Loading...
PLN199700028-8803 (2)Ihc. 18°IO CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building - Parks and Recreation • Engineering - Wastewater Treatment Plant April 17, 1998 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Edmonds Planning Board VIA: Mayor Barb Fahey SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A "CONTRACT REZONE" TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 260,390 SQUARE FEET) FROM RS-12 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE), TO RS-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE). FILE NO. R-97-28 In accordance with the Council's delegation pursuant to RCW 35A63.020 the Planning Board held a public hearing on January 28, 1998, regarding a request for a "Contract Rezone" to rezone approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size), to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size). The proposed "contract rezone" stipulates specific conditions and restrictions which would be placed on the proposed development of the site subsequent to the approval of the rezone, if granted. Official Notice of this hearing was previously published in accordance with ECDC 20.90.010 and advanced copies of the proposal were made available through the City Clerk and Planning Division. Seventeen (17) persons testified at the hearing. Their names and written application with exhibits have been submitted to the City Clerk. The audio recording of their testimony was also deposited with the City Clerk. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE The applicant is requesting a "Contract Rezone" to rezone approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size) to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size). The proposed "contract rezone" stipulates specific conditions and restrictions which would be placed on the proposed development of the site subsequent to the approval of the rezone, if granted. The applicants proposed "contract conditions" are as follows: 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 1. Development of the property must be consistent with the approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) associated with this application. 2. The lots as depicted on the attached map will be fixed as drawn. 3. The building pads will occupy 21 % of the total building space of the site. 4. The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners' association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD. 5. A through street connecting 80`h Avenue West at 184`h Street Southwest to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners' expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. 6. A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as shown on the map. 7. The houses designed for the Planned Residential Development shall be consistent in style and theme as those depicted in the PRD application. 8. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. 9. All sidewalks, gutters, street lights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owners. Findings, Conclusions, and Staff Recommendations were submitted by Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson. His analysis is attached. Mr. Wilson stated that it is the Planning Division's recommendation to approve the proposed contract rezone, as the proposed RS-8 zoning designation is consistent with the "Single -Family" land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the existing RS-8 zoning which abuts the subject property to the south. Additionally, he added that the proposed "contract" conditions which would be placed on the rezone would allow for the development of the site in a manner which would recognize and protect the unique natural features present on the subject property. PUBLIC COMMENTS Two (2) people spoke in favor of the proposed contract rezone. Thirteen (13) people spoke in opposition to the request. The primary opposition to the proposed rezone was the increase in the density and smaller lot sizes. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the proposed contract rezone and reached the following conclusions in support of the application: 1. The proposed contract rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property. 2. The neighborhood may be active participants in the Planned Residential Development and formal subdivision process as part of the review and decision making process for the actual development permits. PBREC_R-9T-28.DOG I7•APR-98 Page 2 of 4 C TILES\REPORTSTLANNING BOARD 't. 3. The contract rezone allows for efficient development on a parcel that contains difficult topographical characteristics as well as allowing the City more opportunity to dictate conditions as the development of the property. 4. The current RS-12 zoning of the site has not been sufficient to provide the economic incentive to develop the property. 5. The proposed street would allow access to Olympic View Drive and 801` Avenue West. It will act as a spine for the collector streets and will create a connection to allow the property to integrate with other access points. 6. The PRD process which will be required for the actual site development provides the opportunity to review and condition the development to provide and ensure a sense of space between the houses and integrate the character of the surrounding area's RS-12 openness. The following is a summation of the opposition to the proposed rezone: 1. In addition to the public comment during the hearing in opposition to the rezone, there was a petition submitted with signatures of approximately 50 individuals opposed to the rezone, which was also submitted to the Planning Board. 2. Based on the public testimony, it appears that the surrounding neighborhoods do not believe that the proposed public road between Olympic View Drive and 80'h Avenue West is worth the price of rezoning the subject property to RS-8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon public testimony, written information, and staff analysis, the Planning Board voted 3 to 1 (the Chair did not vote and 3 vacant Board positions) to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed contract rezone of approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size), to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size) subject to the following modifications to the proposed contract conditions and additional recommended policy statement: Recommended Amended Contract Rezone Conditions: 1. Development of the property must be consistent with the --an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) asseeiated with thi application. ? The lots s depi tea en the attached map will 1. fixed as drawn. The building pads will occupy a maximum 21% of the total building space of he site net buildable area. 4. The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners' association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD. 5. A through street connecting 80a' Avenue West at 184a` Street Southwest to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners' expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. P13REC_R-97-28.DOG17-APR-98 Page 3 of 4 C TILEMEPORTSTLANNING BOARD 6. A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as she -proposed on the map. 7. The houses designed for the Planned Residential Development shall be consistent in style and theme as those depieted—approved in the PRD application. 8. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. 9. All sidewalks, gutters, street lights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owners. Recommended Policy Statement: Review of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process should strongly consider the spacing of the structures of the houses to be built here to be sure it is consistent with the surrounding area as much as possible. Submitted on behalf of the Board by, Gary ayson, Planning Board Chair Enclosure: Planning Division Staff Advisory Report dated January 23, 1998 pc: File No. R-97-28 Planning Board Rob Chave, AICP, Planning Manager Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP, Planning Supervisor PBREC_R-97-28.DOG17•APR-98 Page 4 of 4 CAFILEMREPORTSTLANNING BOARD included expanding to a WebPage or a City newsletter. Staff was directed to return to the Community Services Committee with a proposal and costs for the two preferred methods. Proposed 6. CLOSED RECORD MEETING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD Contract TO APPROVE A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FROM R -12 TO RS-8 OF ezone - APPROXIMATELY 5.4 ACRES LOCATED IN THE APPROXIMATE VICINITY OF 184TH 184" SU STREET SOUTHWEST AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (-Applicants: Dr. & Mrs Han Z. Park, Mr Olympic View Dr. and Mrs Russell C. Kim Mr. and Mrs James L. Thompson and the City of Edmonds/ File No R File No. 97-2J8 R-97-28 Mayor Fahey explained this was a Closed Record Meeting and only those who were parties of record at previous hearings would be allowed to speak and only information admitted to the record previously could be considered by the Council. Councilmember Earling disclosed he owns investment property located at 8018 181st Place Southwest, which is 2'/Z blocks from the property under consideration. He did not believe there was any conflict of interest. Councilmember Plunkett said he received a telephone call from Jim Thompson prior to receiving the Council packet and was unsure what issue he was referring to. Mr. Thompson advised him that he was not an applicant and felt he was not able to speak at a Planning Board meeting. Councilmember Plunkett advised Mr. Thompson this was apparently a matter that would be addressed by the Council and he could not discuss it. y City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine prohibits ex parte contact. As situations as described by Councilmember Plunkett may arise, the Doctrine allows a Councilmember to reveal the substance of any ex parte contact prior to the hearing process so that any parties of record may respond. Mayor Fahey said Mr. Thompson also contacted her office and she had a conversation with him regarding this issue. Mr. Thompson is a party of record and will be permitted to make comments during tonight's closed record meeting. Councilmember Earling said Mr. Thompson also contacted him; he advised Mr. Thompson he could not discuss the matter as it was an issue that would be addressed by the Council. Council President Haakenson said he too was contacted by Mr. Thompson and told him he could not discuss the matter. Council President Haakenson said the applicant's representative, Mr. Maki, was one of his neighbors but they had never discussed this issue.. Councilmember White advised Mr. Thompson had attempted to contact him but he had not returned his telephone call. Councilmember Nordquist said he also received a message from Mr. Thompson but was unable to reach him. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any objections to the participation of any Councilmember. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey described the closed record meeting procedure and time periods. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21,1998 Page 8 t opportunities for volunteers, noting volunteering enriched the community as well as oneself. She explained their involvement as volunteers have helped them make friends, learn new skills, work with young and old, and has been an enriching experience. Councilmembers congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and Mr. Kerr. Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation to Executive Assistant Dee McGrath for organizing the volunteer recognition. She noted Ms. McGrath works as a volunteer as well as a staff member. 5. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Public Public Safety Committee Safety Committee Member White reported (1) the Public Safety Committee discussed the outdated Public Committee Safety Base Station Radio and purchasing new equipment which was approved as Item J on the Consent Agenda. (2) Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Taylor presented information concerning maintenance and decontamination of firefighters' work uniforms; authorization for the Mayor to sign a uniform service contract was approved as Item M on the Consent Agenda: (3) Assistant Fire Chief Taylor presented information regarding the surplusing of.two (1974 and 1972) fire engines with the arrival of two 1998 fire engines; this was approved as Item F on the Consent Agenda. (4) A discussion of breathing apparatus used by the Edmonds firefighters followed; authorization to surplus the old breathing apparatus was approved as Item E on the Consent Agenda. (5) Assistant Fire Chief Taylor provided a report on Med-Accounts of the month. (6) Police Chief Robin Hickok presented information regarding the Edmonds Police Foundation who recently,received their 501C.3 status from the IRS and described the organization's focus for the future. (7) •Police Chief Hickok requested the Council authorize the signing of the Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement between Edmonds and the Designated Animal Control Officer which was approved as Item H on the Consent Agenda. (8) Police Chief Hickok requested the Council authorize the signing of the Agreement for Animal Control Services with the City of Mountlake Terrace which was approved as Item G on the Consent Agenda. (9) Police Chief Hickok presented information on the Youth Services Unit which the Public Safety Committee recommended be presented to the full Council for review. (10) Police Chief Hickok advised the joint South County SWAT Team was considering the purchase of a used bus from Metro for $1,000 to be used as a Command Center. Staff was advised to bring the matter to the Council when a bus becomes available. (11) Police Chief Hickok advised an officer was scheduled for an out-of-state school in May, a previously budgeted expense. Authorization will be placed on an upcoming Consent Agenda. finance Finance Committee ;' Committee Chairperson Earling reported the Finance Committee also discussed the dysfunctional Public Safety base station radio and'. recommended the purchase of a new radio be placed on the Consent Agenda. In addition, authorization to increase the petty cash purchasing dollar amount was discussed. The committee recommended the current purchasing limit of $25 be increased to $50 and the purchasing limit of tfie Council Assistant and Mayor's Executive Assistant be increased to $100. This recommendation was approved as Item I on the Consent Agenda. ommunity Community Services Committee Services Committee Member Plunkett reported the Community Services Committee discussed improvements to Committee public notice for code amendments as a result of citizen criticism of notification of public hearings at the City Council and Planning Board. Although the current method of notification, publishing legal notices in the newspaper, meets legal requirements, it may not adequately inform the public. Options considered Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1998 Page 7 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a vicinity and zoning map and identified the property. He observed the Council received an extensive record of the hearing process before the Planning Board. He explained the request was a contract rezone of approximately 5.4 acres from RS-12 (single family minimum lot size 1,200 square feet) to RS-8 (single family minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). As part of the contract proposal, the applicant submitted a set of ten conditions they agree to abide by if the rezone is approved (Attachments 4, 5, and 6 of Exhibit 3). The subject property includes all or portions of the following properties: 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 88th Avenue West, 18305 88th Avenue West, 18408 79th Place West, and a vacant parcel between 18325 and 18305 88th Avenue West. Mr. Wilson explained that the application was first submitted to the City in March 1997. The Planning Board held a public hearing on January 28, 1998, and continued their deliberations to the February 11, 1998, meeting. Mr. Wilson said the minutes and a verbatim transcript of both Planning Board meetings were included in the Council's packet (Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 12). On February 11, 1998, the Planning Board adopted a recommendation to approve the proposed contract rezone. He noted the packet indicated the Planning Board unanimously approved the recommendation but in fact the decision was 3-1 with the Chair abstaining. He noted all members of the Planning Board at that time participated but there were several vacancies. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Council for approval of the contract rezone requested the applicant agree to amendments to the contract conditions. Mr. Wilson referred to the Planning Board's recommendation in the Council's packet (Exhibit 2) and the proposed amendments to the contract conditions (pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 2). He explained if the rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 was approved, the maximum number of lots that would be available on the 5.4 acres would be approximately 26 lots. This project would also include the development of public rights -of - way connecting Olympic View Drive to 88th Avenue West as well as cul-de-sacs to reach interior lots. One of the main conditions of the applicant's proposed contract rezone was that the future subdivision of the property would also be subject to the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) review process, an extra level of scrutiny before the Architectural Design Board, the Hearing Examiner, and a recommendation to the City Council. This process includes a review of the layout of the plat but consideration of the design of the plat that is in addition to the normal review of a subdivision as well as the character and style of the development to ensure the homes are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Council President Haakenson observed Mr. Thompson was listed as an applicant on the Agenda Memo but had also signed a petition opposed to the rezone. Mr. Wilson referred to the Land Use Application (Attachment 2 of Exhibit 3), and said the applicant's agent, Mr. Maki, indicated all properties involved in the application and property ownership which included Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. He noted in the past, the City has initiated rezones of property in order to implement the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Properties can be included in a rezone without the property owner's consent but staff would evaluate whether it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Council President Haakenson said he lived across the street from Eagle's Crest and Eagle's Nest in the Meadowdale area and asked if the proposed development was similar. Mr. Wilson answered it would be a similar process; the PRD process allows applicants with a minimum of five lots to make certain modifications to underlying standards. He noted the property must be subdivided and units must be detached single family units as the PRD process did not allow attached residential units. He said only a portion of the proposed 5.4 acres may actually be developed; individual lots sizes may be less than 8,000 square feet allowed by the RS-8 zoning but the cumulative density of the entire project would not exceed that allowed for the total property. The remaining area is typically set aside for open space, which is intended, via the PRD process, to preserve unique or fragile environmental areas. This proposal would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1998 Page 9 preserve the steep slope areas as open space to preserve vegetation and cluster the units to leave larger open space areas. Council President Haakenson asked what the zoning was in the Eagle's Nest and Eagle's Crest developments. Mr. Wilson answered there was lower density zoning in the Meadowdale area, RS-20. The PRD could be in an RS-20 zone and allow clustering of the units. He recalled the properties in those developments were not rezoned and the PRD was used to provide modification in the lot design, smaller individual lots to cluster units and preservation of larger areas. Council President Haakenson referred to letters from residents in the area and said letters from the Barringers and the O'Neils discuss the stability of the bank if a road is constructed. Mr. Wilson said this issue was brought up during the Planning Board hearing. Staff did not provide a detailed response to the issue of slope stability as this would be a two-phase application -- the first is the rezone of the property and does not address specifics of site development. The second phase, the PRD and subdivision, would address specifics of site development such as preliminary engineering plans, road profiles, topography, stability issues, etc. Modifications could be made at that stage to address any stability issues that may arise during the road design including possibly additional geotechnical analysis. Council President Haakenson observed if the Council approved the rezone, there would be another public hearing process. Mr. Wilson agreed, and explained the subsequent process would address how the lots are laid out, where the roads would be located and how they would be designed. Mr. Snyder said this hearing relates to the uses for this property under the proposed zoning classification. The site development standards would be reviewed at a later date. He explained the Council is required to find that the rezone application meets the criteria of the Community Development Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said an applicant may voluntarily submit themselves to contract conditions such as the greater scrutiny of the PRD process; however, neither the Planning Board nor the City Council could impose a contract rezone. He asked Mr. Maki to indicate whether the Planning Board's proposed amendments are acceptable to the applicant. Councilmember Earling observed the PRD process was applicable to all zones in the City. Mr. Wilson agreed. Councilmember Earling recalled a PRD process was utilized for Elm Place and noted some of the lots were as small as 3,000 - 3,500 square feet. Mr. Wilson said in a PRD in a multi -family zone, the footprint of the unit may be the lot itself. The most recent PRD was at the corner of 9th and Puget, the Orchard, which provided open space but reduced the lots to slightly larger than the footprint of the unit to provide the larger open space area. Mr. Snyder said, due to the proposed contract rezone, the only way this property could be developed if the contract were approved, was via a PRD; it could not be developed at RS-8 via a simple subdivision. Councilmember Miller said he lived in a planned residential community in Issaquah, where the lot sizes vary from 6,000 to 7,000 square feet but greenbelts existed throughout the development. He observed the open space in the proposed development appeared to be on only one side and asked if this had been considered by the applicant in this proposal. Mr. Wilson explained a parcel must have a unique environmental feature in order to be considered/approved for a PRD as the intent of the PRD is to protect that feature. In order to protect the steep slope adjacent to Olympic View Drive as well as adjacent to the northern property lines, the units are proposed to be clustered in the more buildable plateau area and the steep slopes retained as a greenbelt. Mr. Snyder said the Council's approval of the rezone did not bind this Council or future Councils to approval of the PRD plan. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1998 Page 10 Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, representing the applicant, said the project began with an application for road adjustments and originally only included approximately half of the property now proposed to be developed. The Council agreed to the road adjustments but questions arose regarding the roads and neighbors indicated a desire for a through road from 80th to Olympic View Drive. In working with City staff, it became apparent that if all the property were included, a contract rezone and PRD would allow development of lots that would be economically feasible to build reasonably priced homes and fund a public street and sidewalks from 80th to Olympic View Drive. He said the applicants would accept the Planning Board's recommendations in the PRD application. He pointed out it was unfortunate they were not allowed to apply for the contract rezone and the PRD at the same time as that would provide many more answers, particularly to neighbors regarding issues such as the retaining wall, engineering requirements, etc. He pointed out other Councils have approved similar plans, the Planning Division staff recommends approval, the Planning Board recommends approval, and he requested the Council pass the contract rezone for the betterment of Edmonds and the neighborhood. David Johnson, 7810 1.82nd Place SW, Edmonds (lot 7 of Seaview Firs, north of the proposed development), spoke in opposition to the rezone. He disagreed with Mr. Wilson's statement in the summary that the rezone to RS-8 would be consistent with the neighborhood particularly where it abuts the RS-8 zone to the south. Mr. Johnson said the RS-8 zone to the south did not include any 8,000 square foot lots; they ranged from 10,000 - 12,000 square feet with single family homes. He pointed out the application for rezone had been denied twice in the past. When it was denied in 1992, one of Mr. Wilson's statements was that it would result in "an island of RS-8 zoning which would not be consistent with the pattern of zoning in the area." Mr. Johnson also expressed concern with the clustering of houses to retain open space that is undevelopable steep slopes. As a result, the homes will be clustered into smaller lot'isizes than exist in the surrounding neighborhood. He said although it may be attractive to the City to have a road developed, it would be more of a convenience than a necessity as there is traffic on 80th but no congestion. He pointed out Mr. Maki indicated at the January 28 hearing that the road was not necessary to construct this project. He reiterated this project would change the character of the neighborhood from single homes on single lots to a large number of homes in a small area. He noted the RS-8 zoning would allow 26 homes; the RS-12 would allow 17 homes. He pointed out this would make development profitable for the developer but at the expense of the neighborhood. He urged the Council to deny the rezone rather than defer to the PRD process. Jim Thompson, 18305 80th Avenue W, Edmonds, said he owned a portion of the property proposed to be developed and questioned why his property was included. He referred to plans of the property as it is proposed to be developed. Mr. Thompson said the drawing indicated there would be 8 - 10 feet between the homes; Mayor Fahey told him the City required at least 15 feet. Mr. Thompson identified his property on the map, noting several of the homes would be on his bank and would result in the removal of huge trees and destabilization of his bank. He said he is not a participant in the proposal as he has not sold his property and objected to his name being included as an applicant. He felt rezoning the property to RS-8 would be "terrible." Regarding Mr. Thompson's status as an applicant, Mr. Maki explained the reason his name was added to the application was because he received a letter from Tom Buckmeir, an attorney representing Mr. Thompson, to confirm his agreement to sell 12,000 square feet of his property (a parcel consists of 100 x 120 feet measured from the east property line) for the sum of $50,000 less up to $250 and directing him to prepare an appropriate purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Maki apologized for his assumption that the letter indicated Mr. Thompson wanted to be an applicant. If the contract rezone was approved as the map states, Mr. Thompson would have the right to sell that portion of his property to the project if he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21,1998 Page 11 chose. Mr. Maki said Mr. Thompson has indicated to him that he would like to sell the property if the contract rezone is approved. He said the map being displayed was a conceptual map not the final PRD application; therefore, any measurement was not appropriate and the space between houses would meet the Edmonds Code. He said the road was included due to Mr. Thompson's insistence at an earlier hearing that the road be developed. Mayor Fahey said when she answered Mr. Thompson's question, she was relaying information from Mr. Wilson regarding the setbacks that would normally occur in an RS-8 zone. Mr. Wilson said the Planning Board wanted it to be clear in the revised contract conditions that while the map may depict a proposed PRD, the map has not been approved. The applicant must submit their subdivision which must meet the RS-8 zoning standards such as 25-foot front street setback, a 15-foot rear setback, and 7.5 feet from each property line which is a 15-foot separation between structures. If the applicant wished, they could request modifications to the setbacks through the PRD process, which includes a public hearing. The Planning Board also wanted to ensure that separation between structures would be a key element during the PRD review process. Mr. Wilson said one of the reasons the proposed road between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive was a key element was because a connection in that area had been on the City's Official Street Map for a number of years. One of the main changes that has occurred since staff s recommendations on previous rezone applications was the City's adoption of its Comprehensive Plan in 1995. One of the key elements in the Housing Element is to consider support for infill development, recognizing the City is now required to meet population targets under GMA and a preferred method would be single family development. Methods for accomplishing this includes flexible development standards and utilizing tools such as the PRD to allow innovative ways to develop new single family housing developments within existing single family neighborhoods. He said the Council has the ability to reduce the boundaries of the rezone, which would result in a corresponding net reduction in the number of lots that could be developed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the RS-8 zoning or RS-12 zoning would provide more protection for the sensitive areas on this 5.4 acre parcel. Mr. Snyder said there would be no difference, sensitive area requirements would be the same but the PRD process would allow greater scrutiny. Mr. Wilson said the zoning only addressed density on the parcel; the PRD process allowed clustering that would preserve the same amount of open space as if it were developed using RS-12 standards. Mr. Snyder said the number of units referred to were the maximum number that could be developed on this parcel if the rezone was approved; the Council's passage of the rezone did not guarantee the action of the PRD. Mayor Fahey closed the informational presentation and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Miller said he struggled with the development of a plat that is currently zoned RS-12 in an established neighborhood with a PRD that designates a steep embankment to the east and slope to the north as open space. He pointed out this results in the developer "shoehorning in" as many as 26 single- family homes. He expressed concern with the resulting lack of buffer between the new homes and existing residents as well as the resale value of existing homes. For these reasons, he was opposed to the rezone request. Councilmember Earling observed there were three areas in the City that have undergone a similar PRD process, Eagle's Nest and Eagle's Crest in the Meadowdale area and Elm Place in South Edmonds. When Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 12 these projects were proposed, neighbors had many of the same concerns. However, over time, property values in those areas have accelerated equal to or beyond market values as have the properties adjacent to the developments. He said his experience has been that the developments compliment each other. He observed much of the area was unbuildable whether it was zoned RS-8 or RS-12. He said there is a developable area adjacent to the proposed development that is zoned RS-8 and another that is zoned RS- 12. He pointed out the construction of a street and sidewalks as well as connection of neighborhoods would benefit the City but still preserve the park -like spirit of the area due to the retention of the open space. He indicated he would support the Planning Board's recommendation. Council President Haakenson acknowledged he and his neighbors were skeptical when the PRD process was considered for the development of Eagle's Crest and Eagle's Nest as the woods were steep and there were a lot of wetlands and drainage. However, the developer constructed a very nice looking development and the houses were more expensive than those in the surrounding neighborhood. The project included pathways and play structures -- a first class development. He was comfortable with the PRD process and supported the rezone request. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DENY THE REZONE. MOTION FAILED, COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND MILLER IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING , PLUNKETT, AND WHITE OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO,APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACT AND ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTED REZONE. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING, PLUNKETT, AND WHITE IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND MILLER OPPOSED. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. Proposed 7. CONTINUED DELIBERATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.20.010.0 1 PERTAINING TO THE ECDC 16. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN SINGLE O.010.C.1 (Community FAMILY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No CDC-97423) Facilities) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this application was initiated by the Planning Division in response to letters from churches indicating it was difficult or impossible for them to get permits for improvements. Upon review of the Code, the main problem appeared to be requiring community facilities such as elementary schools, nursery schools, fire stations, electric substations, pumping stations, water storage, libraries, churches, parks, recreation facilities and bus stop shelters to be on collector/arterial streets. A number of facilities were identified throughout the City that were not located on collector/arterial streets which resulted in the proposed code amendment. Mr. Chave said the Council held a hearing on March 2, 1998, and voted to reconsider the issue on March 17, 1998. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council continued this hearing to get a report from staff regarding non -conforming community facilities in residential zones. The Council may take administrative notice of this item and can ask questions regarding preparation of this information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1998 Page 13 Councilmember Plunkett complimented Mayor Fahey on her opening statements as well as her letter to the residents of South Edmonds which assisted them in understanding the administration's approach to this issue. Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council not proceed with a decision tonight, observing the public was, to a great extent, denied an opportunity to speak on this issue. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO SET A DATE CERTAIN TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PORTION OF THE HEARING ON FILE NO.123. Councilmember Miller agreed with reopening the hearing but proposed the Council have some deliberation as well as additional input from staff this evening to allow those present to develop questions for the hearing. Mr. Snyder said the Council could raise issues they would like staff to address at the public hearing but questions of staff and the resulting information would not be appropriate tonight as this was not a hearing. Council President Haakenson advised the public hearing could be scheduled for May 19, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder advised this would be an entirely new hearing; there would be no limitations on comments. 8. CONTINUED HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 905 - HEARING ON THE PROPOSED Proposed VACATION OF PORTIONS OF 72ND AVENUE WEST (FROM NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD Vacation of 2 Ave. W TO, A POINT 378 FEET SOUTHI RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND (From North SUBSURFACE Meadowdale Rd. to a Dint 378 Planning Manager Rob Chave said this item was continued to allow the Council to receive information Feet South regarding possible development of a public walkway which was included in the packet. Staff s recommendation is to approve the vacation subject to the retention of an easement and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Staff did not feel the cost of the walkway warranted proceeding with the walkway. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Jeannie Anderson, 16727 74th Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the vacation of the right-of- way and urged the Council to oppose it.. She said the issue was not money as the City was not being requested to develop the walkway but only whether the vacation should be approved. She requested the Council oppose the vacation to keep the City's options open. By vacating the right-of-way, the City would be giving away future options. She referred to the landscape architect's report, which indicated he found evidence of a trail in use. She said 72nd Avenue West was a natural bridge between Meadowdale Beach Road on the south and North Meadowdale Road on the north. The only other streets that connect these are 76th Avenue West, which is busy and has no sidewalks, and Olympic View Drive. She urged the Council to think 50-75 years in the future. Councilmember White asked Ms. Anderson if she lived in the area. Ms. Anderson answered she is not an abutting property owner (she lives off Meadowdale Beach Road) but walks in the area. Council President Haakenson asked if she lived at least six blocks away. Ms. Anderson answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 1998 Page 14 Item #:� Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: CLOSED RECORD MEETING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8, OF APPROXIMATELY 5.4 ACRES LOCATED IN THE APPROXIMATE VICINITY OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. (APPLICANTS: DR. & MRS. HAN Z. PARK, MR. & MRS. RUSSELL C. KIM, MR. & MRS. JAMES L. THOMPSON, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS / FILE NO. R-97-28) Clearances: Department/[nitials Agenda Time: 60 minutes Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: April 21, 1998 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planni Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works — See Attached Exhibits List — Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council — Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: Not Applicable. Previous Council Action: The applicant previously submitted a request to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184t' Street Southwest right-of-way which bisects the subject property, under City of Edmonds File No. ST-92-38. This request was denied by the Council on June 2, 1992 (see Part II.C. La(1) and its associated attachments of Exhibit 3). R•97.28 CI.DOC/16•APR-98 Page 1 of 3 FILES(REPORTS/COUNCIL On May 30, 1996, applications were submitted on behalf of Dr. Park for an amendment to the City's Official Street Map and a request for a Street Vacation, under City of Edmonds File No. ST-96-77 and ST-96-78. These applications sought to vacate the undeveloped portions of the 1801 Street Southwest right-of-way which bisects the subject property, vacate the undeveloped portion of Olympic View Drive lying adjacent to the subject property, and to amend the Official Street Map to remove the future right-of- way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80`s Avenue West. On September 3, 1996, conceptual approval was granted for both (see Part II.C.I.a(3) and its associated attachments of Exhibit 3). On December 9, 1997, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign a conditional sales contract for surplus City property located on 80t' Avenue West, between 182`d Place Southwest and 184`h Street Southwest to Dr. Park for consolidation into the present application (see Part II.C.1.a(3) and its associated attachments of Exhibit 3). Narrative: On March 12, 1997, the applicants submitted the subject "contract rezone" proposal to rezone approximately 5.4 acres located in the vicinity of 184`h Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive from single-family residential ("RS-12" — 12,000 square foot minimum lot size) to single-family residential ("RS-8" — 8,000 square foot minimum lot size). The proposed "contract," as submitted by the applicants, includes stipulated standards for the preparation of the subsequent development permits (Planned Residential Development — "PRD" and Formal Subdivision) for the property (see Attachments 2 through 8 of Exhibit 3). On January 28t`, 1998, the Planning Board conducted the public hearing and began deliberations on the proposed contract rezone. The public hearing included presentations by the applicant, staff and neighboring residents. In addition to the oral testimony offered during the public hearing on January 28Ih, the official record created by the Planning Board also includes the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report and other written testimony and materials submitted by the public (see Exhibits 3 through 10). On February 1Id, the Planning Board continued its deliberations on the application, considering all the written and oral testimony which had been presented during the January 28`s public hearing. Upon conclusion of the deliberations, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested contract rezone (see Exhibits 11 and 12). The Planning Board recommendation for approval of the proposed contract rezone was based in general on the following conclusions and fully articulated in Exhibits 2 and 9 through 12: 1. That the proposed contract rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the proposed contract rezone is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the proposed zoning district. That the proposed contract rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses, specifically, the subject property is adjacent to RS-8 zoned property immediately to the south. 4. That while the surrounding area has not significantly changed in character, adoption of the City's first Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act encourages and promotes infill development as a means to provide housing opportunities. Single-family is the preferred development choice. Page 2 of 3 R-97-28_C I . DOG 16-APR-98 PILES(REPORTS(COUNCIL 5. That the subject property is suitable for the development of detached single-family residences, however, the unique topographical features which are present on the property have made development under the existing RS-12 zoning difficult. 6. That the proposed contract rezone would provide a public benefit through the development of a public right-of-way connection between Olympic View Drive and 80'' Avenue West, as envisioned on the City's Official Street Map. . Recommended Action: Adopt the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the proposed Contract Rezone and direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate contract and ordinance to implement the requested rezone (see Exhibit 2). Council Action: Page 3 of 3 R-97-28 CIMOG16-APR-98 FILES/REPORTSICOUNCIL EXHIBITS LIST FILE NO. R-97-28 (Submitted as of April 16, 1998) 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Board Memorandum of Recommendation re: File No. R-97-28 3. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report re: File No. R-97-28 (prepared 1/23/98) 4. Letter from Norman J. & Sally L. Barringer (received 1/26/98) 5. Petition Opposed to the Requested Contract Rezone (received 1/27/98) 6. Letter from Rich & Tina O'Neill (received 1/27/98) 7. Copy of Planning Division Staff Report prepared for File No. R-92-39, submitted by Jim Thompson (submitted 1/28/98) 8. Photo's of Bank Adjacent to Lot 12 of the Plat of Hidden Glen, submitted by Sally Barringer (submitted 1/28/98) 9. January 28, 1998, Planning Board Minutes deliberations re: File No. R-97-28 10. Verbatim Transcript of January 28, 1998, Planning Board hearing and deliberations re: File No. R-97-28 11. February 11, 1998, Planning Board Minutes deliberations re: File No. R-97-28 12. Verbatim Transcript of February 11, 1998, Planning Board deliberations re: File No. R-97- 28 R-97-28 X1.DW16-"R-" REPORTswAPmxmrm 6 WilsonJones© RuickReference Index System © 1991 Wilson Jones Company �� Vicinity and Zoning Map 41 EXHIBIT 1 2 Wilsonhnes� Quick Re/etence /ndex System 9 1991 Wilson Jones Company IhC 1891, CITY OF EDMOlVDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771.0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning/Building - Parks and Recreation - Engineering - Wastewater Treatment Plant April 17, 1998 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Edmonds Planning Board VIA: Mayor Barb Fahey SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A "CONTRACT REZONE" TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 260,390 SQUARE FEET) FROM RS-12 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE), TO RS-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE). FILE NO. R-97-28 In accordance with the Council's delegation pursuant to RCW 35A63.020 the Planning Board held a public hearing on January 28, 1998, regarding a request for a "Contract Rezone" to rezone approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size), to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size). The proposed "contract rezone" stipulates specific conditions and restrictions which would be placed on the proposed development of the site subsequent to the approval of the rezone, if granted. Official Notice of this hearing was previously published in accordance with ECDC 20.90.010 and advanced copies of the proposal were made available through the City Clerk and Planning Division. Seventeen (17) persons testified at the hearing. Their names and written application with exhibits have been submitted to the City Clerk. The audio recording of their testimony was also deposited with the City Clerk. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE The applicant is requesting a "Contract Rezone" to rezone approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size) to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size). The proposed "contract rezone" stipulates specific conditions and restrictions which would be placed on the proposed development of the site subsequent to the approval of the rezone, if granted. The applicants proposed "contract conditions" are as follows: EXHIBIT 2 " lncorporoted August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan. Japan 1. Development of the property must be consistent with the approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) associated with this application. 2. The lots as depicted on the attached map will be fixed as drawn. 3. The building pads will occupy 21 % of the total building space of the site. 4. The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners' association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD. 5. A through street connecting 80'h Avenue West at 184�" Street Southwest to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners' expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. 6. A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as shown on the map. 7. The houses designed for the Planned Residential Development shall be consistent in style and theme as those depicted in the PRD application. 8. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. 9. All sidewalks, gutters, street lights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owners. Findings, Conclusions, and Staff Recommendations were submitted by Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson. His analysis is attached. Mr. Wilson stated that it is .the Planning Division's recommendation to approve the proposed contract rezone, as the proposed RS-8 zoning designation is consistent with the "Single -Family" land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the existing RS-8 zoning which abuts the subject property to the south. Additionally, he added that the proposed "contract" conditions which would be placed on the rezone would allow for the development of the site in a manner which would recognize and protect the unique natural features present on the subject property. PUBLIC COMMENTS Two (2) people spoke in favor of the proposed contract rezone. Thirteen (13) people spoke in opposition to the request. The primary opposition to the proposed rezone was the increase in the density and smaller lot sizes. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the proposed contract rezone and reached the following conclusions in support of the application: 1. The proposed contract rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property. 2. The neighborhood may be active participants in the Planned Residential Development and formal subdivision process as part of the review and decision making process for the actual development permits. Page 2 of 4 PBREC_R-97-28. DOG17-APR-98 C.TILES\REPORTSTLANNING BOARD 3. The contract rezone allows for efficient development on a parcel that contains difficult topographical characteristics as well as allowing the City more opportunity to dictate conditions as the development of the property. 4. The current RS-12 zoning of the site has not been sufficient to provide the economic incentive to develop the property. 5. The proposed street would allow access to Olympic View Drive and 801h Avenue West. It will act as a spine for the collector streets and will create a connection to allow the property to integrate with other access points. 6. The PRD process which will be required for the actual site development provides the opportunity to review and condition the development to provide and ensure a sense of space between the houses and integrate the character of the surrounding area's RS-12 openness. The following is a summation of the opposition to the proposed rezone: In addition to the public comment during the hearing in opposition to the rezone, there was a petition submitted with signatures of approximately 50 individuals opposed to the rezone, which was also submitted to the Planning Board. 2. Based on the public testimony, it appears that the surrounding neighborhoods do not believe that the proposed public road between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West is worth the price of rezoning the subject property to RS-8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon public testimony, written information, and staff analysis, the Planning Board voted 3 to 1 (the Chair did not vote and 3 vacant Board positions) to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed contract rezone of approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size), to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size) subject to the following modifications to the proposed contract conditions and additional recommended policy statement: Recommended Amended Contract Rezone Conditions: 1. Development of the property must be consistent with the —an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) asseeiated with thi application. 7 The lots as depicted on the led m will be fixed as drawn. 3. The building pads will occupy a maximum 21% of the to of the site net buildable area. 4. The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners' association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD. 5. A through street connecting 80'' Avenue West at 184th Street Southwest to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners' expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. Page 3 of 4 PBREC R-97-28.DOC/17-APR-98 C TILES\REPORTSTLANNING BOARD 6. A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as proposed on the map. 7. The houses designed for the Planned Residential Development shall be consistent in style and theme as those depieted—approved in the PRD application. 8. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. 9. All sidewalks, gutters, street lights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owners. Recommended Policy Statement: Review of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process should strongly consider the spacing of the structures of the houses to be built here to be sure it is consistent with the surrounding area as much as possible. Submitted on behalf of the Board by, Gary ayson, Planning Board Chair Enclosure: Planning Division Staff Advisory Report dated January 23, 1998 pc: File No. R-97-28 Planning Board Rob Chave, AICP, Planning Manager Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP, Planning Supervisor Page 4 of 4 PBREC R-97-28.DOC/17-APR-98 C TILES\REPORTSTLANNING BOARD MWilsonJones® Quick Reference Index System 3 © 1991 Wilson Jones Company CITY OF EDMONDS 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FROM: Jeffr y S. Wilson, AICP Planning Supervisor DATE: January 23, 1998 FILE: R-97-28 HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: JANUARY 28, 1998 AT 7:00 PM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page Anplication................................................................................................................................... 2. Recommendation........................................................................................................................... 2 SiteDescription............................................................................................................................ 3 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).................................................... .................................... 4 History......................................................................................................................................... 4 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance...................................................... 5 TechnicalCommittee..................................................................................................................... 7 ComprehensivePlan (ECDC)....................................................................................................... 8 Notice to the County Assessor....................................................................................................... 9 Appendices................................................................................................................................... 9 Partiesof Record...........................................:................................................I.........................I... 10 EXHIBIT 3 Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 2 of 10 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant's: Charles R. Maki on behalf of Dr. & Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. & Mrs. Russell C. Kim, Mr. & Mrs. James L. Thompson, and the City of Edmonds (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: The subject properties encompass the following addresses: 7704 Olympic View Drive; 18325 80th Avenue West; 18305 80th Avenue West; 18408 79th Place West; and, the vacant parcel lying between 18325 and 18305 80th Avenue West (see Attachment 1). 