Q'Q 7f LD 75 1 r 0 E l `fir 00 U :5!, LDT5, The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, Including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspectio g attendant to this application. ATTACHMENT 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT FILE N0. R-92-39 A. CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND A� 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: PIS' 2. Name of applicant: ,✓ 1 , I" 7, ' ssl.l ( �l�'1 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: o -y, /i� V c&O I o a as , W Pr q 802t,, COPTP<,T ':v '5,6 �!!� , /��o% N�NlN/ fW6., ®K(�64•�tT�/, igr— 13l2o 4. Date checklist prepared: TA-(J 5 1 N I Z 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): h oz . (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. (a. (STAFF COMMENTS) ATTACHMENT 4 FILE NO. R-92-39 CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 1 of 26 __ ......... 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ( (0oJ & (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your approval, if known. 91 &MtT, P69PA(T !� fit R D i 1f ®eJ P6-eMI rr ? IP9- -MIT (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 2 of 26 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed 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 range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. 1,0T. 9 , / D DF �D�r2�r/ �._' �t(07 'Vr &'J r. CNN � �S r 10 �N 'Z"t -b Wr-�7 0f D 1-) rM A« U f Dr. CP Laar,C- 5 A-(-rA-z.r+ v Nw-e . (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. Geurral description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? ,6 (00 W(Tl+ W 4o -SO ' (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT110-8-91.MASTER Page 3 of 26 A 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immed'a a vicinity? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [40-01056V 6X PrVA--r(M) A-0 O L'C-/&ua1 G, -rc+t. VU3 rat ut6t Of) (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If s ?,,(generally describe. Q . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 4 of 26 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Q (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: O N e P,-r oys --r t L`- D U c qls A-N V (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 de c ibe and give approximate quantities if known. 4 QtJ& ( A10T M3mop-A- 74f-A4 d rff&e (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect ,your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 5 of 26 al 1'' M C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water 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 pr river it flows into. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please descr�available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. Indicate the source of fill material. CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 6 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions. Give general description, purpose, and approxiogate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note 1pcation on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipa``tn�ed volume of discharge. V (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, propose, and approxiapate quantities if known. CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 7 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (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 bP served (if applicable), or the number of anima s or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 8 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, aple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, edar pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cabbage, other:_ cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegeta will be remove or altered? CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 9 of 26 c. d. (STAFF COMMENTq) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or. near the site. ( p� (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 2 0 l c-- 6 t- (-p4j -� SC; (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or 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: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 10 of 26 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. I I (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (1 (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 11 of 26 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent pro ties? If so, generally describe. t�JJTI% i c. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Q (STAFF COMMENTS) (1)_ Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 12 of 26 (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: ( STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, eLipment, operation, other)? o k s tc t e\ 0 c� Ns'I N C—rc 0(3. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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)? Indicate what hours noise wou d come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 13 of 26 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? FI,- - S S' (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site een used for agriculture? If so, describe. �Jo (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. " D L-/) MuSe-', � ( i 4zo S (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 25- (2-- CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 14 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? 0 I (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 15 of 26 9. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0 D (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middl or low-income housing. 2A90JC- dZs�C�. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 16 of 26 b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 1 lS7 ((y 61 (L.c. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed -measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? N s D (u us f (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? r` 0 C'-- . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 17 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: OP.& (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 18 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 19 of 26 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. f-) /A (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. I -/A ° (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. IBC(cC �� 5�S 41— UNI AI l \ 1 1 Z-4J I - (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 20 of 26 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? C; (STAFF COMMENTS) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? I Pt c Il 6-""!�!l IOU 4aA�- (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or street, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). �U-►�-Qc c 11\J TO Tl4 U�v f s►�r� . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, raik, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 21 of 26 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. IN N (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce -or control transportation impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. e (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 22 of 26 16. Utilities a. Cirrral ties entl a at t site: el city, a , er use service a hone, system, (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE abov answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I rstand hat the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature of Proponent ate Submitted CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 23 of 26 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the 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 not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: r t)1 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Wr ° Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 1A- CHKLT/ 10-8-9 1 MASPage 24 of 26 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive area designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? �j I� Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. 