3. Reguest: Application for a "Contract Rezone" to rezone approximately 5.98 acres (approximately 260,390 square feet) from RS-12 (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size), to RS-8 (Single -Family Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size). The proposed "contract rezone" stipulates specific conditions and restrictions which would be placed on the proposed development of the site subsequent to the approval of the rezone, if granted (see Attachments 2 and 8). 4. Review Process: Rezone - Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues recommendation to the City Council for final decision. 5. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend approval of the applicant's request to rezone the subject property from RS-12 to RS-8, subject to the following conditions 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances, as well as the conditions contained in the comment memorandums from other City Departments and Divisions (see Attachments 22 through 24). 2. The rezone shall be subject to the conditions/restrictions submitted by the applicants on Attachment 6. 3. Prior to final approval of the "Contract Rezone" by the City, the applicants shall sign and record the final "contract rezone" documents as approved by the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall complete all conditions and requirements incorporated into the City Council decisions on Files Nos. ST-97-77 and ST-96-78 pertaining to the amendment to R97-28.DOM22JAN-98 REPORMSTAFFIREPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 3 of 10 the City's Official Street Map and Street Vacation requests for existing and proposed rights -of -way on the subject property. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The subject property is oddly shaped and is approximately 5.98 acres (approximately .260,390 square feet) in area. The property is primarily, configured in a north -south orientation, with a protrusion to the west. The subject property has street frontage on both Olympic View Drive on the east; and, 80th Avenue West on the west (see Attachments 7 and 8). (2) Land Use: The subject property(ies) are currently developed with three (3) detached single-family dwelling units. Additionally, several existing public utilities (i.e.: sanitary sewer, storm water and water) traverse the subject property, some of which are located in undeveloped public rights -of -way and some of which are located in existing easements (see Attachment 7). (3) Zonin : The subject site is currently zoned "RS-12" (Single -Family Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property generally slopes downward from the west/northwest to the east/southeast. The portion of the subject property which is located at 18325 80th Avenue West is relatively level, while the property immediately to the north contains a ravine running downward from the west to the east. The major portion of the subject property which is located adjacent to Olympic View Drive, contains slopes which generally slope from the west to the east. This portion of the site also contains a depression area which has been classified as a "non -regulated" wetland, which is located in the area approximately adjacent to the northeast corner of the plat of Hidden Glen (see Attachment 7). Vegetation on the subject property is primarily comprised of shrub vegetation, which includes Salmonberry, Himalayan Blackberry and Scot's Broom. Additionally, some medium to large conifers including Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock exists on the property. In the area of the two single-family residences on the northern and western portions of the property, the site is landscaped in a urban nature consistent with single-family residential development. The are surrounding the southern residence remains in a native state (see Attachment 7). 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). R97-28.D=224AN•98 REPORMSTAFFMPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 4 of 10 (3) East: Developed with a U.S. Postal Facility and zone "BN" (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned "RS- 12" (see Attachment 1). b. Conclusion: The proposed Contract Rezone as conditioned would provide a development pattern and public street system which would be compatible and beneficial to the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Facts: (1) A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Responsible Official on December 19, 1997. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Attachments 9 and 10. (2) The appeal period of the Environmental Determination expired on January 7, 1998 (see Attachment 10). (3) On December 23, 1997, the City received a comment letter from Wallace R. and Susan Danielson. The content of the comment letter did not appeal the issuance of a DNS (see Attachment 11). (4) On January 8, 1998, the City received a comment letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation. The purpose of the letter was to request to review the traffic report prepared for the project (see Attachment 12). The applicant did not submit, nor did the City require a traffic report as part of the subject application and accompanying environmental checklist. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. C. HISTORY 1. a. Facts: (1) The applicant petitioned the City under File No. ST-97-38 to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way , which bisects the subject property. On June 2, 1992, the Council denied the request (see Attachment 13). (2) On February 18, 1992, the applicant filed an application for a rezone of a portion of the subject property, the eastern portion, from RS-12 to RS-8 under City of Edmonds File No. R-92-39 (see Attachment 14). On June 15, 1992, the Planning Board adopted a recommendation to deny the application (see Attachments 15 and 16). Subsequent to the Planning Boards recommendation and prior final action by the City Council, the applicant submitted a request to modify the proposed rezone. On September 20, 1993, the applicant formally withdrew the rezone application. R97-28.D0=2-1AN-98 REPORMSTAFRREPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 5 of 10 (3) On May 30, 1996, applications for a Street Map Amendment and a Street Vacation (File Nos. ST-98-77 and ST-96-78), were submitted by Mr. Charles Maki on behalf of Dr. Park. The applications sought to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way; to vacate undeveloped right-of-way lying adjacent to Olympic View Drive; and, to amend the City's Official Street Map to remove the proposed right-of-way alignment between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. The applications were heard by the City Council on September 3, 1996, after which the Council granted conceptual approval of both requests subject to conditions (see Attachments 17 through 20). (4) On December 9, 1997, the. City Council considered and approved a request to authorize the Mayor to sign a conditional sales contract to sell surplus City property located on 80th Avenue West between 182nd Place Southwest and 184th Street Southwest to Dr. Park for consolidation into the current rezone application (see Attachment 21). b. Conclusion: The current application is the culmination of efforts over the past several years on the part of the applicant and the City to resolve the alignment and construction of a right-of-way connecting Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West, as is shown on the City's Official Street Map. The aggregation of property by the applicant and the current request for a Contract Rezone are both consistent with the conditional approval the Council granted with the applicant's prior request for an amendment to Official Street Map and Street Vacation applications, under File Nos. ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 (see Attachment 20). D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to development in the "RS-12" and "RS-8" single-family residential districts are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. a. Facts: (1) The subject application is a nonproject "Contract Rezone" request for a change from one single-family district, "RS-12" to another single-family district, "RS-8" (see Attachments 2 through 8). (2) A specific site plan has not been provided, however, the applicants have stipulated specific conditions/restrictions which they wish to have imposed on the rezone approval (see Attachment 6). The conditions/restrictions which the applicants are proposing would place stricter limits on the use and development of the subject area, than would normally apply under conventional rezone. Some of the major conditions stipulated in the proposed "Contract Rezone" are the following: (a) One of the major components of the proposed `Contract Rezone," requires the applicant proceed through a more complex method of site development, known as a Planner Residential Development, as part of the subdivision process associated with the development of the subject property. R97-28.DOM22-JAN 98 REPORTSVSTAFFIREPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 6 of 10 3. a. T (b) Additionally, the proposed "Contract Rezone" would also require the applicant to complete the public right-of-way connection between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.40.010 provides that at a minimum, the following factors shall be considered in reviewing an application for a rezone: (a) Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (b) Zoning Ordinance. 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, (c) Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (d) Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding or in city policy to justify the rezone: and, (e) Suitabili . 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. (f) Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Conclusions: (a) Comprehensive Plan. The City's existing Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as "Single -Family." The Plan does not however, differentiate between single-family residential densities. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the general intent of the Plan to develop the subject property as single-family. (b) Zoning Ordinance. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, would appear to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and the proposed zone district. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the property would provide for single-family development consistent with the development of the surrounding property and zones. (c) Surrounding Area. Development of the subject property at the RS-8 single-family density would be appear to be compatible with the surrounding development. While the property to the north and west are zoned and developed with single-family residences at the RS-12 density, the property to the south is developed with single-family residences at the RS-8 density (see Attachment 1). R97-28=022-JAN-98 REPORMSTAMREPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 7 of 10 (d) Changes. There does not appear to have been any recent changes in the zoning designations of surrounding property since approximately 1971, however, with the adoption of the Growth Management Act by the State and the subsequent adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, changes in city policy have occurred. One of the main goals of both of the aforementioned documents, is the desire to accommodate infill development and provide for affordable housing. Approval of the proposed contract rezone would be consistent with these goals. The change in the single-family residential density from approximately 3.6 dwelling units per acre to 5.4 dwelling units will help to keep development cost lower through the marginal increase in density, while also providing more housing units. (e) Suitabili . With the approval of the requested rezone, the subject property would appear to be more suitable for the future development as detached single-family residential. Currently the existing zoning, which allows for a lower net density appears to make the feasibility for development extremely low, which has resulted in the subject property remaining undeveloped. {f) Value. While the applicant should see an increase in property value with the approval of the proposed rezone, the public will also derive a benefit which would be at least as great as the increase in value to the applicant. The additional public benefit which the public would acquire is the development of a public right-of-way connecting Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. This could not have been as easily achieved without the applicants aggregation of property subsequent to the last request for a rezone of the property. 4. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.40.020 provides the provisions for review of "contract rezone" proposals. 5. a. Fact: Chapter 20.100 establishes the procedures and criteria for review of all rezones. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a. Facts: The proposed rezone application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Engineering Division, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and the Parks & Recreation Department). The following comments and requirements have been submitted: (1) Engineering Division (see Attachment 22): (a) The Engineering Division will reserve the right to make additional comments and requirements on forthcoming submittals for this project. (2) Public Works Department (see Attachment 23): (a) Show utility easements on plat drawing. (b) Not sure that houses can be built on Lots 24 & 25. R97-28.DOM24AN-98 REPORMSTAFFREPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 8 of 10 (3) Fire Department (see Attachment 24): (a) Fire hydrant required. (4) Even though specific comments were not provided by all Departments or Divisions within the City, it is still the applicants responsibility to comply with applicable City development regulations at the time of any building permit submittal. b. Conclusion: The, applicant should comply with all requirements placed on the proposed development by other Departments/Divisions of the City (see Attachments 22 through 24). F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is in an area which is designated as "Single -Family" under the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (please refer to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Concept Map). b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the area. 2. a. Fact: The GROWTH MANAGEMENT element under the PURPOSE & SCOPE Chapter of the Plan (refer to page 2 of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 20, 1995) states as a goal: "B. S. Any residential growth should be designed to promote as much as possible a balanced mixture of income and age groups. " b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone and resulting increase in single-family residential density provides an opportunity to accomplish the stated goal. a. Facts: The RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT element under the LAND USE Chapter of the Plan (refer to pages 30 - 32 of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 20, 1995), provides the following direction regarding residential development: (1) Goal `B" states as a goal of the City: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economics and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies:." (2) Policy B.6 states that it is a policy of the City to: "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. " (3) Goal "C" states as a goal of the City: "A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents....." R97-28.DO022-TAN-98 REPORMSTAFF MPORTS Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 9 of 10 (4) Policy C. La states that it is a policy of the City to: "Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). " b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone is consistent with the policies for new residential development in the City. The proposed contract rezone would help to facilitate the goals of the Comprehensive Plan through implementation of specific conditions incorporated in the "contract" which require the future development of the subject property be in accordance with an approved PRD in addition to other stipulations. This approach will provide the best mechanism to ensure the ultimate compatibility of the future development of the site with the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as ensuring the provisions for significant public benefits through the protection of open space on the site and through the development of a thru pubic right-of-way connecting Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. III. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the City request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. IV. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 24 are attached. 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Form 3. Conditional Sales Contract between the City of Edmonds and Dr. & Mrs. Park 4. "Details of Project" prepared by the Applicant 5. Analysis by the Applicant Addressing the Criteria Considered in Reviewing a Proposed Rezone 6. Applicant's Proposed "Conditions of the Contract Rezone" 7. Site Plan of the Subject Property/Existing Topography Map/Adjacent Zoning Designations 8. Conceptual Site Development/Subdivision Plan to Implement Proposed Contract Rezone 9. Environmental Checklist 10. Environmental Determination - (DNS) Determination ofNonsignificance (issued 12/19/97) 11. Environmental Determination Comment Letter Submitted by Wallace R. and Susan Danielson (received 12/23/97) 12. Environmental Determination Comment Letter Submitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (received 1/8/98) 13. June 2, 1992, City Council Meeting Minutes Re: File No. ST-92-38 14. Site Plan of Proposed Rezone, File No. R-92-39 15. Planning Board Recommendation Re: Proposed Rezone, File No. R-92-39 (dated 6/15/92) 16. June 10, 1992, Planning Board Meeting Minutes Re: File No. R-92-39 17. Staff Packet to City Council Re: St-96-77 (September 3, 1996 Council Agenda) 18. Staff Packet to City Council Re: St-96-78 (September 3, 1996 Council Agenda) 19. September 3, 1996, City Council Meeting Minutes Re: File Nos. ST-96-77 & ST-96-78 20. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Before the Edmonds City Council Re: File Nos. ST-96-77 & ST-96-78 21. December 9, 1997 City Council Packet Re: Conditional Sales Contract R97-28.DOC\22-JAN-98 REPORTSISTAFFaMRTS e Dr. Han Z. Park File No. R-97-28 Page 10 of 10 22. Engineering Division Comments (3/12/97) 23. Public Works Department Comments (3/14/97) 24. Fire Department Comments (3/14/97) V. PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Public Works Division Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park • 7704 Olympic View Drive • Edmonds, WA 98026 Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson • 18305 80th Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim • 13809 N. Creek Drive • Edmond, OK 73013 Mr. Paul Mar, Community Services Director - City of Edmonds • 121 5th Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. and Mrs. Wallace R. Danielson • 7822 182nd Place Southwest • Edmonds, WA 98026-5422 Messrs. Don Hurter and Ed Giraud • Washington State Department of Transportation • Northwest Region • P.O. Box 330310 • Seattle, WA 98133-9710 R97-28.D0022-JAN-98 REPORTSISTAMREPORTS ri city o e�nonds -� land use appl ication ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ®_ ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ' 17- Z fr,` ZONE R S 17- ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DAT '� -I 7 REC'D BYy ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FE 3 1 RECEIPT ZZ t-�'� El LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT # - --�> ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE y v ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ HE ❑ STAFF Z� PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ OTHER Dr. and Mrs. Han Z . Park APPEAL# Mr. and Mrs. Rus.sell C. Kim City of Edmonds Applicant Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson Phone _ see attached, page 1 Address see attached, page 1 Property Address or Location see attached, page 1 Property Owner see attached, page I Phone see attached, page I Address see attached, page 1 Agent Charles R. Maki Phone 206-774-2717 Address 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, Wa., 98026 Tax Acc # see attached, pages 2 and 3 Sec. 18 Twp. 27N Rng. 4E Legal Description see attached, pages 2 and 3 Details of Project or Proposed Use see attached, pages 4, 5, and 6 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 --- °- --1 --- false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the appli employees. ATTACHMENT 2 The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the File No. R-97-28 enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT �Jd,(,J Applicants: 1. Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98026 (206) 774-0139 2. Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim 18325 80th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98026 (405)478-7772 3. City of Edmonds 183XX - 80th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98026 4. Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson 18305 - 80th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98026 (206) 776-1987 Mail Address: 13809 N. Creek Drive Edmond, Ok.73013 Mail Address: Mr. Paul Mar, City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Ave. W Edmonds, Wa. 98020 (206) 771-0220 page 1 Legal Descriptions: Park property: PARCEL A: Tax Account No. 3708-001-009-0008 Lot 9, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats on page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. PARCEL B: Tax Account No. 3708-001-010-0005 Lot 10, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. PARCEL C: Tax Account No. 4346-000-106-0107 All that portion of Tract 106, Edmonds, Sea View Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats on page 76, records of Snohomish County, lying Southwesterly of Edmonds -Beverly Park Road; EXCEPT the East 212 feet thereof as measured along South line of said Tract 106 and EXCEPT any portion lying within Beverly Park -Edmonds Road. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Kim property: Parcel A Tax Account NO. 3708-001-011-0004 Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, recorsds of Snohomish County, EXCEPT, the East 120 feet thereof:Situate in the Countyof Snohomish, State of Washington. page 2 (legal discriptions continued) PARCEL B Tax Account No. 3708-001-011-0004(same as A) The East 120 feet of Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County; Situate in the County of Snohmish, State of Washington. City of Edmonds property: Tax Account No. 3708-001-012-0003 Lot 12, Admiralty Acres, according to Poat thereof recorded in Volume 12, page 48, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Thompson property Tax Account No, 3708-001-013-0002 Lot 13, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County; Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, page 3 06/30/00 23:10 FAI. The East 120 fast of IAt 13, Block 1, Pta of Admiralty Acres as recorded to Volume 12 of P1sts on hp 49, Pmorda of Swhomish County, WasNnPn Charles R. Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, Wa. 98026 December 18, 1997 Mr. Jeff Wilson Planning Department City of Edmonds 121- 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Mr. Wilson. d ems, C %ass`�is "x d+l9Ee lg aG �`ui:. The attached copy of the Conditional Sales Contract between the City of Edmonds and Dr. and Mrs. Han Park transfers the control of the property described in the contract to me for the purpose of applying to the City for a contract rezone and authorization to construct a planned residential development.. This control is transferred in paragraph eight granting Charles R. Maki power of attorney for this purpose. This document and this letter should complete the application for the contract rezone. If there is any other documents that are needed, please call me a 425-774-2717. Thank you for your help and consideration. Sine el.' / *k Charles R. Maki Agent for Dr. and Mrs. Han Park ATTACHMENT 3 File No. R-97-28 CONDITIONAL SALES CONT"RAC ` s° THIS CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT "Contract") Contract ( ") is made this � day of 1997, by and between Dr. and Mrs. Han Park (hereinafter "Park"), and City of Edmonds (hereinafter "City"), The parties wish to engage in a conditional sales contract the terms of which are outlined in this document. In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each party from the other, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS: This Contract is contingent upon the parties successfully applying to the City of Edmonds to obtain a contract rezone and obtaining authorization from the City to construct a planned residential development out of the subject site. The real estate to be developed is as shown on the preliminary site plan which is enclosed and known as "Enclosure A".. Enclosure A is hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. The subject property shall be known as "Seaview Park Estates". The City and its City Council's discretion to exercise its governmental and quasi- judicial power is intended to be fully preserved under the terms of this agreement. This agreement shall not be interpreted to impair the decision making and quasi-judicial authority of any official or officials representing the City. WHEREAS the City's involvement would be limited to providing title to the subject property and providing an authorization to include this property in the subdivision request which will be made by Park. WHEREAS the City grants to Mr. Charles Maki power of attorney to act on behalf of the City in proceeding throughout the application process described above. WHEREAS the City's liability will be limited to the value of the property contributed and Dr. Park will personally indemnify the City as to all development costs associated with the development of the subdivision. WHEREAS this conditional sales contract will automatically terminate upon denial by the Edmonds City Council of a request to subdivide the property; This contract, will close within 30 days after the project is recorded in Snohomish County. CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -1- ,r" • : �� � U WHEREAS the price of the subject property shall be fixed at $100,000,00 if all property is rezoned. If the property is not rezoned, the price of the subject property should be subject to negotiation. This Agreement may be modified, altered or amended only by a writing signed by each of the Parties and duly notarized. Waiver of any term or provision in this Agreement by any Parry shall not be considered to be a waiver of any other term or provision of this Agreement or breach of this Agreement regardless of the nature of such subsequent event or breach. This Agreement shall be interpreted as the final written agreement of the Parties. It is agreed and understood that all prior conversations, discussions, letters, and agreements have been merged into this Agreement and that this written Agreement constitutes the Final Agreement between the Parties, notwithstanding any prior oral or written understanding to the contrary. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above -written. Dr. and Mrs. Han Park Charles Maki, Project anager Its CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -2- City of Edmonds B Barbara S. Fahey Its STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this (� `j day of Ci.OtVO _, 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared CHARLES MAKI, to me known to be the Representative of Dr. and Mrs. Han Paris, the Parties that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Parties, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above written. Notary Public in and for the State of W; Yungton, residing at ��L� �vyt€,�t-Fi. S �t� My commission expires: E� I G C.) _ nn Type or Print Name Above STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH On this day of +.::., 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me, BARBARA S. FAHEY, known to be the Representative of the City of Edmonds, the Party that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Party, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above written. .ic.L1 (--1r�/W(A , Notary Public in and for the tate�q Washington, residing at t"vt {S CO My commission expires: CGL, V P . I IC tZ A -�1 Type or Print Name Above cAwp5 i\cllents\edsbayv\city.eon CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -3- Lot 12,. Admiralty Acres, according. to Plat thereof recorded in Volume 1.2, Page 48, records of Snohomish County, Washington — — — — — — — — — — SOth AVENUE I ! •1 � l 1 -�ri� `au 4 / c� u N 41 a 1i D —6 Enclosure A ......... . . ..... . ....... ........... . ..... ............ . ............ . ........... .......... . ..... ................ ....... . - -- -------- . ............ . .... .. . ......... .... . ......... . . . . . ... ...... ............ . ............ . . ........... ......... . . .............. z,.er ! L'" `'r 't �� `\ L' •:','``�yt , . ........ . ........... . ..... . ........ 1 `i 1 �, 1 . ........... . . ... . .... ... . ........... .. ........... . . ........ ii .. ... ... ... .......... . ... ... ... ... Enclosure A Details of Project: This is an application for a Contract rezone from RS12 to RS8 in a residential neighborhood. The property is located in the RS-12 zoning district and is bounded on the south by the RS-8 zone, the BN zone on the east and the RS-12 zone on the north and west. This large lot has very challenging topography, with hills and gullies internally and a steep bank along the east property line. The property has been examined by Reid Middleton, Engineers, Planners, and Surveyers, Landau Associates Inc., Geoenviromental Engineering and Techoloies, and Pentec Environmentals. Copies of their reports are included in the application. The contract rezone includes all of the conditions associated with a Planned Residential Development and is designed to provide considerable open space internally for the enjoyment of future residents and substantial open spaces along the northern property line to provide a wooded transition to the RS-12 zone. In response to concerns raised by the City and surrounding property owners, the application includes a road connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive and will be provided by the property owner at their expense and dedicated to the City, The Offical Street Map shows a 80th Avenue West/Olympic View Drive connection across the property in the same general area as the new street, but the city has no plans in the forceable future to build this road. By allowing this contract rezone and the PRD, the city will have a new street: without the approval, this property cannot be developed in a manor that would allow the owner to provide the street. A contract rezone coupled with a PRD allows for a professional design and engineering team to present to the city via the Hearing Examiner and Architectural Design Board process, a complete package that will enhance the neighborhood, preserve the natural topography and landscaping, build public utilities, create green belts and provide housing consistent with the high expectations of Edmonds citizens. The PRD part of this project will allow for a minimum disruption of the natural topography and a saving of many of the evergreen trees plus creating green belts and landscape areas that will enhance the entire Seaview area. The contract rezone will allow a reasonable number of lots to be built to absorb the cost of all the utilities needed to upgrade the area, including a street from 80th W. to Olympic View Drive including curbs and sidewalks, plus an upgraded water and sewer system for the area, underground electricity, street light, and public green belt areas. page 4 ATTACHMENT 4 File No. R-97-28 ADDRESSING THE CRITERIA CONSIDERED IN REVEIWING A PROPOSED REZONE 1. Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as single family residential. Single family dwellings are the only uses proposed, there fore the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the Planned Residential Development requirements of the Edmonds Community Dvelopment Code. Each dwelling will adhere to the 25- foot height limitation, considerable open space and trees will be proviede and the building pads will only use 21 % of the total lot area of the site. 3. Surrounding Area. The property is bounded on the south by the RS-8 zone, the BN-zone on the east, and the RS-12 zone on the north and west. This rezone would move the "RS-8" boundary north approximately 215 yards on the east side bordering the commercial zoning and approximately 78 yards on the west side. The current density will allow 17 homes. The new zoning with the designed PRD will include 26 homes, an increase of nine homes. The immediate vicinity also includes some )very large open spaces. Seaview Park to the west is 6.78 acres and the County Park to the northeast is 114.3 acres. 4.Changes. The Seaview area has grown in the number of houses that are present but the road to service this area has remained the same. A U. S. Post Office was constructed directly to the east of the property in Perrinville and the Perrinville commercial areas has grown in the last several years, but no streets were built to serve the Seaview area to and from these developments. This rezone would allow a PRD to be developed and a public street to be constructed from 80th Ave.W, at the intersection of 184th SW down to Olympic View Drive. This is very important for the citizens who live north of the proposal along 80th W, as it would reduce the traffic on a road that is very inadequate for the present volume. 5. Suitability. Comments made at the recent hearing on the street vacation for this property clearly stated the wishes of the neighbors, namely a street connection from 80th Avenue West to Olympic View Drive. However, the City does not presently have the funding nor does it appear likely that this connection will appear on the City's Capital Improvement Program in the near future, Additionally, the City would like to prevent development along the Olympic View Drive steep slopes and have as much open space as possivle onsite. Therefore, in order to aaccomodate the wishes of the neighbors and the City, a rezone is necessary from an economic standpoint. A rezone to RS-8 from RS-12 would allow the cost of all the new streets and new utilities to be allocated to eight more homes. page 5 ATTACHMENT 5 File No. R-97-28 Without this economic advantage, either the price of the lots to the public would be above market price, or the project could be in jeopardy and then there would be no connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. The majority of this property has never been developed, but the property directly to the south as zoned RS-8 and developed over 25 years ago. 6. Value. The public will benefit in many ways and should become a valued part of the residential character of Edmonds. The new street from 80th Ave. W to Olympic View Drive will benefit all those people who live in the Seaview area to drive to the Perrinville intersection. The city will own this street, the sidewalks, the streetlights, and all the rest that goes with a street when a private landowner gives the city a new street. The people who live north of 184th on 80thAve. W. will have relief from the traffic that is present now and increase the value of those properties. The addition of a well planned development with homes design specicifically for each lot in a coordinated fashion should add economic benefits to the value of the surronding neighborhood. The City will be able to sell surplus property that has little market value unless it is included in a contract rezone and PRD. The city had owned the property since 1964, but becasue of the topographical problems associated with it, it would very difficult to sell as a building site. By combinning the lot with surronding property, the city will realize a market price, The property owner will be able to have more lots to sell, but without the rezone, there may be no project. page 6 CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR REZONE .1. Development of the property must be consistent with the approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) associated with this application. 2. The lots as depicted on the attached map will be fixed as drawn. 3. The building pads will occupy 21 % of the total building space of the site. 4. The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrences. The homeowners shall create a homeowners association to maintain the landscaping located at the enterence to the PRD. 5. A through street connecting 80th Ave. W. at 184th SW to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. 6. A private cul de sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as shown on the map. )7. The houses designed for the Planned Residential Development shall be consistant in style and `theme as those depicted in the PRD application. 8. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. 9. All sidewalks, gutters, street lights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owners. 10. Minor alterations for the location of building and streets may be allowed to comply with City codes. page 7 ATTACHMENT 6 File No. R-97-28 SEAVIETW PARK ESTATES ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING NTs 14 1 ■ V ccur isa t . ].aa `Av x° I 1 A D M I R A L T Y A C R E .42 cr ]as.c, Ire n. mBOa sot arnuem / � e/mv, / / � � / tr $ •--1•--� g 1 Car IN 0 1I� lJ ./ ,t' i ti� pv ,1if• .�i= $ J \ \ 2 'i• ...� / /1�/l, w / _ . / .��-ya•.�;_ , ti u�«„t� III �` ` _ 1 —; ,« _ �_ o /�`;��• � QED-�-�ay'vn!'— ,s � ;'° " \� f I �l � . i � \ .'� x; }I 1 c s:o - % / �' �/ I / j 4•'sj � ` $ i ; 1 ? / . /1 }111}1/�/ P'f1 /� ���lll,lln�ylll 1 B g I ' ! •! rc-, �J � I I I } 1. � � /n / / ql 11 °tc: I .a•c+r� roust ],o,/ / / I .t wv. ]af.m �aa f I ' .rost r, } i = �✓ L roust ! I 1 ` u w yeti � +1 CMva ororswar r �� �� � � II ••\ 1 ,n . tu.a j • .v us]. -• `tr Asti. \�— �—=-V 11 I 4 I —.—.-....__._. awars,• t t. ! n ► w a •,u,r sr. sr rut as , i . sss �= �. � 1 I \ III 01 1 . 1 � 1 s . • .. �...� - 1 H I O D E G L E N IN z �� :. _ 11 12 1 I }I I} \1 I I I I I I! l} t �' j I it tort S. N72O "" rtaw ,r to.. " •�,s,o 1 i xl 10It jai o eLa j L —' —" / t � A-14 '� �•�. �� as I � I 1 I 11/ f\ fl �1�\\ I^ I I 8 I WH v R�-$ 1 L �� / �'� / ar ``' \ I 1111� 11 �, Ir. `� -� 746 I I _ ti / 15 I t' 1 i 111111 i11 °� �` �`'•• ; ��J I Iroll �— I row_ E D M S-N 5/ I E IN R A I I I 16 M u7o•,a• r eu .,,v � .. .. --I B 1 �� /�• 121 17 ih i 18 1g 20 11 j I 8 �mm I I J—/,- 185th PLACE S.W. /• 4 , �� ----- ----- �,� ATTACHMENT 7 ! ,.• ; 1 File No. R-97-28 VM 'SGMNG] /\A-IIA DIdVU, Q) ;r_ I Ln cn CL ........ fill ... .......... .................. .......... .... ILI . . .......... cn Ln c Ln LO cn N E, ........ .......... . .... 0j, A., .... ....... LLJ ........... ... cn Sal......... .. .. C- -t- C:) ..... .......... ATTACHMENT 8 File No. R-97-28 CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVED% 1 ��� � 2 1s91 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PERMIT COUNTER Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce oravoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the .environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if ,an. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. '1 ne checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information .that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Seaview Park Estates 2. Name of applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: (contact Person) Dr. Han Z. Park C'itv of Edmonds Charles Maki 7704 Olymi)ic View Dr., Edmonds, WA 98026 250 5th Ave North 825 Talbot Rd Edmonds WA 98026 206 774-0139 (206) 771-0220 (2061776-3041 4. Date checklist prepared: March 11 1997 ATTACHMENT 9 File No. R-97-28 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Projected start time is June I 1997 Proiected completion date is September 30, 1997. (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. Full buildout of the Planned Residential Development is projected to be completed by September 30 1997 No further expansion is expected. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Soils Report prepared by Dodds Geosciences Inc., dated 7/26/96 Determination of Nonsignifi_canceissued on 6/28/96 - Concerning the modification of the official street map Mitigated Determination of Nonsienificance issued on 1/14/90 - Concerning the subdivision of 2 lots. Soils and Wetland report prepared by Landau Associates Inc. dated (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 proposal, if known. Rezone approval, Architectural Design Board review. Planned Residential Development approval SEPA review (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. Contract rezone which includes a planned residential development involving the creation of 26 lots on a 6 acre site Page 2 of 22 maki.do¢ (STAFF COMMENTS) :j 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. 7704 Olympic View Drive (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: The western portion of the site has steep slopes which level off to a generally flat site with some rolling terrain toward the north eastern portion of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS)• b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?_ Approximately 80% located on the western portion of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Gravely silty sand (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 3 of 22 makl.doe d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Some grading and filling will be necessary to provide building pads and roadways The total amount of fill onsite will be 11,600 cu yds., total amount of cut will be 29,0000 cu yds., and total export will be 17 400 cu yds. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could occur, especially when relocating onsite sandy soils (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 22% of site will be used for dwelling units 52.133 s . ft. will be used for roads rights-of-wav and easements not all of the risht-of-wav and easements will have impervious surface) (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control methods as outlined in the EdmondsCommunit Development Code will be utilized. (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 describe and give approximate quantities if known. Page 4 of 22 makl.doc Emissions associated with heavy_ equipment, earth moving and autos are the principal sources of emissions onsite Approximate quantities are not known.__ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Onsite construction will follow ;guidelines outlined by PSAPCA and includes: watering exposed soils during lengthy dry periods, reducing earth movement to the extent possible and reducing the number of vehicular trips to the site to the minimum necessary. (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. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 5 of 22 maKdoc (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. The small wetland onsite may be filled with onsite fill material. 4$C� �Iz�l°(.1 (STAFF COMMENTS) �ct�'EcC is less -1-f,� ��-s`ad s� -�{' - an ��. R� (2 %tc %QZ) �t\ dcca es tuc +�e���e�. A�rs�,►.�izx zC.(S: �! t��-{tires c-t.o�- (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 22 maki.doc (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the } following chemicals:..; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None anticipated. (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 (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See drainage plan associated with PRD The contract rezone will not cause any change in Eater runoff on -site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See response to question C (1). (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 7 of 22 dd.doc 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ✓ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:_ ✓ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: Western Hemlock ✓ shrubs: salmonberry, Indian plum. Himalayan blackberrry Scot's broom sword fern ✓ grass pasture crop or grain ✓ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: See Attached Pentec letter dated 2/11/97 (STAFF COMMENTS). b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Deciduous alder forest and wetland and non -wetland vegetation. The shrub vegetation may include salmonberrr y. Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some medium to large conifers including Douiflas Fir. western red cedar, and western hemlock. Efforts will be made to retain as many of the large trees as ossible. tdt> (STAFF COMMENTS) late_ arch we>l.e �r e,czocca rtigt% %6-6A C`' icy t C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will consist of native Rlants and trees To the extent possible existing vegetation will be used for landscaping. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 8 of 22 maki.doe 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: See Attached letter from Pentec dated 2/1 U97 ✓ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: See Attached letter from Pentec dated 2/11/97 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Han Park property, like all properties in western Washington occurs within the Pacific fl wa a widel used route for migratory birds. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Considerable open space will be integrated into the development. The western slo es of site will be larLel undisturbed. (STAFF COMMENTS b. 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. Electric natural gas wood fire lace Page 9 of 22 maki.doe (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Adjacent properties solar access will not be affected. (STAFF COMMENTS C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Current U.B.C. methods for insulating homes will be utilized. (STAFF COMMENTS 7. EnvironmentaI 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None ' ' (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed or necessary. Page 10 of 22 =W.Qoe (STAFF COMMENTS) ,l b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise typically associated with a single family development.,,Increased auto noise can be anticipated due to a connection between 80th Ave. West and OI m is View Drive. (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 would come from the site. Short term: Noise typically associated with heavy machinery, hours of operation will be 7.00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. Long term: Noise typically associated with single family homes (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No activity will take place before 6:00 am. and after 10.00 p.m. Monday Friday. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Three single family residences. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 11 of 22 ,.k+.a« b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. Three single family residences and associated accessory structures (STAFF COMMENTS d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. Two of the single family houses may be demolished (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-12 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of 22 makUm 9. h. C�tfi-1 %- Cz N. (Cc 1 If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. AT. (STAFF COMMENTS) V, Gar. may. �-F �-�e c s C. �ccc� opt s� --Sr! . ` n�o d� L nv. s �•�cr Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) C l�z.r, t :2.3 rsemr �vC, Cf`- j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Zr k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 22 AkLdoc 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Utilization of a Planned Residential Develo ment will ensure .that all future development is single family residential and adheres closely to the covenants and restrictions which both the developer and the City will place on the ro ert. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 26 middle to high income housing. {STAFF COMMENTS b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 2 - middle income housing units. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None (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? 25-feet above average grade. Wood will be the principle exterior building material Page 14 of 22 maki.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some alteration of the terrestrial view along 80th Ave. West will occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Gateway plantings are included as cart of the landscape .plan Additional planting, alone the newiY posed roadway will also be included. (STAFF COMMENTS) Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Sodium Iighting for the street will be utilized and will be mainly at night (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? Street lighting on 80th Ave. West Page 15 of 22 rowld.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Only lighting necessary to i3rovide safe Rassage alone the newt light roadway and to light edestrian aths will be used. (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. No. (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: None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 22 maki.doc C 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. No (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. (STAFF COMMENTS C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None (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. Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West will be connected via a newly developed public street (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Approximately 1200-feet Page 17 of 22 &W.doc (STAFF COMM)✓iv TS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 55 new parking spaces, 4 parking spaces would be eliminated (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. A road connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive will be included in the progosal. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 260 VTD - peak volumes will occur from 6:00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and from 3.00 p m to 6.00 D.M. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Installation of a new road connection between 80th Ave. West and Olympic View Drive. (STAFF COMMENTS) maki.doc Page 18 of 22 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. Yes. There will.be a need for public services tv ically associated with sin-gle-family development. (STAFF COMMENTS b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas. water, refuse service telephone sanitary sewer, septic system, other: i (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. Electricity will be provided by the Snohomish Co mfv P.U.D. Natural as will be rovided b Washin on Power Services. Water and sanitary sewer will be provideed b the Cit of Edmonds. Refuse service will beprovided b Lynnwood Disposal and telephone service will be rovided b GTE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 of 22 �lci.doc C. SIGNATURE makl.doc The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. make its decision. 0 Signature of Proponent Page 20 of 22 i understand that the lead agency is relying on them to March 7 i997 Date Submitted D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) 1 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. I. 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? Discharges to the environment will be commensurate with 26 new single-family dwellin units. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Some plants. animal habitat and animals will be adversely affected. However, by using a Planned Residential Development 1 aporoach, we are able to retain considerable habitat which would otherwise be lost using traditional develo ment methods. .Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Retention of Plant and animal habitat through a sloe reservation easement alon OI m is View Drive and reserving a large portion of the site in an undisturbed condition for plant and animal habitat I How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Ener-gy and natural resource de ietion will be commensurate with 26 new single-family dwelling units. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None Page 21 of 22 maki.doe 4. How would the proposal be lh to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas 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 ov 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? 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? The increase ;n 4--A Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. aaki.doc Page 22 of 22 _ r SEAVIEW PARK ESTATES ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING NTS AY el A4 ap I evv. 7ea.a2 14 3wa c xseae - �^ er eYr ' u :axe. 1 a ADMIRALTY ACRE rmc's..c.�o.ez it///" /i Lic 8 L 0 C K 2 sc o,r c c - ws..r t3 / j j � / / / / / / j.< /��y�u37 \ I a.YY as asao l Imcc - sues sac + u� •/ / / ���p /�a� i�� 2ep j u rC` •-�•+C1tSLL LOZJU10rr oe o[or fi iR3•" �• _ 1 2 ��� �1P 7fi15 MEA spe • - �f l i — :1'{� r=.•'te•a r eio — I' /;44 / / �e /I I 81 "I I' ' r� L./ 7� xe^r as I N +re, reeen °Tics[ „ / / 1 1 sr YOuse I ti ✓ I I 1 1 1 .� . iex.pe I pmtrer —` of- -----{'----'"�.—..—..... `-TM9_ltlir[IL x•ief �.. w• !'1IaT1 R - r- d Ml,l i,ssa HIDDEH .GLEN i,..n 11 1 z j t sJ a®w I ,e corn Y c •2,au,o2o lj 1 V\ 1 4 11 10 /. b �� rl,hh� �— mMWAe a\111�_l ��/ i 1 }I�11111 I (bt 06 t3 i3 � I � i 11\}\_; I }\ �►Illlitt� 1s � i- I i I I 1 I L J V. 13 I 1 }) �¢ 11 LL ROOT YM I 8 I U RS-8 rl / / /'p j— • • .. —i °' i is � I � 1 l 1111 } 1 �1 \ h `� ~ �`�.., �� 7t'E 1---> >li}IIi11111 DM1?Ly0 S /9� \\1`UIEW T R A 16C�TiIS wss err r e e • M , 6 1 i /•' ICI —1 �\\\\�„�\` j I 17 r to is 20 Y1 I I I I e; a� YM %__J L--- I — — —— _ — — —J-./ �^ /. 1 0 7 =A 185th PLACE S.W. 22 V., "SCNONCI M-IIA OIdVU,�o cn gal..' --, . : I ... ............................. .......... ... .............. .......... ....... ....... . ....... ....... .. .......... Ln . ...... . ........ ......... . cn ........... ..... ... .. .. .... ......... ....... .. .. ...... ....... ...... *-'.14 ...... PRIM LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Environmental and Gactechnieal Services February 24,1997 Charles R. Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: REDUCTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS BUFFER PROPOSED SEAVIEW DARK ESTATES DEVELOPMENT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Maki: In response to your.request, Landau Associates is providing in this letter our opinion regarding the minimum width of the required sensitive area buffer for development adjacent to steep slopes at the proposed Seaview Park Estates development. Our opinion is- based on a site topographic map, Conceptual Topographic Survey, prepared by Reid Middleton, dated December 9, 1996; visual observation of site slopes along Olympic View. Drive and offsite slopes in the site vicinity; a report of a previous gcotechnical study performed at the site by others; our understanding of soil conditions within the site vicinity; and our experience with similar projects. We understand that current site development plans involve constructing a high -density community of single-family homes. In order to achieve the desired density, the homes would have to be placed relatively close to existing site slopes. We understand that the City of Edmonds' development criteria normally require a minimum 50-ft wide buffer between sensitive areas (which include steep slopes) and developed portions of a site, We further understand that the width of the buffer adjacent to steep slopes may be reduced to a minimum of 10 ft without requiring a variance if such a reduction is considered feasible by the project geotechnical engineer. Based on our observations and site topographic data, site slopes range up to about 55 ft in height and generally exist at inclinations of about 1.2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Based on reported site soil conditions and soil conditions observed in nearby exposed cuts, it appears that the site is underlain by glacial soil consisting primarily of outwash sand capped in portions of the site by a veneer of glacial till. The glacial soil is expected to be in a dense to very dense condition. Where exposed in nearby cuts, the glacial soil apparently has been standing at near -vertical inclinations for a number of years. Recent observations of site slopes along Olympic View Drive 23107-myrI4 AVF.. W, - P.O. BOX 1029 - EE)M. ONDS. WA 94020-9129 • (2(16) 778-0907 • F' A.x t'0fi) 778,64()9 SNOKANC-: 009) 327-9737 - FAX :.09) 337 9691 /TACOMA: (206)926-24g3 - Fax (206) 9?6.2sa 1 . 