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? --II Iv Proposedmeasuresto avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 25 of 26 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) a /It\-- 7. Identify, if possible, state, or federal laws environment. 1 � lam' I� D whether the proposal may conflict with local, or requirements for the protection of the CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 26 of 26 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 TO: FILE NO. R-92-39 FROM: r.�=�----- Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Responsible Official DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE KIM REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8, FILE NO. R-92-39 I have had the opportunity to visit the site and review the environmental checklist, a copy of which is on file in the official City file for this permit (File No. R-92-39). Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be issued. The current proposal lacks the specific detail which would be associated with a future preliminary plat application to allow for specific impacts to be measured at the time of this application. Therefore, more detailed environmental review should occur at the time of a future preliminary plat application on the subject property. Based on my review of all information and adopted policies of the City, I am recommending that the proposal be changed or clarified to include the following mitigating measures so that a MDNS can be issued. Recommended Mitieation Measures: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property. This recommendation is based on adopted policies of the City as found in the Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 15. PC: FILE NO. R-92-39 Robert Chave, Planning Manager 92-39EN/4-20-92.SEPA ATTACHMENT 5 FILE NO. R-92-39 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from Single Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (RS-12) to Single Residential 8,000 square foot lot size (RS-8), for a potential future subdivision. Proponent: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS 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 is not required under RCW 43.21.030(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. XX 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 May 6th. 1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmo s WA 98020 1 .11 �2- Signature: Date: Lit .��.._. XX You may appeal this determination to obert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than May 20th. 1992, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 21st. 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. ATTACHMENT 6 Page t of FILE NO.. R-92-39 92-39DNS/420-92.S EPA Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504-8711 XX City of Lynnwood Attn: Robert Henderson, Planning Director 19100 44th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 XX Stevens Memorial Hospital 21601 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn: Brian Benzel, Superintendent 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn: Marvin Freel 1133 164th Street Southwest, #200 Lynnwood, WA 98037 XX Applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Agent: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property. Attachments PC: File No. R-92-39 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 92-39DNS/420-92.SEPA Snohomish County Publiic Gft/ Transportation Benefit I�I Area Corporation 1133 1641h St. S.W. Suite 200 Community. Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (206) 348-7100 _ Transit Kenneth J. Graska C `I Executive Director �qy A to March 24, 1992 `''v 1981? Mr. Jeffrey Wilson Department of Community Services Planning Division 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 re: Olympic Park (File No. - R-92-39) Dear Mr. Wilson: CT recommends that the City of Edmonds require a letter of commitment from the developer to provide transit and rideshare information to residents. Every effort should be made to provide safe disabled access from the existing bus stops to the proposed development. As with all such recommended pedestrian facilities, these should be well lit to ensure safety. Improving the transit compatibility of site plans is described in detail in SnoTran's recently published guidebook. Copies are available from SnoTran at 787-1901. If you have any question, please contact me at (206) 348-7187. Sincerely, <s'• Ij Marvin Freel Transportation Planner cc: File ATTACHMENT 7 FILE NO. R-92-39 RS-20 ` RS • 12 1eo ST. O R > � a O � Rw a i IE4 ST. S.W. - t BN RS— 12 1 " 186 S T 3 3 . > . T 187 ST. S.W. >= Oaf 3 � I88 ST S . W_.; 3 Q 1' 3 ; w 16 9 Pt S. h 10 ST. S.W� o - m w w 190 ST. S.W. Rs-8 �F <<ya > > > a a a o0 .90 N M Qop 10 < a a m 1 91 S p m ST. S. W. S'W 192 ST S W . 3 " 3 S� 192 PL. S.W, RS-8 w W > v OR. > 193 PL. S.W. RS -12 c 3 a co a m RD m RML RML RD 196 ST. S. W . , 3 3 . 3 RMN ; ' P RO 19e S. w 3 � a -A a 3 RS-8 r 0. _ MpPLF� (n 0 199__..ST .`• Z to ATTACHMENT 8 m FILE NO. R-92-39 APPLIC ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# Sl-9Z-39 ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE 2/25/92 FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED _`- RETURNED PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED AR S & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: RECEIVED V FEB 2 5 1992 sc.Z-t-s PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X FEE —(� SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) —X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed), - TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments• RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS „ PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 9 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT FILE N0. R-92-39 APPLIL, ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# SYANO FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 RETURNED FIRE 2/25/92 RETURNED PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: Q �'. 12� \Qd�iC,cC.Ov IS ��'.Q.J lQlzol� AcaeSS c��..S �C, ►.� RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1992 EDMONDS FIRE DEPT. Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dt. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X FEE �(� SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)- - X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL ## APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 10 FILE NO. R-92-39 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT APPLIC. ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE P FEB 2 6 1992UBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 RETURNED FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RECEIVED RETURNED F E B 199Z RETURNED PLANNING DEFT. NETURNED a &L _ COMMENTS: - -�. bav� Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of.184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION X FEE _X APO LIST TITLE REPORT _�_ VICINITY MAP ELEVATIONS (if applicable) X_ PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) —(— SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) POST & MAIL Date RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 11 FILE NO. R-92-39 ]4�pIBDN /FIRS 2 3 .3 1 2 I FIRST ct S AVI W DYER' w 4 ADD 0 ; lei a SV*---4181 T z 5 5 HOMES TO 4 6 VILLA CITY %V 2182 "d p SOF 9 iz i it 10 2 ADD 4 3 ui 4 W AD IRA TY 3 > ACRES it 27 45 14 13 1 12 g 7 I S. 26 16 179 TH St 40 4t 44 25 17 IB 19 3 55 42 1 47 7 171 79 0 177 2 —M IDS 47� 48 150 6 I SE AV - ' FOREST > IV. N TRARA CTS DIV I NO. 3 0 .1 > 'q 120 0; PL? z cli -186TH ST S.W. isa 21 16 2 s 0 EAVIEW FOREST ALOERT ----BALCM*S 8 i9 10 121 '3 .4 6 5 1 4 j 25. m j ACTS-�; 167TH ST S.W. SEAVIEIV 55 2> X 23 4 Ot DID TRACTS 'I 53 22 > < 2 187TH PL &W 22 21 14 11 26 17 11 4 leeTK ST S.W. 3 4 uj '4 .3 2 '3 3 2 WOOOL AND SE STATES a 5 6 . . LYNNOALE .2 5 12 3 12 7 'j La 3 4.1 a2 6 mos% '3 6 26 TEA ACE E.-- JENSENS DO 21 -1 00 6 9 6 9 6 ;189TH PL. A ST 5 w 0 - I\. v 4-L±�:j L I ND ST S.W. 25 72 73 59 41 4271 19 10 40 It 26 TO — LL 40 > > Aa 44 cr 51 en-2 0 53 58 24 57 25 77 6 LYNNWOOD CITY PARK 190 1 H 0 16, 31 s2 00 Q 32 '3 SEATTLE t3 14 < z LYNNDALE 11 C, 12 SIERRA ow f191 ST z.51. � 4 21 ] e ELEMENTARY 4 1 'o S p > 191 ST ST. S.W. It 2' Io 22 1 SCHOOL 6 9 6 ;:o! --191 ST ST S.W. OD SUGUIRE11", -TRACTS VILLAGE 1 6 5 4 3 2 - SIERRA- Q 20 �2 2 6 1 9 K I NOS ol)D� SIERRA R A 1' yVIL 13 It "SIERRA -1PL s w , 6 192 IN PL. S.w�' 19 2 N 21 2 •-7 23, 22 13 2, : No N 3, B 7 6 VILLAGE a13 1 1 VILLAGE 2, `1 17 p 20 21 T2 23 24 , 254 I I N,' S'W 01 D 0 z .0 27 I DIV A n 0 .. DRIVE 4 3 5 E S 201 1� AD o-GLEN 141 193 R 0 P S.W. q IS 7 26 1 4DIV3 C, 9 4 1 2■ ATTACHMENT 12 25 6 LE NO. R-92-39' woo, :,BELT AD No 11 F1 �:R'l 1 2 1 2 3 D AD[ 24SnTH THE 2 7 I'D 194TH ST. S. 101 Lj kit� 0 E L L' 94TMST S.W. 23 oj 2 < 17 > �LL �L 22 5 3 22 M < PL, 5 c 0 ONS t94,-TH PL. W. 4 ROeE2R'T t- E. THO AS IF M s ES ,el® 1 • = 600' 600' 1200' 1800' NOTE: These maps are provided for general informational purposes only. Interested parties should refer to the original documents prior to relying on the information represented. 0 FILE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT B FILE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT C i • Mr. Lewis said he is not opposed to the use proposed, but he agreed with staff that it is not the right time because there is not an updated plan to give the City guidelines to make this decision. Ms. Foreman said she was not a member of the Board at the January and February discussions. However, she has reviewed the staff report and Planning Board Minutes and is prepared to participate in the discussion. Ms. Foreman said she shares Mr. Lewis' concerns and conclusions that it is not appropriate to grant a rezone of the property at this tine. Right now, the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Act and this area will need a lot of consideration. It appears premature to grant a rezone without the entire area being considered. She did not feel this proposal was consistent with the zoning ordinance, either. She noted the Westgate Study, which is not a legal document, but was created by the Board after lengthy discussion and review. This study has played a role in her decision. She agreed with Mr. Lewis that she would be glad to consider this use as a variance to a home occupation, but not as a rezone at this time. Mr. Capretta suggested the applicant be involved in the public hearing process of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with the Board's hesitancy to rezone at this time. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Cooper explained that the Comprehensive Plan is of concern to him, but upon reviewing the Westgate Study, it appears that this area does not have the choice of a BN zoning classification. It is unfortunate for the applicant that the City Council has not adopted this study. This could have given the applicant some indication as to the direction the City would like to take in this area. Mr. Cooper said he, too, would not be opposed to reviewing a contract rezone or a request for a home occupation permit. He suggested the applicant explore other options to allow them to continue to operate the business. MR. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY FILE NUMBER R-1-91 BASED ON THE STAFFS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lewis indicated to the applicant that the Board's decision is not final. This application will go before the Council for final review. The applicant will have the opportunity, at that time, to address the Council, as well. PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER A-0-39- Planning Board Minutes June 10, 1992 Exhibit C Planning Board Minutes Page, 5 Mr. Wilson entered into the record Exhibit "A" of the Staff Advisory Report. He presented a transparency of the vicinity map which is Attachment "l" to Exhibit "A". Mr. Wilson said staff recommends denial of the application. He noted that staff feels the property has an orientation to the North, West, and East, and not to the RS-8 zoning to the South. He indicated the surrounding zoning as listed in the staff report. Mr. Wilson said that while the propert;i abuts RS-8 zoning on two sides, it is important to note that the RS-8 zoned property is accessed and oriented towards the South. Access for the subject site would be from Olympic View Drive. He noted that there is an elevation change which distinguishes this property from the RS-8 zoned areas to the south and west. Mr. Wilson explained that the criteria is much the same as the previous application. Staff has concerns that a rezone change of the residential density at this point will not fit in the long term plans for what would be appropriate for this area. Mr. Wilson displayed a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Map which includes the subject property. He said the Comprehensive Plan does not give any information as to what RS density is appropriate for each specific area. This creates a problem when the City tries to determine how to meet the density needs. Mr. Wilson indicated that since 1971, there has not been a change in the zoning in this particular location. It appears this portion of property was annexed into the City in 1963. He used the oldest zoning map he could find on record. He felt there has not been sufficient change in the area to warrant a rezone of the applicant's property. Mr. Wilson reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and read the conclusions of the staff which were included in the staff report. Mr. Allen referred to the vicinity map and commented that to the North it appears the lots are oversized for an RS-12 zone. Mr. Wilson said his conclusion is that, given this is an RS-12 zoning designation, he can not imagine the lots are platted persuant to the minimum lot size. He noted that there may be some larger lots than required. If the Board would like, staff can find out the specific information on each of the surrounding plats. Mr. Lewis inquired if the City Engineer has the opportunity to evaluate the City's utility needs to ensure they can take care of any additional homes if the RS-8 zoning is allowed. Mr. Wilson noted that these are site plan issues. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that there are some water and sewer lines that bisect the property. One is them main transmission line for the water utility. No other information has been provided at this time. Mr. Lewis noted that the applicant has not shown whether or not this property can be divided as RS-8 or RS-12. Planning Board Minutes Page, 6 Mr. Wilson said that he has had some discussions with the applicant regarding a conceptual layout if the RS-8 zoning were granted. He noted that he has a dual role. He is responsible to review plans and provide help and comments to the applicant regarding their plans. He is also responsible to review the rezone request to determine if it meets the Code and make recommendations to the Board. Russell Kim, 7704 Olympic View Drive, distributed some conceptual plat drawings. Mr. Wilson marked them as Exhibits "B" . Mr. Kim asked for a revision of the application because the applicant only wants to change the zoning on Lot 106. He said the lots to the north would remain RS-12. In doing this, he felt the applicant could optimize more lots. He felt the application was straight forward explaining why he wants to increase 'the density. The applicant would like higher use of the property. He noted that lots 8, 9, and 11 of the proposed conceptual plat of the subject site can be accessed from 79th Avenue West. Mr. Kim noted that the conceptual drawings can change. He said he does not know when the City annexed this area, but in talking with a representative