0 indicate that those slopes have remained stable despite recent weather conditions that resulted in widespread slope instability and landsliding throughout the Puget Sound region. Assuming site soil conditions are as expected and are relatively uniform across the site, it is our opinion that the minimum width of the buffer zone may be reduced to 10 ft. It is possible that less favorable soil conditions may be encountered in portions of the site during the .design -phase geotechnical study. In that event, the width of the buffer zone in those areas may have to be increased accordingly. To accommodate inevitable ongoing surficial slope erosion, we recommend that actual building lines be established no closer to the slope than the point of intersection of the planned finished ground surface at the building and a 1.5H:1V slope projected from the toe of the slope. We appreciate this opportunity to provide these services and look forward to assisting you as planning and design progresses. Please call if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Engineer JWG/tam No. 58002.10 02/24/97 JA058\002\SPAVIEW.LTR 02/24/97 j:\098\002\3EAV1rW.LTR 2 LANDAU AssoclATEs February 11,1997 Mr. Han Z. Park c/o Mar. Charles Mald 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, Washington 9M Dear Mr. 'Park! On January 30 and February 4, 1997, Pentec Environmental, Inc. (Pentec) visited your property to assess environmental conditions and provide information to be included in a State EnvironmenW Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. The property Is located in Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Section 18 in Edmonds, Washington, be-tween Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. This letter report is intended to provide you with the documentation necessary to 1 complete the sections of the SEPA checklist pertaining to wetlands (surface water), plants, and arirnals, surface water There is one wetland on the site. It is located near the center of the property and occupies 1,737 W. It is a 'palustrine emergent/forested wetland maintained by surface runoff from steep surrounding hillsides. Hants IThe types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous trees, Coniferous trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. The main deciduous tree species found on the site is red alder. The evergreen trees include Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Shrubs present include salwcnberry, Indian plum, Himalayan blackberry, Scat's broom, and sword fern. Grass exists primarily in residential lawns near the three residences, and wet soil plants including large -leaved avers and lady -fern exist in the wetland. Pan1v o6m*wvnnW Ixt • %W 7WAwn w SowmYl, 3 b 110 • Ffta ^ WA SM. Pf=w 0W 775•4Z #Am v Pm r/Pai77 Mr. Han Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Maki February 11, 1997 Page 2 The vegetation to be removed during site development will be mainly deciduous alder forest and wetland and non -wetland shrub vegetation The shrub vegetation may include aalmornberry, HL-nalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some aaedivam to large couifera including Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock may be removed as well, although efforts will be made to retain as many of the large trees as possible. No threatened or endangered plant species were observed at would be expected to occur In the habitat found on the site; however, in order to further confirm the lack of such plant species, a formal search of the Natural Heritage Program threatened and endangered species database could be requested from the Washington State Department of Natural Rewurces in Olympia. Anlmsft The following birds were observed on the site in Isfo January 1997: American robin, black -capped chickadee, goldencrowned kinglet. American crow, rufous -sicced towhee, song sparrow, winter wren, Steller's jay, and bushtit. Other bird species typical of suburban lots may also be expected. No mammals were observed during the site visit, but raccoon, opossum, Douglas squirrel, small rodents, and deer may occupy or use the site. The Han Park property, like all properties in western Washington, occurs within the Pacific flyway, a widely used route for migratory birds. .Please call me if you need additional information or if l ran be of further assistance, Sincerely, Pentec Environm ntal, Inc. Lizzie A. Zemke Project Botanist/Wetland Scientist LAL/dkh GEOTECh1NICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposal Single Family Residence IS32X - SOth Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job Number 6074 for B. F. Reanier, P.E. by DODDS Geosciences Inc. July 26, 1996 GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 T B.F. Reamer P.O. Box 2187 Everett, WA 98203 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Single -Family Residence 1832X - 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Reamer: Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed new Reamer single-family residence to be constructed on the undeveloped property east of 18325 - 80th Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The purposes of our work were to professionally evaluate subsurface soil and . groundwater conditions; discuss grading and excavation recommendations, including safe setback recommendations; and provide a reasonable foundation method with design guidelines. The scope of our services included: 1) Logging and sampling two test pits excavated to a maximum depth of ten feet below existing grades. Test pits were logged and sampled by the undersigned professional geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were taken of subsurface soils. 2) Reviewing collected soil samples in our office and assigning moisture content and sieve gradation tests. At the conclusion of the testing program, laboratory results were analyzed and compared with field notes and logs. 3) Preparation of this summary report in accordance with our understanding of project requirements and generally recognized geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Plate 1, attached, provides the guidelines in the use of this report. Proiect Understandings This office was provided with a Topographic Map which documented lot dimensions, existing topography, and existing structures. Our knowledge of this project is generally limited to the information contained on this sheet and our discussions with you. We anticipate the new structure will be a multiple -storied wood -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -grade. We anticipate the lower finish floor of the structure will be near elevation 324.0 feet. Finish grades will retrain near existing grades. If our understandings are incorrect, a revision of this report may be necessary. l PROPOSED REANIER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 Page 2 General Site Conditions - Surface The proposed single-family residence structure will be constructed on the undeveloped lot east of 18325 - 80th Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The general vicinity of the site is shown on Plate 2, Vicinity Map. At the time of our fieldwork, the proposed building area was covered with grass and blackberry brush. The property where the proposed residence will be located is basically flat. There are some moderate slopes down to the north and south of property, and a very gentle slope down to the east. Based on the Topographic Plan, the overall vertical relief across the building site is less than one foot. Subsurface Exploration and Description Two test pits were excavated on the property. The test locations are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The test pits were logged and sampled by the undersigned engineer during the excavating process. The test pit logs are attached to this report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determinations and sieve gradation tests. Test results and field density information are summarized on the attached test pit logs and plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions not readily apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation to be essentially correct: Under the six inches to one foot of loose silty sandy surficial soil our test pits encountered a medium -dense brown gravelly sand with some silt to a gravelly silty sand. In Test Pit No. 1, a very dense gravelly silty sandy glacial till was encountered from 5.0 to 5.5 feet below existing grades. The entire site is underlain with a medium -dense to dense sand with some gravel and cobbles. No groundwater was noted during excavating. The final test pit logs attached to this report represents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested. PROPOSED REANIER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 Page 3 Conclusions and Recommendations General The following general geotechnical conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: 1) Conventional footings with a bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot are adequate for this site. 2) The recommended minimum safe setback distance from the top of the slope is twenty- five feet. Footings that are closer than twenty-five feet should be deepened to a depth where an effective minimum setback of twenty-five feet is maintained. A deck, if constructed out over the slope, should be cantilevered and/or piled, and should not be structural connected to the house. 3) Soils with a high percentage of silt and/or clay (>15%) are moisture sensitive and difficult to impossible to utilize as structural fill if the soil is more than two to three percent wetter than the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Some of the surficial soils at this site have some silt and are moisture sensitive. Foundations The proposed new structure may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on the dense to very dense gravelly silty sand soils at about 1.5 feet below existing grades. Foundations should bear at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the adjacent outside finish grade. A bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot may be utilized for foundations bearing as described above. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third to accommodate short term wind and seismic loads. To provide protection against shear failure, we recommend continuous and spread footings have minimum widths of sixteen (16) inches and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. We estimate that foundations bearing on the medium -dense to dense gravelly sandy soils will settle one-half inch between building corners. Lateral loads such as wind and seismic forces are accommodated by friction between the foundation elements and the bearing soils and/or by passive earth pressure against the foundations. However, passive earth pressure is only available if structural fill is used to backfill against the foundation, or.the foundation is poured against the existing soil. A coefficient of 0.40 may be used between the foundation elements and the gravelly silty sand. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and structural fill may be taken to be an equivalent fluid having the density of two hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Seismic Design (UBC) The site is classified as seismic zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. We recommend the designer utilize site soil coefficient Sz. in their analysis. PROPOSED REANIER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 Page 4 Slabs -on -Grade Reinforced slab -on -grade floors are anticipated for the base of the new structure. Slabs -on -grade may be supported on a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel placed above a minimum of one foot of compacted sandy structural fill. All loose soft zones should be repaired prior to placement of the structural fill. A vapor barrier such as a sheet of a 6-mil plastic membrane is recommended below the slab. Site Drainage The site should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the construction area. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where the foundations, pavements, or slabs are to be constructed. Final site grades adjacent to the buildings should be sloped away from the structure. Roof and surface water drains should discharge to an appropriate facility ensuring that there is no erosion of the adjacent slopes. Excavations and Slopes Temporary and permanent excavations and slopes for this project must meet all applicable government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet may be attempted vertical, although they may not hold for extended periods of time. Excavation slopes greater than four feet in depth should be cut no steeper than 1:1 (H:V). Flatter slopes may be required depending upon seeping groundwater and local variations in soil conditions. Contractors working in excavations should anticipate caving of the side slopes. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). General Earthwork and Structural Fill Site construction should begin by stripping and clearing the building area of all vegetation and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials may have to be removed from the site. The contractor should anticipate, and be prepared to accommodate moderate seepage into even shallow excavations. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils would need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill should be placed above unyielding site soils in maximum eight -inch -thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). Soil is typically difficult to place and compact as structural fill if more than three percent from the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. During wet weather or under wet conditions, structural fill should consist of a granular soil having less that five percent silt or clay (measured on that portion which passes the 3/4-inch sieve). During drier weather, water may have to be added to the soils to achieve the required compacted density. PROPOSED REANIER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 Page 5 Wet Weather Construction If the site is developed during extended periods of wet weather/winter, the following are reasonable costs/changes which should be anticipated: 1) Excavated slopes and fill piles will have to be protected with plastic. 2) Excavations may require over -excavation (on the order to six inches to one foot), and replacement with "clean" structural fill or crushed rock. 3) Numerous site visits will be required by this office to evaluate site conditions, confer with the contractor, and make recommendations as conditions become exposed or change. 4) The project may suffer some time delays due to inclement weather, regardless of the mitigation measures which are adopted. 5) Costs of maintaining the site and cleaning adjacent streets/property will increase. Closure It is recommended we be retained to review the final development plans to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met and our recommendations have been accurately interpreted in the plans. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide professional geotechnical consultation, and observation services during design and construction. This allows us to: 1) confirm that design conforms to specific subsurface requirements; 2) confirm that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are consistent with those indicated by this report; 3) evaluate whether earthwork, shoring, and foundation construction activities conform to the intent of the contract specifications and plans, and; 4) provide recommendations for design changes in the event of changed conditions. While on the site during construction, we will not direct or supervise the contractor or the work, nor we will be responsible for maintaining or providing - for on -site safety or dimensional measurements during construction activities. 1 PROPOSED REANIER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Job Number 6074 July 26, 1996 Page 6 It has been a pleasure providing you with our professional services. If there are any questions, please call me directly at (206) 867-3297. Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. �. K. ©�o zG q? • r a s • e s SS'0 AL `� EXPIRES Mark K./Dodds( P.E. MKD/wd Enclosures: 7 Plates DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. PLATE 1 GUIDELINES IN THE USE OF THIS REPORT This report for Job No. 6074 was prepared in accordance with local generally accepted engineering principles and standards. No warranty is expressed or implied. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the limited services which you requested. Geotechnical engineering requires the application of professional judgment, as no study can completely quantify subsurface conditions. The owner should seriously consider any recommendations for additional work contained in the report, as it is then our professional opinion that this additional work is necessary to augment and/or fulfill site specific requirements. This report is an informational document, and is not to be used for contractual purposes. Any interpretation of subsurface conditions in the report including the test pit logs, and/or text discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. There is no warranty that these subsurface interpretations represent subsurface conditions other than that which occurred at the exact locations tested at the time the fieldwork was conducted by this firm. Groundwater levels can be especially sensitive to seasonal changes. This firm is not responsible for interpretations others make using this report. The conclusions and recommendations in this report assume that the field tests that were conducted accurately represent subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, significantly different subsurface conditions are encountered from those described in this report, our firm should be notified at once to review these conditions and revise our recommendations as necessary. Also, if there is a significant lapse of time between this report submittal and the start of work at the site, our firm should be allowed to review and verify site conditions. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered during excavation and construction, and simply cannot be fully anticipated by periodic soil and/or rock sampling at widely spaced testing locations. The owner should be prepared to accommodate potential extra costs through the development of a contingency fund. This firm cannot be responsible for any deviation from the intent of this report including, but not limited to the nature of the project, the construction timetable, and any construction methods discussed in the report. The recommendations contained in the report are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as may be specifically described in the report. This firm will not be responsible for any construction activity on this site, nor are we responsible if others attempt to apply this report to other sites. Job Number 6074 — Plate Guidelines Reanier Single -Family 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. Job Number 6074 - Plate Vicinity Map Reanier Single -Family 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington | ' � --- --' --- -- | | . . / | | / / / | | / | � | | / ~= / / | ( | / 314 314 01 | �J (aa^�,-----�-_ ' m-- . uw ='11.= / | | Job Number 6074 - Plate 3 Site Plan BeaDier Single -Family I{eo^cleoqe I832X 80th Avenue West - �u�oda, VVa����gtoo I�) o ai Z L Q. ep rcu �+ U7 N U o c n OL 1 1.0-2.0 4.1% SP-SM Tt-ST PIT 1 � U DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/98 S EXCAVATION METHOD:Backhoe DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: s 324.01 " Brown Gravelly Silty Sandy Topsoil, moist, loose. 7x/- Brown Gravelly Sand with some Sill, moist, medium -dense. 3 4 2 5.0-5.5 11.5% SM T F>.•; 3 5.5-6.5 5.9% SP 6 0: � •o: a °:. •.°.. o: • Q: O d a S -' to a a e a H o a cn o 0 rn a:o w J U 0 L SP-SM 1 2 3 S P 4 0' ,6:. ••b• 7 ••b• 9 10 11 DODDS Geosciences Inc. P.O, Box 6966 Bellevue, Washington Tele: (208) 887-329T Gray -brown Gravelly Silly Sand, moist, very dense. (Glacial Till) Gray Sand with some Gravel, moist, medium -dense to dense. Stopped at 10.0 feet. No groundwater seepage noted during excavation. DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 2 DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/98 EXCAVATION METHOD:Backhoe LOGGED BY: Mark K, Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: t 324.0 1 Brown Gravelly Silty Sandy Topsoil, moist, loose. Brown Gravelly Sand with some Silt to Gravelly Silty Sand, moist, medium -dense. Way nand with some Gravel, very moist, medium -dense to dense. Becomes dense with some Cobbles, Stopped at 8.0 feet, No groundwater seepage noted during excavation. LOG OF TEST PITS f AND 2 Reanier Single —Family Edmonds, Washington TEST PIT REPORT i DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 1.0' - 2.01 DATE: 7/18/96 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING 2.0" 100.0 3/4" 41.3 8.9 91.1 3/81' 106.6 23.0 77.0 #4 142.0 30.7 69.3 #10 179.0 38.7 61.3 #40 268.8 58.1 41.9 #100 413.2 89.3 10.7 #200 414.4 89.6 10.4 X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 1 Job Number 6074 - Plate 5 Sieve Analysis Reanier Single -Family Residence 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, p.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 5.0' - 5.5' DATE: 7/18/96 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING 2.0" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 3/8" 12.7 3.2 96.8 #4 36.5 9.3 90.7 #10 74.6 19.0 81.0 #40 152.6 38.9 61.1 #100 205.1 52.3 47.7 #200 226.9 57.9 42.1 .X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 Job Number 6074 - Plate 6 Sieve Analysis Reanier Single -Family Residence 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, p.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 5.5 , - 6.01 DATE: 7/18/96 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING 2.0" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 3/8" 1.5 0.4 99.6 #4 7.2 1.2 98.8 #10 20:9 5.2 94.8 #40 262.6 65.5 34.5 #100 385.5 96.1 3.9 #200 393.1 98.0 2.0 X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 Job Number 6074 - Plate 7 Sieve Analysis Reanier Single -Family Residence 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 4�p EDM OWN } CITY OF EDMONDS Fsc se° 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98o20 (42� 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Proposed rezone of approximately 6 acres from RS-12 (single-family - 12,000 min. lot size) to RS-8 (single-family - 8,000 min. lot size) and subsequent application for a Planned Residential Development/Subdivision to create 26 single-family building sites. The proposed project will also include approximately 11,600 cubic yards of fill placed on site; 29,000 cubic yards of excavation, of which, approximately 17,400 cubic yards of the excavated material will be removed from the site. City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. R-97-28. Proponents: Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, WA 98026; Dr. Han Z. Park, 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026; Mr. & Mrs. James L. Thompson, 13305 80th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026; and, City of Edmonds, Paul Mar, Community Services Director, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18305 80th Avenue West, and the vacant parcel located to the north of 18305 80th Avenue West at approximately 183XX 80th Avenue West. 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. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. 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 Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: _ December 19, 1997 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue .North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than _ January 7, 1998 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. 1 XX Posted on December 19, 1997 at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX 97-=N.DOC Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 10 r-:I_ iki, n n_7 nn Mailed to the following along A the Environmental Checklist: xx Environmental Review Section XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Department of Ecology Attn.: Bret Carlstad, Planning and Property P.O. Box 47703 meager Olympia, WA 98504-7703 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 xx Department of Fisheries Attn.: Richard E. Johnson xx Community Transit Regional Habitat Manger Attn.: Brent Russell Hill Crest Plaza 1133 164th Street Southwest, #200 430 91st Avenue NE, #7 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Everett, WA 98205 XX Applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park XX Department of Wildlife 7704 Olympic View Drive 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Edmonds, WA 98026 Mill Creek, WA 98012 xx Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. James L. Thompson xx Washington State Dept. of Transportation 18305 80th Avenue West TSM&P/Land Developer Edmonds, WA 98026 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133 xx Applicant: Paul Mar XX City of Lynnwood Community Services Director City of Edmonds, Community Services Attn.: Darryl Eastin, Senior Planner Dept. P.O. Box 5008 250 5th Avenue North Lynnwood, WA 98046 Edmonds, WA 98020 xx Stevens Memorial Hospital XX _ Agent: Charles Maki 21601 76th Avenue West 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Attachments pc: File No. R-97-28 SEPA Notebook Page age 2 of 2 11/1V99.3EPA 7822 182 Place SW Edmonds, WA 98025-5422 December 22, 1997 Planning Manager City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 u pg Re: Determination of Nonsignificance File No. 11-97-28. Robert Chave, The applicant at 7704 Olympic View Drive has been attempting to subdivide his property for several years. We have no problem with his desire to develop the property but we have grown tired of having to regularly rebut his attempts to rezone. During the seven years that we have lived here we have signed at least two petitions from other neighbors, asking that this property be retained at RS-12. We see no reason why this property should now be rezoned to RS-8. We do not see how ourselves and the surrounding neighbors will benefit from this variance. Our properties were developed as RS-12, why shouldn't these properties also be? We don't think that the applicants' persistence in rezoning attempts should be rewarded. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, l7x—., /—� � QVMCVIIX��� — Wallace R. Danielson Jr. Susan L. Danielson ATTACHMENT 11 File No. R-97-28 Adft Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation DATE: January 5, 1998 Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 (206) 440-4000 TO: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Supervisor City of Edmonds Dept. of Community Services Planning Division 250-5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 114 &4to SUBJ: SR-524 M.P.2.34 Vic. C.S.3149 Determination of Nonsignificance Application For A Rezone & Planned Residential Development For Charles Maki, Dr. Han Z. Pak, James L. Thompson & The City of Edmonds City File No. R-97-28 FROM: R.A. Jo hson, Manager of Planning & Local Coordi ion Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 Seattle; 'WA 98133 The applicants seeks approval to change the zoning of approximately a 6 acre parcel of land from RS-12 to RS- 8 and subdivide it into 26 single family lots. The location of this proposed subdivision is between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive; approximately 3/4 of a mile north of the SR-524/80th Avenue West intersection. Our comments on the DNS for this application are checked below: _ We have reviewed the environmental checklist and plat map for this proposed plat and determined that it will not have a significant adverse impact upon any state highways. We have no further comments on this application. X This proposed subdivision will generate 260 ADT when it is fully occupied. We need to review a traffic study prepared for this subdivision in order to determine what traffic impacts will occur to state highways and what mitigation measures, if any, are needed to mitigate any traffic impacts. We have no other comments on the DNS for this application. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Don Hurter (206) 440-4664 or Ed Giraud (206) 440-4912 of my Developer Services section. ATTACHMENT 12 File No. R-97-28 '1 Council President Palmer said the ADA is extremely far reaching and the cost that the City is looking at today is a fraction of what the City will end up spending in the future. Council Presi- dent Palmer said this underscores the need for moving ahead on the City's Space Needs Analysis. Councilmember Dwyer referenced the informational pamphlet entitled "A Citizen's Guide to Your Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act". Councilmember Dwyer said the pamphlet should reflect the phone number of the Personnel Office, rather than the main City number. Mr. Hunter concurred. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, TO APPROVE THE CITY POLICY ENTI- TLED "ACCOMMODATION OF THE DISABLED". MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR VACATING A PORTION OF THE UNOPENED 184TH STREET S.W RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW D L- AN USSELL K M L - -38 V� 5 Staff Report and Recommendation Rob Chave, Planning Manager, said the Applicant, Russel] Kim, has petitioned to vacate a portion �}�of the undeveloped 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive. Mr. ,j Chave said the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on this request, and Staff prepared an VV Advisory Report and Recommendation which was presented in the public hearing to the Hearing Exam- iner. Mr. Chave said the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation on May 13, 1992, to approve the pro- posed right=of-way vacation subject to certain conditions, which were included in the Council Packets. In addition, Mr. Chave said the Applicant would also be giving the City utility ease- ments. Mr. Chave recommended that he City Council adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Dwyer inquired on the process used to make the determination that the City would never have a use for this street right-of-way from Olympic view Drive up to 80th. Mr. Chave said one of the principal concerns was the change in topography in the area. Mr. Chave said the Applicant's property fronting on Olympic View Drive is in places, 50 feet below the property to the. west. Mr. Chave said this is a significant change in elevation., Bob Alberts, City Engineer, said there is a 30% to 40% grade at the subject location, which would make it very difficult to construct a road. Mr. Alberts discussed a future road that is designat- ed on the Official Street Map, however, said it would be difficult to build. since a dwelling exists in the same area. Other than what is listed on the Official Street Map, and the subject right-of-way, Councilmember Dwyer asked if there is any other possibility for ,anything in this vicinity where the City would build a road that would connect to Olympic View Drive to an access to Seaview Park. Mr. Alberts said he was not sure, as most of hillside in the area is developed. Councilmember Dwyer asked if anyone has discussed with the Post Office, if they would like to have access from Olympic View Drive up into the Seaview area, and Mr. Chave said he did not think that subject ever came up. Councilmember Kasper asked if the City is talking about substituting a right-of-way or an out right sale, and Mr. Chave replied the latter. Councilmember Hall verified that the City is asking for compensation from the property owner as well an easement across the property, and Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Testimony of the Applicant Councilmember Hall asked Russell Kim, Applicant, to re -state his position on the subject. Mr. Kim said the street has not been open for several years. Mr. Kim said the subject area has difficult terrain which would make constructing a road very difficult. Mr. Kim said he is willing to justly compensate the City for the right-of-way. ATTACHMENT 13 File No. R-97-28 Public Testimon Max Meyring, Meyring & Associates, 23423 Highway 99, Edmonds, said he is in favor of the proposed right-of-way because it would help one of his clients procure a vacation for the rest of the street. James Thompson, 18305 80th Ave. W., said the traffic on 80th W. has become atrocious. Mr. Thomp- son said the City needs to construct a road to take some of the traffic off of 80th. Betty Smith, 18208 80th West. feels a road could be placed in the subject area, and said the City should use the subject property for City purposes and construct a road. Ms. Smith said the traf- fic is going to get worse with the opening of the new Post Office. With no other member of the audience wishing to come forward, Mayor Hall closed the public por- tion of the hearing. Council Discussion and Deliberation Councilmember Petruzzi said he doesn't have an objection to the vacation, however, does have an objection to selling it and not getting the requested street vacation. Councilmember Petruzzi said to give up the right-of-way for the purpose of maximixing an area for development, might not be consistent with good judgement. Councilmember Dwyer said he is not convinced that the City has no need for a street that links the general Seaview Park Area and Olympic View Drive. Councilmember Dwyer said if the City wanted an access at the right-of-way, they wouldn't be able to purchase it for the price that it is recommended it being sold for. Councilmember Dwyer said he is not convinced that the City does not have a need for an access through there. Councilmember Dwyer said given the fact that there isn't another plan, as Staff informed the Council the other access shown on the Official Street Map has a house on it, Councilmember Dwyer said he doesn't see why the City would be willing to give up the only potential the City has for an access road. Councilmember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Petruzzi and Councilmember Dwyer. Councilmember Kasper said he doesn't feel the City should give up the right-of-way, and feels the City needs to look at the issue of access more closely. Councilmember Hall asked the City Attorney if he is correct to assume that if the Applicant wants a vacation of the property, he has a right of purchase it for a certain amount of money. City Attorney John Wallace said the Code states the Council has the right not to grant a vacation if the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it's usefulness or potential useful- ness of the street to the general public. Mr. Wallace said in order to grant the vacation ,the Council must make a finding that the City has absolutely no need for the street. Mr. Wallace said at this time, Councilmembers have indicated their opinion that there is a need for an access to connect 80th and the Seaview area with Olympic View Drive., Councilmember Hall feels the Council may be trying to penalize the Applicant. Councilmember Hall said the property is not needed by the City, therefore, the Applicant should be allowed to attain the right-of-way. Council President Palmer said the Council is not trying to penalize the Applicant, as there may be a future need for the right-of-way, and since the property is publicly owned, he does not feel comfortable with giving up the right-of-way. Councilmember Dwyer agreed with Council President Palmer, and said rather than viewing it as penalizing someone, the decision should be based on the premise that nobody has the right to own public land except for the public, and the City should not sell it unless they are convinced there is no use for it and never will have a use for it. Councilmember Hall said he is convinced that the City will never use the subject property as an access road. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL REJECT THE HEAR- ING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR VACATING A PORTION OF THE UNOPENED 184TH STREET S.W. RIGHT-OF- WAY LYING WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND SOUTH OF 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND FURTHER, THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR AN ACCESS BETWEEN 80TH AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. Under discussion, Councilmember Dwyer feels the relative part of the motion only needs to reflect that the Council is not convinced that there will never be a need for an access between 80th to Olympic View Drive. FINAL COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Page 4 June 2, 1992 COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI TO READ THAT THE RELEVANT PORTION BE CHANGED TO READ THAT "THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A NEED FOR AN ACCESS BETWEEN 80TH AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE". City Attorney John Wallace said a motion for disposition should be made, since he would be preparing a Findings of Fact to be adopted by the Council at a future Consent Agenda. Mr. Wallace said the Findings of Fact would reflect Council discussion. Council President Palmer asked if the word "Reject" should be changed to "Deny". City Attorney John Wallace said the correct terminology would be reflected in the Findings of Fact. THE MAIN MOTION, AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION THEN CARRIED, with Councilmember Hall vot- ing no on the Main Motion as well as the Amendment to the Main Motion. Mr. Wallace said the Findings of Fact and Conclusions regarding this subject would appear on the June 16 Consent Agenda for Council review and approval. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB FINAL APPROVAL FOR A NEW 3-STORY MIXED USE OFFICE/5-UNIT APARTMENT BUILD- ING AT 504 HOLLY DRIVE (APPELLANT- ED90-05—trTy COUNCIL OF CONCERNED, CITIZENS; APPL CAN B- �0��'ERT BUTTLRFIELDJASOL - 1 -IUY-91) VMayor Hall asked if any Councilmembers had any Appearance of Fairness or other Ex-Parte communica- tions to reveal prior to the start of the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer said he has decided to step down from participating in the hearing. Council - member Dwyer said this is a project which the Council has had under several other occasions under different circumstances. Councilmember Dwyer said this is the first hearing as an appeal from the final decision of the A.D.B. In this appeal, Councilmember Dwyer said the parties have changed from those parties that were under prior circumstances, and said in this instance, the Appellant is the Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens. Councilmember Dwyer said he is a former member of the group, however, left the group as he was elected to the Edmonds City Council. Coun- cilmember Dwyer said his parents have been very active in the group over the years, and although, neither one of them is presently an officer or trustee of the group, both of them have'served as one or the other over the years. Councilmember Dwyer said after searching his conscience, he feels he can be fair on this subject, however, feels there might be a problem with Appearance of Fairness. Councilmember Dwyer said there is a possibility that a member of the audience could believe that it is unfair for him to participate in light of the facts he has disclosed. Councilmember Dwyer said he is not convinced that a disinterested citizen in the audience would totally agree with his participation in the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer said a disinterested citizen might view his participation as being unfair or have an appearance of being unfair. Councilmember Dwyer left Council Chambers for the duration of the hearing. Councilmember Hall said his brother-in-law's father-in-law is the owner of the subject property. Councilmember Kasper said he was approached by Hearing Examiner James Driscoll and Robert Butterfield's father. Councilmember Kasper said the discussion did not contain any Ex-Parte commu- nications. Councilmember Kasper said both parties simply asked him to be fair on the subject. Council President Palmer noted for the audience that the City Attorney present tonight is not the same City Attorney present when the appeal from the preliminary ADB decision was heard before the Council. Council President Palmer said he had a previous conversation with the Applicant, Mr. Butterfield. Council President Palmer said Mr. Butterfield asked him when the Council's decision was to be made, at which time, Council President Palmer referred him to the City Attorney. Councilmember Earling said since he works in downtown Edmonds, he sees many people. Councilmember Earling said he did come into contact with Mr. Bennett on a couple occasions, Mr. Driscoll on one occasion, and Mr. Butterfield's father on one occasion. Councilmember Earling said there was no specific discussion on the subject hearing, nor did they try and influence him in any way in any of those conversations. Councilmember Petruzzi said he came into contact with Mr. Bennett's mother, in which no conversa- tion took place regarding the subject hearing. Mayor Hall said in the past she had two telephone calls to her office from the Applicant's Attor- ney, Mr. Bennett. Mayor Hall said she referred him to the City Attorney one time, and the neigh- bors of the subject property another time. 7 T- 'N I l �v a u)". M e 11 IT ATTACHMENT 14 File No. R-97-28 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING BOARD ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: EDIVION) PL , O BOARD 7 Hank Lewis, C airman 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. ues: 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"). ATTACHMENT 15 M39i&15sz.xFP0R1 File No. R-97-28 Russell Kir File No. R ;9 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. 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) M39/& 13.9Z. REPORTSIPB 7 I 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 RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Parks Division Fire Department R92-39/& 15-92.RMRTWJ3 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 time. 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 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. PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER R92-39P, ATTACHMENT 16 File No. R-97-28 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 "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 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 y 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 r 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 Item #: Originator: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: HEARING ON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REMOVE THAT PORTION OF A PROPOSED 60-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATION BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND BOTH AVENUE WEST STARTING JUST NORTH OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO REMOVE THE DESIGNATION OF THE EXISTING 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF. 184TH STREET SW STARTING AT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND PROCEEDING WEST APPROXIMATELY 252 FEET; AND REMOVE THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY.LYING WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO ALLOW A VACATION OF THE SUBJECT RIGHTS -OF -WAY PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. ST-96-78. ALL OF THE PROPOSED REQUESTS DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE LOCATED EITHER ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DR., 18325 80TH AVE. W, AND 18408 79TH PL. W. (Applicant: Charles Maki l File No: ST-96-77) Agenda Time Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 40 Minutes September 3, 1996 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hearing Examiner's "Findings and Recommendation (issued 7/26/96). 3. Staff Advisory Report to the Hearing Examiner (dated 7/3/96). 4. Letter and map from Mr. Maki Clearances: Department/lnitials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs Engineering Q-(. !(/ Parks & Rec Planning Public W ks Treatment Plant City Council _ Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Sernices Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: Not Applicable ATTACHMENT 17 File No. R-97-28 Previous Council Action: None Narrative: The applicant has applied for an amendment to the City's Official Street Map to delete a proposed 6.0- foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. Additionally, he is seeking to remove a portion of the existing 20-foot wide right-of-way from Olympic View Drive and proceeding west 253-feet. Finally, the applicant is seeking the removal of the unused right-of-way along Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit 4, Attachment A). There are three principal issues concerning this application: 1) The preservation (or loss) of a possible connection between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West; 2) Slope stability and preservation along Olympic View Drive; and 3) Long term impacts associated with this Official Street Map amendment. The applicant states that the possible connection between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West will be preserved in that the applicant will eventually apply for a Planned Residential Development with it's associated road that combined with the remaining connection to 184th Street Southwest on the applicants property, will insure that, the applicant will still make provision for a connection. The applicant has stated that he is willing to grant the City an easement for slope stability along his entire frontage along Olympic View Drive. This will provide the City with greater control over slopes along Olympic View Drive than presently exists. The easement will be wider than the current right-of-way and will traverse the entire frontage of the applicant's property. The present right-of-way odcupies only a portion of the applicants frontage along Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit 4, Attachment A). The long term impact from this decision essentially concerns the ability to make a future connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. As a condition of approval the applicant should be required to provide some type of connection between Olypic View Drive and his portion of 184th Street Southwest. Should engineering studies suggest a different alignment a further'alteration of the Official Street Map could take place in conjunction with a proposed subdivision. On July 12, 1996, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the proposed street map amendment. The Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation on July 26, 1996, to approve the requested street map amendment with conditions (see Exhibit 2). The most significant condition was the requirement to widen his portion of the remaining 184th Street Southwest connection to 40-feet from it's current 20- feet. Recommended Action: Adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and approve the application for a street map amendment with the conditions recommended by the Hearing Examiner (see Exhibit 2). AIso the applicant shall be required, as part of any development application, to provide a 40-foot wide connection between OIympic View Drive and his portion of 184th Street Southwest, Council Action: IT 4 LA " ' • ' RS-1�' , 3w • J %R11.f � 2 0r• t � r • �� _ SS i -� • f•• r s •w ] w w '• s � � •�� f , i F...a:.L ntwf�'ia Rt 1 COUNTY PARK COUNTY FARX i � o i t •1-4 ♦ i f .w . 1 +l1ff3T fC • .. ! '1 ' a t � I a • W r •. .I.1Ta �. ..__ ��� S rlM.r t•1 . NLii L f ...• . ♦ _.�.. ♦ I TO • ' • ••. �w+[l A6�118 A' v ¢ ACRES ) vk uj , a..; X • m RS? .'12 _'�: e . •e 26 s = '• _ ^a I'• BN l W. C.1 »_�» �� � w1 t • 1 � scare. � • 1 ,m � ft•wf• S fa•.1f fa••,i fn ct) ••. aro•1 • r � it0 � • .� r • ! \ T I.r i 3 ri T1f • S, jKV ««« GA• VIEW er "a MC.+.r ��f•[T.+wfr j • I • ; f ♦ i ! a It • . a f a 1 1 a w . .• .� +��+«r ""»'• 71 1. 1 1 • JMtw 1Mtf7 L• -, • a f M • • w . 1 M •, . ►wN� • f�i • 1j aa►tii i Mf•lGilf — ♦`yg �•-L—� •» M7THILir. S IT M $7. llf ��} sa •gl o TRACTS taus. A . w • • . r ♦ • w . ! • f '�.❖ �; .. • •M f •r tl t w .w. Vicinity Map Exhibit 1 rs t. 1 S9v CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 . FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Charles Maki CASE NO.: ST 96-77 LOCATION: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4) APPLICATION: This application is to amend the City's Official Street Map to remove that portion of proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West starting just north of 184th 'Street Southwest. Additionally, the applicant wants to: a. remove the designation of the existing 20- foot wide right-of-way of 184th Street Southwest starting at Olympic View Drive and proceeding west approximately 253 feet; and b. remove the designation of a portion of the unused right-of- way lying west of Olympic View Drive and north of 184th Street Southwest right-of-way, to allow a vacation of the subject right-of- way pursuant to an application submitted under City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. ST-96-78 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). REVIEW PROCESS: Street Map Amendment; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes recommendation to the City Council. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.65 (STREET MAP CHANGES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -.PURPOSES). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.40 (COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN - PURPOSES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC) Chapter.18.50 (OFFICIAL STREET MAP). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff: Partial approval with conditions Hearing Examiner: Partial approval with conditions • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Exhibit. 2 Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Maki application was opened at 10:51 a.m., July 12, 1996, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5' Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:50 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING TESTIMONY: The following is a summary of the testimony offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk Vinish, AICP, Planner, reviewed the Planning Division Advisory Report (Exhibit A) and discussed concerns expressed by neighbors about losing a possible connection to Olympic View Drive. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, reviewed the Engineering Division report (Exhibit A, Attachment 6) and said: • When the dotted lines were put on the Official Street Map for rights -of -way designations the roads were not intended to be located exactly within the dotted lines. • The property where the post office is now located was owned by the City and was considered to be a possible fire station location. • The dotted lines indicate a rough location for a connection to Olympic View Drive. • The existing 20 foot wide right-of-way could be'used for: ♦ pedestrian access ♦ utility access ♦ emergency access • A' 30 foot wide right-of-way would be needed to allow for a 24 foot wide roadway. From the Applicant: John Mellor, Agent for the Applicant, said: • It would be very difficult to widen Olympic Drive in this area due to the topography and removing a portion of the unused right-of-way along Olympic Way would help the applicant with lot yield. Hearing _xaminer Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 3 • A roadway connection would not work in the configuration of the existing 20 foot wide right -of way. • The "S" curve shown in dotted lines won't work anymore and should be deleted. From the Community: Earl Smith, neighbor, gave a history of roads in the area and spoke in favor of vacating the 20 foot wide right-of-way. Joe Scialdone, Neighbor Jim Thompson, Neighbor Ed Swanson, Neighbor Katherine Morley, Neighbor Francis LaFond, Neighbor All spoke in favor of keeping an option open to provide an access from 80t' Avenue West to Olympic View Drive. They said: • They didn't think a road could be built in the location of the "S" curve, but felt a tie to PerrinvMe is critical. • They felt a roadway connection from 80'h Avenue West to the proposed cul-de-sac in the approximate location of the existing 20 foot right -of --way is possible. • Most didn't think the City should give up any right-of-way on Olympic View Drive. • A lot of traffic now uses 80' West which is a narrow road Another connection to Olympic View would reduce some of the traffic volume on 80'h West. • The 20 foot right-of-way should not be vacated, but rather should be explored as a possible location for a. link between the new cul-de-sac and Olympic View Drive. Response from the Applicant: John Mellor said: • If the right-of-way along Olympic View Drive were vacated as requested, Olympic Drive would still have a 70 foot wide right-of-way. • It would be possible from an engineering standpoint to connect the new cul-de-sac to 801h West, but the police and fire departments saw no need during the review of the application. • The sight distance on 80`h West is tough. • The applicant does not want a connection from 80`' West to Olympic View Drive to go through his new subdivision. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 4 ' Response from the City: Kirk Vinish said one option, is to remove the right-of-way along Olympic View from the official map, but then have the applicant give the City a maintenance easement. CORRESPONDENCE: Joe Scialdone submitted Exhibit B which was signed by 39 persons. The letter expressed no opposition to any part of the application, except the requested vacation of the eastern;6 of 18e Ave. S.W. between 80`h and Olympic View Drive. The residents in the area want to make sure the present or future ability to connect 80`h West with Olympic View Drive is not eliminated. The letter had a map attached which showed removal of the "S" curve right-of-way lines and retention of the existing 20 foot wide right-of-way. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The portion of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive and the unopened portion of 184th Street Southwest is approximately 7,304 square feet. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West is approximately 33,000 square feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is . Single -Family Residential (RS-12). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property has several steep slopes, with all open areas vegetated (see Exhibit A, Attachments 4 and 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. 2) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. 3) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS- 12. 4) West: Developed with a U.S. Post Office development and zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 5 } b. Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. STATE ENVERONMENTAL POLICIES ACT (SEPA) a. Fact: The application is not exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(6)b. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Edmonds SEPA Responsible Official on June 6,1996. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. ` 2. Compliance with requirement for a Street Map Amendment ECDC Chapter 20.65, states the review criteria for Street Map Amendment Changes. These Criteria include: 1) conformance with the purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2) conformance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan; and 3) conformance with the purposes of the Official Street Map. a. Facts: ECDC Section 15.05 is the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The plan states in part, "The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted as a 1 preliminary to the establishment, improvement, abandonment, or vacation of any street, and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the city council until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered by the Hearing Examiner with reference to the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner's Report on the same will be at the time and part of his or her action on the vacation and/or dedication". The applicant has not provided in ' his submittal any discussion of his proposal as it relates to the criteria ,for a Street Map Amendment. A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Plan follows: 1) To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposed Street Map Amendment, as recommended below, will n'ot adversely affect the ability of the City to utilize the Comprehensive Plan for guidance in the establishment of development regulations. 2) To promote the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare. Hearing Examiner Comments: Removal of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive would significantly impair the City's ability to protect the street from slope failure and development which might affect the slope. The proposed removal from the Official Street Map Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 6 of the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road as a possible extension of 184`h Street S.W. will adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare. 3) To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposal appears to be consistent and coordinated with development in the immediate vicinity if approved as recommended. 4) To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposal, as recommended below, appears to be coordinated with adjacent development and anticipates the eventual subdividing of the property in a manner that appears to be harmonious with the surrounding development. 5) To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and dire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. Hearing Examiner Comments: The unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated provided a utility, easement is retained. If the proposal is approved as recommended, public services should not be adversely affected by this proposal. b. Facts: ECDC Section 15.40 Comprehensive Street Plan states, "The Comprehensive Street Plan shall have the following purposes, in addition to the general purpose of the comprehensive plan: A. To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and'thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the off cial street map to implement the comprehensive plan. B. To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. (Ord. 3030 § 3,1995J." The following plans have been repealed: Comprehensive thoroughfare plan and the Changes to the plan. A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan follows: 1) To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the official street map to implement the comprehensive plan. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.. ST 96-77 Page 7 Hearing Examiner Comments: The Street and Thoroughfare plans have been repealed. If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed The Official Street Map will continue to provide an effective means of implementing City policy with regard to the development of streets in the vicinity of the proposal. 2) To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. [Ord. 3030 § 3, 1995]. Hearing Examiner Comments: Utilities and transportation in the immediate vicinity should not be impaired by the proposal if the recommendations are followed. C. Fact: ECDC Section 18.50 Official Street Map states, "The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Implement the comprehensive street plan. B. Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan." A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Official Street Map follows: 1) Implement the comprehensive street plan. . Hearing Examiner Comments: If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed, the proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2) Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. Hearing Examiner Comments: Section 2.b above discusses conformance with the Comprehensive Street Plan. It does not appear that the proposal, as conditioned will prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. d) Conclusions: 1) Part of the proposal generally appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. a. The unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated, however a utility easement needs to be retained b. The proposal, for removal of the proposed 60 foot right-of- way, generally appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. However, it appears that the conditions as recommended in this report are necessary to satisfy the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 8 2) In order to protect the slopes along Olympic View Drive, the right-of- way adjacent to that street should not be removed from the Official S treet Map. 3) The proposal to eliminate the 20 foot wide 184`' Street Southeast right- of-way extension west . of the property plat road appears -to be inconsistent with the purposes of the Official Street Map. Lot � I l is adjacent to the west of the subject property has the potential to be subdivided and that subdivision would be served by the 18e St. S.W. extension. There also appears to be a significant need for a roadway connection from 80d Avenue West to Olympic View Drive which could provided in the future if the right-of-way to the west of the proposed plat road is relocated and expanded. The applicant has not shown that the entire proposal will meet the criteria of Street Map Amendment. However, if the conditions as outlined below are followed, then a portion of the proposal will be consistent with the criteria. C. TECEMCAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments: a. Fact: The Engineering Division had the following recommendations: Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the proposed right-of- way be Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road, provided the plat road is made public and there is a pedestriankike access easement and construction between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat. Denial for removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). b. Fact: The Parks & Recreation Department had the following recommendations: Approval with exception of the unopened right-of-way lying west of the conceptual plat unless a pedestrian/bike access easement is provided between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). C. Fact: The Public Works Department had the following comments and recommendations: A 24-inch water main and a sewer main is located in the right-of-way proposed to be removed from the Official Street Map. At a minimum the Public Works Department recommends that a 10-foot wide easement be required for all locations where City utility lines are located j (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 9 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The conceptual development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. c. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...." d) Conclusion: The conceptual development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. e) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Soils and Topography section, identifies goals and polices which are related to this conceptual development. Specific applicable goals and polices are discussed in detail below. 1) Section C states as a goal of the City that: "Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil canditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1.a. Grading, filling and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.l.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope of an adjacent property." C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill .on'hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property." f) Conclusion: A portion of the proposed Street Map Amendment is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City providing the recommendations outlined below are followed. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following is recommended: 1. Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 2. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened extension 184th Street Southwest 20 foot right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 3. Denial of removal from the Official Street Map the unopened extension of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road. Rather, when the subject property is platted, that section of right-of-way shall be widened and relocated to accommodate a future 18e Street Southwest street extension between the unopened right-of-way south of Lot 11 and the future plat road. 4. Denial of removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. 5. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 6. The approval as noted above is transferable. Entered this 26th day of July, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND COUNCIL ACTION: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No. ST 96-77 Page 11 which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Normal Review, The City Council will consider a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner at its next available meeting. The Council may adopt or remand the recommendation at that meeting. 2. Optional Public _Hearing. If the Council wishes _ to consider any change to the recommendation, the Council shall set a public hearing in the manner provided in Chapter 20.90. After the hearing the Council shall approve, modify, conditionally approve, deny or remand the proposal. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 8 attachments B. Letter from Joe Scialdone, dated 7/7/96 and signed by 39 other persons C. Map of proposed road alignment, submitted by Joe Scialdone . PARTIES of RECORD: Charles Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 John Mellor 606 S ater Lane Edmonds, WA 98026 Jim Thompson 18305 80d' Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Ed Swanson 8111 18Vd S.W. Edmonds, OVA 98026 Francis La Fond 18227 80`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Han Z. and Regina K. Park. 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Joe Scialdone 18332 80" Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Earl Smith 18325 80" West Edmonds, WA 98026 Katherine Morley 18203 80`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Engineering Division Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMHNDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: kl� Kirk J. Vinish Planner Date: JULY 3, 1996 File: ST-96-77 CHARLES MAKI Hearing Date, Time, And Place: Juiv 12, 1996 At 9:00 A A Community Services Conference Room 250 5th Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...........................................:.......................................... A. Application...............................................................:......................................................2, B, Recommendations ........................... :...................... ................................. ....2 ................... II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ A. Site Description..............................................................................................................3 B. State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) C. Technical Committee.......:...........................................................................:..................6 D. Comprehensive Plan(ECDC).........................................................................................6 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS................................................. . .. . .... .... .... .7 A. Request for Reconsideration.......................................................................................7 B. Appeals....................................................................................................................... .7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ...................... ............................................. ....... ................................. 7 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................:... VI. APPENDICES........................................................................................................................8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.......................................................................... ST96.77 DOC /July 3�96 / h i b i t 3 P Charles Maki File No. ST-96-77 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. A=Iica t: Charles Maki (see Attachment 1). 2. Site Location: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Attachments 1 and 4) 3. Reque : Application to amend the City's Official Street Map to remove that portion of proposed '60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive -and 80th Avenue West starting just north of 184th Street Southwest. Additionally the applicant request to remove the designation of the existing 20-foot wide right-of-way of 184th Street Southwest starting at Olympic View Drive and proceeding west approximately 253 feet; remove the designation of a portion of the unused right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive and north of 134th Street Southwest right-of-way, to allow a vacation of the subject right-of-way pursuant to an application• submitted under City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. ST- 96-78 (see Attachment 1). 4. Review Process: Street Map Amendment; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes recommendation to the City Council. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.65 (STREET MAP CHANGES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.40 (COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN - PURPOSES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.50 (OFFICIAL STREET MAP). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend partial Approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval for removal from the Official ' Street Map the proposed right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West (see Attachment 5). 2. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened extension 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained (see Attachment 5). 3. Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the unopened extension of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road, provided the plat road is made public and. there is a pedestrian/bike access easement and construction between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the proposed plat (see Attachment 5).. 4. Denial for removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. 5. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 6. The permit should be transferable. ST96.77.DOC / July 3, 1996 / Staff Report Charles Maki File No. ST-96-77 Page 3 of 8 IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Ste: The portion of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive and the unopened portion of 184th Street Southwest is approximately 7,304 square feet. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West is approximately 33,000 square feet (see Attachment 4). (2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS-12). (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property has several steep slopes, with all open areas vegetated (see Attachments 4. and 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) acts: (1) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (2) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (3) Ea : Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (4) West: Developed with a U.S. Post Office development and zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) a) ac : The application is not exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)b. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Edmonds SEPA Responsible Official on June 6, 1996. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Attachments 2 and 3. b) conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Street Map Amendment ECDC Chapter 20.65, states the review criteria for Street Map Amendment Changes. These Criteria include: 1) conformance with the purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2) conformance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan; and 3) conformance with the purposes of the Official Street Map. a) E=: ECDC Section 15.05 is the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The plan states in part, "The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted as a preliminary to the establishment, improvement, abandonment, or vacation of any street, and no dedication of any street or other area for public use, shall be accepted by the clty council until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered by the Hearing Examiner with reference to the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner's Report on the same will be at the time and part of his or her action on the vacation and/or dedication". The applicant has not provided in his submittal any discussion of his proposal as it relates to the criteria for A Street Map Amendment. A. summary of the ST96.77.DOC/ July 3, 1996 1 Staff Report Charles Maki File No. ST-96-77 Page 4 of 8 proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. follows: (1) To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. Staff f�' Comments: The proposed Street Map Amendment will not adversely affect the ability of the City to utilize the Comprehensive Plan for guidance in the establishment of development regulations. (2) To promote the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare. Staff Comments: Removal of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive would signfcantly impair the City's ability to protect the street from slope failure and development which might affect the slope. The proposed removal from the Official Street Map of the proposed right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West and the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, providing a pedestrian/bike access easement between the proposed plat road the the westerely boundary of the proposed plat. (3) To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. Staff Comments: The proposal appears to be consistent and coordinated with development in the immediate vicinity if the conditions as recommed are applied. (4) To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. Staff Comments: The proposal appears to be coordinated with adjacent development and anticipates the eventual subdividing of the property in a manner that appears to be harmonious with the surrounding development. 0) To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. Staff Comments: The unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated provided a utility easement is retained. If the proposal is conditioned as recommended, public services should not be adversely affected by this proposal. b) ae S: ECDC Section 15.40 Comprehensive Street Plan states, "The Comprehensive Street Plan shall have the following purposes, in addition to the general purpose of the comprehensive plan: A. To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the qfficial street map to implement the comprehensive plan. A To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. Ord. 3030 § 3, 1995J." The following plans have been repealed: Comprehensive thoroughfare plan and the Changes to the plan. A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan follows: 3T96-77.DOC / July 3,1996 / Staff Report Charles Maki file No. ST-96-77 Page 5 of 8 (1) To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the official street map to implement the comprehensive plan. Staff Comments: The Street 'and Thoroughfare plans have been repealed. If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed The Official Street Mqo will continue to provide an effective means of implementing City policy with regard to the development of streets in the vicinity of the proposal. (2) To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. [Ord. 3030 § 3, 1995]. Staff Comments: Utilities and transportation in the immediate vicinity should not be impaired by the proposal if the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed c) act: ECDC Section 18.50 Official Street Map states, "The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Implement the comprehensive street plan. B. Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan." A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Official Street Map follows: (1) Implement the comprehensive street plan. Staff Comments: If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed, the proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (2) Regulate the - construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. Staff Comments: Section 11.2.b above discusses conformance with the Comprehensive Street Plan. It does not appear that the proposal, as conditioned will prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. d) CQadU l" , (1) The proposal generally appears to be consistent with the puiposes of the Comprehensive Plan. However, in order to protect the slopes along Olympic View Drive, the right-of-way adjacent to that street should not be removed from the Official Street Map. Additionally, the unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of- way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated, however a utility easement needs to be retained. (2) The proposal generally appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. However, it appears that the conditions as recommended in Section I.B of this report are necessary to satisfy the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. (3) The proposal appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Official Street Map, if a pedestrian/bike .access easement between the proposed road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat is provided. The applicant has not shown that the proposal will meet the criteria of Street Map Amendment. However, if the conditions as outlined Section B of this report are followed then the proposal will be consistent with the criteria. ST96.77.DOC / kly 3,1996 / Staff Report Charles,Makl File No. ST-96-77 Page 6 of 8 C. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments: a) act: The Engineering Division had the following recommendations: Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the proposed right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained. Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road, provided the plat road is made public and there is a pedestrian bike access easement and construction between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat. Denial for removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent Olympic View Drive (see Attachment 6). b) )pact: The Parks & Recreation Department had the following recommendations: Approval with exception of the unopened right-of-way lying west of the conceptual plat unless a pedestrian/bike access easement is provided between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat (see Attachment 7). c) Fact: The Public Works Department had the following comments and recommendations: A 24-inch water main and a sewer main is located in the right-of-way proposed to be removed from the Official Street Map. At a minimum the Public Works Department recommends that a 10-foot wide easement be required for all locations where City utility lines are located (see Attachment 8). D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan a) act: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b) It : The conceptual development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. c) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...." d) Conclusion: The conceptual development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. e) Egg: The Comprehensive PIan, Soils and Topography section, identifies goals and polices which are related to this conceptual development. Specific applicable goals and polices are discussed in detail below. (1) Section C states as a goal of the City that: "Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: (i) C.l.a. Grading, filling and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. ST96-77.DOC / July 3,1996 /•Staff Report Charles Maki File No. ST-96-77 Page 7 of a C.I.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope of an adjacent property.,, only mi�al aluounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 1557 slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property, t} nc u ' n; The proposed Street Map Amendment is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City providing the recommendations at outlined in Section B of this report are followed. ill• RE CONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. An Person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. y g p nt A• Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.0I0.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is fled within ten 10 working decision by any person who attends the public .hearing and signs C days of the date of the initial presents testimony or by any person holding an hearing ownerhi � he attendance register and/or subject of such decision or recommendation. The re references to the findings and/or the critconsideration request mlust titer specirest in a tract of wch is fic application being reviewed. eria contained in the ordinances governing the type of ' B• Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearin recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made Ing Examiner decision or decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the datef the decision, the name writing, and shall include the Of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in appellant believes the decision to be wrong. he matter, and reasons why the Development Director within ten (10) working days aftertheate of the decisimust befilled on the beingC ommunity IV• LAPSE OF APPROVAL pp led. Section 20,05,020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building el substantially commences the use allowed within one year from he date Of or a if no building is required, permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner for an rovalexthension onditional the time before the expiration date.' fles an application V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The'property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. ST96.77.DoC / July 3, 1996 /Staff Report ,1 1 VI. APPENDICES Attachments I through 8 are attached. 1. Application 2. Environmental Checklist 3. Determination of Nonsignfiicance, dated 6128/9.6 4. Vicinity Map 5. Site Plan 6. Comments from the Engineering Division, dated 6/3/96 7. Comments from the Parks & Recreation Department, dated 6/12/96 8. Comments from the Public Works Department, dated 615196 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division, Fire Department 'Parks Department Public Works Department Charles Maki File No. ST-96-77 Page 8 of 8 ST96.77.DOC / July 3, 1996 / StaffReport cltY -of t. t1OndS t. land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN! BOARD ❑ COMP -PLAN AMENDMENT C! CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ . SHORT SUBDIVISION 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEQMENTLOPMENT OF STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT El VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER PILE # �� � �/ i 7� ZONE DATE Sf REC'D BY 17001 FEE �o " . RECEIPT# HEARING D TE HE Cl STAFF ❑ PB ❑-. ADB a CC r j ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED Q DENIED ❑ APPEALED Applicant Ak, i( ,1 _, Phone 77G — Address 8235' Property Address .orLocation 7704- o1 WA 98oz4 Property Owner Ala,;, Z. Phone '77.¢ 0�.�9 Address 770.4- O/ _k" P«. yiqr_w L').-/Ve W.4 . 9�oz Agent Phone 77S"— 6-&/? Address G 0 G �� � F .e '.s WA 9, .o z. o Tax Acc # 3 7a& — oa / _ o 0 9 _ 0 �,0 8 Sec. / S Twp. 2? til Rng. Legal Description �,g cH�.a Details of Project or Proposed Us��/iz�w �/c/Q� 6� `,� �/ 0 C%-W-7 a c ez .� T /, The undersigned applicant, and hisl 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 staffnt th'Q 1 enter the subject props for the, ur n� property p pose of inspection and posting attendant to th• SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ATTACHMENT 1 File No. ST-96-77 I CITY OF ED ONDS EN ON MNTA.E :CHEC t,IST ag0.19 _ Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCw, requires a-1 ,overnmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before malting decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS} must be prepared for all proposals with probable.signi.ficant adverse impacts oa ;the quality of:dw environment. Tice purpose of this checklist is to provide information be d ion to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the gency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Govemmentai agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your lcnowJedge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the .need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply", complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmeatal regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark design if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. ations. Answer Chew questions The checklist questions apply :to all parts �ofyour proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which You submit this checklist may a,�it you to explain your answers air provide additional information reasonably relsted to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for rtonprgject proposals: - Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTI0NS (part D). apply." IN ADDITION, For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words -project," "applicant," and °property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area,' respectively. A. BACKGROUND I• Name of proposed project, if ippiicable: XV1 2, Name of applicant: . 3.• Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. ' Date checklist prepared; ATTACHMENT 2 Paga i or22 File No. ST-96-77 7flctTnazsa�.�ttsren ) S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule .(including phasing, .if applicable): PkL �yYJ2vtd �7�EGt.�• Y�a�t� . , � i�-r_L a.car77a'r� a .all n� a. 777 =r-'n (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity .related to or'co-nnected with this proposal? If yes, explain. ;=7c wr✓t4 Tate_ CJ¢-�Gcl0.( S!f^eC. L4:�K1vYLC.e�(yY1P�ct%� (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any envi.rornneatal information you know .about that -has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. - nVe (STA F F COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether -applications are pending forgovernmental a-pprovals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Alo (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that wrli be needed for your proposal, if known. i (STAFF COMMENTS) Faye 2 of 22 CH=TA0dd•4l.MA3r9R 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. � �--ea,�es-� �� D� ,-��-'-tom. v��e � a ,���' �h��b/��y-SAL• � o/ r 8-�d- Z5� emu! " /•.s vac , �,/ y-! a �+ �; . �! rl -�� H €.� G c A*P7'_Z ,o « v-y a� 7k e ✓�i� D f ar.�pt� e�ov /�Kv V a.-G e vt '0 '0 �0- . (STAFF COA ENTS) 12. Location of the ;proposal. Give sufficient information far 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, pro -vide 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. ?-- z 7,v r-ez ��c�.-e s a 18 / -5�- /✓n� o ! �.y ew .1��Yi v a Ec%xc ucfs . (STAFF COMMENTS) ' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT don-- o -r4o Pv et 6 Li G`"G Y' ! e- �O t.v i� tiC. / b (—I'i e fi Q B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: > •eyl //era- �lii /� o l�H-Ci [v f� t '�" /a.T" O o v 7"! e vl 13' (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What Is the steepest slope on the site (approximate .percent slope)? N go o (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Palo 3 of 22 cwarn00.0.WAATn ( K.Z $------------ 1�� / .S L`6 Hit !� (• Ql�/O'� Y YY7 d L` G / rf !C< <</GV i ICi ..• ca t/2 �/ +/ -sii .► / ! CL l�2-s 2 S /a 'Z� a t v cC -17-/ _-5 /e, s 42 r. �..�L �o-CGS . *, Gt 4' / ,�'a.s2G G c' O /oL- ca v( rcc.c.Tca !i P {STAFF COMWENTS) d. Are there surface indications or :history of unstable sails in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. d = (STAFF COMM, e: Describe the purpose, type and approximate 4quanfides of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Jr-1 MAFF COUNTS) f. CouId erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so. eeneraily deacri.he_ (STAFF COIKENTS) g. About what percent of the site will, be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? (STAFF COWIENTS) Page 4 of 22 craa.Tna?S.M,r 4A$rEx h. Proposed measures to reduce :or control S-AN, r-n e7 a-d (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR or other impacts to the earth, if any: e r.-a a C. d-vl c. l '7a ;�- _ LL a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if :known. J —7' CMII4ENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or ador that may effect your proposal? 3f so, generally (STAFF ,COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or .control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: �t o vL2. • (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (I) 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 tvpe and provide names. ` ,T ,.�+ -- _... �..� AW cz.--Q- / s. Ga, v' �^-G s � �{ e.�.e rr� . ,�! ¢- �.. •�`��a .e-.,.z.., / /�[d �./- e-cr/ /T�- =- � r•e.� ee- r,/[%,; ,�,��-� h� "7`z� OZAt a-L.as C.� 4 s�'Ge.�'o �.ri ��" / !LD•/�/..y a `► �in � /l..Y� (STAFF COMMENTS) CVMTi10-2Q.93.MAS= ?450 9 of 12 (2) Will the project require any work .over, in, or adjacent to (within 2,00 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach ,available plans. (STAFF COMN ENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and drt4re 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. 4/ (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the pro.pesal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose; and appromm4te quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a I00-year .fioodplain? If so, note location on'the site plan. a (STAFF COMMENTS) ' (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volurhe of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 22 01=110.2"AAMIt b. Ground: (1.) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water. be discharged to ground water? Give general description, ;purpose, and approximate quantities if known. �} (STAFF C OIVBTENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or Other sources, it any, (for ex=plE: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the -number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems) 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 (include quantities, ff ]mown). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow -into other. waters? if so, describe. !.�lL b--¢. 7`7T c{e.4a r k% ems% a.. c ci p--e aV.5 7e A" /r! W-1-G /u� o %4 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. e (STAFF COMMENTS) Pip, 7of22 OMT/I045•93.MI6MA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMI.YEENTS) 4. Plants a. Check -or circle types -of v;e�getation found on the site: ✓ deciduous tree: Oder maple, aspen, other: ✓ evergreen tree: r, eedar; pine, other: ✓ shrubs ✓ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cat -tail, buttercup, bu-1rush, skunk cabbage, .other: water plants: wa:ter:lily,.eelgrass, rnilfoil, other: .other types of wegetation: 1 (STAFF COSSMNTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 4� (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 any: Parts 8 of 22 CtCC MO21-MMASM (STAFF CoMqEws) 5. Animals -a. Chedc or cirde any birds and animals -which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ✓ birds: -ha'-NY.k, heron, eagle, songbirds other. m=mals.- -deer, bear, elk, beaver, oilier. 'rash: b=, salmon, trout, herring, shAlfish, other: (�TAFF COMWENTS) b. List -anythreatened -orendangered speeies -known to be on :or near the site A-1, (STAFF COMN9�NTS) C. Is the site part, or a migration route? If so, eqlain. Ala (STAFF COMMZNTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance/wildlife, if an (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources Page 9 of 22 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, .oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meat the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it iviii be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. V44".aw^ cLT#�i1 6hVc..2..- Aj4e-� pGr G't ��ec�iY (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. A O (STAFF COAIAIENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this .proposal? List' other proposed measures to reduce or .control .energy impacts, -if any: _ 44 uD fc:vr esz s �-ye. -Z' (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health haaards, -including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or havardous waste, that could occur as 1' result of this proposal? If so describe. 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) p4j* 10 of22 c{aa.r40093.MnsrER (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed rdensures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: (STAFF COMATENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (far example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and .levels pf noise would be created by dr associated with the project on a short-term or a long -.term basis (for .example: traffic, construction, -operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. �f—a-4 T 2 rvv� - G o Alf 113 40- �i 6-Z-L tip .001 -G N (STAFF COMMENTS)/ (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: a H a cirec,- i" ✓2 4"6 o & --c (STAFF COMMENTS) . faQo II ot22 ctnarnausr.a�nsrert J 8. Land and Shoreline Use \ a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? [/1 rt / / C O v` A,�t /cr O 16Z �7{`-� -S/ iG 2 x-, 0 Yam/ Z�) h�O�i' .e ! o Ga�'7`� 1 H `iLL.•2 � U..-�i / i'yl rGyGY �-G O O :/' T 7" /yj C (STAFF COM IENTS) b. Has the site been .used for agriculture? if so, describe. i (STAFF CONMiENTS) c. Describe any structures on .the.site. a u rs .u�• Gv � .h • $ ct .. c�. �7 6 V -C- (STAFF COMMENTS) d. NVill any structures 7 G a J be.denwlislied? Jif so, what", —A � i s �L cc. 1 / A- 4y-"S.e. .{STAFF COMMENTS) . e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 ot22 CSQLLTl141J.97. MASI'E7i ' f. What is the current comprehe'nsive plan designatio-n 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. c/o e X (STAFF CONIMENTS) i. Approximately bow many people would reside or work, in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) -- -- j. Approximately howmany people would the completed project displace? %5 na we; (STAFF COMM ISITS) Pave 13 of ZZ ctotl.Tnortt �,At,►.sr2rt k• Proposed measures to avoid -or reduce isplacement impacts, if any; I. {STAFF CON11\1ENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is .compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: / (STAFF COWIENTS) 9. Housing a, Approximnteiy how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. i _LI Glc{ (STAFF COWMgTS) b. ApproximateIy how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. r f /• Q CJdV (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing imp4icts, if any: 01 (STAFF COMM')rNTS) _- Page 14 of22 CWM?naWM.M.+srea 10. Aesthetics EF What is the -tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior uilding material(s) pro -posed? / � 1 to ' G-t�7 •i �"l ley c..G. b�-d.�s-a i r.a.� / 2c�c.� (STAFF -COMMENTs) b. What news.in-the.i-mmediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? (STAFF :COl1STENTS) C. Proposed measures -to reduce or control aes-thetic impacts, if any: (STAFF CON t1ENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? o-� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or r/ glare from the finished project be a safety ha7a rd or interfere with. views? (STAFF COMMENTS) i P4#o iS of 22 CWLTnO-Z.OIMAsWn C. What existing Off -site sources of tig-ht or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, -if any: .r (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. ' Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 7/ m h (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would -the proposed project displace any existing recreation .uses? if so, describe. oZQ 1412 n -1— Al. 4rz4urvb e- V/ (STAFF CO�N1MENTS) . C. Proposed measures to reduce or control hpatts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the pcnject or apprlienni, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Pago 16,022 CtOCLT/IO��J•PJ.MA.S1'ER ' 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or• objects listed on, or proposed far, national, state, or local preservation register `known to be an tar next to the site? If so, generally describe. � A-lo Pt -- (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe .any landmarks br evidence of historic, aschaeologicaI, scientific, or cultural importance known :to be on :or next to the site. /t1 m .w2 (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures tO reduce or control impacts, if any: / (STAFFCOMMENTS) 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. L / /�}G�C.2Lf �• . ,� � •E. G� ice' G 6 � �p � .'S GL GJ / 'G G%� +7�i (� /.T � GYi (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is -the approximate distance to stop? the nearest transit // �m �tm•u.vr r /✓a Gt.a.� r45L'C �49 zf � aLe. e•-�-.�� e� �S 7� �a.� Gs -ey .rz �a-cat'lox o Page 17 of 22 CIac4TnazS.9�.MA9TEx (STAFF COItiBIENTS) C. Hory .many parking .spaces would the completed project ]save? How . many would the project eliminate? A. �� I3 !IL L i� L•fil rs _ i / t / (STAFF COkHENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new .roads 4or streets, or irn,provelnenls to existing roads or streets, not incluciing.dei,veways" Ir so, gene rally describe .(indicate whether public or private). ,4 e.0 / c� -:� a..c. � o c�-v� � s ,a.�p.6 �.-e-� �orr �f�,s,_e, �7 . • 1 �. s (STAFF COWfENTS) e. WiIl -the project .use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) Water., rail, or air describe. transportation? If so, generally A (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak voollumes would occur. - Al. 7 l,L,, 4/.� {S �! / Pru O LC 6CTGut/q� r a 4, a /G OTAFF COMMENTS) CMKLTAQ-2S-q&MAs gR Pop 1.8 of 22 I g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any; (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a• 'Would .the-prpject result in an increased -need -for public services {for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? I�fso, gene_ra/lly describe, ��' � !�. a. �� 'ZIT' ,�A va p •c v-7i c-=-c.,4_� '- S b`CY t/ Ga_ z' • "_' (STAFF CommENTS) b. Pr"op/osed measures to reduce -or control direct impacts an public services, if jny.: (STAFF COIVIMBNTS) 16. Utilities a• Cir h. „dlif,. currently available at the sit electricity, tural gwater efuse service telephon sanitary sewer, pfic System, other; (STAFF COMMENTS) CW TitO.Z%0,MAMR • Pogo 19 of 32 b. Describe the u&Riess that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or i the immediate vicinity which might be needed. STAFF CDADENTS) C. SIGNATURE , The above answers are true and'CGMPlete to :the best of my knowledge. I understan .to make its decision. d that the lead agency is relying on them Signature of Proponent Date Submitted a Pose 20 of 22 �a.Tnats•vs.bt�srsA D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHED,." FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheer for prolecr actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with environment the list of the elements of the When ans.venng these questions., be aware of the exteA 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. I. HOW would the proposal be* 111%ely to increase discharge to water; toxic or ha7ardouss[�ubstances; -or production of noise? Proposal measures to avrai.d or reduce such increases are: emissions .to air; production, storage, or release of / .H .G H da e C_ 2. How would the proposal he likely to affect plants, anunals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures .to .protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, -or marine life are: _N A 3. How would the proposal he likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Psga 21 of 22 f, ctauanau.�s.e��srax , 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and .scenic rivers, threatened or endangered l species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or .prime farmlands? 744/ Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid .or reduce impacts are: 4V �4 5. How would the proposal be likely to atTect I -and amd shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? 1A Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Ala k� 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation .or public services and .utilities? a Proposed measures to reduce or respond to sueh,demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. —Al .11 Papa 22 ot22 CxMTnau.MAMTEM . CITY OF EDMONDS .2-40 SM AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (ZK 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERiYUNATION DF NONSIGNIFICANCE - Description of proposal: Amend the City's official street map to remove that portion of proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West starting just north of 184th Street Southwest. Also the designation of the existing 20-foot wide right -of --way of 184th Street Southwest starting at Olympic View Drive .and proceeding wrest approxim.ateiy 753 feet shall be wmoved; and remove the designation of a portion of the unused right-of-way, to allow a vacation of the subject right's -of --way pursuant to an application submitted .under City of Edmonds Planning Division Pile No. ST-96-78 (see File No. ST-96-77). Proponent: Charles Mal6e Location of proposal, including street address if any.: 250 5th Avenue North 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.D30(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental -checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-1I 340(2); the lead .agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Counts must be submitted by Jniv 15. 1996. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/TitIe: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Divisio n Phone: 771-M20 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: a ? 1%.- Signature: �;:� XX You may appeal this ,determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than July 15. 1996, by fitting a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make ,specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wild= to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on June 28, 1996- at tfie 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 l of ATTACHMENT 3 r".YgDNr(DATM.SEPA File No. ST-96-77 �--'�,,,�T• � ••� ♦/_ •�6 '�..ro •s4a ta•s 1�,L )7 tt:. RS- lar I I t FRS-20, i i 1 '. i •�' f s I y w t .L rrl••tarArta RIG i - l r � 1 . •• r. � � llTaT.t •a ♦ �. f DOUNTY PARK COUNTY .PARK P 8, I I 4 A-00 lr' .., F •• I _ ! •••..e.['' AO IRA' Tom.•' +tCAL3 • n cr • • C1 I7 ; ♦ • 1•" ;. � •� �_ a• i� u•n e � I f 41 [ 1 a to RS.. l'L �TII: —''L'• — - Ias 1 rl �[ » N 46 P •t, — fsar,tr = /o•tlia i•Aatl [w lay ► . s r'— • • ,� • , s . s r - ... i1 r w to » •. 0 EA i VIEW \\ 2 _ _ UOG TM 6Z i.W. 1 a1f Mtir♦ •r ; , ! • � a ♦ r , fir , � . + • �•�. ■ ; r : • � ..�.._ � . .... . ft�Awlr ^•( i r•, r s —� r %. 1 s • �KAnt. j f0It77 �~ ••iK it �'—fat4lf—' �■.y t�w ■ w r • lent► � • • • � . I ♦ r • � / , • • • • • w J r y r r • * +•• ~i' •• r -r TRACTS r •K7TMK.7.■. 1 7TM T. s,•M ,��•, '•j +• "•. J a_" •�. Pli i Vicini#y Map ,• e 31 ATTACHMENT 4 File No. ST-96-77 SEAVIEW PARK ► T I — — — — ------.----------- - ( ~ 6Oth AVENUE W, I, L -, ----------.---------_ _ 1—�----.--- --- - --- --, r---I----`---�--- ` ---_r— — — — — — — aft AWNUE w. ------ \\ m \\• 1 1 � I ��i I � r l ��•It .i � I I V3\ I I I lath PLACE' K \��\ -------------- �—rn?. I \ Y:►Z\ I u u �//� I I• I \ r 1 1 � o r\I >� \ I I I I m _ I m IA V \\ I ) I \\\ Z It �I glfEa 7 loth Av::rvue w = i j"z .� ► _,fin �� \ I i�� � ,�� J I L--rn — 6 o > � -4 i I n I o I 7Eth AVENUE W.--.•--••---------i;_,—,- —` — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — -t— I n I t0 / — —te ---. — / ( PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PRELIMINARY SITE DR. HAHN PARK for OFFICIAL WRM ATTACHMENT 5 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMDNDS, WASHIN6TDN AMENDMENT File No. ST-96-77 4^ - f� Date: To: June 3, 1 996 Planning Division From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator* Subject: Street :leap Amendment for Charles Maki (Z704 01yrnpic View Dr..) (ST-96-77) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The application should be revised to reflect three requested actions (1) vacation .of Olympic View. Drive right-of-way, (2) revision of the street map to remove the .proposed right-of- way connecting OVD to 80th Ave. W., and (3) vacation of 184th.St. S.W. right-of- way. The Division has the following requirements/recommendations.-regarding this proposal: • The .right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive should. not be vacated, as it is needed for slope .protection above the roadway. An -alternative would be to vacate the wider right -.of -way and provide a twenty t-o forty foot wide slope easement. • The proposed fight -of -way between OVD and 80th Ave.W can be removed. • The unopened 184th St. S.W. right-of-way lying east of the proposed .plat road can be vacated provided a utility easement is retained. The unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road can be vacated, provided the plat road is made public and there is a pedestrian/bike ,access easement and construction between the proposed plat road and'the westerly bojindary of the proposed plat. The application is not considered complete until these issues are clarified. Perhaps the applicant should snake two applications, one for vacation and one for street map amendment. CITY OF EDMONDS ENGDMERING DM ION ST96077.DOC ATTACHMENT 6 File No. ST-96-77 APPLICATION ROUTriVG FORM FILE: ST-96-77 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering 5131 /9b 'Fire 5/31/96 Pudic Works 5131196 Staff Comments: *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review RETURNED E13gineenng-- � +n Eire . Public Works P.aria ez `Rec. .C1 Owner_ CHARLES MAKI Property Address_ 7704 OL�'MPi VIEW DRIVE Daze of Application_ 5/30/96 Type OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMEENT Hearing Required:Yes_ X No Date -of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vlolnity Map Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Site Plan far Snort Subdivision (8.5 x 11) Site Plan (11 x 17) Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Environmental Checklist ATTACHMENT 7 File No, ST-96-77. APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: ST-96-77 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering 5/31 /96 Fire -5/31 /96 Parks 8z Rec: 5/31196 Staff Comments: -?,-f" "Additional Studies Required to Complette • Owner_ -CHARLES RETURNED Eneneerina ,� . ,11,E 99 Fire `�„ z.:..•,. ••,,� Qi-�i;S �i< Public Works `• Parks Rec._ 1,� Property Address 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Date of Application 5/30/96 Type OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (If known) X Application --XL-Fee X APO list Ttie Report X Vlclnity Map Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) Site Plan (11 x 17) Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Environmental Checklist ATTACHMENT 8 File No. ST-96-77 CD eCDCD —t- cra . CD CD CD rA J � J CD O � y CD ' Ro � y CD 00 Exhibit 4 A. Introduction 1. Applicant: Charles Mari 2. Case No, ST 96-77 ST 96-78 3. Location: 7704 Olympic View Drive 4. Application: as outlined in the official agenda 5. Amended application: Address the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and the neighborhood concerns. 6. Major issues: a. Remove from the Official Street Map the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. (colored yellow on the attached map) b. Remove from the Official Street Mapp and vacate .the unopened 184th Street Southwest 20 foot right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained. ( colored light blue) c. a right-of-way be retained by the City on the unopened extension of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lyingwest of the proposed plat road, When the property is platted, that section of the right-of- way shall be widened.and relocated to accommodate a street extension to 80th Avenue West from the future plat road, currently on the south of Lot I ( colored red) d. Removal from the Official Street Map the and vacate the right-of-way 1 adjacent to Olympic View Drive. The City would be granted an easement for bank erosion control for the same property -plus a 20 foot strip adjacent to Olympic View Drive from the above strip south to the south boundary of the property. (colored orange) e. Approval of the items be transferable. B. . Reasons and Logic for Approval 1. The reason to approve (a.) is that it is being replaced with the proposed plat road (outlined in green), plus a connection to a proposed street on the west boundary that will meet the street standards now in force.' 2. The reason to approve (b.) is that it is being replaced with the proposed plat road that will be far easier and less expensive to build, considering the topography of the property. The city will be giving a 20foot right-of-way and gaining a 30 foot or 40 foot completed street. 3. The original application asked for a removal of the right-of-way described in (c). However, to accommodate the concerns and the request of the neighbors, the applicant will accept the Hearing Examiners recommendations. 4, The engineering department of the City has agreed that the City does not need the property (d.)and would only use it for bank erosion control. The property owner will grant an easement to the City for erosion control on the property described in the application and further will grant to the City an easement for erosion control for a 20 foot strip adjacent to Olympic View Drive from the above 'strip south to the south boundary that borders Olympic View Drive. C. Advantages to the City 1. The City would gain a completed street from Olympic -View Drive to the west property line of Lot 10 that borders Lot I I and 12. 2. The owners of Lot 11 and 12 could negotiate the placement of the street that continues from Lot 10 to 80 Avenue West, The City of Edmonds owns Lot 12. 