of the County, lot 106 was previously zoned RS-8 before it was annexed into the City. Mr. Capretta inquired if it is the applicant's intent in the future to leave the northern lots 9 and 10 as RS-12. Mr. Kim said he would reserve the right to come in at a later date to request a rezone. He explained that there is a bigger picture which he cannot foresee because he does not live in the area. He noted that the property has not been developed for many years and they would like to maximize the land value. Mr. Capretta requested a topographical map which Mr. Kim presented to the Board. Mr. Wilson identified this as Exhibit C. The Board discussed the existing structures and where they are located. Mr. Capretta inquired regarding the linear distance between the existing structure on lot 5 and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson said the linear distance is approximately 80 feet and the change in elevation is approximately 50 feet. James Thompson, 18305 80th West, said his property is lot 13 adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed rezone. His concern is getting access to Olympic View Drive from his neighborhood. When he moved into his home, the City acquired property for Seaview Park and when the park was developed, they put 80th Avenue through. Mr. Thompson reminded the Board of the proposed post office and the traffic which will be generated by this use. They City, at this time, owns lot 12 and there is a proposed road going down through the ravine. This road would get a person halfway to Olympic View Drive. The City also owns a road access shown on the map as 184th Street. He suggested the City either Planning Board Minutes Page, 7 put 184th through to Olympic View Drive or they punch through the raving to reduce the traffic on 80th Avenue. He said he is concerned that the development of the property will interfere with the development of these roads. The Board discussed the traffic issue further. Mr. Wilson explained the request by the applicant for a street dedication and why it was denied by the City Council. John Heuerman, 18419 79th Place West, said that in the Magnolia area when an area was developed, retaining walls were necessary along the street and inquired if this would occur if the applicant develops his site. The neighbors in the area were assessed for these costs. Mr. Wilson said that unless there is an LID proposal, the costs will have to be borne by the applicant. If an LID is used, petitions must be signed by the residents. Mr. Wilson was concerned that the discussion was turning toward developing a traffic pattern. He indicated that this was not relevant to the proposal before the Board and would come later during the site plan review. Mr. Wilson explained that Mr. Thompson's concerns will be considered whether this rezone is approved or not. He. did not feel these concerns could be resolved at this time. Mr. Thompson said his only concern is that if the property is changed to RS-8, the City would no longer have the option of providing access onto Olympic View Drive from the ravine. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson indicated that no matter what the zoning is, the access issue will be solved when the site plan is presented. Mr. Wilson again said that the subject property is oriented to the existing RS-8 zones in the neighborhood and does not warrant a zoning change. Mr. Lewis said that as much as he appreciates Mr. Kim working with staff, it appears that the issue has been further complicated. He did not notice that the Engineering Staff has had the opportunity to review the plans. He said he not convinced that RS-12 is or is not the proper density for the area. He said he is more of the opinion to deny the request. He felt there is a lot of missing information which should be part of the record before any approval could be granted. Mr. Lewis explained that he is very rigid on out right rezones because there is nothing to bind the applicant to the proposal. He noted the sensitivity of this area. He felt it would be more appropriate to look at this item as a contract rezone. He said that while RS-8 may work on this site, an out right rezone is not justifiable without specific plans. Planning Board Minutes Page, 8 Mr. Lewis said he would be willing to extend the public hearing which may give the applicant time to modify the application and bring it back to a future hearing as a contract rezone with restrictions. He felt there are some merits to the proposal, but he can almost guaranteed that until the concerns are resolved, any future subdivision would have difficulty being approved. Mr. Cooper said he has some concerns with granting out right rezones, as well. He said that although the applicant has only asked for a rezone of half the property, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from requesting a zoning change on the other half in the future. He agreed that the applicant could request an extension of the public hearing to allow time for modification as suggested by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Capretta did not want to encourage the applicant to go through a lot of work to come back to the Board with a plan if the Board's likely intent is to deny the request until the Comprehensive Plan is redone. He felt that unless there is a good chance this next presentation would be approved, there is no reason to ask the applicant to come back to the Board. He noted that there are many options for this parcel. Ms. Foreman said she agrees with Mr. Capretta. She noted the great amount of change going on in the Perrinville area. She felt it important that the Comprehensive Plan be in place before they ask the applicant to put in a lot of time and effort. She felt the development is not compatible with the natural constraints of the property and is not consistent with the land use designations. She said she does not feel comfortable with granting a rezone at this time. Mr. Lancaster concurred with Ms. Foreman and Mr. Capretta. Mr. Lewis felt the Board did not have sufficient information to make a decision either way. Mr. Cooper said he has concerns about the Board stalling all rezone decision until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. While the concept of waiting is well intentioned, this concept would cut all projects requiring a rezone off. Development would have to be postponed for a long time. He said that while this proposal does not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant, can come back with some modified plans and a site plan, the Board owes it to the applicant to review these plans. Mr. Capretta said he appreciates Mr. Cooper's logic, but noted that this rezone is not a requirement for development, it is a desire of the applicant. In the absence of complete, clean cut reason for the rezone, he did not see a need for approval. Again, he pointed out that this rezone is not a requirement, it is a desire of the applicant to increase the density of his property. Mr. Wilson indicated that if the Board is suggesting the applicant propose a contract rezone, this would be a separate proposal, not a continuance. Planning Board Minutes Page, 9 Mr. Lewis said he did not mean to suggest that the applicant have the opportunity to modify the application into a contract rezone. However, if the applicant could provide some plans for development, he felt the applicant deserves a fair review. He noted that the Board is required to review the requests using the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Foreman said she would be interested in seeing a project proposal, but it seems she would still be very reluctant to grant a rezone. She felt that flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan process is extremely important. She did not feel that every applicant who could present a good project should receive a rezone. She agreed with Mr. Capretta that the applicant could still develop the property as RS-12. If he wants to provide more information, he can do this. MR: CAPRETTA MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. FOREMAN, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT R-92-39 BE DENIED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. LEWIS AND MR. COOPER VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Wilson said the Comprehensive Plan public participation process will begin in July. Mr. Wilson informed the Board that on June 24, Mr. Wallace, the City Attorney, will be present as requested by the Board. The Board will have the opportunity to discuss the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine at that time. Mr. Wilson said the ADB will also be in attendance at that meeting. He said Mr. Wallace will also be discussing the Board's Rules of Procedures. Mr. Wilson said staff is requesting the Board members consider changing the meeting days to the second and fourth Thursdays of each month beginning in 1993. The Board members indicated that there should be no problem with this request. MR. LEWIS- MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. PB920610 Planning Board Minutes Page, 10 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N.. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering June 29, 1992 Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Dear Mr. Kim: Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DATE LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The Planning Board's report on the recommendation regarding your application is now complete and has been scheduled for action by the City Council on their Consent Agenda at the time and place listed below: Action: Rezone File No. Assigned: R-92-39 Date of Review: July 21, 1992 Time: 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: City Council Please be aware that testimony is not taken for items on the Council Consent Agenda. Should the Council determine that this item should be heard in a public hearing, a separate public hearing date would need to be scheduled before the council. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department -Planning Division Je frey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor PC: File No. R-92-39 Rhonda March, City Clerk Dr. Han Z. Park, 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 92-391IR3/629-92.CORRESU.ETTERS Y Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 8 go - 1 9 y CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: June 5, 1992 To: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Subject: R-92-39 Transmitting: Agenda & Staff Report for 6/10/92 PB HEARING For your information: XXX As you requested: For your file: Comment and return: Note attachments: Comments: Planning Division cc: Dr. Han Z. Park Diane Cunningham Incorporated August 11, 1890 e Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan FILE NO.: R-92-39 APPLICANT: Russell Kim/Park NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, Lesa Barnes, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 29th day of May, 1992, the attached Notice of Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Subscribed and sworn to before me this�iz�d4y of %Yl , 19 L Notary Public in and for the tate of Washington. Residing at C Cy�'�'102�DZQ 66� IMY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3-14; AFEIDVf LDOT HEARING/POSTING FILE NO.: R-92-39 APPLICANT: Russell Kim/Park NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I, Cindi Cruz, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 29th day of May, 1992, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this at -ay of , 19 Notary Public in and for a State of Washington. Residing at G&' nn GC,/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3-1-93 AFFIDVr2.DOT DFARING/MAILING CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �u A14E l o ,g FILE NO. PROPERTYLOCATIO ZONE DISTRICT r% v .WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT �•61) 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 ENSION-2W). 33,5 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 MAYBE REMOVED AFTER MEMORANDUM March 3, 1992 TO: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor FROM: Gordie Hyde, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: R-92-38, ST-92-39, DR HAN PARK PROPOSAL 7600 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE The Engineering Division will not make comments on the subject proposal at this time. The environmental check list appears to have been completed in a half-hearted attempt to meet requirements. The check list is sketchy, full of inaccuracies, and is generally incomplete. Examples of inaccuracies include: 1) Omission of fact that portion of the site is classified environmentally sensitive. 2) Lack of indication of proximity of site to Perrinville Creek. 3) Site plan shows three existing houses, while check list indicates only one. 4) Incomplete analysis of flora and fauna on site. Other examples abound. The Engineering Division will gladly respond to an application that is accurate and complete. GCH/sdt HAHNPARK/TXTST530 Snohomish County Publiic Transportation Benefit Area Corporation 1133 164th St. S.W. Suite 200 Community Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (206) 348-7100 Transit J it Kenneth J. Groska • C etIV Executive Director MA 4O ro � 199 March 24, 1992�� Z �T Mr. Jeffrey Wilson Department of Community Services Planning Division 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 re: Olympic Park (File No. - R-92-39) Dear Mr. Wilson: CT recommends that the City of Edmonds require a letter of commitment from the developer to provide transit and rideshare information to residents. Every effort should be made to provide safe disabled access from the existing bus stops to the proposed development. As with all such recommended pedestrian facilities, these should be well lit to ensure safety. Improving the transit compatibility of site plans is described in detail in SnoTran's recently published guidebook. Copies are available from SnoTran at 787-1901. If you have any question, please contact me at (206) 348-7187. Sincerely, ^/air 4�avi Marvin Freel Transportation Planner cc: File Page 6, April 20 - 24, 1992 DATE DATE*** END**** DOC TYPE CH* LEAD AGENCY" PROPOSAL ISSUED MAILED REVIEW ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DNS 4 Island County Reclassify the Agriculture -zoned portion of a 20 acre parcel to 04/21/92 05/05/92 the Rural Residential zone, west of Double Bluff Rd, south of Whidbey Island (Craig and Ruanne Smith) 4 Island Canty Replace an existing 200 ft of log bulkhead on Triangle Say, 285, 04/21/92 05/05/92 289, 293, and 297 East Driftwood Shores, Camano Island (Bonnie Lally, Terry Tradal, John Hughes, and Jim Deacke) 5 City of Cut 10 acres of timber, east of Hwy 305, between -Day Rd and 04/22/92 05/07/92 Bainbridge Lovgren (Marcia Wicktom) Island 5 Kitsap Canty Lakeness Meadows, divide 11.3 acres into 15 residential lots, 04/17/92 05/01/92 stream and wetlands on -site, on the south side of Lakeness Rd, 1,350 ft west of Clear Creek Rd, 2 miles NW of Poutsbo (Jensen Development Co) 5 Kitsap County Repair an existing 5x80 ft bulkhead on Dyes Inlet, 6292 Chico 04/17/92 05/04/92 Way NW, Bremerton (Frank Murphy) 5 Kitsap County Allow variance from both rear and front property line setbacks, 04/17/92 05/01/92 on the north side of SR-160, on the south shore of Yukon Harbor, east of the Locker Rd (Bob and Kathleen Crain) 5 Kitsap Canty Construct a 110 ft rock bulkhead on Cotvos Passage, 9440 S View04/17/92 - 05/04/92 Parkway, Port Orchard (Roy and Carol Wolf) 5 Kitsap County Construct an `Li shaped pier, ramp and float,.37623 Vista Key Dr- 04/17/92 05/04/92 NE, Hansville (Mac and Tina Lin) 5 Kitsap County Operate a gravel borrow site at the Olympic View Sanitary 04/20/92 05/06/92 Landfill on a 26 acre site, south of and adjacent to the Olympic View Sanitary landfill, north of SR-3 6 City of Bothell