3. The City would have erosion control authority for the entire high bank adjacent to Olympic View Drive. 4. The City would have a net gain in property right-of-way and a net gain in erosion control 5. The City would give up approx. 9,400 sq. ft. and gain approx. 18,275 sq. ft. for a net gain of 8,875 sq,ft. l 6. Lots 11, 12, and 13 could be developed with a connecting street. D. Advantages to the neighborhood 1. The right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West would be preserved. 2. If Lot 1 I, Lot 12, and Lot 13 were to be developed, a street would be completed between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. E. Advantages to the owners of 7704 Olympic View Drive 1. A street can be constructed to best utilize the property with its severe topographical problems that replaces 184th Street.. 2. Restore the logical property lines along Olympic View Drive. 3. Provide for neighborhood agreement. ( ' ie7nd oucg Sw.� �' 4 i \ I ` I 10 I I 1 SEAVIE4j FIR a W 0 0 0 S C R E E K PLACE I II � -----___--__i I I a i1 I 1' JI i TRACTgg9 1 � I Y..�. ---------------_ / 1 I a l-------------- w a...9. �• A 0 M I R A L T Y A C R E 5 I 8L0CK Z 12 �i� �, 1 �,! t:4{ Ip------------- Attachment A 1 Originator: Item EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Planning Division Agenda Memo For Action: X . For Information: Subject: HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE THE UNOPENED PORTION OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 76TH AVENUE WEST; AND, A REQUEST TO VACATE AN APPROXIMATELY 10 - 20-FOOT WIDE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE RUNNING NORTH OF APPROXIMATELY 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET.,' THE PROPOSED RIGHTS -OF -WAY VACATIONS ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE . .. PROPERTY AT 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. (Applicant: Charles Maki I File No. ST-96-78) Agenda Time Agenda Date Exhibits Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 30 Minutes September 3, 1996 2. Appraisal Report (dated 516196) 3. Letter and map from Mr. Maki Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering 9 City Clerk Parks & Red Court Plannin &o P Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police 4City Council Mayor — Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for ConsentAgenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: Not Applicable Previous Council Action: None Narrative: The applicant is seeking to vacate the existing 20-foot wide right-of-way lying between Olympic View Drive and approximately 76th Avenue West. Additionally, the applicant is seeking to vacate it 10 to 20- foot wide portion of the right-of-way along Olympic View Drive (see Exhibits 1 and 3, Attachment A), ATTACHMENT 18 File No. R-97-28 There are three principal issues concerning this application: 1) The preservation (or Ioss) of a possible connection between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West; 2) Slope stability and preservation along Olympic View Drive; and 3) Long term impacts associated with this vacation. The applicant states that the possible connection between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West will be preserved in that the applicant will eventually apply for a Planned Residential Development with it's associated road that combined with the remaining connection to 184th Street Southwest on the applicants property, will insure that the applicant will still make provision for a connection. The applicant has stated that he is willing to grant the City a easement for slope stability along his entire frontage along Olympic View Drive. This will provide the City with greater control over slopes along Olympic View Drive than presently exists. The long term impact from this decision essentially concerns the ability to make a connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive at some point in time in the future. The applicant is correct in his analysis that any subdivision of his property will require a street and the City has the authority to require the development of his portion of 184th Street Southwest. Should engineering studies suggest a different alignment a further alteration of the Official Street Map could take place in conjunction with a proposed subdivision. The appraiser has assigned a value of $15,000 to the property to be vacated. Review of the appraisers report suggests that his determination is consistent with accepted appraisal methods and his determination is reliable (see Exhibit 2). Recommended Action: Acknowledge the City's intent to vacate the unused right -of -`way along Olympic View Drive and the unopened portion of 184th Street Southwest from Olympic View Drive east 253-feet (File No. ST-96-77, Hearing Examiners Decision), subject to the following conditions: 1) Require that the applicant provide the City with a 20-foot wide native growth protection easement along the applicant's entire frontage along Olympic View Drive. 2) The applicant shall provide a legal description to the City within 21 calendar days. 3) After receiving the legal description, the City Council shall place on the next available consent agenda the resolution adopting this vacation. 4) The applicant shall pay to the City the sum of $15,000 for the vacated property. Council Action: Vicinity Map IExhibit rt LAND APPRAISAL REPORT Borrower PARK, BM Conies Trod 5( I`''`PmwrnAdar.o Nn RFmRnM AL`_eSS. SEE LEGAL DES(RTP CN 96-098 MSP R*-- TB 455 sin` cnY IUMNDS C-ntY _SD H2aSH state W& cep cod. 98020 F,. Local Description SEE ACHED kk Bale price S MIA DWe of sale N A Loan 7ertn N A yra. Property Rights Appraised Fs. 4aselhold DeMahantfa PUD Actual Row Faiths Tares a N/A Cyr.) Loan chances M be pdd by saWr a N/A Other sties concessions NOT APPLICABLE e . Landw1C1lsn1 Nn,, LQ CHAEM Addrem •; Oomment . NCNE Atmrewr 559YEN THOAAS instructions to Appraiser APPRAISE FOR N? . i; Lmdon Urban ® Suburban ❑ Rural Good Avg. Fair Poor Beet Up ® Over T5% ❑ 25% b 751/6 ❑ Undw 25Y. �.� Employment Stability ' ❑ ®❑ ❑ Growth Flat. Ftily tJw. Rapk ® Steady Caaverd.nce to Empigment ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Property Values ® tr..*4 ❑ Stable ❑ OxYWg Convenience to Sh"pkv ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Dema 4supply ❑ Shortage ® in Satan" ❑ char Supply Convenience to Schools ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Markadng Tans VndM 3 MOe. ® 4.a Aloe. ❑ Om' a Mee. Adoquary of Pubis Tnnaportadon ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Present Land Us* �x t Family 5 % T•4 Fempy 5 %Aple 5% Condo 7 Y. Commerdal Reereatlonat Facilities ®❑ ❑ ❑ lndu.VW % V.o.ot 3 % PARKS AND REC Adequacy of wades ®❑ ❑ ❑ _x ' Change In Present Land Use Im—N-t Lk—r-1 Uaely LiTaking Plan Property Compatibility ®❑ ❑ ❑ Pran To ... Pr-e-tlan from Detrl m"W Conditions Q ❑ ❑ CD _ Prodominant Occupancy[2Omw Tenant <5 '% Vacant Pose 6 Fire Protection ®❑ ❑ ❑ aNie Fame Price Range a 150 , 000 le a 600 , 000 Prodo — Val- t H,( 7Y raw 200 000 General App-ennce of Propsrtles ®❑ ❑ ❑ Single Family Age Range O Ym 10 50 Yro. Predominant Age 25 Yra. Appeal b Market ®❑ ❑ ❑ .SEE AL>DENLYJM . Comments inducing those fadtom favorable or unWwxsble, adedag mo k►tsbaty (e.g, pubic parks, sdnots, view, row): rrtl'. l7wembns SEE ADDENDM 9,400 s% FL or Awe ❑Co ror Lot klr Zoning Classification R--0 -W AWA= `LONF—'RS 12000 PnaM lmprowmanlS (I do ❑ do not OONomr 1. m.i g rpuWd. Highest and Best Use LJ Placard use LXJ Omer (apady) ATTACI•IED TO AD7ACIIhTP SIN= FAMMY lily SEE -ADDENDUM Public other (Otecdbe) OFF 61717E IMPROVEMeNfS Top- VARIABLE SLOPE SEE ADDS iUM 1 electrfo a Savor A-oe— ® P.M. ❑pew. — %L SF IS =CL FOR AREA Gas ® awns" ASagU snap- RECTANGULAR / NOT TYPICAL/SEE — Wabr ® MahWundt XPubco Pr,-. VNw. No v=4 AMENDUK San, Sewer ® ® Storm Sewer ® CuedGutter Drainage APPEARS ADEDUCE X ®UrWeraround Sect. 3 Tat. Skfawsir Street Light- If me property lowed to a HUD ItlentlMd Special Flood Naad Areal No Yea <% Comments (Wmmbis or.untawtable Indming any sppwont adverse easements, ommochments or other sdm wrxdcbns): The undsnipned has rodled tree recent plea at pmperWs most shier end proximate to me ab)fd and he# oonstdewd ken h the madmi Imyds. The d.salptlan andud" a dollar edbutnv.M tvft*&g ms*oi roadbn to Oxon hems of stgrillml wrisdon bet"on the subJM and comparable properWs. It a algrWiant Ilem In dw comparable property is superior to, or more favorable the" the ab)ec pmwly a mane (•) ad(ustmedt is made, thus mdu-Ng the axdf"4d value of sub]#& t a sipdf%m tam in to -omparable Is hfertd b, Of lea favorable ftwl,, the sub** prop", a plus (+) ad)asbment is made, Tus increasing tM scam -sled vslus of lie W*a ITEM Pro COMPARABLE NO. t COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Addren NO RECORDED Ali MS. 71XX 181ST FL SW 71XX MFADaMALE B 57XX 166I'f'i PL SW E IDS ECRIONDS, VA EI RAMS E31 MS IQ ? Pm** to subject 1 4 MIL R DO` 10 BLOCKS WEST I 1 NLLE EAST' asr.s Prim a A a 41,000 X a 65,000 a 68 000 -Pme S N/A it 3.36 SF a 3.24 SF a5.38 SF Data Source 324SPECI'ION NLS r2w T434 TF&J Dale of Sale and OSSCRIPTION DasenumON + p) a Ad(uet DeSCRIPTION + f•) S AO M DESCRIPTION + (.) a AdAW Tame Aegrn-mint N/A 6 30 5 12 21 95 1 12 6 "don SUBURB AVG SUBURB VG i SUBURB AVG SUBURB AVG 51I.^^ew 9400 SF 121 0 0 VW —4 500 20378 SF —8 800 12632 —4 300 ZUPOGRAM VARIABLE SLOPE :--5 000 VARLABLE FIAT ::20 000 BIDE LOT NOT BLDBL. BUILDABLE : —20 000 —32 460 : —25 463 Sales or financing N/A ALL CASH ALL CASH ALL CASEi Concessions N A 950630-0492 EIN 9519441 960116-0091: . Net Ai). Irotag IMq Maws a 29 00 Pus M4we i 41.260 F Ifts NMImus a 4 63 Mooted Value of aub)w $ 11 500 s23,740 $ 18 237 Commen4 on Moiled Doi Q ADDE` ME • Commonfs and Cord dww Of Awali t ME AMEMUK RAtl Re-ondPslbns The firial valae— is estivate d at the lomx rancre of the adiusted is to being smallert area e. comj&lere= pEcimitribatcry value f ad acent lots On3 i sffI361 s Ills DEFN®, OP au LWT PRDPERIY AS OF May 5th 13 lo be S 15,000 -- ADPrWe�sb-m'z -.�.. RV*w A~ a spouble) t /^ Ron Michael a7. xm%ua =, MI [Xldd Da Nw nyr-+b In, -L Properly / 'TOTAL• oppalsol mlMron by a to coo", Inv (Slit) ALAMODe Columbia Valuation Grcntp, Inc. (206) 364-8580 E �/ v 1 1h I b it 2 ADDENDUM TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS Yi The subject property is located within the City of Edmonds. The neighborhood boundaries are considered to be 76th Avenue West to the east, Puget Sound to the West, Edmonds Way to the South and Meadowdale Beach Drive to the north. This neighborhood is comprised primarily of single family dwellings reflecting average to good condition and quality. Many of the residences to the west have views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains to the west. Access to employment, shopping and schools make this neighborhood competitive in the market place. Mixed land use in the neighborhood is well balanced and typical for this suburban area with no negative impact on appeal. The overall marketing appeal for the subject market area is considered to be good. ADDENDUM TO SITE COMMENTS AND HIGHEST AND BEST USE The subject site is currently recorded as an unimproved public right-of-way extension of 184th Street SW. The site is an angled rectangle with dimensions of approximately 10 feet by 70 feet along Olympic View Drive and widens to 20 feet for a distance of 175.17 feet south along Olympic View Drive. At this point the property angles 90 degrees sharp to the west for approximately 263.13 feet and is approximately 20 feet wide for this distance. The estimated total site area is approximately 9,400 square feet. The property is unimproved with heavy vegetative ground cover, and various tree species. The site slope is moderately steep along Olympic View Drive and then becomes a steep slope to the west up an embankment. The site terraces in two places in the westerly direction with two sections with moderately steep slope. The site elevation peaks at mid -point traveling west and begins to slope downward to the west end of the site boundary. The initial elevation gain from the eastern boundary is approximately 40 feet west to the first plateau, and then the site is flat for approximately 70 feet. At this point the site slopes approximately 20 feet downward to the western boundary. The Highest and Best Use of the subject site is, restx*#'moue to the configuration and topography. This narrow right-of-way configuration limits the site use. The steep topography would appear to hinder the development of a right-of-way for public use. It appears that the highest and best use would -be as additional site area for. adjacent residential zoned property. This site does not appear to have any residential development capacity due to the narrow configuration. COMMENTS ON MARKET DATA AND COMPARABLE SALES .All comparable sales are superior legal building lots, but they are comparable in location to the subject. Adjustments are made to reflect the differences in site utility and development potential. Adjustment are as follows: 1. Each sale is adjusted downward for superior functional and development Utility. 2. Each sale is adjusted downward for the difference in site area to reflect the difference in site utility for larger lots. Sale No. 1 has percolation and slope problems. This site was purchased as a single family development lot and is comparable in location to the subject. Sale No. 2 has steep slope and a level building area. Sale No. 3 is a level fully developed building lot and is superior in location and topography to the subject property. This property is situated within a developed subdivision. The subject lot is not considered to have development potential as a single parcel. The market value is based on the potential added value this parcel may have to adjacent parcels. Several sales of dysfunctional lots were researched, but only two sales are relevant to the subject. One is a level lot with utilities that had an 18 foot fence encroachment that rendered the lot unbuildable, and created a limited market for the property. The lot was sold by a local lender to a speculative investor for $20,000. The buyer indicated that the lot is at risk and will require extensive legal work and costs. The other sale was a parcel of. land that sold for $10,000, but the buyer and seller would not disclose details of the transaction, making a direct comparison to the subject very difficult. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OBSERVED Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, radon, polychlorinated bipherlyl's, petroleum leakage, -'or agriculture chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraisers become aware of such during our inspection. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to detect such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos urea formaldehyde, foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value estimate is based on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss of value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in the field of environmental impacts upon real estate if so desired. CONDITIONS OF APPRAISAL COMMENTS This appraisal has been prepared with the property in "as is" condition. The appraisers assume the buyer is aware that this appraisal on the subject property does not serve as a warranty on the condition of the property, and is also aware that it is his responsibility to examine the property carefully and to take all necessary precautions before signing a contract, and that he is also aware that the estimate for repairs (if any) is a non -warranted opinion of the appraisers unless otherwise stated. Moreover, unless stated, this appraisal presumes that all improvements (if any) to the subject property have been made in conformance with the appropriate building codes, and that the appropriate permits have been received as required by county or city ordinance. If an on -site well supplies the domestic, potable water, this appraisal presumes - unless stated - that it conforms to the required standards for well capacity, and quality according to the appropriate governmental agencies. This report has been. prepared in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Office of Thrift Supervision. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate Market Value as defined by the -Office of Thrift Supervision Memo CFR12 563 & 571. APPRAISAL FUNCTION The function of this appraisal is to provide sufficient and supportable data for purposes of purchasing the subject property from the City of Edmonds. OBJECTIVE (PURPOSE) OF THE APPRAISAL The objective of this appraisal is to estimate the market value, as defined herein, of the fee simple title to the subject property. S COPE OF THE APPRAISAL Inspection and .research concerning the subject property; research Multiple Listing Services, Commercial Property Information Services, county records for information on comparable land sales; confirmation of sales data; and finishing a written appraisal with the assistance of a computer and appraisal software; and delivery of the completed appraisal. SELF CONTAINMENT This appraisal report is intended to be a self contained document, containing all information necessary to enable the reader to understand the appraisers' opinions. Any third party studies referred to, such as pest, hazardous materials, or structural reports have been verified by the appraisers to the extent the .assumptions and' conausions are used. TREND ANALYSIS An analysis of marketing times and trends, although considered, are not discussed in the appraisal report. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring In a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and sailer, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or wed advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time Is allowed for exposure in the'cpen market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or In terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (b) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sates concessions' granted by anyone associated with the sale. . Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or safes concessions. No adjustments are necessary for arose costs which are normally paid by the sellers as a result of tradlfbn or law in s� market area; these costs are readily Identifiable since the sailer pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that Is not already involved In the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cast of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should epproximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the oppredsses judgement. CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser cari Iles and agrees that: 1. The Appraises has no present or contemplated future Interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, not the compensation for It. Is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the particl. pants to the sale. The 'Estimate of Market Value' in the appraisal report is not based in whole or In part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. 3. The Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and out, and has made an exterior Inspection of an comparable sales Gated In the report To the beat of the Appralsees knowledge and belief, all statements and Information in this report are true and correct and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld and significant Information. 4. AD contingent and fimiting conditions are contained herein (Imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the under- signed affecting the analysis, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser Is affiliated. S. AD conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report, unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." ko change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser, and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and Gmdting conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in the report 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility formatters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the flue there- to, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which Is assumed to.be good arld marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and Is included to assist the reader. vfauatiztng the prop- erty. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The Appraiser Is not required to glue tastlmony or appear In court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefor. 4. Any dlsfrlbudon of the valuation in the report between land and Improvements applies only under the existing program of utGlzatlam The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are Invalid it so used. 5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render It more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. S. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained In the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct However, no responsibility for accuracy of such Items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report to governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser Is affiliated. S. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value, the Identity of the Appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser Is connected), shall be used for any purposes by,anyone but the client specified In the report, the borrower If appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, or any state or federally approved Manclal institution, any department, agency, or Instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser, nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the Appraiser. g. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of'tha improvements in a workmanlike manner, ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION: The appralsor further certifies that: 1. This appraisal conforms to the Uniform Standards or Professional Appraisal Practice ('USPAPI adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, except that the Departure Provision of the USPAP does not apply. 2. Their compensation Is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction In value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event 3. This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a ban. Data:. 5MIPJA................. Apppn ...... RDlt ...vil� .a7 J. Mf?ahon, MPS 1Faeda Mae t'arsa Ma! Pons 409 AA Be - 'TOTAL" sPMabd 5y a 4 mach, Wi t (voq o240a2a lam f O to din, se Legal Description HAN Z. PARK - PRO LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PORTIONS OF 184TH STREET SW & OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE TO BE VACATED THAT PORTION OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND 184TH STREET SW ADJOINING LOT 9 AND 10 BLOCK 1 ADMIRALTY ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS PAGE 48 RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 9 ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 613.70 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.63 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 00 59'20" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE 50.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S 810 00' 40" W 10.00 FEET, S 8° 59' 20" E 70.00 FEET, S 810 00' 40" W 10.00 FEET, S 8059' 20" E 175.15 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF 184TH STREET SW; THENCE N 890 07' 51" W ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 242.66 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THE S 330 04' 19" E 24.11 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID STREET; THENCE S 89107' 51" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 252.98 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S 8°59' 20" E FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N 80 59' 20" W, PARALLEL WITH SAID OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 269.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. , WA rR ea43 SlOtVAL E%Pums 2/24/77 �, Assessor's Plat Map Z(SOth. P' 02 G02N1FADD. \ 5F�I 03 4 N t FL. S.W. T o3 S VIEW RS 2 / 2 3 •- lES T 8 ¢ (430.6) OZ 7 /0 y (72 4) c 15. a LL-� ADMIRALTY s /4 O /2 // /0 4 0 -C O � 2 5 C3 o WOODSCR PLACE 2 Tr Yss 3 m (8226) 4 J c 3 O 8 / _ 0070 l G m ./0 49 . 9 J /4 61 /06 8 a /5 S P T OZ 6 /r 20 2/ f I 111 5 185tK PL. S. W. 22 4 Q J / Q GP 25 4 23 04 1 �_ OG p2 07 t Topographic Map n �G.4-�•� l �� = SFi yuv / rTl R 1 �� `�♦ 1 EX, HOUSE /, r t `— \ rn� z 05 DECK ? o t c ��d ` o ♦ �♦ � o� � �j�i/ 1 1 1 � l 1 HOUSE 1 -3Zd� LBO .JtS N.A9'07'S1_IN 7(Z52^9$)263.i3' 3Zd ♦ �yv 325 —�♦ `1 `� nd t Af �•.� ` if 7 . `� .i o r`A � ` sic `t °s��i)q �. `�`T �+-• tei 2= � �j, �-��3. Y,� .. � •..7 - 77C,, �t i a !{' f � b r� � '�,ta w•i t•Fu'f , e+.Y a • _ sal? .�-� � �"�` �i`•� j` .e+ C✓sr . -E `,,, .:;• .� t4t`1� ;�t... �- a�t��fiyi�yr-,..�+, 7�� ,,,•;:. ... ++� 7 .1^ y.�]��cpb ✓*.: it ¢Z�•� ,'.•'. t 1 E PRINCIPAL QUALIFICATIONS Michael J. McMahon, MAI EDUCATION Shoreline Community College —Specialized courses in real estate subject matter North Seattle Community College —Specialized courses in real estate subject matter Condemnation Appraisal,1993, Highline Community College, Bill Webster, WDOT Instructor Basement Valuation,1993, SRWA A American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Real Estate Appraisal Principles American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Basic Valuation Procedures American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part B American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Standards of Professional Practice American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Valuation Analysis and Report Writing American Institute of Real Estate Appraisal — Also: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis; Investment Analysis; Applied Sales Comparison Approach; Appraising for Pension Funds; Subdivision Analysis; Rates, Ratios, and Reasonableness; Comprehensive Appraisal Workshop PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION Member Appraisal Institute, MAI General Certified Appraiser, Washington State, #k270-11 MC-MA-HM-J458DK AFFILIATIONS American Institute for Economic Research Hoover Institute International Right of Way Association EXPERIENCE Columbia Valuation Group, Seattle, WA, Founding Principal. Seafirst Bank, Seattle, WA, Assistant Vice President and Senior Appraisal Officer — Real estate advisory and appraisal services. The Coulton Company, Seattle and Bellevue, WA, Managing Partner — Appraisal, feasibility study, and real estate advisory services. Coulton, Kelling & Wuestoff, Seattle, WA, Market Researcher/Appraiser — Appraisal and appraisal support services. A. Introduction 1. Applicant: Charles Maki 2. Case No. ST 96-77 ST 96-78 3. Location: 7704 Olympic View Drive 4. Application: as outlined in the official agenda 5. Amended application: Address the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and the neighborhood concerns. 6. Major issues: a. Remove from the Official Street Map the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. (colored yellow on the attached map) b. Remove from the Official Street Map and vacate the unopened 184th Street Southwest 20 foot right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained. ( colored light blue) c. a right-of-way be retained by.the City on the unopened extension of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way.lyingwest of the proposed plat road. When the property is platted, that section of the right-of- way shall be widened and relocated to accommodate a street extension to 80th Avenue West from the future plat road, currently on the south of Lot 11. ( colored red) ' Exhibit 3 d. Removal from the Official Street Map the and vacate the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. The City would be granted an easement for bank erosion control for the same property plus a 20 foot strip adjacent to Olympic View Drive from the above strip south to the south boundary of the property. (colored orange) e. Approval of the items be transferable. B. Reasons and Logic for Approval 1. The reason to approve (a.) is that it is being replaced with the proposed plat road (outlined is green), plus a connection to a proposed street on the west boundary that will meet the street standards now in force. 2. The reason to approve (b.) is that it is being replaced with the proposed plat road that will be far easier and less expensive to build, considering the topography of the property. The city will be giving a 20foot right-of-way and gaining a 30 foot or 40 foot completed; street. 3. The original application asked for a removal of the right-of-way described in (c.). However, to accommodate the.concerns and the request of the neighbors, the applicant will accept the Hearing Examiners recommendations. 4. The engineering department of the City has agreed that the City does not need the property (d.)and would only use it for bank erosion control. The property owner will grant an easement to the City for erosion control on the property described in the application and hirther will grant to the City an easement for erosion control for a 20 foot strip adjacent to Olympic View Drive from the above strip south to the south boundary that borders Olympic View Drive. \I } C . Advantages to the City 1. The City would gain a completed street from Olympic View Drive to the west property line of Lot 10 that borders Lot I I and 12. 2. The owners of Lot 11 and 12 could negotiate the placement of the street that continues from Lot 10 to 80 Avenue West. The City of Edmonds owns Lot 12. 3. The City would have erosion control authority for the entiie high bank adjacent to Olympic View Drive. 4. The City would have a net gain in property right-of-way and a net gain in erosion control. 5. The City would give up approx. 9,400 sq. ft. and gain approx. 18,275 sq. ft. for a net gain of 8,875 sq.ft. 1 6. Lots 11, 12, and 13 could be developed with a connecting street. l D. Advantages to the neighborhood 1. The right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West would be preserved. 2. If Lot 11; Lot 12, and Lot 13 were to be developed, a street would be completed between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. E. Advantages to the owners of 7704 Olympic View Drive 1. A street can be constricted to best utilize the property with its severe topographical problems that replaces 184th Street.. 2. Restore the logical property lines along Olympic View Drive. j 3. Provide for neighborhood agreement. ---------------- .I I l I I I I 1 II I I I .I f 1 I i I I Attachment A Over the past several months, I have come to believe several things. One, the likelihood of the ferry 1 terminal moving to the Point Edwards site in the next 15-20 years is very remote. I am in favor of such a move, but I am afraid the funding is not there to make the move in the foreseeable future. Safety for citizens that walk, bicycle and drive in our City, as well as for ferry passengers, must be the number one concern. This has been my issue all along. The increasing number of trains that pass through Edmonds every day adds to our concerns for safety. Nothing in the proposed overhead loading project addresses the issue of safety for vehicles, passengers or disabled individuals on the way to and from the ferry dock. I do not want to paint the Ferry System as the evil parry in this situation. They are not opposed to a multimodal site at Point Edwards, but their main responsibility is to provide the best level of service that they can for their passengers. They feel they can load more passengers and vehicles in a shorter span of time with overhead loading than they can without overhead loading. They want to do so as soon as possible. Finally, I believe the overhead loading ramp will be built. David doesn't slay Goliath very often, Angola doesn't beat the Dream Team and a single entity like our City doesn't stand very much of a chance against the Ferry System. But I feel the issue of safety must be addressed now, so while this motion is what I call a watered-down attempt, I am still not very happy with the fact that we have not addressed the safety of people in their ride to and from the ferry dock. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE A DRAFT RESOLUTION CHARGING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY IN FORMING A PARTNERSHIP TO RESOLVE THE DANGEROUS AT -GRADE ISSUES RELATED TO THE FERRY, RAILROAD, BUS, AUTO, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION OF RAILROAD AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. POTENTIAL ' PARTNERS FOR THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AMTRAK, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES RELATED TO HIGHWAYS, FERRIES AND RAILROADS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO INSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WORKING ON OBTAINING A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AMONG THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER IN ORDER THAT A GRADE -SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY BECOMES A REALITY. THE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED TO MAKE UPDATE REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE AGREEMENT AND RESULTING PLANS AND WORKS ON THE WALKWAY AT A MINIMUM OF EVERY 60 DAYS. MOTION CARRIED. A five minute break was taken. ;�s __ 5. HEARING ON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE C L STREET P 10 REMOVE Tuotto THAT- PORTION OF A PROPOSED 60-F md WMIPBETWEEN • 1u.�• a ;_.t� : r.: i .i t u . i►G JUSTNORTH . SOUTHWEST, 1► • • . �� .r • .: •184TH STREET SW STARTING AT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Page 8 ATTACHMENT 19 N-! I - III- r% DWISTON FILE NO.' _ ALL OF THE PROPOSED REQUESTS DIS XSSFD ABOVE ARE LOCATED FITHE,R ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE.FOLLOWIN G PRnpFRTY ADDRESSES: 7704 OLYMPTC. VIEW DR 18325 80TH AVE W AND 18408 79TH PL W Z . p - _ant Charles Maki/ File no ST 96=77� Scott Snyder, City Attorney, at staffs request, informed the Mayor and Council that Item 6 on the agenda was a related matter and much of the material is the same. He stated that it would be possible to combine both hearings, as long as separate specific motions were made for each hearing issue. Council President Earling stated that a combined hearing would be agreeable as long as when staff refers to the second hearing, they make note of the fact that it is Item 6. Hear[ee_ 6. HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE THE IrNnPFNE pORTrnN OF THE 20 FOOT WID Rervento PILR C RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING BETWEEN O YMPLC W R NT) Vacate cerwa APPROXIMATELY 76TH AVENUEWEST: AND A REQUEST TO VACATE AN s9&78 APPROXIMATELY 10 - 20-FOOT WIDE PORTION OF THE P IRL IC RI HT OF WAY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OL.YWI!' �7T1i W DRY R TNNTNG NOR Q APPROXIMATELY 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST A PPI2 nXTnn rrFT t� 270 F ET THE PROPOSED RIGHTS -OF -WAY VACATIONS ARE T nt^ATED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY AT 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRTVE. (®pplicant: Charles Maki/File No T 96 78) Mayor Fahey asked if any of the Councilmembers had anything to declare. Councilmember Haakenson stated that he did not know the applicant, nor many of the details of this request, but his business is located kitty-corner on Olympic View Drive and that some of the questions he might ask would be due to his location. Mayor Fahey announced that Mr. Maki, is a friend of her family and that she is aware of the project, but has no vested interest in it. Councilmember Van Hollebeke stated that he knew Mr. Maki but had no previous conversations regarding this project. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, asked Councilmember Haakenson if he owned or leased his business property. Councilmember Haakenson stated that he does lease the property. Mr. Snyder stated that a Proximity to a zoning request was enough to raise the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, if a person had an ownership interest and could thereby benefit. Mayor Fahey set the parameters for the combined hearings and discussed the timelines given to all participants. ' Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, stated that there are two files: ST-96-77, which is a request to amend the City's official street map; and ST-96-78, which is a request to vacate a portion of public right- of-way. Mr. Wilson presented an overhead to Council to help explain the requests to the Council. The first request is amending the official street map and that is the action which must be considered first, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3,1996 Page 9 before the Council can vacate a portion of right-of-way. Mr. Wilson reviewed with Council the area j surrounding the proposed changes, and exactly what the applicant was requesting, as well as what streets or areas would be effected. Mr. Wilson stated that at the hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, a great deal of the testimony had to do with residents' concern over having linkage between 80th and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson referred to the street vacation (ST-96-78) that was also being requested and stated that in the packet there was an appraisal of the existing right-of-way with a value set at $15,000. Mr. Wilson reviewed with the Council those areas that would be considered acceptable to vacate and areas where the City would continue to retain right-of-way. Mr. Wilson clarified that as part of Item 5, the City would be able to provide the same insurance for the slope stability along Olympic View Drive through the use of native vegetation, which was not discussed at the Hearing Examiner's hearing. What the Planning Department is suggesting is that under (ST-96- 77) the condition #4 of the Hearing Examiner's decision be eliminated and require that the applicant provide a 20-foot wide easement running parallel to Olympic View Drive from the North to the Southeast property that would provide slope stability through native growth vegetation. Mr. Wilson outlined how, with future development, there could be linkage with 80th to Olympic View Drive and that due to the topography, finding the right alignment for this connection has always been an issue in trying to develop the property. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, informed the Council of a recent case by the Washington Court of Appeals, which is binding, and states the Council does not have the authority to require a developer to either dedicate or develop a road within the development solely for the purpose of providing access for adjacent property owners. Councilmember Myers inquired as to whether there would be sufficient right-of-way along Olympic View Drive for future needs. Mr. Wilson stated that there is sufficient right-of-way to handle future needs and the portion of the dedicated right-of-way that the City would be giving up, is for protection of the slope and not widening'of the street. Mr. Wilson reviewed the request summarized in Item 6 with Council regarding the vacating of the unused 20-foot right-of-way and areas that would be retained. Mr. Wilson recommended that the Council acknowledge the intent to vacate the areas and then direct staff to go back and prepare the appropriate resolution approving the intent to vacate, including the appropriate legal. descriptions. Mr. Wilson then reviewed the actions necessary by the applicant and that they will need to provide in their legal description of the property, the 20-foot wide easement for slope stability, adjacent to Olympic View Drive, to offset the dedication of right-of-way. They will also need to provide the City with a new legal description showing the areas to be vacated which can be incorporated in the appropriate resolution. Staff would then bring the resolution back on a consent agenda for adoption. The additional conditions would call for the applicant to pay the funds indicated in the appraisal, which was $15,000. He explained that since the City would not be taking the total area, after receiving the legal descriptions, some of the cost would be reduced proportionately, and that estimate would also be brought back for Council approval. Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, Mr. Maki informed the Council that he was representing Dr. and Mrs. Han Park and does not have any ownership in the project. Mr. Maki stated that it is their intention to subdivide the property on a planned residential basis and would be following all the necessary steps. Mr. Maki reviewed the steps that had been taken as well as the original request for vacation and the design concepts used in developing a plan for this property. Mr. Maki referred to the petition signed by 39 neighbors and stated that he had spoken with all the neighbors at the Hearing Examiner's hearing, and that they had changed the plan of the subdivision to incorporate a road through Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 10 to Olympic View Drive. Mr. Maki agreed that the current proposal before the Council would be agreeable to them, and stated that the advantage to the City would be to get a finished street. Councilmember Van Hollebeke inquired if Mr. Maki had any conversations with the owner of Lot 11. Mr. Maki informed the Council that Mr. and Mrs. Earl Smith, owners of Lot' 11, have a buy -sell agreement with Dr. Park, would like to sell to Dr. Park, and are aware of what is happening. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, asked Mr. Maki if during his presentation he had stated that the applicant agrees that the amendment of the Street Map with a vacation ordinance would be contingent on developing the dedication of the yet unnamed street and the dedication of a native growth area. Mr. Maki stated this was correct. Mayor Fahey opened the audience comment portion of the hearing. Edward B. Swanson, 8111 182nd St. S.W., Edmonds, stated that he would like to see a road through to Olympic View Drive. Jim Thompson, 18305 80th Ave. W., Edmonds, stated that he owns lot 13, adjacent to the City's property, and the his main concern is getting a way through to Olympic View Drive. He explained that he is concerned about vacating the right-of-way without some assurances that there would be passage from 80th Ave. to Perrinville. Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Maki's suggestion of a street through on 184th would be ideal. Sally Baringer, Heatherglen Lot 12, stated she is very much effected by this and that during the past 10 or 12 years she has received numerous notifications of different proposed actions. Ms. Baringer referred to the topography of Mr. Smith's property and stated she felt if a road was put in, that this would cause problems with her 30 foot bank. She explained that if the City does develop the road she would request that the bank be rocked. Mayor Fahey inquired if anyone else cared to make comments; hearing none, the Mayor closed the audience portion of the hearing. Councilmember Petruzzi stated that what the staff was proposing made sense to him and that the easement would give the City the control it needed, and in turn, give the Parks what they needed to be able to develop their property. Councilmember Petruzzi questioned staff about the various areas involved. COUNCMMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, ON ITEM NO. 5, FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A STREET MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED, AS PART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, TO PROVIDE A 40-FOOT WIDE CONNECTION BETWEEN OLYN21C VIEW DRIVE AND HIS PORTION OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. ST- 96-78). MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, THAT THE COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE THE CITY'S INTENT TO VACATE THE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND THE UNOPENED PORTION OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EAST 253-FEET (File No. ST-96- 77, Hearing Examiner's Decision), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 11 1) REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A 20-FOOT `} WIDE NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT ALONG THE APPLICANT'S ENTIRE FRONTAGE ON OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. 2) THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THE CITY WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS. 3) AFTER RECEIVING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PLACE, ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA, THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THIS VACATION. 4) THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY TO THE CITY A SUM AGREED UPON BY THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR THE VACATED PROPERTY. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, referring to condition #4, brought to Council's attention that state law limits the amount of payback to one half when a person has previously dedicated property to the City. MOTION CARRIED, Dm;� 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT WITH Services- MERRIT + PARDINI AND APPROVAL OF FUNDIN FOR DESI N RVICES ON PUBLIC Publle Safety Facility SAFETY COMPLEX FACILITY Paul Mar, Community Services Director, reviewed Council's previous actions in advertising, selecting and negotiating a contract with Merrit & Pardini. Mr. Mar reviewed the packet contents and asked for questions from Council. Councilmember Nordquist asked about Exhibit D. Mr. Mar explained- that this is Merritt + Pardini's overhead statement for audit purposes and has nothing to do with the City's contract. COUNCILMMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE ITEM 7 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT WITH MERRITT & PARDINI FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $830,830. MOTION CARRIED. 8. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING SOURCE FOR SETTLEMENT A RFFMFNT Council President Earling stated that there was a question of the funding source to pay a settlement that had been allocated to Mr. Pearson. City Attorney Snyder reviewed the actions that had brought this legal matter before Council and indicated that a settlement had been entered into, with the Council's approval, and now the money needs to be moved from the Council Contingency Fund so it can be paid. Agee= a COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN (Pearson) HOLLEBEKE, TO AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO SPEND $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL Funding CONTINGENCY FUND TO SATISFY THE OBLIGATION PUT FORTH IN ITEM S. MOTION CARRIED. G Mayor Fahey informed the Council that she would be flying to Washington D.C. to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee regarding proposed amendments to the Fair Housing Act. Edmonds CIty Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Consolidated Hearing Application of Charles Mald to vacate unused right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive north of 184th Street, to amend the official street map to remove plan lined rights -of -way of 184th Street S.W. 253 feet of right-of-way of 184th Street S.W., to vacate public right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W. and an approximately 10 to 20-foot-wide portion of the public right-of-way on the west side of Olympic View Drive north of 184th Street. File No.: ST-96-77, ST-96-78 PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter came on for a consolidated hearing before the Edmonds City Council on September 3, 1996. Applications to amend the City's official street map to remove 60-foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. commencing just north of 184th Street S.W., to vacate an unopened portion of a 20-foot-wide public right-of-way line between Olympic View Drive and approximately 176th Avenue W. and to vacate approximately 10 to 20-foot-wide portion of the public right-of-way located on the west side of Olympic View Drive running north approximately 184th Street S.W. for approximately 270 feet, were combined with an application to amend the City's official street map to remove plan lined 60-foot-wide right-of- way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. starting just north of 184th Street S.W., reduce the plan lined right-of-way for 184th Street S.W. commencing at Olympic View Drive westerly for approximately 253 feet, and to remove a plan lined right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive and north of 184th Street S.W. All the proposed requests are located either adjacent to or across the following property addresses: 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 80th Avenue W., and 18408 79th Pl. W. This decision is based upon the record before the Edmonds City Council and the record and recommendation of the City's Hearing Examiner. The recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated July 26, 1996, are adopted as the Council's findings and conclusions except as specifically amended herein. ADDITIONAL TESTBIONY AND INFORMATION At the City Council hearing, the staff recommendation was amended and differed from that presented to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner in his findings at page 10, recommendation 4, recommends denial of the request to remove from the official street map of the plan lined right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. Staff recommended to the City Council that, in conjunction with the platting process, the City's interest of providing slope stability could be achieved through the creation of a native growth protection easement for slope 1 -1- ATTACHMENT 20 File No. R-97-28 stability rather than a full taking of the property as right-of-way. The purpose for the additional right-of-way was to control vegetation on the slope to enhance stability and that same objective can be achieved through the less intrusive means of a native growth protection easement. In the course of the hearings, the applicant acknowledged his willingness to await final approval of the vacations and street map amendment until such time as development approval for the property located at 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 80th Avenue W. and 18408 79th Pl. W. is finally granted. The exact location of interior streets, connections and other required mitigations cannot be finally ascertained until such approvals are complete. CONCLUSIONS The Edmonds City Council therefore concludes that the purposes and objectives of the Edmonds Community Development Code will be met by: 1. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan line for 60 feet of right- of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. in accordance with Exhibit A, Attachment 5, to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 2. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan lined extension of 184th Street S.W. lying east of the proposed plat road, retaining any existing utility easement and to maintain future provisions for utilities. See Exhibit A, Attachment 5, to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 3. Deny amendment of the official street map to delete the plan lined extension of 184th St. S.W. lying west of the proposed plat road. In conjunction with the subdivision and development approval for the subject property, that section of right-of-way may be required to be widened and relocated to accommodate a future 184th St. S.W. street extension between the unopened right-of-way south of lot 11 and the future plat road. 4. Approval of the amendment of the official street map to remove 20 feet of right- of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive contingent upon: a. Approval of a 20-foot-wide native growth protection easement along the applicant's frontage along Olympic View Drive, the extent and nature of which will be determined as a part of the platting approval process. b. The provision to the City within 21 calendar days to the date of approval of a legal description for the native growth protection easement. C. The payment of compensation for the vacated property in accordance with the submitted appraisal adjusted in accordance with provisions of state law and City ordinance. -2- 5. The future application to develop the property owned by the applicant is and shall be subject to all applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in those ordinances. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prejudge or limit the discretion of the City Council in reviewing such application(s) to finally determine the placement and appropriate route of interior roads and utilities and to mitigate the impacts, if any, from the development. In order to provide for a orderly process, the City Council directs that the City Attorney prepare ordinances for vacation and ordinances amending the official street map. These ordinances shall be held and presented to the City Council only in conjunction with an approved development plan providing for adequate alternative connections for roads, pedestrian and bike ways, and utilities in the area. Part of the City Council's required Findings and Hearing Examiner's Recommendations regarding the proposed vacations and amendments to the Official Street Map are a finding that the actions are in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Community Development Code. This finding is based in part upon the assumption that future access will be provided during development of the property. Therefore, it is inappropriate to finally adopt ordinances of vacation or amending the Master Street Map until such time as a platting or other development process makes provision for access. DONE this 27th day of September , 1996. Mayor Barbara S. Fahey Attest: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk WSS143050.IX/0".13 l -3- Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda i Originator: Community Services Director For Action: X For Information: Subject: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT TO SELL SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY LOCATED ON 80TH AVE. W. BETWEEN 182ND PL. SW AND 184TH ST. SW Agenda Time: 10 minutes Agenda Date: December 9, 1997 Exhibits Attached: 1. Vicinity Maps 2. Conditional Sales Contract 3. Appraisal Report Cover Page Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ City Attorney City Clerk _ Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs�'1 Engineering Parks & Rec Planning Public Works Treatment Plant City Council _ Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Seri4ces Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Previous Council Action: None Narrative: In 1996, Mr. Charles Maki, representing Dr. Han Park, approached the City about purchasing a City -owned lot located on 80th Ave. W. between 182nd PI. SW and 184th St. SW, The City acquired this property in 1966 for the purposes creating a right-of-way(ROW) and installation of a sanitary sewer line and storm sewer line. The ROW was created on this City -owned and three adjoining properties(see Exhibit 1). Staff has concluded that the City has no plans to develop this property in the foreseeable future. On September 3,1996, the Edmonds City Council granted applicant Dr, Park tentative approval for two street vacations pending agreed -upon realignment of a proposed future ROW connection between 80th Ave. W. and Olympic View Drive in the vicinity of 184th St. SW. In order for the applicant to complete the development plans, use of the above noted City -owned property (in addition to the above mentioned City owned ROW) was determined to be necessary. The applicant anticipates to apply for a contract rezone from the current RS-12 to an RS-8 designation. Mr. Maki and City staff cooperatively explored a number of arrangements so that the City's property could be an Integral part of the proposed development It was concluded that an outright purchase -sale agreement was the best ATTACHMENT 21 File No. R-97-28 approach for all parties. The terms of the contract include authorization to apply for necessary approvals to develop the property. The agreement reserves complete discretion to the City Council to hear and determine any development proposal for the property. The City Attorney and the developer's legal counsel have prepared a draft Conditional Sales Contract(see Exhibit 2) wherein the City would sell the property at $100,000. Pursuant to the possible sale of this property, the City commissioned an appraisal to determined the property's estimated market value. The appraised price is $81,000, as shown in Exhibit 3. Recommended Action: Authorized the Mayor to sign the attached Conditional Sales Contract. 3 '3 i FIRST 2 S AV W OTEWS > I . y - + 181 tt s 191 ST ➢L' S:M. a S r tr vtEw -T ._. uj 1 } I 70 a s mom Q Af7 IRA TY �.. ACRES �W' e x T f A 6 I r e m i 0 i vt tAtj£ I NO" ST. &W. r ? .. -•4..'• ♦ � 4182 Ad .slr y OF • 0: 2 / Q { I Z 4 it ID Z r x0 - - m so a . EOMONDS ! • • ` ' N Z O ,. 4 ' W = Z ' ��ROME 7 a nd a a s Z I w •'3 529 7 -� -- F B N J 1.� • • I � 4 f �'i'1 Ir 9 I SEAvtEW 9 a �♦ M6 I ZT P -' _ _. = n 7 . 6 • � � 6 I 01 K .. _ - . I w SEAwEw roaESi � r 7 , "A R Alx n '.n � Cl s ' > > '• 19 70 T r Q ! t •7 I y a Q NLN OM 3 ♦0 I S %Y SLAVICw FOREST TRAOTg 6 p olv.� ao a J,� d 18S ➢Ll $W 7z 1 " DIV No 3 j con t 76 tS 7. ZJ n Eq = ` s :les TH s7 S.W. :w OIv NO. A q •♦' 1. I w H y ' � 3CAvtEw S.W. 7. I e.•T...f.. SEAVIEW •.fORE3T ALBERT • pSACCN•! _�. ie •..17 .,'. I roafsr a r I e, I n Is N a J I♦ n • v `Wxt .. It CL1 1NOa ?!Y tl .J - �• 187TH PL•$.w. i87TH ST. S.W. {{ : w 7 1 ( SEAVIEII ` 17 li H = 77 20 '1 143 i TRACTS 2r. I 7il •y q n !6 �! ' 7 3 .� f- {{ IS 6 1 7♦ 3' 1 TRACTS I lU • 7 N JS77 I 71 m 9 1 I I 3 G r 'I.7TN —I,- MY /l !.• r ' ? , '7 MQ j b tr 7+ I 26 I to ! r ' 7e 6 1 f • � J I K 1 s� • 'H IAQfM. ST S w i N IJ.I N 1 . , u 1 • 3 • .� i...�..• I, IJ ,7 • I 1 , 4 ` •' I WCOGLANO E TINES t u SEAVIEw •' 11 3 + `rl 2 - 11 • T 7� W " m „ HEIGHTS —' 3 ----T -- -- GAAct ois a l0 3 ' • 17 1 3:• I • e S' ELEMENTARY aj OSCAR f-- --JENSENS „, m s I 6 • . • • 189 TH PL. S.W, AD A. • • r a P _.. f. ; -7 -i 1 1 r • 7 j:} It • ♦ I n N !� IA•CT3 - • 190 TH ST• S. Apo. '3 le 6 I 2 7 {•� iiiO c u , i1 7 r .,*IF IRA. It / k , p 1 _. .. 7 Q 13 SEA view �SEATTLE 7 915T:5T, S.N. 17 1 s It SIERRA PARK—� its - •' 11 , •� + i tSTAr3S !No2 I' A ♦ " S 711 M4•w, i��l 17 K 0- ,iL,Cf� f=. • b °.. a • 3191ST ST, S.W.,♦ ' • pl � • •.I.. + co + . • I r e. s e J :191 ST 5 ` - SUIVXBAN- -TR CTS -• YgLAQt NO, t • tx. '- i `� < . p 11 r • S W. SIERAA r i 3 r 1 ' I r s. e • rc a N l n T e i • SICAR4 � 7 ! SICAAA I ' "' s i 1 . � i , J VILLACC • ly�'• , r :SIERRA + " . K 2+ 7 I • Ir 49 11 N33 192 N�` L. _S.4Y.: '.-�' ^.y --• SS 17• 771 is f 1 0 1 r r r ; 't r»... ~T"- 7 ` •ItVILLA6t tl 13 7 Y/I LAOL M tf t3 73I tt 71 ' 7NOt A Ri Ir A O n 2+tA0 LLM 38 W,p is " Y 3• I 31 01 11 4 „ A DRIVE a ; .193 RO PL. 9 "" 'E HI T ��r CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT T fIS CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT (the "Contract") is •parade this. day of , 1997, by and between Dr. and Mrs. man Park (hereinafter "Park") , and City of Edmonds thereinafter f1City"}. The parties wish to engage in a conditional sales contract the terms of which are cutlined in this document. in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, and other good.and valuable consideration, the receipt and surrieiency or which is hereby acknowledged by each party from the ' other, TIE -PARTIES HERETO AGREE To THE FOLLOWING TERMS: ' This contract is contingent upon the parties successfully applying to the Clty of Edmonds to obtain a contract rezone and obtaining authorization from the City to construct a planned residential development out of the subject site. The real estate to be developed is as shown on the preliminary site plan which is enclosed -and known as "Enclosure All. Enclosure A is hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. The subject property shall be known as "Seaview Park Estates". The city and its City Councilfs discretion to exercise its 1 governmental and quasi-judicial power is intended to be -fully preserved under the terms of this agreement. This agreement shall not be interpreted to impair the decision making and quasi-. Judicial authority, of,any official or officials representing the City. WHEREAS the City's involvement would be limited to providing title to the subject property and providing an authorization to include this property in the subdivision request which will be made by Park. WHEREAS the City grants to Mr. Charles Maki power of attorney to act. on behalf of the City in proceeding throughout the application process described above. WHEREAS the city's Liability will be limited to the value of the property contributed and Dr. Park will personally indemnify the .Citty as to all development costs associated with the development of -the subdivision. WHEREAS this conditional sales contract will automatically' terminate upon denial by the Edmonds City Council of a request to subdivide the property; This contract, will close within 30 days after the project is recorded in snohomish County. C0hM=TX40K1z Senors EXHIBIT 2 WHEREU the price of the subject property shall be fixed at 0100,000.0o if 'all property is rezoned. If the property is not rezoned, the price of the subje-t property should be -subject to negotiation. This AgreeMent may be modified, altered or amended only by a writing signed by each cf the parties and duly notarized. Waiver of any te= or provision in this Agreement by any Party shall not be considered to be a waiver of any ether term or provision of this Agreement or breach of this Agreement regardless of the nature of such subsequent event or breach. This Agreement shall be interpreted as the final -written agreement of the Parties. It is agreed and understood that all prior conversations, discussions, letters, and agre&iitebts have -been merged into this Agreement and that this written Agreement constitutes.the rinal.Agreement between the Parties, notwithstanding any prior oral ax written understanding.to the.contrary. . IN WITNESS WHERE t the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the- day gnd year first abOVe-written. Dr . and Mrs. Ilan Par}c. Charles Maxi, Project Manager its CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -2- City of Edmonds. By Barbara S. Fahey Its EXHIBIT 2 \ STATS OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SN0110MISE ) On thLIS day of , 1997, before me, the under:igaod, a Notary Pub '110 in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared cmUa a i[M, to me known to be -the Representative of•D'r. and Mrs. Han park, the Parties that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and vclutt$ry'act and Heed of said Parties, for the uses and purposes therein •mentioned,`and on oath staged that no is authorized to execute the said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above wYitt®n. Notary Public in an or the state. -of Washington,' residing at My commission expires: Type or Print Name Above STATS 07 WASKINOTON ) )'so. Cobmy OF SNOEOMISR } On this flay of 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary Public in and for the state of Washingtoa, duly aoms►tiaaioneet and sworn, personally agpaared to me, DAAZMM S. FAIZZY, knotm to b a the Representetive•of•the'City of Edmonds, the Party that executed the within and.foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and 'voluntary act and deed of :said Party, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on -oath stated that he in authorized to execute the said instr=ant. WIT=25 my hand'and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above written. C:\wp51\clients\edsbeyyNcity.=n j COND1TIONAi SALES CONTRACT -3- 14otary FUD11c in and or the State of Washington, residing at my cc lesion expirest Type or Frith Name Above EXHIBIT 2 Lot 12,. Admiralty Acres, according to Plat thereof recorded in Volume 12, Page 48z records of Snohomish County, Washington t-----'--------------_�__. --� —_--- ---- — 80th AVENUE b I. It II' .• { I . ;off 10 J \ N b K_ I S NO 317.A8' _ Bradford and Robbins Softwam '---'~ LAND APPRAISAL REPORT File NO. 2226 Borrower N/A census Tract .503.00 Map Aetererce TB 455 A3 Property Address 183XX 80th Avenue West city Edmonds cormly Snohomish state WA zp code 98026 Legai Description Block 001 D-00 - Lot 12 A Acres Sate Price s N/A pale of Sals N/A Loan Term Unknown yra, Property Fr a Appraised Q Fee ❑ Leasehold oe MWmla Pu0 Actual Real Estate Taxes S Exempt (A Loan Charges to be paid by sellers N/A Other Saks Concessions NIA LenderlCnerd City of Edmonds Address 250 5th Avenue Nortbt, Edmonds WA 98020 Oc4ant Vacant Appraiser Henry L Kieneker fmbudiom to Appreber Aporaise fee sim le interest in above refemaced ' eft , Location trraarr X Suburban El Rural Bull! Up ® Over 75% ❑ 2S% to 75% ❑ Under 25% Employment Staff" Good ❑ Avg. ®❑ Pak Pow ❑ Growth Rate ❑ Fuly Dev. ❑ Rapid Steady ❑ Stow Convowance.to Employment ❑ EK �Q7 Property Values ❑ Increasing LJ stable ❑ pedUrinp Convenience to Stopping ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Demand/Supply ❑ Stwrtaga ® In Balance ❑ Oversupply Corwaniame to Schools ❑ ®.❑ ❑ Marto ling Time Under 3 Mos, ❑X 4.6 Moe. ❑ Over 8 Mos. Adequacy of PubtleTransporlatlon ❑ ❑X ❑ Present Land Use 75 %, Family 2 %2.4Family 5 %Apta 3 %Condo $ %Commercial RocreallonatFacilities X Q 10 Y. Vacant % Adequacy o(lldppea ❑ Q ❑ _%indusulal Change In Present Land Use (Nol Ukaly � LJirey(7 Tnldrg Pies (7 properly d Cottgfafblhly ❑n FromTo 1,'f"mcilides Protection from Detrimental Conditions ❑ ❑X ❑Predominate Occupancy a Owner Tenon! 0-5 % YaeaM Pollee and Flre Proteubn ❑ 0❑ ❑3kgie Fempy Ptlee Range s 100 to s 500 Predominant Value S 165 General Apprerance of Properties ❑ O ❑SfngisFarflyAge 0 yra to 80 yrs. PradomarardAge 40 yrs Appeal to Market ❑®❑❑comments view, nolse).The su 'eces nei •borhood consists mainsof Including otiose factors, favorable orunfavorable, adeatng rrtarkstabahy (e.g. pubicparia, sdwols, averse uali homes.The subject bas access to all necessary su rtfaciUdes, It is located a roximatel two miles northeastof the entral business district of Edmonds. Commudn s stems in the area include Ht wa 99 Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Re=adonat in cite area include Snohofish Coup Meadowdale Plc fields and Lnndale Park. Local shopping is available along Hwy 99. Dimensions See Plat Map 28,750 Sq ft Sq. FL or Acres ®oornarLo( Zoning Classification RS-12000 (Residential) Present Improvements ❑ do ❑ do not conform to zoning regukfione Highest and best use Presart use ❑ Other (apechy) Pliclk Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Sloped w middle Eke. ❑X Street Access ❑X Pubpo ❑ Private StZe Typical Gas ❑ surface Paved Shape Rectangular © Maintenance X Pubpe PMale View 'Territorial lof Water San. Sewer © 0 Stone Sewer ❑ Curb/Gutkr Drainage Ampem adequate © Underground Elect. A Tel. Sidewalk M Sheol L15tts is On property located Ina HUD Identified Special Plead Hurd Areal X No yas Commems 0avorabla or unfavorable indudlng any apparent adverse easement, encroachments or other adverse condhlonsr Them were no a==t adverse encroarliments, MQj;iaj;,,-qqessznents. or slide areas noted - . 00JU=11M that woUld negadvely affect== value. Size mdAb=_ the subject is viroical of the neighborhood. A title report was not provided as part of this asslg=enL The undersigned has recited three recent sales of propeftlee most similar and proximate to subject and has considered these In the market analysis. The dascrfptlon Includes a dollar adjustment reflecting market readfdn 10 those hems of slgnCkani variation between the subleot and comparable properties. h a significant ham In the comparable properly Is superior to or more favorable than the sub)ect properly, a minus (-) adjustment Is me" thus reducing the indicated value of subject; If a significant item In the conpeteble to Warier fo or Ism lavorabik than the sut11e011 properly. a Plus (+) adjuaanent to made thus Increasing fM Indlemod value of the subject. SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPARABLE NO,1 COMPARABLE N01 COMPARABLE NO 3 ' Address 183XX 80(h Avenue West 7421 Meadowdale Beach Road 156XX 72nd Avenue West 87XX Olympic View Drive Edmonds Edmonds Edmonds Edmonds Proxlmlt to sub 1 Mille Northeast - 2 Miles North .5 Mile Northwest sales Price Is N/Ali.."' s 96 550 85,000 airs, " I s 80 000 Price /S uare fooil s N/A • � .z, " .50 ...... s 2.40 t Data source Rec#9702240229 Metre MLS Rec#9607020177 Metro, MLS Ins eclion Metros Rec#9608090407 Metro MLS Date of Sala and DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION d' DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION A Time A at mem N/A Febru 24 1997 Jul 1996 Au st 9 1996 Location Averse Averse Averse Avers e SheMew 28.750 SF/Terr 24,394 SF/Terr 13,068S F/Fair Snd Simi) 33,302 SFe/Fair Snd -5 Utilities availabli E1ecLWater Sewer I E1ec Wafer Sewer Ere Watts Sewer Elec Water Sewer Pre&ninary won None known T o Geo Sure PI -1$ None known I None known Saks or Financing N/A Cash Cash Cash Concessions N/A None noted I None noted None noted Not at Plus X Minus S -1$ plus Minus S 0 Plus X Minus s -5 Ypa Indicated Value r� 1 v m f• ,;�� or Subject fx�'%• ' s $ 00 c<.:r. s 85 000' ' s 75,000 Comments on Market Data The adjusted value for each of the cote arables have been rounded to the nearest $1000. The indicated sales date for each of the con arables is the close of escrow date. "Site size of Comparable No. 3 is esdmtedby using MetroScan's Plat mag calculation section due to the lack of site sim Infoimation.on Snohomish County records, This estimate does not refute, acw (1 site serve . s comments and conditions of Apprelsal: The subject is amraised "As Is" and is not sub'ect to any r airs alterations or further in dons. A title r re ort was not nrnished as art of Ibis =orL No personal M was Included in this valuadon. Final Reconciliation: t ESTIMATE THE MARKET yAl UE, AS DEFINED, OF SUBJ 6T PROPE TY AS OF March 10 io 97 lobes t ' Apprakar(s) L•-r... pavlew Appraiser (h applicable) Henry . Kieneker old FIDIIJ N Mw:Apprabsfr Real F.stals Appratsal Software by Bradford ant Robbins (800) 822.8727. EXHIBIT 3 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: >=ire 3/ 1 1/9 7� Public Works 3/ 1 1 /97 Parks 8i Rec. 3/ 1 1 /97 Staff Comments: A r,4-cNez> lWzw iw RETURNEDsT-� Engineering Firer, S P Public Works Parks 8T Rec. *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner. PARK. HAN / KIM. RUSSELL PropertyAddress 84TH AVE. W. 8[ OLYMPIC VIEW DR Date of Application 3/7/97 Type REZONE Hearing Required:YesX_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report Vicinity Map Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8,5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADLI) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist ATTACHMENT 22 File No. R-97-28 ti+ Date: To: From: Subject: March 13, 1997 Planning Division Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinatorgm/ Rezone at Olympic View Dr. and 184th Ave W (R-97-028) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division will reserve the right to make additional comments and requirements on forthcoming submittals for this project. The Engineering Division has no comments regarding the current application: The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. The application is considered complete at this time. CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION R97028.DOC APPLICATION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST e i � s Engineering 3/ 1 1 /97 Fire_ _ 3/ 11 /97 Pas rr s 8t Rec Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? FILE: R-97-28 FROM: PLANNING RETURNED _ sin„ N _ �/,+/9-7 Engineerin Fire, , Public Works "4 Parks & Rec. *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review, • Owner PARK. HAN / KIM, RUSSELL Property Address 84TH AVE W. 8z OLYMPIC VIEW DR • Date of Application 3/7/97 Type REZONE Hearing Required:Yes—X_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X - Fee X APO List Title Report Vicinity Map Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8,5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legais (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist ATTACHMENT 23 File No. R-97-28 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO. Engineering 3/ 1 1 /97 Public Works Parks & Rec. 3/1 1 /97 Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? RETURNED;` Engineerin r Fire Public Wor pi r , I V Parks $z Rec. MAR 1. 1997 J U�'��2.. CY L't'1q a!l111�T1 f+ 5^'snr *COMMENTS WITHOUT WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner PARK HAN / KIM RUSSELL Property Address 84TH AVE. W. & OLYMPI VIEW DR Date of Application 3/7/97 Type__ REZONE Hearing Required:YesX_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X AP0 List Title Report Vlcinity Map Elevations .____._Petition (Official Street Map) _Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist ATTACHMENT 24 File No. R-97-28 4 J Wilsonl Ouick Reference Index System © 1991 Wilson Jones Company Norman J and Sally L. Barringer 18405 - 79th Pl. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98026 January 26, 1998 Jeff Wilson Community Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Subject: Han Park/Russell Kim Project - File #R-97-28 Reference: Telephone Conversations, Sally Barringer to Jeff Wilson Dear Mr. Wilson: RECEIVE[) [) JAN 2 6 1998 PLAiVNuvo DEPT. As I stated in my two previous conversations this month and a conversation before the last hearing, I am concerned about the approximate 30 foot bank with large trees on the bank and slope that abuts the proposed road for this development that will be used as a public thoroughfare to Olympic View Drive. Of the 270 feet vacated, 190 feet abuts our property and approximately 60 feet abuts our neighbor O'Neills. The remainder abuts neighbor Roberts. The road comes to the toe of the bank in places and curves away in others. I spoke before the council at the last hearing voicing my concern about this bank. I became very concerned when the representative, Mr. Maki, I believe, spoke at the hearing and said "what bank". Also, the site plan I received did not indicate the slope of the bank. The topography outlines seemed to stop at our property line so it looks like level land to anyone reviewing this development. At the hearing a representative for Edmonds stated that the city would do work on the bank at their expense if this road was opened. Someone stated that the road opening was not even on the 7 year plan. This left the impression that 184th Street would be opened to Olympic View Drive by the city. In my call to you a week ago you stated the developer would be putting in the road. I contacted the City Engineer, Jim Walker, and he came out and looked at the bank and area of the proposed road. He stated to me the city would maintain the road the developer puts in. EXHIBIT 4 Because a 40 foot road to the toe of the bank in some places exposes the O'Neill's and us to potential liabilities I am requesting the abutting lot owners be given written notice of the proposed road plan. I would assume that this road plan would meet all city road requirements and be reviewed by the City Engineer. I would also assume that the road plan would include stabilizing of the bank at developer or City cost. Thank you for your courteous and prompt replies to my inquiries in this matter. Sincerely, Sally L. B nger cc: Jim Walker, City Engineer City Council Members WilsonJonesm Quick Reference Index System 5 © 1991 Wilson Jones Company 10 gy� yy ..es5 1 °l JAPE 2 7 1998 IT IS FELT THAT THE REZOW.. FrR Y 6 ACRES FROM RS12 TO RS8 IN ADNIIRAITY ACRES WOULD ADVERSELY EFFECT THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES AND WOULD NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SURROUNP.ING ZONING & LAND USE. AN INCRESE IN BUILDING SITES WTTH LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE CURRENT REQUIRED 1200 SQ. FT. 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 OZONE WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT BE'COMPATABLE WITH THE `NATURAL CONSTRANTS'OF THE PROPERTY. o ? r - � z 5 7' _�� � 6 76) Zi a Jj 71 Ll 77* 79 EXHIBIT 5 1 _../.1u /9 A JAN 2 7 lc ­ IT IS FELT THAT THE REZONE OF ADM IRAI T Y ACRES WOULD AD VE CRESFROM%612TORS81N E CT` "E.'VALUE OF OUR HOMES AND WOULD NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH TH E SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE. AN INCRESE IN BUILDING SITES WITH LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE CURRENT REQiJIRED 120ONQ, FT. L(JT WOULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE NATURAL FEATURES WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY CHANGED TO AI LCfW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TjjESE NEW SMALLER BUILDING SITES. THE RESULT OF THIS REZONE WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT BE 0OWATABLE WITH THE -NATURAL CON$TRANTS'OF THe PROPERTY. I a/-4i.A 1�5b- A-V All 7 /,P x Z—Azz 1 '770 -7 9 LS I Z_ 0 I E Duh 0,4 V lq 7 �'ZoyeJ 54L,7 ? 7 -7 l Sal 4� �Z5 S) 73 LA-) -7 7 , -t: 77 �_ - , _�t 6f3l 7 77 v JAN 2 IT IS FELT TKAT REZONE Or A THE ACRES FRAM R$j2TQR$81N 1, ADMIRAITY ACRES WOULD OULD ADVERSELY EFFECT THE VALUE OF OUR. HOMES AND WOULD NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING a LAND USE. AN INCISE IN BUILDING SITES WITH LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE CURRENT REQUIRED 12005Q, FT. LOT WOULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE NATURAL FEATURES WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY CHANUEDTO ALLUW PUKDEVEL01-MLIN I UP ltitbt Ntw ')MALLhX tijjjLbjNk�S!lhb. lkit 2ZhJIJL1 L& ttilb tt LUlVti WUULUiSE LI VIrJ.OY1Vi11V1 its A !N4ANNr;A' Vy-ENCH W Uu-LD NO T BE C avi? ATAB lZ 1-H-E 'i iA 7LUN-AL CON �yrteuv t s cjF THE PROPERTY. 44 U. 7 71'-Qol 51A �4 �lfl t'P- 5'r- 5 L� , eel 7e-r&S'0 7 M 717 iL-2. A7 "or.,o-a/,c�, ,j -),g 6 ILWilsonJones R Quick Reference /ndex System © 1991 Wilson Jones Company January 24,1998 Jeff Wilson City of Edmonds Community Services Dept. Planning Division 1215th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Wilson, JAN 2.7 1998 rtroivU We would like to formally state our concerns in regards to the proposed development plan by Han Park/Russell Kim, File #R-97-28. We feel strongly that as this current proposal stands, it poses several serious problems to our property, as well as to the property of our neighbors. Our home is located on Lot #11, Hidden Glen,18414 79th Place W., Edmonds. We are very concerned about our bank area being adversely affected by the development that is proposed. The location of the road, under the current plan, is very close to our bank To make matters worse, our garage is very close to the end of our bank. It is our fear that without the development of a retaining wall, that there would be a very real threat to our bank, which would endanger our garage. This could result in a terribly expensive and time consuming situation for our family. We are also concerned with the liability that we could potentially face if our bank slid causing injury or damage to another party. We feel that the City of Edmonds should demand that this concern be addressed by the developer, and that the developer should be required to develop a retaining wall, approved by the affected homeowners, at the developers expense. Our second concern involves the applicants proposed contract rezone of 5.4 acres from RS-12 to RS-8. It is reasonable to understand that we look upon our home as an investment. Any developing to the area surrounding our property can and will have an affect on the value of the homes in our neighborhood. If Mr. Park and Mr. Kim are allowed to down -zone, they will be subsequently building more dwelling at a lesser value, thus threatening the value of those already established. It is our hope that the city will take this into account and not grant the applicant a rezone. Thank you for your consideration on these concerns. Sincerely, Rich & Tina O'Neill cc Edmonds City Council cc Jim Walker EXHIBIT 6 01, WilsonJones© Quick Reference Index System 7 © 1991 Wilson Jones Company CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOii'IlVIENDATIONS TO: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FROM:a.:;2�.. Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor DATE: June 5, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 BEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: DUNE 10. 1992 AT 7:00 PM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application.................................................................................... 1 Recommendations................................................................................... SiteDescription 2 ...................................................................................... History. 2 ........................................................ 3 State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) ... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance 3 ........................................ 4 TechnicalCommittee............................................................................ ComprehensivePlan 5 ............................................................................... Appendices............................................................. 5 Partiesof Record 6 .................................................................................... 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment R92-39/&4.9Z EXHIBIT 7 / Russell Kir 1 File No. 1 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. Re nest: 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. RECOAB 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) Zonina: The subject property is zoned RS - Single - Family Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (see Attachment 1). R92-39/64.92 0 f �VL Russell Kin j File No. R-9t-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 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. . R9b39/"92 ), 1" Russell Kit File No. F. ,9 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/G4.92 Russell K 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 CONDUTTEE 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 I. 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 R9I 39/"92 �1 t Russell K: File No. : 39 Page 6 of 6 LM IV. 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. 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 Determination of Nonsignificance (4/21/92) 7. Comment letter on Environmental Determination from Community Transit (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 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division a92.39/6.492 PARK P COUNTY PARK � M J ' .• i'l FIRS � r -.._ - --_ _ ---�r_ F I R S T ¢ �IS AW w s sorE z I W ' '. _ ADD 0 clew it i, -•• Ie16T PL=SW. a s • - — O To a s Nowcs ~ A6 IRA TY ACRES VI LA G2 uez .. j a 1 Is w - -- - - 3 j i ' I t ro i 1♦ -3uJ Ra r °- -Fo' II BN fEAVIEw_ roRE3i � r • . / Gt N _ _—.._ .AA■ 'r w fs ro Sri TRACT_3_ p-v s ofv, wo _ s W3PL•!3W :r 604 16TH S w° r EA— VIEW for stwvlew ront3r •it�tnr " ^ j - -.ALCM•f a 3/ fwq J s� M 1 7TH SST. S,W. -.� ° s, .fY NCI . TRACTS .r • f. K , SCAVIc� ,. `�• 1; x rf lii ro = :'. as f r f co RM— 3 TRACT T / Vicinity Map h M t V i wts 7x R z r1 ze t 31 3! W 33 3. 36 • •{ 3' 1. f 31 'so --✓ 63 ATTACHMENT 1 - FILE NO. R-92-39 city of edmonu.�' land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. ® REZONE ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ VARIANCE ❑ RESUBMITTAL FILE # FILE # Q-G 2 ".3`i ZONE DATE REC'D BY d. FEE ��-RECEIPT # -7 HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF J PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED APPEAL # ❑ APPEALED Applicant vtlWi. Phone Address_ (� D7 N /4-y_ s�-fOv, C>KL-t�. �tiT�/ , Ok d731 Zn Property Address �-o-r;Location ' < <PV0 �E> L-OCK Off- V�J 4JfL, Property Owner IJ K, 4P tJ Z-, I AA�K Phone�'�b , rl174 013 Address '7104 ©LfYi' &L t/i � Dr. G-0M0NflS.0 W'4 q so a(v Agent Phone Address Tax Acc # Sec. ' Twp. Rng. Legal Description _L-d TS , �d { CAG,� / , A -DM Z es Details of Project or Proposed 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 7 • 7 1 Z 0 m < a•;� • I I C c O EA WEST ' a N � m z 0 s x m � m p 1 m M, 46 m • w; . N r� m p - - -' - ATTACHMENT 3 -92=39 FILE NO. R CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name CLMr is J�- of proposed project, if applicable: 2. r Name of applicant: t✓ 4 L� '� eC �a 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: :-A-- ptf�t , d 1 &ft& V d C-ti Dr} ezD m o o os . w p- q 8e2t., > cc doT .T 'yi55 e I /t"16'� /D Y-o'% 0,1`iAJ 6'U6- • , !' K " Lr -N, d it-'731 Z� 4. Date checklist prepared: .S P-rJ 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): `) t� q i �• (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 ATTACHMENT 4 FILE NO. R-92-39 S. 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your approval, if known. fcr�'IrT,� z t i (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. 'T2:-d lL, its A -,, 1912 A (V l L/1.l / Y 2 AA / (STAFF COMMENTS) t)-o AS -IL). CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER page 2 of 26 1 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. / 0 ©r— Afl) /IZd�7"i ATr".ee--� S t, S7 wes7 116-kA "c- W , i 0 t41 e(cyc &j Or. C P+-eft-1-c- 5;i(TA-CJ+ E;V MA -pi . (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. Geu=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)? • . �� ��i� v4vj Dr, (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-9LMASTER 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. (" (-Y, 5A-PJD . ( E-5P8kA-N OE 0 ). (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. ( STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If s generally describe. Q . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-81.MASTER Page 4 of 26 4 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? _ (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: (lit GJ G--U �R (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 desc ibe and give approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect.your proposal? If so, generally describe. t (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. 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 r 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/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 6 of 26 Y � - (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. C) (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplaiu? 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 approxi ate quantities if known. r CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 7 of 26 r B (STAFF COMMENTS) 1 (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: em f (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 vegetatio will be remove or altered? Gc �. CHKIT/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 any: -�2SL PCs C SSA Lam, (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: Y~ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-SI.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 site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: �j )k - (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 Page 11 of 26 �j b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent pro ties? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of Is pro osal? (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. ( STAFF COMMENTS) (1). Describe special emergency services that might be required. ( STAFF COMMENTS) CH KLT/10-8-91. MASTER Page 12 of 26 1 (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: � Y (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? (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 would 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 1 j 8. Land and Shoreline Use j a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site een used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (N1 , 44-& use W tw Be mov (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ( Z- CH KLT/10-8-91. MASTER Page 14 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the jcurrent comprehensive plan designation of the site? 12" (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? I A (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? .7 S (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 15 of 26 'p� Y j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? . (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: o� (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: i (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middlef 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. tST (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposedifeasures 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- '.O` S 7 DP/ Al"C, (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 I C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ( 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? � i i� (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? + 4 ( 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? icwl ( STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. 0,0 (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: . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKIT/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. fJ /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. ! J ' (STAFF COMMENTS) r' C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: ti ( 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. ss 34 } ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1 -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? (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). (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/10-6-91-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. N A 7 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce .or control transportation impacts, if any: 0 {(�-�'( 1 1 (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. r (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: IJ�r ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 22 of 26 16. Utilities a. Circi�u. ties �rentl a at the site: el city, �csystem��,- er use service ahone, r. o her: (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 ine anov answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I un erstand 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 R 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 tncrease 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: 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: 0/0' 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? CHKLT/10-8-91-MASTER Page 24 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 tncrease 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: 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: 0/0' 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? JJ f 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? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 1� 6. Now would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? r� IA . CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 25 of 26 1 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. tj 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: ,.�:..,2.---- 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 futurd 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 'ATTACHMENT 5 9'L39EN/4420.92.SEPA FILE NO. R-92-39 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (200 771-0220 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=I1-340(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 PIanning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmo s WA 98020 Date: 'I l y + ! It 2— Signature: 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 1 of2 FILE NO. R-92-39 92.39DN5/420.92.SEPA 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 2160176th 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 99020 XX Agent: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: i. 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/44692.SEPA 1 Snohomish County Pubiiic Transportation Benefit Area Corporation 33 164th St. S.W. Suite 200 Community Jnnwood. Washington 98037 Transit 1'06) 348-7100 Kenneth J. Graska Executive Director NY March 24, 19924, ,0 %8.9'2 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, Marvin Freel Transportation Planner cc: • File ATTACHMENT 7 FILE NO. R-92-39 (§ `�iC�sy try lhdi9'.'§ E z 3 ry Y lh? of �' a yYyxA d V rh f " fA4 ' $ r9a � few Aa , Mkt 'MEET$� ar d Yt Pat x ISO so S, are« '� `' � � "F, ��>� ����vb'�"'"•� �+ " �x tr #� y � ti to SY Y RY 91 #y: ; h✓, b N , 6 , rY� i p p K two "Y s t }k t bbye u W Ei lY 'k am Wx r y e 111111: m ROUTED TO: APPLIC. )ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE## ST-9Z-39. FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED _ RETURNED PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED e,(A & R E C 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: /✓v� ` c1-� .z�/ ° c.a4ic.1..1 r� �i' $ s. sw.�rn c-+►s,,,e,,,-%. R E C E1 vE D FEB 2 5 1992 PJBLIC ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE Owner Russell Kim Doa 2/18/92 2/25/92 �i s c its 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 X 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 j HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION �(— 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) (8 1/2" x 11) POST & MAIL Date RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 9 MAILED FTNDTNr,.q nF Far.T FILE NO. R-92-39 ROUTED TO: APPLI )ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIS ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE 2/25/92 PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 PARKS & REC 2/25/92 ,i FILE## ST-9-39 FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED RETURNED RETURNED r+ RETURNED COMMENTS: Q {ISM- Io �t V J iu� G`La 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)) APO LIST LEGALS(Existing.& Proposed) _x_ TITLE REPORT -ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) __ 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 N0. R-92-39 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT APPLI(-. ,)ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 FIRE FEB 2 6 1992 PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes RETURNED RECEIVtO RETURNED F E B �) R 199Z RETURNED PLANNING DEPT. COMMENTS: GU. Owner Russell Kim PropertyjAddress 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 j X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) x_ FEE �(� SITE PLAN (71" 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 1 HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 11 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT FILE NO. R-92-39 2T 15 I4 IS A ° 40 , 4( 44 L. p 26 16 I79 TH 23 17 19 19 3 33 , 3 ; -_42 ' 47 I 1 SEAv+EW 1,171 79 SI aleorrpl. 1 2 _ N /FIRS T p I 2 3 •) Y I 3 T. PL. Sw• FIRST a:5 Avl W DYER'S 1$1S 3 _ ADD. 0 3181 •2 sv4 ISIST PL:S.W.a s w 4 3 3 24 ° AD IRA TY' 74 Q s 3 NOMES ~ ACRES N M V I E W SA TO T R 6 r e m �� p j / 43 e 1 12 ND I 6 VILLA I !No °° ST. S.w. I4 .. 5, •• a ST S.W. CITY - 1 d : 3 6 25 72 T3 59 2182 nA P ,S\Y : ' 1 IS • _ L --- T., 9 IO I ` 9 > 40 It its 71 - to 7o I j EDMONDS I 9 ' _. r. 2B 1aj j 13 p n8:z.• 6 ,,6 �Py 40 Q Vx 17 3 m !I1 0 9>. 32 , Ss S M1 ,N 1 - .j;:.' 44 r 10 45 Wr— 5 J 106 . tO3 .47 46 p > 50 6 r -' SEAVIEW FOREST s 2 ) 6 n 1e 19 20 TI qr.r a 6 53 2 Q WEN ON S AD n 9 24 It > • -e -1 s < 183 PL° SW 22 nww,a'✓+; �, 56 TRACTS .11, o: 3 OI V. .0. a ] ° s ' ;..,, c,jY 25 YS 24 1 e p QO a4 n } 5A L isfSMls 3 K 57 25 96 TH ST. S.W. : ° 77 76 r c s I. 3 I z I I 2 s • e �� .77 1O .. ,3 e:i s{. SEAV1Ew FOREST AL B.ERT •-BA LCr15 —.�-- --�-� a 6 I a q I II : n I ,3 .. 6 ) 1 4 ,� 6 )I W)p J 23Y1 4! _I, a. 1^.;.:; 4:A•;.• L.._... J 12 5 w y a Y`sl a sTr(�ACTS 187TH ST. SW ) z °6 _�.•�_ I SCAM4 4 35--1..52 '2 23 20 TRACTS > >. Ss ti zi 2, N rr : h 2. 25 26 ; 77 26 6larTm : 3 ' • c ' ° ' °3>; e--- .._ ....-... 188TlL 5T. S.W. 2 Il �- d 2 WC,D ANO ESTATES a .�..�- d'! e-• 2 6 , L LYNNOALE -2) 2-� s n s ♦ j 6 4 LYNNWOOD n 3 4 n 2 4 n 1 . z , 2' 2� GRACE A iM°55 _ p la ! ro ! t z• ] e• 5 1 ro I TER ACE DSGAR E.—'JENSENS m ¢ a- 27 CITY PARK r a 2 6 5 I 6 i189TH PL. S�W. 1i S a 7 6 r .n .. 6 ..T _. ^§ 11 .601 Is N D. , 190 TH ST S.W. I an F(�k �4 :^ A. °Xzf? p , OO F6�ti Y� 31 12 3 It s w 13 SEATTLE -- °• • L(' r LS 33 I4 a 9 a LYNNDALE .2 3 /z , ' A N SIERRAi91 Si ST, 5. ELEMENTARY o t .. 5 .. p , ,1915T ST, S.W. '.. • 6 p' u n 23 N e' Is 7 `6 2 t i z 1 9 e s 6 r i} I. s 6 I :19t 5T ST. S.W. 22 • = SCHOOL SUB RBAN --TRACTS— VILLAGE �NO.1 2 6 4 5 .•' 10 • S 1CRR1 = x H At 1 Y Y y Ir o w n i 4 a 1 4 z n J -W 20 It I x SIERRA 4 ' SIERRA I In •.•+ 6 VIIIAGE i NI 15 - ^ " NbS ODOR. • 3 r ' 4 „ 16 SIERRA 3 192 NO PL. S.W. = �' _— i 192NO PL Sw 25 24 rs 22 ,• 5 1 0 ' •' IA +-_n I NO• ! I J I N 3 1 VILLAGE y •�M 2412s: 221 S' 2. „ • n'• • i7 1 a • n • A 20 a , zz n x. a zb n ■ 1 It ,4 3 ! S 6 e C 19 20 V1 '� 13 K 1 N./o 5:W 00 •r ,• 21 20 r, '.., M[A00•DLfN 14 4 `i 1 o A l ° 193 RD PL. S.W, Jr� 3' ory A DRIVE r - • M • 'n •. V, ' ,12 I• 22 r 24 r , °'�} ; ' . . .� 6 5 . 3 Y ■ ATTACHMENT 12 ° 3 y E 7 e V, '• ♦ 3 FILE NO. a 6 'BELT ADD No:: 1 6 J .) 5 ] 2 R-92-39 S. 2, Wool 7 / 7 w THE i 2 s +Icls a vARR 4ADE i Icy 2 6 'C'3 25 �• J • c , . o T Q/� 9 1947N' ST S.M , r 1]j 0 E LL' I 1N- N7HRST S.W. 6 11 . a ... ,• ' 1 < S /Itt � -' > 19 ._ '. 194•TH PL. .w. , aoe[RT y ■ "' 4S nM 4 PL. 5 "� . „ COMMONS r E. rNo As ale 1' = 600' 600, 1200' 1800, I I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATAGOPoES LAND USES LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC USES PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMUNITY PARKS REGIONAL PARKS W/aT6i LLSES NATURAL 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. Ta i FILE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT B , / |w| - -------T''----------------------'-- / 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 rezone of the property at this time. 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. a PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER R42-39 r P1 anni,ng Board Minutes 3une 10, 1992 Exhibit C Planning Board Minutes Page, 5 1 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 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 Flan 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 ~� 4 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 J 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. Planning Board Minutes Page, 10 ILWIIsonJOnes. Quick He%rence Index System _ O 1991 Wilson Jones Company r a' r r. s, i. t EXHIBIT 81 WilsonJones. Quick Reference Index System 91 1901 Wilson Jones Company These Minutes Approved February 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 28, 1998 The regular meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Vice Chair Gary Grayson in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building, PRESENT ABSENT Gary Grayson, Chair Bruce Witenberg, Vice Chair John Dewhirst Steve Cobb Don Bakken STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Karin Noyes, Recorder Mr. Grayson introduced Don Bakken as the new Planning Board member. He welcomed him to the Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The election of Planning Board officers was scheduled as Item 7a. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no one in the audience wishing to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC BEARING FOR PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE (FILE NO. R 97-281 Mr. Wilson reviewed the four exhibits that were included in the Board's packets. Exhibit A is the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report. Exhibit B is a letter from Norman and Sally Barringer. Exhibit C is a petition of opposition to the requested contract rezone. Exhibit D is a letter from Rich and Tina O'Neill. He explained that this contract rezone request EXHIBIT 9 is a quasi-judicial matter. The applicant is Charles R. Maki on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim, Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson, and the City of Edmonds. The subject property encompasses the following addresses: 7704 Olympic view Drive; 18325 — 80a' Avenue West; 18305 — 80' Avenue West, 18408 0 79`h Place West; and the vacant parcel lying between 18325 and 18305 — 80`s Avenue West. Mr. Wilson provided a transparency of the vicinity map and identified the subject property. He also described the surrounding properties. The area immediately to the south is zoned RS-8. To the north and west of the subject property, the zoning is RS-12. Immediately to the east is the area zoned BN--the predominant use being the post office. To the southwest of the property is a public park. The subject property includes 5.98 acres and the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned from RS-12 to RS-8. At this time, the City offers two methods for a rezone to occur. One is through a straight rezone. The other method that can be utilized at the request of an applicant is the contract rezone. This is a proposal by the applicant that states that they are willing to stipulate certain requirements upon themselves if the rezone is granted. The applicant for this request has listed certain conditions that would be placed upon the property should the rezone occur. Copies of this contract rezone were provided to the public and to the Board. Mr. Wilson reviewed the contract proposal to identify the conditions the applicant is willing to stipulate if the rezone is approved. They are as follows: • Development of the property must be consistent with the approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) associated with the application. Mr. Wilson advised that as part of this proposal, the applicant has identified a layout for the property to be divided into 26 lots. • The lots, as depicted on the attached map, will be fixed as drawn. Mr. Wilson provided an overhead to illustrate the proposed lay out. He described the boundaries of the property. One of the main public concerns has been the location and orientation of the houses. The applicant is submitting that if the rezone is granted, they will bind themselves to the proposed layout. • The building pads will occupy 21 percent of the total building space of the site. Mr. Wilson noted that close to 80 percent of the property would not be developed as part of the building pads. Most of this property would be incorporated into the right-of-way requirements, but there would still be a large portion of the property that would remain in its natural state. • The landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD. Mr. Wilson noted that this would require the property owner to take ownership of and maintain an attractive entrance to the project at both locations. • A through street connecting 80a' Avenue West at 184t' S.W. to Olympic View Drive will be constructed at the owners' expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. • A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as shown on the map. W. Wilson noted that the PRD application is not being presented to the Board at this time. The Board will consider it if and when the contract rezone is approved. • The houses designed for the PRD shall be consistent in style and theme as those depicted in the PRD application. •. The maximum height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from average grade according to the City of Edmonds Development Code requirements. • All sidewalks, gutters, streetlights, and signs required by the City for a street will be supplied and constructed by the owner. • Minor alterations for the location of building and streets may be allowed to comply with City codes. Mr. Wilson said one thing the applicant has stipulated, as part of the contract rezone application is that the property develop through the use of the PRD regulations. The PRD process allows an additional level of scrutiny. A PRD request is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) must review the plat and building design so that they can ensure that the development is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. In reviewing the contract rezone request, staff evaluated the following criteria: Planning Board Minutes January28, 1998 Page 2 • Is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • Is it consistent with the zoning ordinance? • Is it consistent with surrounding areas? • Have their been any changes to the property to warrant a rezone? • Is the property suitable for the proposed use? • What affect will this contract rezone have on the property values? Mr. Wilson explained that the Comprehensive Plan identifies residential properties within the City as either Single Family Residential (RS) or Multi -Family Residential (RM). There are four different density designations for RS zones. The RS-6 zone involves much of the downtown area. The RS-8 zone allows about five homes per acre and is similar to RS zoning designations in other Puget Sound jurisdictions. The other RS densities are RS-12 and RS-20. Typically, these areas are located where there are concerns regarding steep slopes. The larger lots are necessary to accommodate these situations. The RS-12 designation is generally used for those areas that are serviced by septic tanks rather than being hooked up to the City's sewer system. This allows the necessary area for the drain field. When considering surrounding properties, Mr. Wilson took into account the zoning designation for the surrounding properties. This proposal appears to be consistent with both the RS-8 and the RS-12 zones. Either classification would provide an appropriate extension of the surrounding zones. Mr. Wilson said that since the time the property was originally presented for a rezone, there have been new Growth Management laws affecting the City's plans for growth management. The City must now look at ways to provide density for housing while at the same time protect the residential character of the City. Staff looked at ways to encourage and evaluate creative land use requests in which they can still provide RS housing opportunities and meet the density requirements of the Growth Management Act. Given the criteria placed upon the property through the contract rezone, staff feels this property is suitable for this type of development, especially since the property owners have agreed to develop through the use of the PRD process. This will allow the City the opportunity to review the development. Mr. Wilson said the applicant is proposing to create a street that has been on the official street map for years. The applicant's ability to provide this street connection will be a benefit to the community. It will offer some relief to traffic circulation in the area. Without the aggregation of the properties as the applicant has done, this street would not be possible for quite some time. Mr. Wilson advised that after reviewing all of the criteria in the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan, it is staff's recommendation that the proposal be approved subject to the conditions that are outlined in the report. The rezone will be subject the applicable requirements contained in the ECDC. It will also be subject to the conditions/restrictions submitted by the applicant on Attachment 6. Charles R Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, said he is present to represent the applicants of this contract rezone request. He said he has been under contract by Dr. Park for quite some time to develop this property. There has been a long history for this process. In 1996, they presented plans for the relocation of the road. At that time, it was very apparent that the neighbors wanted a street between 80a' Avenue West and Olympic View Drive to eliminate the traffic pressure. At one point lot 11, which was owned by the Smith's, became available. One of the City planners suggested putting this entire property together if possible. After reviewing their plans, the City has now indicated that they feel everything can be worked out. He thanked the Planning staff and other City staff for their efforts. This has not been an easy project, but they feel it is a winning project for the community in that they will get a large piece of property developed by a professional design company (The Mithune Partners). Mr. Maki suggested that the benefit to the City is that they will get the road and landscaping. The sensitive areas will be maintained. The benefit to the neighbors is that they get the street outlet to Olympic View Drive and a new project. The advantage to the developer is that they get their project. The advantage to the City is that the project will be required to Planning Board Minutes January 28, 1998 Page 3 meet City requirements. The property owners need this rezone to make the project work. It is in compliance with the ECDC and is consistent with the design requirements of the City. He urged the Board to recommend the City Council approve this contract rezone. The contract rezone is very specific and everything that is necessary to make this development possible while protecting the surrounding property owners. Jim Thompson, 18305 — 80t` Avenue West, said his property abuts most of this project. He stated that the map is not quite right. He has not sold his property to Mr. Park. He thinks the property owners have done a fine job of engineering this plan, and they do need the road. He would like to see the project go ahead, but he objects to the increased density. The topography on this property makes this dense development impossible. He said he believes that if they start cutting into the bank, his property (lot B) will have problems. There are houses proposed for lots 23 and 24 which will be very hard to develop without cutting into the bank that his house sits upon. The edge of his property is already slipping slightly. It has been for the past 30 years. This development could make the problem worse. Mr. Thompson referred the Board to a copy of R-92-39 which was a previous rezone request for this property. He asked that the Board obtain copies of this document and review it before making a decision. He particularly noted Items II(A)(1)(b) and II(A)(2)(b). These pertain to lot 106, which is located in the southern portion of the subject property. The discussion regarding this rezone involved the fact that because of the topography, the subject property was more connected to the RS-12 designation than to the RS-8 designation. Mr. Thompson questioned whether the proposed roadway would be wide enough to carry the traffic that would be traveling on it. Mr. Wilson suggested that the staff report for File R-92-39, as referenced by Mr. Thompson, be provided to each Board member for review. It will be identified as Exhibit E. Mr. Wilson said the Board's original recommendation to the Council references this staff report as an exhibit. It was not included in the new staff report. The Board only has exerts from this document. David Johnson, 7810 0 182" d Place S.W. said his home is located on lot 7 of Seaview Firs. It is directly north of the subject property. He is not opposed to development of the property, but he is opposed to the rezone request. It is interesting, in looking at the conclusions of the City, that the development of the subject property would appear to be compatible with, the surrounding development. Mr. Wilson mentioned that the property to the south is zoned RS-8. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned RS-12. If he had wanted to live in an RS-8 zone, he would have moved to Lynnwood. The number of homes this is based upon would be either 25 or 26, depending on whether Mr. Thompson sells his property or not. When you look at the map, it shows how the land would be divided. They are not looking at homes being placed on 8,000 square foot lots. These will be very small homes with five to six feet in between. While it is technically a single-family development, it appears to be more multi -family because the homes will be clustered into a very small area. Mr. Johnson said that while he does not know the history regarding the need for the road, it seems the need is more for convenience. There is never congestion on 80s' Avenue West. The road would be nice and convenient, but not necessary to relieve congestion. He does not have a problem with the road being developed, but it should be done based on the current zoning designation of RS-12 and not RS-8. The staff report indicates that the neighborhood would gain based on the benefit provided by the road. It is also mentioned that one of the main goals is the City's desire to provide for affordable housing. Does that mean there will be small lots that have a lower property value than the surrounding lots? If so, wouldn't that devalue the homes that are already in existence? One of the advantages of his property is the privacy. The implementation of this large development would impact this as well. He again stated that he does not have a problem with development of the property or the road, but it is unnecessary to change the zoning. Gary Axdel, 8041— 184`s Street S.W., said he has lived in the neighborhood for 31 years. He lives on the lot to the west of where the street is proposed on 180 Street S.W. As he listens to the conversation, it seems like there is a piece of the process that is missing or out of order. As a resident of the neighborhood, he would like to know what kind of homes will be developed on this property. His understanding is that this will be dealt with in the next process. He felt that knowing the type of homes that will be build would have an affect on the feelings of the neighbors. Planning Board Minutes January 28,1998 Page 4 Mr. Axdel agreed that the road would be convenient, but not necessary. He said he has not seen a traffic study for this project. They are dealing with two blind hills on 80'' Avenue and 184t` Street. He would like to know what the plans are for traffic control if the road is developed. Behind his property there is a parcel of land that is undeveloped. The concern he has is that it is currently zoned RS-12, but where would the rezone line really stop. He realizes that in order for this property to develop as RS-8, it would require a rezone process. He stated that there are reasons they have chosen to live in an RS-12 zone. There are aesthetic values to having property larger than 6,000 or 8,000 square feet. Again, he opposed the contract rezone. He knows that this property will be developed some day, but he would appreciate it if the Board would seriously consider the comments made by the public tonight. Laura Thornbill, 7831 0 185 h Place S.W., said her home is identified as lot 18, which is directly south of the subject property. Her lot is zoned RS-8. She asked staff to explain to her how the lots next to her canbee RS-8 zoning when they are much larger than 8,000 square feet. It appears from the map that the applicant will be concentrating all 26 homes into an area of about 1.6 acres. This is not appropriate, and she urged the Board to recommend that the zoning remain as RS- 12. Even if the property is rezoned to RS-8, the City should not allow all of the homes to be concentrated into a small area. Each house should have to stand on an 8,000 square foot lot. Sally Barringer, 18405 79`h Place West, identified her property as lot 12. She said she is most affected by the proposed road. Of the 270 feet of right-of-way required, 190 is located on her property and the other 60 feet is located on the O'Niell property. What has not been mentioned is that there is a steep bank in this area. There is a ravine on the north and a bank on the south. At the last hearing on this issue, Mr. Maki did not seem to be aware of this bank. She has had the City engineer out to look at the situation. There is a problem with the large trees and the bank is sliding now. She assumes that if the road is put in, it will meet the City's standards. Hopefully, there will be a proposal for maintaining the bank. Ms. Barringer provided pictures to the Board to illustrate her concerns regarding the bank. She said she has not seen any plans for the road and it seems that nobody is concerned about this situation. The applicant is seeking to rezone this property before creating plans for this road. There have been many hearings regarding this property during the 12 years she has lived in Edmonds. Will it ever end? She does not know of a single neighbor who is in favor of the rezone request. Hidden Glen development is not RS-8 as the map indicates. These lots are at least 12,000 square feet in size. The only 8,000 square foot lot is one that was recently granted a variance to build last year. If this proposal does go through and she is stuck with a sliding bank, her only recourse would be to fight the homeowners association or the City. She is really on the line and is hoping someone will see this. She would like to see this proposal denied and the applicant required to go back to the drawing board and create plans which would fit into the existing RS-12 zoning. Mr. Wilson identified Ms. Barringer's photographs as Exhibit F. Gary Ram, 18418 — 79 h Place West, said that while living at a previous residence, they had an experience where a developer presented plans that looked good on paper. The reality was that there were many impacts to the surrounding development. He has lived in his home for three years, and he sees the same scenario taking place again. In terms of traffic, Mr. Ram said his back yard abuts 80a' Avenue, and they hear the traffic. This street is a very steep hill, and there is a fair amount of foot traffic, as well. This street has a very blind intersection, and adding another street would cause problems. This street is a concern to him since his children play in the area. Mr. Ram said the map implies that the development is closely related to the street at the bottom of the map. But, the larger map on page one provides a better picture. The street his home is located on is at the top of the hill and the development is at the bottom They have no direct relationship to the subject property. The relationship of the subject property is primarily to the north and to the west. The RS-8 zone really starts just south. If you look at the property, you will see that the blend of the land fits well with the area just below it. When they first heard of this proposal and thought the lots would be RS-12, he was not opposed. Mr. Ram said that along with the contract rezone, the subject of affordability comes up. He is used to seeing things presented in a complete package. He is not sure how the word "affordable" housing is defined. He said he is most interested to learn the size of homes that are planned for these reduced size lots. He suggested that smaller homes would be Planning Board Minutes January2g, 1999 Page 5 out of character with the larger homes in this area. He said he is not opposed to the property being developed, but he seriously objects to the implication that the subject property is related to 79`s Avenue when they are at the top of the hill and the subject property is at the bottom. Melissa Marks, 18325 — 81"' Avenue West, said she has lived in her home for less than a year. She purchased her home specifically for the characteristics of the neighborhood. She enjoys the space and that is why she moved to the area. Wally Danielson, 7822 — 182nd Place S.W., said his property is located north of the subject property. He inquired if there will be a traffic stop where the 184 h Street extension will cross 806' Avenue. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Danielson reminded the Board that there are two blind hills in this area. This new road may cause more congestion rather than relieve the congestion, especially if a four way stop is added. Mr. Danielson said it was stated that RS-12 was a good zone for lots with steep slopes. There are a lot of slopes on the subject property so RS-12 zoning is more appropriate. The road would be a convenience, but it is not necessary. They could provide the same road if the property is developed as RS-12. He said he is annoyed that they have to continue to attend these public hearings to rezone this property. They are happy to see the property developed as RS-12, but not as RS- 8. Roland Brown, 7809 — 182nd Place S.W., said his property is located at the corner of the subject property on Olympic View Drive. There is a blind hill in this area, and there are no sidewalks provided. He said he walks his dog late at night, and it is dangerous. He finds it hard to understand why this rezone is even being considered given the steep slopes on the property. There have been landslipage over the past few years. His deck and fence are now leaning. This development must be RS-12. He agreed with Mr. Johnson's comment. He does not want a "Lynnwood kind of day." He wants it remain an "Edmonds kind of day." It seems the City is agreeing to this rezone because the applicant is proposing to develop the street. RS-8 is too small of lots. If the Board considers the slope on this property, it is obvious it should remain as RS-12. Betty Smith, 18208 — 80d' Avenue West, said she has lived in Edmonds for 34 years. The City of Edmonds cannot even afford a stop sign and a speed limit sign in this area. How can they afford to accommodate the increased traffic from this development? This will not improve the traffic. She suggested that the City receives more tax revenue from larger homes than they do from smaller ones. The City cannot even afford good police protection because there is not enough money. If the City cannot even come and fix a sinkhole in her neighbor's yard, how can they afford to take care of all of this new development? She asked that they not bring any more traffic into this area. She already has to wait 13 to 14 cars to get across the street to her mailbox. How many more cars will be brought in? Why does the City want more traffic by the park? It is already dangerous. She said she does not mind the property being developed as RS-12. But, if the property will be developed into cheaper houses, you will get a lesser grade of people. John Higherman, 18419 — 79d' Place West, said that with all of the retaining walls and road construction that will be done for this development, will there be any assessments charged to the existing residents? Or will this be the expense of the developer? He said he is opposed to the rezone from the standpoint of congestion and all of the other things that have been mentioned tonight. Mike Nagel, 7925 — 182"d Place S.W., said he just moved to the area. He felt the zoning should remain as RS-12. They moved here from Mill Creek where you could "high five your neighbor in the shower" because the homes were located so close together. It is nice to have more space. He feels the City is trying to push this proposal through so that they can get a free road from the developer. Tom Langland, 18226 — 80a` Avenue West, said he lives to the west of the subject property. As he recalls, the City,s Comprehensive Plan requires 60 feet of right of way. Is that what is being required for this street? It is his understanding that the proposed new road would be 40 feet including curb, gutter and sidewalk. That does not fit with the City,s requirements. To fit this into the plan, the lot size would have to be RS-12. The slopes of the ravine are unstable now. He does not see how the developer can fit RS-8 development into this property and retain the character of the neighborhood. Planning Board Minutes Jatmary28, 1998 Page 6 Muriel Quick, 7914 — 182°a Street, said her property is north of the subject property. She is familiar with the area and there is no way, given the topography, that 26 homes can be developed on this property without dire consequences. Their property value and the reason they moved to the area will be diminished. She said she does not have any prejudices about any type of people moving into this area, but the land cannot support the high number of homes being proposed. Mr. Maki said he is not quite sure how the affordable housing issue crept into the discussion. He said he would like to scrap the affordable housing from the discussion. They are not talking about low price homes. He appreciates the neighbors' concerns regarding this issue. Mr. Maki explained that Mr. Thompson's property is not necessary to make the proposal work. Mr. Park and Mr. Thompson have been discussing their property lines for years. He thought it was appropriate to offer Mr. Thompson the opportunity to sale a piece of his property to the project. Mr. Thompson's property would not be changed or developed as part of the project. They have a letter on file that states that Mr. Thompson is willing to sell his property, and they still want him to be a part of this project. The reason they are so insistent upon the road is that Mr. Thompson wanted the road, and he has been acting as the representative for the surrounding property owners. If they do not include the connection portion of the road with the proposed development plans and the road does not go through to Olympic View Drive, the project can still be developed as proposed. It is not necessary for the project to include the through road. However, in 1996 when this project was first discussed, the road appeared to be a desire of the neighbors. Mr. Maki explained that the right-of-way for the proposed street is 50 feet. The City has allowed them to reduce this from the required 60 feet, but the asphalt width must be the same as for a 60-foot right-of-way. There must also be landscaping and sidewalks provided. The road will have to conform to all of the street requirements of the City or it cannot be built. Regarding the type of housing proposed, Mr. Maki said the Mithune Partners would design the homes. The homes will be 2,600 to 2,800 square feet in size and the price will range from $275,000 to $300,000 each. They will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The design of these houses will have to be approved by the City before construction can take place as required by the PRD regulations. They asked the City if they could apply for the PRD process and the contract review process at the same time. They were told that they could not. The law does not allow this. They are required to obtain a contract rezone before the PRD process can begin. Mr. Maki said that if the contract rezone is approved, the property would be developed as a PRD. This means that the houses can built more closely together and that open space will be provided in other areas of the property. The number of homes developed will be as great as the RS-8 zoning will allow. He noted that there is a 7'/z-foot setback required between a home and the property line. Therefore, the homes will be 15 feet apart. There will be a significant green belt area on the property. Mr. Maki stated that the law allows for a PRD formula if the development complies with certain restrictions that are defined. The restrictions have to be met or the City will not be able to approve the PRD. In regard to Ms. Barringer's reference to the steep bank, Mr. Maki stated that there would have to be a retaining wall constructed along this bank so that the properties along the street would not be disturbed. All of these problems must be addressed or the City would not allow the road to be developed. A contract rezone does not address all of the engineering items that a PRD would. There will be sidewalks along the entire street. Mr. Maki again stated that Mithune Partners will be designing the project and Reid Middleton, one of the City's previous engineering firms, will be doing the engineering work. Landau and Associates, a soils engineering firm, has been working on the project and has signed off on the issues. They have hired Pentec, and environmental engineering firm, to provide a report to the Corps of Engineers. They did not find any significant wetlands, and the entire impact study was reviewed by City staff and accepted. Mr. Maki said he hopes he has answered the neighbors' questions. In no way will this development be a shabby or low-cost project that will distract from the value of the existing homes. The homes will be compatible with the area. Planning Board Minutes January 28, 1998 Page 7 THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Grayson explained that this is a land use issue. Once the Board has made their recommendation to the Council, the Council will hold another public hearing. The public will have another opportunity to provide testimony at the City Council public hearing. Mr. Wilson said there was a wetland evaluation completed by the applicant. There is an area located just to the north of the southern cul-de-sac. Staff requested the applicant to provide technical information regarding this area. Staff visited the site with a representative from the Department of Ecology. The area was identified as wet, but it was not identified as a wetland which needed to be regulated by the State or the local laws. Regarding the issue of the through road, Mr. Wilson said the City has many planning documents. One of these documents, the right-of-way map, identifies those areas which are not dedicated City rights -of -way, but where future rights -of -way are necessary to deal with the future traffic circulation for the City. These plans are long term. There are a number of areas where the City does not have through roads and this map identifies how to best move traffic to minimize the impact on all areas of the City. The connection between 80`h Avenue and Olympic View Drive is one area where a right-of-way has been designated. This right-of-way is about 30 feet wide, and it recently received provisional approval for vacation by the City Council based upon certain criteria. It was determined that because of topographical considerations, the right-of-way could not be developed as a street. The design put forth by the applicant and reviewed by City staff proposes an alignment which could connect the two streets at 184`s Street. This would allow the street to follow the grade and meet the City standards. He added that this connection is still on the official street map and the City has plans to complete this connection sometime in the future. Mr. Wilson pointed out that any street improvements required would be done at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Wilson commented regarding the many references to affordable housing which have been made. There are many different concepts of exactly what affordable housing is. One aspect is trying to balance the level of requirements so that they are not so burdensome and so they do not substantially increase the cost of homes. This development may not be affordable in some terms, but it will be more affordable if the property is designed into a greater number of lots. This allows the lots to share the costs. To reply to the public's concern that they would like to have the opportunity to review the plans before the contract rezone. is approved, Mr. Wilson said State law makes it difficult to consolidate the processes into one hearing. Therefore, they are stuck with a dual process. First the applicant must request a land use change. The evaluation of the site design issues must be done through the PRD and subdivision processes. The City must make a decision regarding the contract rezone first. If it is successful, the applicant can proceed through the next process. The applicant has offered the requirement of having to go through a PRD process. The PRD allows the City the opportunity for additional review of the project. Most jurisdictions that allow the PRD process use it for properties that are difficult to develop. This allows for increased density if the applicant is willing to protect the sensitive areas. The City does not necessarily use it this same way. The City requires that the overall density of the property involved must be the same as if it were developed as a flat piece of property. The property owners will retain the steep slope and provide buffering for these sensitive areas. This will result in smaller individual lot sizes, but the density will be the same as if they were developed as a flat piece of property. The applicant retains the same development options while still protecting the sensitive areas. The RS-8 standards require a 7'/z-foot setback between the structure and the property line. This allows for a 15-foot separation between the homes. The only way this can be changed is through a PRD process. The Board took a five-minute break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Grayson announced that there is a good possibility that the Board will not be making a recommendation tonight. Their goal is to get this process completed as soon as possible. - Based on discussion with the Board, they are looking at asking questions of staff for an additional '/z hour and then possibly continuing the Planning Board deliberations to February 11, 1998. At that point, the Board will most likely make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Dewhirst pointed out that the plan provided on the transparency is just a concept. The Board will be considering the rezone with some conditions; but as to the specific lot configurations, approval of the rezone request would not guarantee that the lots would be configured as shown on the current map. This issue will be ironed out as part of the PRD process. Planning Board Minutes January 28,1998 Page 8 Mr. Wilson said the layout of the proposed connecting road is probably more concrete than any other item on the map. There are only certain ways, based upon the topography, to make this connection. There are requirements as part of the street vacation and amendment approval which tie everything into place. For instance, there is a requirement that the strip between the bank and the right-of-way be maintained as an easement. There are fixed points that direct the future decisions. The proposed street location is an outgrowth of these fixed points. The number of units is a simple mathematical equation, if it can be designed to meet the City requirements. Mr. Dewhirst inquired if the number of units is fixed. Mr. Wilson said the number of units would be no greater than 26, but it could be less. Mr. Dewhirst noted that the Fire Department has questioned the availability and safety of these lots given the concern about the stability of some of the bottom slopes. He suggested that when the geotechnical information is available, perhaps some of these lots will have to be eliminated. Mr. Wilson agreed that is a possibility. He also agreed that the Fire Department's concerns would need to be addressed as part of the PRD process. He is confident that the applicant will attempt to address these concerns. The City will rely on the geotechnical engineer to analyze this proposal. This process requires that this information be very specific. Typically a geotechnical engineer does not recommend that a developer cannot build on the property, but they place certain requirements upon that development. This report will identify what steps need to be taken to develop on the property in a safe manner. Mr. Bakken noted that there was some concern raised about the adequacy of the 40-foot road and safety factors such as visibility. He realizes that the final road design will be reviewed as part of the PRD process and it is the feeling of staff that these concerns can be mitigated. Mr. Wilson recalled Mr. Maki's explanation that the City will accept a more narrow right- of-way dedication, but the improvements will still have to meet the City's street standards whether it occurs on a 60 or 50 foot right-of-way. It will require the same level of improvements such as asphalt width, sidewalks, etc. The City's engineers will evaluate the to determine what type of traffic controls are necessary for a safe use of the road. The applicant will be responsible for providing these traffic control improvements. Regarding setback requirements, Mr. Wilson said that most of the public's concern is related to the setback between the structures. There is concern that the distance between the homes will be too small. The RS standards require that there be a 7�/z-foot setback between the structure and the property line making the distance between the structures at least 15 feet. The only way this can be modified is through a public hearing process as part of the PRD review. In the PRD process, the ADB reviews the design to make sure it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Cobb inquired if any of the slopes on this property are designated as sensitive areas. Mr. Wilson said there may be some areas of slope primarily located closer to Olympic View drive which may be designated on the critical areas map. The City's steep slope areas are 40 percent or greater. There are buffering and setback requirements for these areas, but an applicant has the ability to request modifications to these requirements. Mr. Cobb inquired if the proposed location for the street is "fixed in stone." Mr. Wilson said the City is interested in implementing its adopted plan which calls for the connection between Olympic View Drive and 80`s Avenue West. Attachment 20 includes the Council's findings of conclusion for application of a street vacation request and an amendment to the adjacent street map. The street vacation request was to vacate the public ownership of the 30-foot right-of-way along 84a' Street. It is only 30 feet and they needed a larger area. Because of the topography the street could not be developed in that location. The Council granted a conditional approval. The second request was for removal of the through connector from 80a' Avenue to Olympic View Drive from the official street map. This request was denied making it clear that the Council still wanted the connection street to be part of the plan. The proposed plan is an attempt to meet the conditions placed upon the street vacation approval. Mr. Cobb referred to the section of property owned by Mr. Thompson and not yet purchased by the applicant. He inquired if this property were not included in the project, would the project still be allowed to have 26 separate lots. Mr. Wilson said the number of allowed lots would be reduced to 25. Mr. Cobb said he realizes that the property to the south of the subject property is zoned RS-8 right now. What are the lot sizes in that area? Mr. Wilson said he does not dispute that the lots are larger than the 8,000 square feet required. The Planning Board Minutes January28, 1998 Page 9 variance for recent development on an 8,000 square foot lot, which was referred to by a member of the audience, was related to the setback requirements and had nothing to do with the size of the lot. Mr. Witenberg referred to the pubic testimony regarding slope slippage in certain areas. He noted that some of the engineering reports for this project were done over a year ago. He inquired if he understood correctly that during the PRD process there would be further evaluation of the stability of the slope before the PRD could be approved. Mr. Wilson said at the point of a building permit issuance for each lot, all areas with a slope greater than 15 percent will be required to have a geotechnical analysis completed. If the City engineer feels he needs this information as he evaluates the right-of-way, he will have the ability to make this requirement to ensure that the right-of-way are developed in a safe manner. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of the City engineer. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Witenberg said he understands that it does not make a distinction between RS-8 and RS-12. Mr. Wilson said the present Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between RS categories. In the text of the plan where they equate what the zoning designation would be, there is a distinction between small and large RS zones. When the Comprehensive Plan is further developed in the future, they will begin to make this distinction. Because the current plan does not distinguish between the different RS designations, RS-8 appears to be an appropriate extension of the zoning. Mr. Witenberg clarified that staff feels the RS-12 zoning is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan either. Mr. Wilson said that in this particular location, either the RS-8 or the RS-12 would be appropriate. Mr. Witenberg stated that the RS-12 zoning appears to meet all of the criteria. Mr. Wilson said RS-12 is the current designation and there is nothing that would preclude the applicant from developing his property as such. If they were to develop it in a straight RS-12 fashion, there would be no protection for the sensitive areas. If the property is zoned RS-8, this proposal would reduce the developed portion of the site to a small area and preserve the sensitive areas. Mr. Witenberg inquired if there has been an evaluation done to determine if the sensitive areas could still be protected if the site is developed as RS-12. Mr. Wilson said there would be less flexibility to retain the native buffer easements. Mr. Witenberg referred to the issues raised about affordable housing and what the definition really is. What standards are used to identify affordable housing? Mr. Wilson said the context he was referring to by using the affordable housing term was more in regard to the obvious issues. As the property is developed there will be a determination as to cost per lot. The more lots that are created, the less the cost per lot will be. These cost savings will be passed to the homeowner and the cost of each lot will be lower. This makes development more affordable. Mr. Grayson inquired how long the area to the south has been zoned RS-8. Mr. Wilson said the area has been zoned RS-8 for at least the seven years he has worked for the City. When the original rezone proposal for the subject property was reviewed in 1992, the area was zoned RS-8. He noted that in an RS-8 zone, the lot must be at least 8,000 square feet, but there is nothing to preclude the lot from being larger. Mr. Grayson noted that the applicant mentioned that an RS-12 zoning designation would allow 17 lots verses 26 in an RS-8 zone. Is the right-of-way included in these calculations? Mr. Maki said that rights -of -way cannot be included in the total square footage calculations. Taking the right-of-way into account, there is space enough for 17 lots as an RS-12 zone. Mr. Grayson said he is concerned about increasing the density to RS-8. He knows the State issued a letter in regards to traffic which is dated January 8, 1998. This letter was sent to staff after they had already issued their findings of fact. The letters asks that the City provide additional information as to the number of trips this development would create. Mr. Wilson said the State has asked for this information, but the request came in after the deadline for the comment period of the SEPA review. The City is not obligated to provide this information, but they usually try to accommodate the State's request. It is a practice of the State to request this information whenever a project is located near a state highway and the development will add more than 10 trips per day per unit to the highway. Mr. Wilson said according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, the average daily trip generation per RS home is about ten. A 26-lot project would generate 260 average trips per day. It is estimated that this project would create 26 peak hour trips per day. In talking with the City engineer, he has indicated that if the project only had one access to the state highway, it could have an affect on the Planning Board Minutes January28, 1998 Page 10 ..r intersection. But, considering the number of roads in and out of this project, the impact would not be significant. The 26- peak hour trips could use any of five access routes. He noted that there is an opportunity to review this issue as part of the PRD process. He did not feel this discussion is necessary at this level. Mr. Wilson said he would provide the Board members with a copy of Exhibit E which was provided by Mr. Thompson. ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS REVIEW OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ANNUAL REPORT Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board concurred that this item should be continued to the next agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Wilson announced that the Board members would be receiving invitations to the City Council's Board and Commission Appreciation night on February 10, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. This will be the first item on the Council's agenda. Staff has recommended that a Board member take the opportunity, on that night, to explain the Board's purpose and process so that people watching the meeting on cable television can gain a better understanding of the Board's responsibilities. The Board concurred, and Mr. Grayson indicated that he would work with staff on this presentation. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS W. Grayson noted that Don Bakken was confirmed by the Council as the new Board member. At that same meeting, Mr. Witenberg was reappointed by the Council. Mr. Grayson thanked the Board for electing him as president. He asked that if the Board members have issues they would like to discuss this year, they should let him know as soon as possible. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Dewhirst recalled that in the past, the Board members have expressed interest in attending a short course in public planning. He noticed that in one of the APA newspapers, there was information regarding this course. Mr. Wilson said he, too, read this information. He will work out the details to schedule this course once the new Board members have been appointed. Planning Board Minutes January28, 1998 Page 11 10 Wilsonionesc. Quick Aeterence Index system © 1991 Wilson Jones Company VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING FILE NO. R-97-28 JANUARY 28,1998 (Transcripts prepared April 8,1998) Mr. Grayson: This is the proposed contract rezone of approximately 5.4 acres located approximately 184d' Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive from RS-12 to RS-8. (File Number R-97-28) Jeff, would you like to introduce the topic. Jeff Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record I will begin. My name is Jeff Wilson. 1 am the Planning Supervisor for the City of Edmonds. The first item I would like to take care of is a technical item of business. I would like to enter the exhibits on this matter. I provided for the Board members a listing all the exhibits we have received to date --Exhibits A through D. Copies of them have also been placed near the sign up sheet, as well as the main staff report. Exhibit A is the Planning Division staff report, which is dated January 23, 1998. Exhibit B is a letter from Norman and Sally Barringer and that was received in our offices on January 26, 1998. Exhibit C is a petition in opposition to the request to contract rezone. That was received in our office on January 27. Exhibit D is a letter from Rich and Tina O'Niel. That was also received in our office on January 27. You should have received copies of all the exhibits that I have listed. Mr. Wilson: The matter before the Board this evening is a quasi-judicial hearing item on a request for a contract rezone. This request has been submitted by Mr. Charles Maki on behalf of several different property owners and persons involved. They are listed as Dr. and Mrs. Hans E. Park, Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim and the City of Edmonds, which is also a property owner adjacent to this and has some property that would be involved in a transaction. Also listed on the application when it was submitted, are the names of Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson. As the chair described, the property involves several developed parcels of land. These properties of land are being identified, at least for the existing residences, as 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 - 80d' Avenue West, 18305 - 80d' Avenue West and 18408 - 79d' Place West. Then there is a vacant parcel that is involved which is located between both 18325 and 18305 - 80t' Avenue West. Mr. Wilson: The request is for a contract rezone. The transparency on the overhead right now is the vicinity map. The property involved is the dark shaded property. As you can see the area immediately to the south is zoned RS-8, which is a single-family zone. Immediately to the north and to the west are properties which are also single-family zoned RS-12. Immediately to the east is the area zoned BN. Predominant use of that property to the east is the postal facility up in the Pcrrinville area. It is the Edmonds postal facility. To the southwest of the property you see there is a property identified with a P designation, which is actually a City park. The P designation refers to a public use designation. Through the total accumulation, the applicants have approximately 5.98 acres. Mr. Wilson: The request is for a contract rezone. In the City there are two ways to rezone a property. One is through a straight non -project rezone, which is simply rezoning land from one designation to another. Another method that can be utilized at the request of an application is what is identified as a contract rezone. The contract rezone is a proposal by the applicant which indicates that they are willing to stipulate to certain conditions or design parameters or other processes involved in addition to rezoning the property. In this case, what the applicant has identified certain development conditions that would be placed on the property should the rezone occur. A copy of the proposed contract by the applicant was included in the packet, and there were copies of the packet available to the audience. But, what I would like to do is go ahead and read what the contract proposal is in order to identify what the applicant is willing to specifically stipulate as conditions for the rezone. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 EXHIBIT 10 Pagel Mr. Wilson: There are ten conditions listed that the applicant has stipulated. This is identified as attachment 6 in the staff report. The first condition is should the rezone be granted, the development of the property must be consistent with an approved planned residential development associated with this application. So essentially, in addition to rezoning the property, this just changes the land use designation and gives them the basic parameters for which the property can be developed. In this case, it would be under the single-family designation under the RS-8 classification, which requires an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size vs. the 12,000 square foot lot size for which the property is currently zoned. As part of the proposal they identified a conceptual layout for the platting of the property into 26 lots. Mr. Wilson: Condition 2 would be that the lots, as depicted on the attached map, would be fixed as drawn. Essentially, they are stipulating the type of layout and platting of the property. Let me put this overhead up. By way of reference, this is Olympic View Drive, this is 8e Avenue West. The parcel that is the subject of the contract rezone is identified by the dark heavy. border. You see the southern line adjacent to the plat of Hidden Glen following up Olympic View Drive to the north edge of the Dr. Park property, traveling over the west, bisecting lot 13 and then going out to 80t' Avenue West, and then again to the northern edge of the plat of Hidden Glen following what is the alignment of the 180 Street Southwest right-of-way. This is an undeveloped and unopened right-of-way, but it is an existing right-of-way which actually bisects all of the parcels and is intended to connect to Olympic View Drive at some point in time. You can see that there is a circulation pattern shown through, with a right-of-way proposed starting at the southwest corner adjacent to 80a' Avenue West and angling to the northeast comer on Olympic View Drive. Then there will be a cul-de-sac road traveling to the south to the very southern portion of the property. This is how all of the lots would be serviced. Again, there are 26 lots. This would provide a through access from 80a' Avenue West to Olympic View Drive, which is on the City's official street map as providing a through access route. What has been called into question (I think some of you know there is a lot of history with this property and there have been applications in the past) is the location and orientation of this access. Because of the steep grades that are involved, the actual dedicated alignment is not one that is necessarily functional. They had to come up with an alternative location which would allow for that connection in a way that would be designed to meet the City standards for grades so that the street put in would be a functional street that would meet all of the City's grade requirements for the steepness of the right-of-way. This conceptual alignment was put together as part of the applicant's proposal and is one of the things they are stipulating. It is part of what they would agree to in terms of development, including the installation of all of the rights -of -way and improvements as part of the future development of the property if the rezone is granted. Mr. Wilson: The third condition stipulated on the contract would be that the building pads would occupy only 21 percent of the total building space of the site. Thus, you would see that you would have close to 80 percent of the property that would not be in the final developed state, or would not be developed as part of the building pads themselves. Part of that 80 percent would be incorporated into the right-of-way alignments, but you would still have a major portion of the property that would be left in an undeveloped state. Additionally, one of the areas that was highlighted, but not stipulated as part of this, is the steep, sloped bank areas adjacent to Olympic View Drive. That was stipulated as part of the requirements when a previous application for a right-of-way vacation and street map amendment were submitted to the City. They were conditionally approved, provided there were certain easements retained to protect the slope areas adjacent to Olympic View Drive and some other areas in order to preserve that area and maintain it in a safe condition. Mr. Wilson: Condition 4 is that the landscaping plan will be fixed for both entrances. The homeowners shall create a homeowners' association to maintain the landscaping located at the entrance to the PRD— taking ownership over and maintaining an attractive entrance to the project at both ends of the public right- of-way on Olympic View Drive and 80`s Avenue West. Verbatim Transcripts of Pluming Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Wilson: Condition 5 is that a through street, connecting 80'' Avenue West at 184`s Street Southwest to Olympic View Drive, will be constructed at the owner's expense and dedicated to the City of Edmonds. Condition 6 is that a private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as shown on the map. Again, I identified this earlier. Condition 7 is that the houses designed for the planned residential development shall be consistent with style and theme as those depicted in the PRD application. The PRD application is not something that is before the Board at this time. That will be a subsequent application should the rezone be granted approval. Condition 8 is that the maximum building height permitted will be 25 feet as measured from the average grade according to the City's development code requirements. They are stipulating that they will be maintaining development of homes that are consistent with the current regulations that apply to other single-family homes in the City and those surrounding the project. Condition 9 is that all sidewalks, gutters and streetlights required by the City will be supplied and constructed by the owner. Condition 10 is that minor alterations for the location of buildings and streets may be allowed to comply with City code. Essentially, that means if they are coming down the final construction plans and they are bating the houses in such a. way that requires minor amendments, we can make those adjustments in order to make sure that they adhere to all other City regulations in terms of setbacks from property lines and streets. So, basically the finally development within the PRD, itself, would be consistent with single-family development you would find elsewhere in the City. Mr. Wilson: One of the main elements of this, that the applicant is willing to take on as part of this contract rezone, is the requirement for a planned residential development. If the rezone were approved in a straight sense and they were simply subdividing the property, they would go through a subdivision process. That subdivision process would simply deal with the division of the land into separate building sites. That, too, is a public process and is held before the City's Hearing Examiner who will issue a decision on it That affixes how the lots are located, the layouts of the streets. They will also look at the preliminary engineering and design for the construction of the street as well as the utilities (storm drain and sanitary sewer and other utilities that would service that area) and take into consideration the existing utility lines that bisect the property and how they would be handled within the final development to make sure that everything adheres to City codes for street construction as well as utility construction. Mr. Wilson: The PRD is an added element to this which adds a much higher level of scrutiny to the process. That, too, is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. But the Hearing Examiner only makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final approval on the PRD process. In addition to that, through the PRD process the actual design of the plat (looking at the buildings themselves and what would be constructed in the area) also has to go through the City's Architectural Design Board. So they are adding in an extra level of detail to ensure that what is built in that area is going to be compatible to the surrounding areas. Those are all elements in the contract rezone which they are willing to stipulate should the property be rezoned from RS-12 to RS-8. Mr. Wilson: In reviewing the application again pursuant to the requirements of the City when considering a rezone to a property, there are multiple criteria for evaluating the process or suitability for rezone of the propnly. One is to evaluate if the proposal is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The second is to look if the proposal is consistent with the City's adopted zoning ordinance. The third is to look at the surrounding area. The fourth is to identify whether or not there have been changes that have occurred in the area in the past that may have affected how the property has been developed or has the ability to develop. The fifth is the suitability of the property for the contract rezone. The sixth is the value. Value, as described in here, is the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in the value of the property to the property owners. It is looking at a trade off. What value is given to the citizens should this rezone be granted. What public value is there with the rezone verses whether or not the applicant can make more money by rezoning the property. These are the most important elements that we took a look at They are identified and discussed and reviewed in detail on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Wilson: In breaking it down in a basic sense and looking at the Comprehensive Plan, our Comprehensive Plan identifies the property in terms of whether it is single-family residential or multi- family residential. This property is identified as single-family residential. The RS-8 designation is one of the City's existing single-family designations. We have essentially five single-family designations with technically four densities. The first of which is really the City's downtown lots, which for comparison of zoning is an RS-6 square foot lot. That is what you see in the City's downtown core. That essentially accommodates what were the originally platted lots from the late 1800's. The second, and one of the most common single-family densities in the City is the RS-8 designation. This is a typical single-family designation and allows for approximately five lots per acre. It is consistent not only in this City but is equivalent with what you would normally see in other jurisdictions in the basic Puget Sound Region. This is a typical size for single-family lots in suburban cities. Mr. Wilson: The other two classification we have are RS-12, which is a 12,000 square foot lot classification and RS-20, which is a 20,000 square foot lot classification. Typically, areas in the City where you see the 20,000 or 12,000 square foot lot classification are areas where you may have some concerns for slope stability and steep slopes that inhibit the potential development of the property so you need larger areas to accommodate areas with steep slopes. Or, you may have some landslide areas. You need to have larger lots in order to create suitable and safe building pads away from areas where you have steep and unstable slopes. In some of the RS-12 designations you see in the adjoining area (Perrinville, which was just annexed into the City at the end of the year) you see the 12,000 and greater areas because these areas are serviced by septic systems rather than sewer systems. You needed the larger area in order to accommodate the drain fields. You don't typically find an 8,000 square foot lot being served off of a septic system because of the area needed for drain fields. The 12,000 classification is dealing with some larger lot areas where you may have steep slopes or other environmental conditions that need land area in order to provide suitable building pads but at the same time protect some of the unique characteristics. Mr. Wilson: The zoning ordinance. It is really will the future development be consistent with the zoning ordinance? It should be required to meet all of the other bulk standards and setback standards for development of the lots in the future. The surrounding area. We looked at the property in relationship to what is around it. In this particular case you have a commercial designation to the east in terms of the post office property. Then you have residential designations to the north, west and south. North and west are RS-12 and to the south is the RS-8. It is consistent and it is adjacent to an RS-8 classification. It would be a logical extension of that RS-8 classification based on the way the project is designed and the parameters that are being incorporated into the design of the project. Mr. Wilson: One of the other items we look at is whether or not there have been sufficient changes, either in the character of the immediate area or in City policy, that would justify the rezone. One that has occurred since this property was previously reviewed for a rezone back in the early 90's was the adoption of the State Growth Management Act. This has affected some of the policies and has affected some of the policies in the City's regulations or Comprehensive Plan regarding development. We looked to find ways that can provide for compatible housing types but at the same time provide housing opportunities in the City. One of the City's goals that we have been trying to operate under is to try and provide housing opportunities in the City --opportunities to provide density for housing in the City, but in a way that protects the single-family character of the City and not having to resort (as some cities have had to) to a higher densities in a multi -family configuration in order for the City to accept population densities we are required to under law. We look for ways to encourage and evaluate creative land use requests (in terms of single- family requests) where we can still maintain and provide single-family housing opportunities and provide opportunities to meet the future density requirements of the City. Basically, the ability to accept population. We would prefer to do it in the single-family residences rather than having to have increased density in multi -family zones. Mr. Wilson: We look at the suitability of the property —economically or physically suitable. Basically, evaluating through the PRD concept in a way that they have laid out, in terms of concept the property, Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 4 given some of the restrictions that would be placed on it and the preservations of areas where there would be steep slopes, could be suitable for this type of development. We further have the ability to ensure that by the applicant's willingness, under the contract rezone, to admit the review under the City's PRD standards, which allows even greater flexibility and ability to look at a proposal to make sure it is done in a consistent manner. Mr. Wilson: Finally, the value. In this particular case, the applicant is proposing to bring about something that has been on the City's official street map for quite some time, which is the connection of Olympic View Drive with 80t' Avenue West. This provides an opportunity to relieve some of the traffic congestion that exists in some of the areas in that part of the City. We feel that the applicant's willingness to aggregate the property and bring about the ability to connect those two streets is a value to the community as a whole. We are dealing with some long-term City policy issues in providing that connection. Providing that relief for the traffic congestion in the area, and providing alternative means for ingress and egress out of the neighborhoods primarily to the west will relieve some of the pressure from existing streets. We have received complaints in the past regarding the amount of traffic that flows past on some of those streets. This will provide some alternatives for relief in terms of traffic circulation in the area, which is a public benefit and something that, without the applicant's proposal and without the aggregation of property as they have done, including property all the way from Olympic View Drive to 80ffi Avenue West, the City would not be able to bring about on its own for quite some time. So you can believe that there is some added public value by the applicant's proposal. Mr. Wilson: After reviewing all of the criteria in the Edmonds Community Development Code, which I have just gone through, and also evaluating the City's existing Comprehensive Plan (and some of the elements and goals in those plans is providing alternative and diverse opportunities) it is the staffs recommendation that the proposal should be approved subject to the conditions that we have outlined in our report. One is to further reiterate and make clear that the project will be subject to the contract conditions as stipulated in the applicant's proposal. Two is that they will have to meet all of the conditions imposed upon previous applications for the street vacation and street map amendments, which also affect the development of the property provided areas for retaining easements primarily adjacent to Olympic View Drive where we can retain and protect the steep slope bluff area adjacent to Olympic View Drive. Subject to those four conditions listed in the staff report which incorporate the contract rezone conditions proposed by the applicant, it is our recommendation that the proposal should be approved. With that, I would be happy to address any questions from the Board. Mr. Grayson: Actually, Jeff, what I would like to do, if it is okay with the Board, is to proceed with the public portion of the hearing and then bring it back to the Board for comments, questions, and further clarifications from Jeff, if that is okay. At this time I would like to open the public portion of the hearing. I would like to have the applicants, Mr. Maki and Mr. Park. Maybe Mr. Maid could speak first. If you wouldn't mind, state your name and address for the record please. Mr. Maki: My name is Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds. I represent a partnership between Mr. Parker and myself for developing property in Edmonds and building houses. We have been under contract with Dr. Park for some time to develop this property. You have read the long history of this process that in 1996 we were here presenting the moving of some roads. At that time, it was very apparent that the neighborhood wanted a street between 80t' and OlympicView Drive. They needed an outlet and they needed to relieve some of the traffic pressures on 80`' going north to get to Olympic View Drive. At one point, property lot 11, owned by the Smiths, became available. The other property owned by the City was available, and we could make it work. One of the City staff suggested putting all this together. You can see that this is not a flat piece of ground. If we were in Kansas, I don't think we would be holding this hearing. Because of the topographical problems, this is what we have put together. Everyone in the City seemed to think it might work. I want to, at this point, thank Mr. Wilson and the planning staff and the other people in the City who have spent so much time and effort on this. Obviously, this is not a small Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 5 project. It is a very large project. It is very complicated. It has some emotions attached to it, and we are well aware of that. We are hoping that we can answer some of those questions. Mr. Maki: We think this is a win/win situation. It is a win for the community in that they get a large piece of property developed and designed by professionals. The Mithune partners, an internationally known architectural firm, is the design firm for this whole project. The City gets a road, as you have heard Mr. Wilson talk about. The whole property will be landscaped. The sensitive areas will be taken care of, and of course, the City will have easements to make sure that is maintained. The win by the neighbors is that they get the outlet to Olympic View Drive. They get a nice area. The win by the developer is that he gets to develop his project. The win by the City is that it is a project that is in line with all of their desires in zoning. The Planning Department has recommended the approval. The project needs this rezone to make it work. The project is in complete compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code and is consistent with the policies of the residential development in the City of Edmonds, as you have read in your yellow pages. So I ask you to recommend to the City Council acceptance of this contract rezone. You have heard the contract is very specific. All of the codes and all of the rules and all of the things necessary to make this a really nice property, while protecting all of the people around it, are in place. Those codes and contracts will be maintained. So I ask you to approve this. Thanks. Mr. Grayson: Mr. Parker. Mr. Park: I have nothing further to add. Mr. Grayson: I would like to call Mr. Jim Thompson. Mr. Thompson: My name is Jim Thompson. I live at 18305 80`s Avenue West. My property probably abuts most of this project, more so than anybody else there. To start with, that map is not quite right. I have not sold my property to Mr. Park as so indicated up there. I think they have done a fine job of engineering this. We do need that road. I would like to see the road myself go in. I would like to see the project go ahead. My objection is, of course, the zoning. This property is rugged. It is up and down. There is a tad bit of wetland, but not much. The topography is bad. I believe that if they start cutting into the banks, my property (lot 13) on the northwest side... That section right there is not involved in this project at this point. But, there are houses numbered 23 and. 24 that I believe are going to be very hard to put in. They are going to have to cut into the bank, and I am sitting right on top of it. As it is, the edge of my property is sliding right now. It has been for the past 30 years —not much, but it is sliding. 