West Hill Village, divide 7.1 acres into 23 residential lots, 04/22/92 05/12/92 south of the Westhill Sportsfields, north of Suntake subdivision (Jack Kahn and Stewart Mesher) 6 City of Edmonds Construct a pathway and viewing points on the north perimeter of 04/20/92 05/06/92 the Union Oil Marsh, south of Dayton St on the south side of Harbor Square, west of SR-104 6 City of Edmonds Rezone 4.1 acres from Single Residential 12,000 sq ft lot size 04/21/92 05/06/92 to Single Residential 8,000 sq ft Lot size for potential future subdivision, 7704 Olympic View Dr (Han Z. Park)j 6 City of Edmonds Rezone 0.42 acres to allow for the potential future subdivision 04/22/92 of the site, 18918 - 80th Ave W (Richard L. Marin) 6 . Gi..tyof. (Adoption) Construct a 100 ft emergency radio communications 04/22/92 05/07/92 °Marysv'iIte. tower, SE of the intersection of Lakewood Rd and 40th Ave NW 6 Ci.ty of Lyons and McAleer Creek Rehabilitation, maintain and improve 04/16/92 04/30/92 Mountlake stream hydraulics and fisheries resources, stream bank Terrace protection and removal of trash, loose debris, excess sediment, and fish passage obstacles, between Lake Ballinger and I-5 ramp 6 Snohomish County (Addendum) Widen the existing 2 lane facility to a 5 lane 03/24/92 facility including two 12 ft lanes in each direction, a 13 ft 2 way Veft turn lane, 2 bicycle lanes and curb, gutter, and sidewalks, Airport Rd/128th St SW, SR-99 to 8th Ave W 6 Snohomish county Construct small drainage improvements throughout Snohomish 04/13/92 05/08/92 Canty to minimize the adverse effects of stormwater runoff, various locations in Snohomish County 6 Snohomish -County Place a mobile home on a site containing wetlands, 4128 - '282nd 04/17/92. 05/01/92 St NE; Arlington (Ron Schultz) MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 TO: FILE NO. R-92-39 FROM: -- Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Responsible Official DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE KIM REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8, FILE NO. R-92-39 I have had the opportunity to visit the site and review the environmental checklist, a copy of which is on file in the official City file for this permit (File No. R-92-39). Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be issued. The current proposal lacks the specific detail which would be associated with a future preliminary plat application to allow for specific impacts to be measured at the time of this application. Therefore, more detailed environmental review should occur at the time of a future preliminary plat application on the subject property. Based on my review of all information and adopted policies of the City, I am recommending that the proposal be changed or clarified to include the following mitigating measures so that a MDNS can be issued. Recommended Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property. This recommendation is based on adopted policies of the City as found in the Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 15. PC: FILE NO. R-92-39 Robert Chave, Planning Manager 92-39EN/4-20.92.SEPA 1890 199- April 20, 1992 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Dear Mr. Kim: Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE LAURA M. HALL MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below: Action: Rezone File No. Assigned: R-92-39 Date of Hearing: June 10th, 1992 Time: 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Planning Board Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division C; .� --4. W-A-�_ Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor PC: File No. R-92-39 Dr. Han Z. Park, 7704 Olympic Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 92-39HRG/4-20-92.CORRES\LETTERS • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR 250 - 5TH AVE, N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning - Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR j �O LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: April 21, 1992 To: Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Transmitting: Determination of Nonsignificance & Environmental Checklist For your information: As you requested: As we discussed: For your file: Comment and return: Note attached comments: Comments: cc: Dept. of Fisheries City of Lynnwood Stevens Memorial Hospital Edmonds School Dist #15 Community Transit Dr. Han Z. Park Russell Kim XXX Planning Division Jeffrey Wilson - Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from Single Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (RS-12) to Single Residential 8,000 square foot lot size (RS-8), for a potential future subdivision. Proponent: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS 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 is not required under RCW 43.21.030(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. XX 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 May 6th, 1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmowb, WA 98020 Date: '-{ 1I 12_ Signature• )JA,.,el XX You may appeal this determination to Zhert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than May 20th. 1992, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 21st, 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 2 92-39DNS/4-2O92.S EPA Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504-8711 XX City of Lynnwood Attn: Robert Henderson, Planning Director 19100 44th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 XX Stevens Memorial Hospital 21601 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn: Brian Benzel, Superintendent 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn: Marvin Freel 1133 164th Street Southwest, #200 Lynnwood, WA 98037 XX Applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Agent: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property. Attachments PC: File No. R-92-39 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 92-39DNS/420-92.SEPA CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: CUM PIC 2. Name of applicant: ,✓ 1 ��I" W "r _'(iiSs v' 161W'I 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: #PA &EfC , 1101 ©(-YMft& U1 6-tJ )r. c-�Mo��s . w y $o C o t�TP�T �sse ( =(M In o'� ICJ, t�?�/ 105 q Z 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): h Oz. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 1 of 26 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. &Io (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your approval, if known. Q C,41�Or7/ON�i'L (,(SG- &�P-MtT eZ OO Nit i fA R U t v t Si oeJ P -LN11T ? . r---N w l tj6A tP r`�11T (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT110-8-91.MASTER Page 2 of 26 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed 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 range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. Ge al description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 6d�VPMQO LAT(F ttJ 40`50' (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 3 of 26 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. .1 SRO . f E5P��UE � o.�. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. ;90 (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. G, �r+� A t �s12-c < / c— 7t`/t0OA7-6- -rW&. N W3 Jt u(5( oA (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If sgenerally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 4 of 26 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 6 <0 (0 (5 (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A71 7_61-S 77im 6- - �400J t;-V &g, a. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 anvroximate ouantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect,youur proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 5 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please descrbaavailable plans. V (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. Indicate the source of fill material. CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 6 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the' proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions. Give general description, purpose, and approxizgate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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(), (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, propose, and approxiviate quantities if known. CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 7 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (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 anima s or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 8 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. (STAFF COMMENTS) Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: <alder, aple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, edar pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cabbage, other:_ cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetatio will be remove or altered? � CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 9 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTq) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or. near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if anv: (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or 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: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 10 of 26 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. I (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the s}te part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: �J )P (STAFF COMMENTS) 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, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKIT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 11 of 26 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent pro ties? If so, generally describe. c. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. ly Q (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 12 of 26 (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 'IN , (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, eLipment,- operation, other)? 015e � - 'Ck 0 c� C-0 Ns'i N c-7c oa3 . (STAFF COMMENTS) (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)? Indicate what hours noise won d come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: , (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 13 of 26 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? V_ ` �_ . (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the siteeen used for agriculture? If so, describe. �Jo (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. Usk _ o cTft), (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 2 s -- (2, - CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 14 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 2,, ( STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? 0 I (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? if so, specify. a , (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 15 of 26 j. Approximately how many people would the displace? 40 L-zJ,03 PUA (STAFF COMMENTS) completed project .0& k-uX1L_'64)' k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: KI/a,. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided,.if any? Indicate whether high, middl or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 16 of 26 b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. SST (N C�, i- asp v.s (uc. ��0 & (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? S dE us (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ^^ ll Imo' c (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1.MASTER Page 17 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: t�00.rz7. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? __11 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 18 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? ern o� s s V� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. Iv 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: a (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 19 of 26 l 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. `/A , (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evideince of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A , (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. tC- 1l./ 1 IN _J�-- L-�'L/tvl-�wI- (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 20 of 26 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? D� D \ZE' (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? I �ZtJC� (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or street, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). -po-OCC, 0" (N TO 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, raik, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 21 of 26 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: i (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: } AU (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 22 of 26 16. Utilities a. Circle_u 'tie ar entl _a at t site: el city, a, �syste'm, er use service a honea r, other: JJ (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. . b ' (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE abov answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I rstand hat the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. KAZt ) z , Signature of Proponent ate Submitted, CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 23 of 26 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the 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 not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: '1 2. 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: j A 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 24 of 26 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive area designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? tj Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 1 5. 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? -1 Proposedmeasuresto avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? 11 Nr� CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1 WASTER Page 25 of 26 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 'i / 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. iv Ic CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 26 of 26 - "t 4 � Lul T: e — N3d0 ION pgpb SINl � is 1 1. AUDIO DIMENSIONS TEL No.1*405*752*9786 APr. 8,92 8:06 P.01 Audio April 7, 1992 Jeff Wilson :Tanning Supervisor city of 1 dmonds 250 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 99020 Dimanai RE! Rezone Environmental CheCklist Dear Jeff, Thank you for your time on the phone Monday, April S 6th. The environmental checklist submitted for t e rezone application is factual to the best of our knowled e. The identification of flora and fauna is straightforward and accurate. The location of existing water bodies did no+ include Ithe creak whlr.h is across the street next to the post. office. An finally, nui plans for the property once the rezone is approved art to build single tamily homes on 8,000 square foot lots, valuea ra ging from $ 200,000 to $ 250,000. Again, thank you for your consderation• i hope that this letter will finelite our rezone application. Jeff, dc, you think it's possible to have the rezone P.earing- on the same day as the street vacation hearing? it sure would out down an my travel time and expenses. Any assistance W this area help alc?t. SinaE. ely, L ussell Kim 10407 N. May Ave., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120, (406) 762-1115, F�X (405) 752-9789 CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR March 6, 1992 Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Dear Mr. Kim: Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR PROPOSED REZONE APPLICATION, FILE NO. R-92-39 Your application has been reviewed but we are unable to complete the environmental review or schedule it for a public hearing before the Planning Board until the following items are submitted: Submittal of a new/revised Environmental Checklist. Your current document contains several factual errors related to the existing natural environment which need to be adequately addressed. These errors include: identification of flora and fauna, location of existing water bodies adjacent to the site, identification of a portion of the site as "Environmentally Sensitive", and lack of information related to future development actions which would occur on the subject property if the rezone is approved (see Enclosed). Furthermore, the current proposal for a rezone does not provide us with sufficient detail as to the potential environmental impacts which may be caused from the development of this site. Therefore, please be aware that any future development proposals for the subject property (e.g. subdivision) may be subject to the additional environmental review. Please submit the necessary information by April 1st, 1992. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division 1)/,� _-� b-S) ft,, Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor R92-391N/3-6-92.CORRES/LETTERS • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Enclosure PC: /File No. R-92-39 Dr. Han Z. Park, 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026 Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator R92-391 N/3-6-92.CORRES/LETTERS APPLIL_ !ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE## ST- N0 ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE 2/25/92 2/25/92 PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED ,r RETURNED PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: Aca e: ss c RECEIVED jl� FEB 2 5 1992 EDMONDS FIRE DEPT: Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of.184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X FEE �(� SITE PLAN (11"-x 17" (4)) _ X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)- X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) A ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL ## APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT APPLIC: SON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# ST- NO ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS AR S ;REC COMMENTS: 2/25/92 FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED RETURNED Irk` RETURNED _RETURNED ' J RECEIVED 72o,&Z r2i2n'' 2-15 -i z_ ,. a, e:��.� .,�,,t S} .s b-t FEB 2 5 1992 tease -ts - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) �_ FEE �( — SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) X — APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT APPLIC i0N ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# Sl- NO ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE 2/25/92 PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RECEIVED RETURNED F E B 80 R 1992 RETURNED PLANNING DEPT. FEB 2 6 1992 PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED -- 40 COMMENTS: ajot ,zo baallj GU Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of.184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION FEE X APO LIST TITLE REPORT X VICINITY MAP ELEVATIONS (if applicable) X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL # APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) X SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) POST & MAIL Date RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE :< ..................: ::.::::.................. ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # �'�� ZONE M -0- ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE - Lq 4— d%s.� ❑ HOME OCCUPATION REC D BY_ ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FEE �� .`— RECEIPT # _tS 4C 7 ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. ❑ HE ❑ STAFF 62B ❑ ADB ❑ CC ® REZON ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ STREET VACATION APPEAL # ❑ VARIANCE ❑ RESUBMITTAL FILE # Applicant Phon( Address � � �'� N � l` /9-t/ . � n k—, , Cyr f) K ` :3 � n Property Address or Location 1000 "$ L_©g,K Or— d / VARAIC Ut&w Z)R , Property Owner 'D K • 4P O Z�r ?A9K Phoneo��b) 2q4 ©o Address 7101 a ('Kmili ey, Dr. . Gp!` orob;; WA f l30 e6 Agent 4 Phone Address Tax Acc # Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description LOT-5 a9 M 186& ry Af-RILES -(VOL, t21Pqq-0) /0CoX4krn000s SC-&vt6vJ PASU 0 to 3 f) Details of Project or Proposed Use `�, 2'G_-/iceR's� OE zrz,,000 The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspectio g attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT I 01/13/92 r`••t ,k. fir'~" • 5 b* •Y�`, L a • 12: 19 FAX 206 7 P^ 2598 SVAMC-MED RES �•Y.� 4 �. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST • y. On my oath, I all propertie Subscribed and r a r „•�` yt. 1 .rf tWI Y�7�%-1y` � t 1 fC y rl�• �,M� r ^ ,e that the names • - r '�•� : ♦ }� - (yam^ •a and addresses located ithin 80 provided represent feet of the subject property. r tr 'iF'�., y ir;. ate `• gna re o App Ica or pp scants Representative 1^ sworn to before me this day of tary "1115 i in an 19 r ODMMMSM Expires Jwq or t o tate o y Residing at 3708-001-01.1-0004 Smith, Earl 18325 80th W. Edmonds, WA 98020 3108- 01-01.-0105 C. S. n rp Mortgage Co SmithXd,"' J 9435330 PO Bo PortlR 97208 3708-001-012-0003 Edmonds, City of 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 3708-001-013-0002 Thompson, James L 18305 80th W. Edmonds, WA 98020 370 -001- 14-0001 Pion r ank 182 Oth W. LaFon Francis 0000019174 Edmo s. WA 98020 4111 L th SW Lyn ood, WA 98036 4710-000- 12-0009 Flee R/ Funding Corp 18405 79th Place W. Bar Orm an Norman Edmonds, WA 98026 PO DF-20 Fl.or 29501 4710- 00- 13-0008 Fleet / Funding Joss, Bert D 1 PO Dr. e F-20 Flore ce, SC 295 4710-000-01.4-0007 Corp 18415 79th Place W. 471952 Edmonds, WA 98026 01 Sea.ttl -Fi st 'rational. Bank 1.8419 79th Place W. Neverm John 13714-1 Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Box 4103 Seatt1 �A 98124 4710-000- 5-0006 Sear M, tgage Corp 18427 79th Place W. Oakes. illi.am 07-46-24995 Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Bo 6 River oo , IL 60015 4710-000-016-0005 Derosa, Gary A 18501 79th Place W. 17222 Greenwood Place N. Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98133 4710-000-017-0004 Derosa, Gary A 18501 79th Place W. 1.7222 Greenwood. Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98133 471 -000-0 8-0003 Fleet R/F Funding Corp 7831 185th Place W. Thornh Laura E 371.1256 Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Dray _ F-20 Floren e, C 29501_ 4710-0 0- 9-0002 Fleet R Funding Corp 7817 185th Place W. Slater, teven P 3693842 Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Draw .r -20 Floren , SC 29501 4710- 0- 20-0009 Everet _ utual Savings 7811 1.88th Place W. Street. J F 1-1320-9499-1 Edmonds, WA 98206 Everet , WA 98201 4710•-0-0Q'-021-0008 U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co 7801 185th Place W. Gebel,, H J 3861-9687484 Edmonds, WA 98206 PO Boa' V47 Portland, OR 97208 1 4710-000-022-0007 Comm we lth Mortgage CO/America 7800 185-th Place W. Jones/ r 003113 Edmonds. WA 2200 W oop South Houst . TX 77027 3708-002-007-0008 Belt, Thomas E & Doris 917 9th Ave S. Edmonds, WA 98020 3708-002-008-0007 United States Postal Service 18440 76th Place W. Real Estate -Division Fac. Serv. Center Edmonds. WA 98026 850 Cherry Ave Sanbruno, CA 94099 4346-000-016-0404 United States Postal Service 18440 76th Place W. Real Estate -Division Fac. Serv. Center Edmonds, WA 98026 850 Cherry Ave Sanbruno, CA 94099 4346-000-106-0206 Gillet, Dana M & Pamela P 18502 76th Ave W. 19420 88th Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 7924-000-006-0004 Navy ed al Credit Union 7809 182nd Place W. Meyer, ohn M 2800840 Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Rox 04 Merry..iel , VA 22119 72994-000-007-0003 Washin ton.Federal S & L 7810 182nd Place W. Johnson avid S 50206601200 Edmonds, WA 98026 425 Pik treet Seattl . WA 98101