1 had some information here, but I left it in the car. Also, I have some comments from a previous rezone. That involves R-92-39. I would like you to be able to go back and take a look at those when you make your decision. I wished I had the car up here. Anyway, on 1.A.2.b there is a paragraph that should be noticed. Also, further on down. Ms. Noyes: Are you referring to this new document? Mr. Thompson: I am referring to one back in 1993. Mr. Grayson: What I would recommend, and Jeff you could help me on this, if Mr. Thompson wants to go ahead and give that to Karin, we would get copies to the Board members. Mr. Thompson: This pertains to lot 106, which is the southern section of this. It was to be developed into 13 homes, which would have been half of this project. To go on with that, there is also section 1.AAR 1.5 I guess it is. It involves topography of the land. It relates to how this area is more connected to RS-12 than it is to the south to RS-8. This property drops into a BN section and into RS-12. It is not related to RS-8. I would hope that you would look at this and think about it. The roadway that goes through this property, I wonder if it is large enough to carry the traffic that will be traveling on it. I believe there are 60-foot rights - Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 6 of -way on other roads. This is only 30, I believe. That is my concern. Otherwise, I would like to see the project go ahead. I really oppose the RS-8 part. Mr. Grayson: Jeff, I notice that we do have an old.... But, I think it was from 1992. Mr. Thompson: I have it right here. Mr. Grayson: If you could give that to Jeff. Mr. Thompson: I have marks all over it. Mr. Wilson: Mr. Grayson, that document Mr. Thompson has given me, we can list as Exhibit E to the file. Basically, this is the staff report which I had prepared in 1992 related to a rezone of a portion of this property. It was not the same configuration that exists in this current application. Mr. Grayson: The document Mr. Thompson gave you, is that completely incorporated in the documents you gave us? Mr. Wilson: No, the full copy of that is not part of this. There are portions of it that exist. You see the Planning Board's original recommendation to the Council, which is attachment 15 in the packet. It actually references that staff report as Exhibit A —The Board's recommendation memorandum The full content of that, I don't recall putting it in there. You have just the exerts of the Board's recommendation as well as the minutes from the meeting at which the Board considered this. Mr. Grayson: Is there anyone else on the Board that would like the full document, or are you satisfied? Mr. Cobb: Are the sections Mr. Thompson referred to marked? Mr. Wilson: Mr. Thompson, are the ones with the check marks correct? Mr. Thompson: That is convect. Mr. Wilson: Yes, they are marked. I can circulate these to the Board. Mr. Grayson: We can certainly take a look at that. Mr. Wilson: These are very short sections, if the Board wishes to take a look at them Mr. Grayson: Okay. We'll approach that issue later on. Our next person is David Johnson. Mr. Johnson: My name is David Johnson. I live at 7810 —182"1 Place Southwest, which on the lot there is lot 7 in Seaview Firs, which is directly to the north of the proposed development and abuts the property directly. I am not opposed to development of the property, but I am opposed to the rezone to RS-8. It is interesting, in looking at the conclusions the City has drawn here, you can see under surrounding area that the development of the subject property would appear to be compatible with the surrounding development. Mr. Wilson mentioned earlier that the property to the south was developed with RS-8 density. However, I don't live to the south, I live to the north. As Mr. Thompson mentioned earlier, most of the surrounding property is zoned RS-12. He mentioned earlier also, that many of the cities and urban environments tend to be RS-8, such as Lynnwood and so forth But, I suppose if I had wanted to live in RS-8 I would have considered moving to Lynnwood. But that is not what I wanted, so I didn't. It is also interesting to note that, as I understand it, the number of homes that this would be based on would be 25 or 26 depending on whether or not Mr. Thompson sold his parcel of land Then the number of homes that you arrive at --you take the total area and divide by the number of square feet and that is the number of homes that you come Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 7 up with. Of course, when you look at the map that shows how the homes would be laid out, the homes would not be sitting on 8,000 square foot lots. They would actually be sitting on very small ones, many of which are separated by only five or six feet between houses. So, while it technically is not multi -family housing, in terms of the density of the units themselves, it begins to approach being multi -family housing. Mr. Johnson: I am not familiar with the history of the desire for a road running through there, but living in the area, it would appear that the need for the road is more a matter of convenience than congestion. If you drive through downtown Edmonds or if you drive on 100I' or 9`s, you can get into congestion. There is never congestion on 80`s. There is traffic, but it is not congestion. The road would be nice, it would create convenience, but as far as it being absolutely necessary to relieve difficult congestion, I personally would disagree with that. But, I would not have a problem with the road being there or the property being developed. My suggestion would be that it should be developed based on RS-12 and not reduced to RS-8. It is also speculated that this would not affect the value of the other properties in the area and that the rest of the neighborhood would gain based on the benefit of the, road. However, it is also mentioned here that under changes one of the main goals of both of the aforementioned documents is the desire to provide for more affordable housing. Certainly, the smaller houses on smaller lots would be different property values than the surrounding neighborhood. I fear this would adversely impact the value of my property. Mr. Johnson: The other factor is that one of the advantages of many parts of the neighborhood, my property in particular, is the privacy based on the way things are laid out The implementation of such a large product would impact that, as well. I would recommend that you not do so. Mr. Grayson: Which property is yours? Mr. Johnson: Mine is this one right there. Mr.Grayson: Lot 7? Mr. Johnson: This is the longest side of my property which is adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Grayson: Thank you. Mr. Acksdale. Mr. Acksdale: My name is Gary Acksdale, 8041 — 184 h Street Southwest, Edmonds. I am a 31 year resident of the neighborhood. I came here this evening with a real open mind because I don't live adjacent. I live just about one lot to the west where the street would be on 180. There is a very steep hill there. In listening, and maybe I didn't hear correctly, but there is a piece of this process that seems to be missing or is out of order. Maybe Chuck said it and I didn't hear him. But as a resident of the neighborhood, I would like to know what kind of homes are going in here. As I hear from Mr. Wilson, this is a process after this process. As the previous speaker mentioned, that would certainly have an impact on the neighborhood if you knew one way or not the type of home that is going to be built there. The term I would use for this is a common grounds type of home. The Eagle's Nest is the same type of residential area. I assume that is correct, but this may be a supposition on my part Living there for those years, also, I have seen the traffic. Again, a convenience would be the road, but a necessary thing, no, not really at all. I would also caution, and another I didn't see, would be a traffic stud on this. You are dealing with two blind hills. If you are familiar with that area, if you are heading on 80 going north, that is a blind hill. If you are going up 184`s, that is a blind hill. I really believe from a traffic standpoint... I know as a neighbor right there, I see the cars come flying down the hill and have to stop at the bottom. I would like to know what the plan is for the traffic if that road goes through That could certainly create some additional problems there. Mr. Acksdale: Where I live, behind me, there is a parcel of land that is not developed. A concern there, it is currently an RS-12, but where does the demarcation line stop and start. I realize that if a person wants to develop other than RS-12 it will have to go through this process. But I, again, would take exception with Mr. Wilson when he talked about the lands being 12,000 feet and why they were there. I don't disagree Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 8 with some of his points, but there are many other points that he failed to recognize that the previous speaker alluded to. Some of us just like a little space. That was one of the reasons that I chose the place out there at that time. There are certain aesthetic values of having a piece of property larger than 6,000 or 8,000 square feet. I would hope that the panel considers that and it comes into play. Mr. Acksdale: Again, I am certainly not opposed to developing the land, and I most certainly would expect someday it would be developed. But, I would certainly appreciate that this group of gentlemen here will seriously consider the statements that the citizens of that neighborhood. who have been long time residents, have been making about it. We will be there for a long time to come, hopefully. But there are some pieces in here that need to be reviewed. Mr. Grayson: Mr. Jim Street. Mr. Street: No comment. Mr. Grayson: Ms. Laura Thornhill. Ms. Thornhill: My name is Laura Thornhill, 7831 - 185 h Place Southwest. I am lot 18 on there, which is directly to the south I would like somebody to explain (Could we look at the other overhead that you had up?) My lot is 8,000 square feet, but right behind me there are houses that are all clumped together, So how could those lots be 8,000 square feet? I don't understand. I know you are taking all of the land and dividing it by 26. But, you are talking about a lot of congestion. I think I figured it as 1.1 acres. You are going to put 26 hours on 1.1 acres? Mr. Wilson: No, this is slightly just under 6 acres. Ms. Thornhill: Well, you know you have a cliff side there. You have got wetland there. I realize that you are developing everything. They built a house in the front yard of the house right next door to me, so it will be developed. But I think you need to look at it and keep it to 12,000 and make each house have 12,000. Even if it is 8,000, make each house sit on a lot that is 8,000 square feet. Thank you. Mr. Grayson: Ms. Sally Barringer. Ms. Barringer: My name is Sally Barringer. I live at 18405 - 79 h Place West. I am lot 12 in Hidden Glen. On the very far side, I am the third one in and the one most affected by the road. Of the 270 feet of road right-of-way, 190 feet of it is mine and 60 feet is the O'Niels. We have both sent letters and they were in with the exhibits. What has not been mentioned is that this is also a steep bank. There is a ravine on the irorth and a bank on the south where I am. At the last hearing, Mr. Maki didn't seem to be aware that there was a bank. He said, "What bank?" That is when I became concerned and started getting involved in this. I have had the City engineer out to look at that and there is a problem with large trees and a loose bank that is sliding. I have requested in my letter that even though the developer is required to put in this road, I am going to assume that it is done to City standards as set forth by the City Engineer. Hopefully, something will be done —a proposal for maintaining this bank. Certainly this is millions and millions of dollars of property down here, and I cannot afford to put the bank in. I have pictures here of the "nonexistent" bank. The topography does not show past into Hidden Glen where I am. It looks like all flat land. It is once you get past that proposed road. If you are going to put the 40 foot road right underneath that big bank with trees, the first time a gravel truck runs down there there will be a rock or a clot of dirt or something that is going to fly down there. Who gets sued? Me. So, I have not seen any plans for the road, which it is too soon for, I realize. But it seems that nobody is concerned about the road. We are putting our cart before the horse. We are rezoning this first rather than building the road first. Ms. Barringer: There are a couple of other points I would like to make. There have been many of these hearing notices in the 12 years I have lived here in Edmonds. I have to keep appearing (well, this is my Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 9 second time to be here) and each time, it has never ended. In 12 years you must have a file two feet deep. I don't think this is the last proposal. If they pick up more property from Thompson, I believe they will be back with more. I don't know why you didn't give them the original commercial designation they wanted and get it over with if this is what we are going to do. I don't know anybody in favor of this. Hidden Glen is not RS-8 as marked on the map that you have in front of you. Those are all 12,000 square foot lots. Mine is well over 13,000. The only 8,000 square foot lot in Hidden Glen that I am aware of is one that was just granted a variance and was just built last year. So, there are some things in this proposal that are not quite correct. Ms. Barringer: The second thing is, if this proposal does go through and I am stuck with this sliding bank on a 40 foot right-of-way, my only recourse is to fight a homeowners association with a lot more money than me or the City who didn't take care of it in the first place. I am really on the line here, and I am hoping somebody will see that. I am a voter here, and so are all of these other people. I would like to see you decline this proposal, have them go back to the drawing boards and designate this as RS-12. There is no RS-8 surrounding this property until you get clear up into the next streets beyond this map. I don't know where RS-8 got in here unless it was changed, but you can tell by looking at those lots that they are not RS-8. It is going to ruin the whole character of the neighborhood, and for what? If we want affordable housing, there are a lot better ways of doing it than this. I don't know if anybody has seen this property, but it is a real goat hill. It is beautiful, but it goes like this. If you put beautiful homes in there you will make more money than putting tiny homes in there on sliding banks. I hope you will consider that there are a lot of people here tonight who have had their time wasted on this proposal and the other previous proposals. I think everybody is at the point where we want to see an end to it. I thank you very much for your time. I have pictures of the bank here. I did not get a chance to have them copied, if anybody wants to see them. Thank you. Mr. Grayson: Ms. Barringer, if you would like to enter your pictures into the record you would need to leave those with Karin. Ms. Barringer: Okay, I will. Mr. Wilson: We do have to take that as part of the official record. This will be identified as Exhibit F and will be the two sets of photos. Mr. Grayson: That concludes all the people who have signed up on the notification list. If there are any other people in the audience who would like to speak on this, please come forward. Mr. Ram: My name is Gary Ram, and I live at 18418 — 79a' Place West. I am near this lot right here. I have lived in a previous area that had a development where on a flat piece of paper everything looks and fits well. It was laid out in a square grid on a very steep mountain. The street we lived on was supposed to go all the way up and it dead ended into a solid gray wall, which was common throughout that development. What I see here (We have lived here for three years now) is somewhat of the same scenario developing that I saw take place in another area I lived in. In terms of the traffic, having my backyard on 80� we hear the traffic. I am sure you have probably been there. This is a steep hill and the kids come down there fast on their bicycles. The kids are there across the street at the park. There is a fair amount of foot traffic there, and it is a very blind intersection to add another street to, which would be a concern certainly for me as my kids play in that area. Mr. Ram: If you would turn for a moment, this map implies that the development is closest related to the street to the bottom of your map. But, if you look at the larger map on the first page of your document, it has a pretty large map there. To get a little better picture than this birds eye view here. The street that we are on is at the top of a hill and the development area is at the bottom. So, we really have no relationship directly with that piece of land. It sits at the bottom of the hill and we sit at the top. The relationship of that land is primarily with the area to the north and to the west of it. The 79's Street, which is just below it Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 10 as already mentioned, those lots are larger than the 8,000. The 8,000 really starts just south on the next block down. You can see the difference in size of lots. So, if you go out and physically look at the property, you will see that the blend of the land fits well with the area below it, which is 12,000 plus sized lots. When we first heard of this and heard that the lots were to be 12,000. I thought that sounds fine, and I was not opposed to that. It will improve the area. Mr. Ram: Along with that, the subject of affordable housing comes up. I am used to seeing things in a complete package, so I am not familiar with the City process. I am not sure how the word "affordable housing" is defined. You could possibly define the new development directly across the street from Seaview Elementary School as affordable housing. Those houses start at $350,000 and up. Then there are the lots that were developed just recently behind the post office. I am not sure what those are, but they would be in the same category. So, not knowing what affordable housing is, the houses that have maybe five to seven feet between homes give the implication that they are probably smaller homes than the rest of the neighborhood. There is 20 feet between my house and _my neighbor's house. I am most interested to know what size of homes are planned for these reduced lots. To me it presents a hidden agenda. If we can do this, then we can submit that. All of the homes in that RS-12 area tend to be bigger homes than our home, so I am not opposed to building it, I just seriously question the implication that it is related to 79`s Street when we are at the top of the hill and they are at the bottom. I really wonder what affordable means. It has a very wide degree of range depending on an individual's pocket book. That would be an appreciated aspect, as well, to see. It is difficult to say, "Yes, do anything" until you know what they have planned. But, you can assume when somebody builds a house that is five to eight feet from the neighbors (I have lived in track houses in California where you can jump from roof to roof and that is about eight feet) that it does not fit with what I have seen in the rest of the neighborhood. I would appreciate that being considered as you take this to a vote and further pursue this. Mr. Dewhirst: What is the square footage of the homes being proposed? Mr. Grayson: I would like to see if there are other members of the audience wishing to participate before the Board holds a rebuttal. Ms. Marks: My name is Melissa Marks. I live at 18325 — First Avenue West, so I am a little bit away from this particular area. But, I thought you would appreciate hearing from somebody who is really new. I have lived in my house for less than a year. I bought my house specifically for the neighborhood. I like the neighborhood. I like not looking out my window at my next door neighbor. I could have moved into a newer home that would have been five feet away from the next house, but I chose not to do that. As somebody who is new to the neighborhood, I just thought you might like to here that, Mr. Danielson: My name is Roy Danielson. I live at 7822 — 182`d Place Southwest. I am just north of the proposed project. First a question, with the 184d' extension going across 80t' what type of traffic control is going to be there? Is that going to be a four way stop? Has that been decided yet? I haven't been able to read through here to find that out. There are two blind hills and with cross traffic going through there that might lead to a four way stop that will really cause congestion as opposed to relieve congestion. Earlier, when we heard a description to the various single residential zones, it was stated that RS-12 was good for lots with lots of slope, as with several of the lots in the north there. Looking at the topographical map, there is a lot of slope so RS-12 seems a better fit than the RS-8. The idea of the road --I would agree that it is a nice idea, but as many of the other people have said, it is nice, but it is not necessary. There is no congestion there. It is busy, but it is not congested. We could get the road benefits with RS-12 with fewer houses as we could with RS-8. I am also kind of annoyed that throughout the eight years I have been here, we have continually had attempt after attempt after attempt. I should be obvious that no one wants this. We want RS-12. We would be happy to see it developed as RS-12, but not at RS-8. If there is anything to help with the congestion, it would be to extend the sidewalk from 184 h up. It would cost a lot less and would help traffic, especially pedestrian traffic, a lot more than this road would. That is a point against putting the road through Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Brown: My name is Roland Brown. I am at 7809 — 182a Place Southwest. It is lot 6 on the map which comes down to the corner of the property on Olympic View Drive to be developed. The fellow who mentioned about the blind hill —it is a blind hill without sidewalks. I am a late night dog walker. We are out there hoping no one comes down the hill at 50 miles an hour a little to the side, or we are going down. Have you folks been out there? I find it hard to see that this is even considered with the steep grade. We live on a hill that you cannot even walk down. We have had slippage within the last five years. We have a leaning deck and fence and we are very concerned about development down the hill. You mentioned that the topography would be okay for RS-8, but if you look at it, it has got to be RS-12. How could you look at the hillside and say that it is okay to have RS-8 at the bottom of the hill? I echo Dave Johnson's sentiment. I don't want it to become a Lynnwood kind of day. I want it to remain an Edmonds kind of day. To me, this seems like the City is saying that we will let them bend the rules if we get a free road. How about I pay for the sidewalk on 8e if you will let me put a strip club in my backyard. It does not make much sense here. I could just go on the record that I think RS-8 is too small. It is obviously RS-12 if you look at the hillside and look at the intersection. There are no sidewalks. This would mean more people, more cars, more congestion, still no sidewalks, lots more kids playing. You do the math. Thanks. Ms. Smith: My name is Betty Smith. I have lived at 18208 — 80d' Avenue West in Edmonds for almost 34 years. I see the City of Edmonds... We have asked and we have talked and you guys can't even afford a stop sign or a 25-mile limit in Edmonds. How in the heck can you afford to put this guy in this place with 2'/z cars per household, which is the average as I was told by the library. How many cars does that mean for that area? It is not going to let traffic be less. You've got io be silly. You ought to put it in your own neighborhood and then see. This is not what we moved here for. You get more taxes out of the bigger houses anyway, so think big. Besides that, we can't even get good police protection. We don't have the money. How are you going to protect fire and police down there? How are you going to have road crews? They can't even afford to come down and fix a sinkhole that they made in my neighbor's yard. How are you going to take care of that, too, with all of those houses down there? Start thinking small and do us a favor. Don't bring in any more traffic. I have waited 13 or 14 cars go by (and that is true because my neighbor across the street has the same problem) just to get across to the mailbox. How many more cars do you think will be there? They are not all going to cut across and leave our place free. It is a park there. Why do you want more traffic by the park? People jog there and kids play. It is dangerous enough now. It is horrible. You guys have got to go out there and take a look and a feel before you move. I don't mind them having nice houses there and nice people, but you get cheap houses you also get lesser grades of people. So, think about it. Thank you. Mr. Higherman: My name is John Higherman and I live at 18419 — 79t' Place West. With all this road construction and this talk of retaining walls and other things that have got to be put in there, I would like to ask the committee if they have any assessments for the people who live around that area in mind. Does this come as a total cost to the developer, or are there is going to be some fin Cher costs to the people that live in that area? Mr. Grayson: We can certainly ask one of the staff people after the public hearing. Mr. Higherman: Okay. I guess I would like to reiterate. I am opposed to the rezoning myself from the standpoint of congestion and all the other things that have been mentioned tonight. Thank you. Mr. Nagel: Good evening. My name is Mike Nagel. My address is 7925 — 182"d Place Southwest. Like a couple of other have mentioned tonight I just moved to the area from Millcreek in May. I feel the area should remain as RS-12. We moved from Millcreek where you could high five your neighbor in the shower. It is kind of nice where we are now because we have got a little more room. It would be nice to get the road, but I am getting the feeling that you guys want to push this through so that you get a free road in the deal. Looking at the lot sizes, I don't think it is feasible to stick houses right on top of each other. It is townhouses instead of regular quality homes. That is it. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Langland: My name is Tom Langland. I live at 18226 — 80d' Avenue West. I live just to the west of the proposal. The question that occurred to me that through the City's Comprehensive Plan, if I recall, it requires 60 feet of right-of-way for these streets. Is that is what is required for this new road through the ravine? I have an older map that shows 60 feet of right-of-way stopping at that closed road. It runs all the way from 88t' to 8&. My understanding is that the proposed new road would be approximately 40 feet including curb, gutter and sidewalk. That does not fit the City's plans. Therefore, the lot sizes would have to be probably RS-12 to be able to fit this into the plan and they are going to lose building area anyway. The slopes are unstable. I have been down in that ravine and looked at it many times. It is. very steep grades, and I don't see how you can fit RS-8 in there and do it comfortably and retain the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. Ms. Quick: My name is Muriel Quick and I live at 7914 — 182' d Place Southwest. I am north of the proposed development and I have lived in my development from the very first when it was first put in. I am very familiar with this area. I can tell you that there is no way, given the topography, that 26 homes could go in that area without very dire environmental consequences in that area. I support all my neighbors in their belief that property values and the reasons that we moved to our area will go away if you put in this proposed development. I don't have any prejudices about any people moving into that area I think they have every right that I do to live there. But, I do believe that when you take land that is not meant to support that many houses that you are malting a negative environmental impact on the land. Mr. Grayson: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this issue. Okay, at this time I would like to give Mr. Maki an opportunity to further discuss this issue or answer any questions. Mr. Maki: I am not quite sure how affordable housing crept into this discussion. You all have your opinions of what affordable housing is. I would like to scratch affordable housing from your minds. We are not talking about low cost housing. I would just like to address each one of the people. I appreciate their concerns and they are real and rightful and we would like to talk about them. First of all, my friend, Mr. Thompson (and Mr. Thompson and I have become friends over the couple of years of negotiating this) but Mr. Wilson could you put the map that shows the plats? Mr. Thompson's lot is lot 13. It extends over this far. This is Mr. Thompson's lot. This project did not need this piece of Mr. Thompson's land to make it work. Dr. Park and Mr. Thompson have been discussing their property lines for year. He thought it was appropriate to offer Mr. Thompson, if he would like to sell this property to this project, he could do so. This piece of property would not be changed in anyway. It would not be touched when the property is developed. We have on file a letter from Mr. Thompson saying that he was willing to sell. We still want him to be part of the project. We think it will be good for him and his family. Mr Maki: The reason that we are so insistent upon the road is because Mr. Thompson wanted the road. He was one of the most vocal people and represented the neighborhood when we were talking about changing the road. It was very important for the neighborhood to have the road, so that is why we have the road. But, let me show you that if in fact we don't have this part of the road and the road does not go through, this project still works very well. This would still empty onto Olympic View Drive and out to 76' or up Olympic View Drive or around to Edmonds. So, it is really not necessary to this project to have this road. Gary Acksdell said it would be nice, but not necessary. Well, it is not necessary for the project, either. But, Mr. Thompson, who seemed to represent a lot of people in 1996, wanted the road. That is why the road. Not because we thought we had to have the road. Mr. Maki: To answer one of the questions about the right-of-way. The right-of-way, in this case, is 50 feet. The City of Edmonds said we could reduce it from 60 to 50, but the asphalt part of the road must be the same width as the asphalt part of a road of a 60 foot right-of-way, plus the sidewalks, plus parking spaces that are eight feet wide. You can't see it on the map that is so reduced, but the road will have to be conforming with all the street codes of the City of Edmonds or it can't be built. They won't let us. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Maki: Mr. Acksdell asked about the price of the housing. It got reduced to affordable housing. These houses will be designed by the Mithune Partners. They will be 2,600 to 2,800 square feet. They will sell for $275,000 to $300,000 a piece. They will be of an architectural design that will fit with the landscaping and the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't know how that fits with your opinion or definition of affordable housing, but that is what will be built there. These houses will be designed, the pads will be designed and approved in the PRD process before they are approved by the City of Edmonds. We asked the City of Edmonds if we could apply for the PRD and the contract rezone at once so all of these questions could be brought out at once. It would make it a lot easier. But, in fact, the law does not allow that. The City Attorney said no, because of the process, you have to go it step-by-step. That is why you get the contract rezone process and don't get all the details of the PRD that would answer some of the questions and take the emotional thoughts about it away from us. Mr. Maki: It will be a PRD. If you are familiar with a project called The Orchard, which is on Ninth and turns up into Puget Way, that was developed by Mr. Parker. It is a PRD. The zoning allowed six houses. There are six houses there. But, they are closer together than the normal if you did not have the PRD. But, there are open spaces. In this PRD you will have the same thing. There will be enough houses that the 8,000 zoning would support, plus all the streets. They are closer together than you would be for a normal non PRD, but the closest ones are 15 feet and not 8. Then we have great areas of greenbelts. As. Mr. Thompson's part of the lot that he would sell, it would remain exactly as it is today. Ms. Thornhill said, "How can you do this?" Well, it is the law. The codes say that, yes, you can have a PRD formula if you comply with certain restrictions that are well defined. This has to be complied with. The restrictions have to be met with or the City will not allow the PRD to be built. How can it be done? It can be done because the law allows it. Mr. Maki: Ms. Barringer, I need to apologize to you when you said that I didn't know what bank you were talking about. I was obviously confused as to what bank you were talking about. I know what bank you were talking about. That would have to be a retaining wall, paid for by the developer so in fact there would be no property of hers disturbed, or anybody elses for that matter. As you see, the road as it is drawn, immediately goes away from our property. That will be a landscaped area. There will be no house there. Your problem will be addressed —has to be addressed —or the City of Edmonds would not allow it to happen. It will be paid for by the developer. It is pure and simple. You will get what you have to have or it is not possible to build the development. Again, a contract rezone does not address all of the engineering items that the PRD will when we get there. Mr. Maki: Mr. Ram talked about eight feet between homes. I think the smallest setbacks are 15 feet. I don't remember every lot size in the whole place, but they will meet the requirements of the City of Edmonds, that is for sure. I don't know what the requirements for the sidewalks will be on 80`s by the developer. That has not been decided and won't be decided until the PRD is submitted to the City and goes through that process. I can tell you that there will be sidewalks, however, all the way through that road area. So, if one was to walk on the new streets that go from 80a' to Olympic View Drive or up the cul-de- sac, that is all required to be sidewalk. Mr. Maki: We talked about the right-of-way width. There was somebody that said it would not work engineering wise. We told you that the Mithune Partners are the designers. We have had Reid Middleton do the survey work and the engineers are Reid Middleton, which is an old old engineering firm in the City of Edmonds. The have written all the codes on engineering for Edmonds and are a very respected engineering and surveying firm in this state. We have employed Landau Associates. Landau Associates is run by Dr. Landau and is a soils engineering firm. One of the best in the whole area. They have been hired by the City of Edmonds and many commercial companies when it comes to soil stableness and suitability for building. They have signed off on this. As far as the water standing. We hired Pentec, which is an environmental firm in Edmonds on Third Avenue. They have surveyed it and given their report to the Corps of Engineers. We do not have any wetlands that are significant. As you saw, the entire impact study Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 14 was done —a 20 page study in all —reviewed by Mr. Wilson and agreed to by Mr. Wilson that we do not impact the environment in a negative way. Mr. Maki: I hope I have answered the questions about what kind of a house, where the sidewalks are, that it will be designed by professionals, it was engineered by professionals, in no way will it be a shabby or low cost or a project that will distract from the value of anybody's house. Yes, I understand the houses right to the north are maybe the $375,000 houses. Right to the south, a new one was built. I don't know what it sells for, but I think a $275,000 - $300,000 house is very compatible with the houses in that area. I lived in this area for 13 years. I have lived in Edmonds for 32 years, and so has Mr. Parker. We are concerned about this. My daughter is going to live in the middle of this project. I am concerned about what it is going to look like. We think that the neighbors don't have to worry that they will have a shoddy product. They are going to have a very nice one. Thank you. Mr. Grayson: Mr. Parker, do you have any further comments? Mr. Parker: Nothing at this time. Mr. Grayson: I do want to close the public portion. Public: Aren't we going to get an opportunity to speak again, too. Mr. Wilson: Typically, since this is a quasi-judicial process and the applicant bears the burden of proof, they are historically and procedurally granted the right of the last rebuttal since the burden of proof lies on the applicant to meet the criteria. It is not a form of dialogue back and forth Mr. Grayson: I understand. Mr. Wilson: There would never be an end. However, one thing that you did miss over at one point, is that staff also gets a chance to rebut any of the statements that have been given in terms of providing any factual responses to a number of issues. There were a number of issues that were raised that deserve a response. But, typically, the applicant is granted the last right of rebuttal. Mr. Thompson: I would like to reply. Mr. Grayson: Well, I am sorry. As Mr. Wilson just indicated, I am going to close the public portion of the meeting, but I will bring it back to Jeff to answer any questions that he feels appropriate. Also, to let the audience know the process, this is a land use issue at this particular point in time. Once the Board makes a recommendation it is strictly a recommendation to the City Council. There is another opportunity for members of the audience to provide their testimony to the City Council. That is the kind of two cents worth process at least at this particular time. So, I am going to close the public hearing and bring it back to Jeff to add any comments that you would like to and bring it back to the Board for further discussion. Mr. Wilson: To throw my two cents worth in also, if the Board at any point this evening decides that you wish to reopen and listen to any... When you go into deliberation, if there are any particular comments that you want a response from the applicant, you can ask for comments back on specific questions. If you want to open it up to allow the public to comment one additional time, you may do that. The only thing I would just indicate is that the last comment be reserved again for the applicant in terms of providing a rebuttal. Mr. Wilson: In terms of comments that I wanted to respond to, there was a question about the wetland and Mr. Maki did comment on that during his rebuttal. There was an evaluation of a wetland on the site. There is an area located just to the north of that southern cul-de-sac where there is a depression and water had collected. We had asked the applicant to provide technical information regarding that. We reviewed that information and actually went out on the site several times. He went out on the site with a representative of Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 15 the Washington State Department of Ecology, to also evaluate that area. By the City's codes and by the laws that the state uses in terms of defining wetlands and by our definitions, which have to be consistent with the state definitions, there may be an area that is wet, but it is not one that is identified as being a significant area that we identify as being a wetland that is regulated by either state or local laws. There is an area that is wet, but it is not an area that is one that is regulated. Mr. Wilson: To the issue of the through road. The City has many planning documents. We have the comprehensive land use plan, we have a transportation plan, and the City also has a document called the official right-of-way map. That official right-of-way map (and it was eluded to by testimony by one of the neighbors in the area) shows areas where we will have future rights -of -way. These are areas that are not dedicated rights -of -way to the City, but areas where future rights -of -way are necessary in order to deal with traffic circulation in the City. These are long-term plans looking at not only what is necessary today, but may be necessary five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now in terms of dealing with all circulation of traffic in the City. We have a number of areas where we don't have through roads and a number of areas where we do. We identify how to best move traffic so that one particular area is not heavily impacted, but we have the ability to disperse to minimize the impact on all areas of the City. In this area, the 184s Street Southwest connection between 80'' and Olympic View Drive is one such area where we have a future right- of-way designated. Mr. Wilson: If I can, the general description of that... We have a dedicated right-of-way now which is about 30 feet wide that runs from W' through. That was a right-of-way that was requested to be vacated and was given provisional approval by the Council. However, it was subject to certain conditions. One of which is that the implementation of the official street map occurred --hat some connection occur between Olympic View and 80s' Avenue. The one drawing that he has on the official street map shows an alignment, which based upon the topography that you all have identified as being an issue and concern in this area, would not function and could not be put in because of the steep grades. The design that the applicant has put forth as part of the street vacation and street map amendment proposals and put for as part of this application and was worked out with the City's engineering staff. They tried to create an alignment that could be placed connecting 80t' and Olympic View Drive at approximately 184 h that would follow grades in such a manner that the street grades would comply with the City standards in terms of the steepness of the grade. That is a very specific concern that the City has. A public right-of-way has to meet our standards in terms of design and function properly for the safe use of the residents. That is how this conceptual alignment was developed. It is one that will follow topography in a way that would allow it to meet the City's design standards and still provide for the connection between 80'h and Olympic View Drive. It is still on the City's official street map. This is an area where the City has plans for having that connection. This was developed through a number of hearings long before I ever came here. It has been on the plans for quite a few years providing that section. It is part of meeting some of the current needs, but it is also looking at the long-term traffic circulation needs of the City. Mr. Wilson: The applicant has stated this, and I know it has been raised by several of the citizens in the area, that the street improvements have to be put in at the applicant's expense. These are development requirements. They would not be required for the development. Those requirements, therefore, are the burden of the applicant to provide those improvements at their expense as part of the proposal. When I threw out the concept of affordable housing, I know we all have different concepts of what that is. Part of what goes into the issue and discussion of affordable housing is trying to find a way that you can balance out the level of improvements an applicant is required to put in to meet City requirements and not have it become so burdensome that it drives up the cost even greater. The PRD concept was proposed by the applicant through the rezone of the property proposed by the applicant. The combination of all of those factors allow for the improvements to be placed in a manner that make it reasonable for the lots to assume part of that cost. It may not be affordable in terms of what my concept of affordable housing or even your concept of affordable housing is, but it is going to be more affordable than what it would have been if we had relied on trying to require the same level of improvements with fewer lots. Obviously, if the same dollar cost is there and you divide it between a fewer number of lots, the costs are greater on each one of Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 16 the lots. It does have an affect of driving up the costs. It does provide for an option or an opportunity to make it a little more feasible for the lots to share the costs and does make it a little more cheap than what it may have been if it had been done otherwise. Mr. Wilson: In terms of the PRD concept, Mr. Maki is correct. The way our codes are.... Part of the structure of what the state laws did when they changed over the past couple of years is made it very difficult for us to try and consolidate all the processes into one hearing process. What we are stuck with is a two -prong process: one of which is where we deal with the rezone of the property. It is a quasi-judicial process changing the land use designation. It is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That was the first step. The technical step of evaluating a specific site design and issues had to be done through the PRD and the subdivision process. This is an entirely different process and is subject to an entirely different set of laws on the City level. So, we had to separate the two processes --decide this one first, and then proceed through the second one if this one were successful. As part of the applicant's request, they had incorporated the requirement that it go through a PRD, which is adding additional public review and scrutiny as a condition of rezoning the property. So, they are willing to accept that additional level. That is one thing we evaluated when we looked at the rezone proposal. Mr. Wilson: The PRD process in this City is far different than a number of cities. Most cities and jurisdictions that have a PRD concept use that as a way to encourage or allow development on properties with steep slopes, wetlands, ravines, whatever. Typically, what they do is provide an incentive to the developer. If you are going to build on these properties and if you protect those areas, we will allow you to increase your density by some factor. This City is one of the few Cities I know that does not do that. The PRD concept in this City allows certain other modifications. You may be able to request to reduce your setbacks. Or you may have to have smaller lot sizes that the buildings are built on. But the overall density of all the property involved has to be based on the same standards that it would have been if it had been developed in a normal fashion. If you had a flat piece of property that was zoned RS-8 and you divide, that would give you the number of lots. This is not a flat piece of property. The PRD process, as used by the applicant, is going to retain, in a native state, the steep slopes in this area, as Mr. Maki described. It will retain the native slopes in these areas. It will provide buffering of areas where we have some fragile steep slopes and vegetation in order to protect some of the sloped areas. It will result in what would appear to be smaller lot sizes, but the density is the same as if this was a flat piece of property. It is giving the applicant the ability to retain the same development options in terms of the density, but still protect areas that are necessary —protect some of those steep areas. That is what the PRD process is used for in this City. Mr. Wilson: As Mr. Maki indicated, the RS-8 standard requires a 7'/s foot setback from the building to the side property line. That, theoretically, means that there is an ultimate 15-foot separation from structure to structure. That is a code requirement. The only way that can be dealt with or modified is through the PRD p;oces if they request it. What has to be dealt with and discussed and decided through an open hearing process, is whether or not there is sufficient justification to modify that. It is not an absolute, it is not a given. It is something that has to be requested. It is something that has to be dealt with through a public process. Mr. Wilson: I think as just kind of one final comment related to a right-of-way... Typically, when there are new plats put in the City (whether these be short plats or formal plats) new rights -of -way are associated with it. You then see frontage improvements along streets where they do have frontage. That may involve the installation of sidewalks in certain areas where we have frontage. Or the City engineer, in evaluating those frontage improvements, might find that it would create a hazardous situation. You might have one small area with street frontage and sidewalks which may actually make a condition more hazardous. At that time, sometimes they waive that or postpone it until other improvements can be put in adjoining to itso that you can have a continuous system that is more safe for the citizens in that area. Sometimes if you just put incremental improvements in, it actually creates a situation that is more hazardous. Those things are evaluated and would be evaluated and would be open to discussion as part of the subsequent PRD and Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 17 subdivision application and hearings that the applicant will be required to go through should the rezone be approved. Mr. Grayson: Jeff, there was one question asked by one of the members of the public, and that was the assessment of other houses in the area. Mr. Wilson: Developments of right-of-way for development projects are at the applicant's expense. No burden is passed on to the adjoining property owners. Any of the steps necessary (whether it be additional geotechnical reports to evaluate the slopes, where the rights -of -way are going to be constructed, any retaining that would be necessary or any other improvements necessary to provide the installation of the right-of-way improvements) are all going to be part of the development expense on that property. Mr. Grayson: At this time, we will take a five minute break. Mr. Grayson: At this point, we will bring it back to the Board and have the Board members ask questions of Jeff and Rob. There is probably a good possibility that the Board will not be making a recommendation tonight. Our goal is to get this process through as quick as possible. Based on my discussions with the Board, we are probably looking at asking questions of Jeff for probably another half an hour or so, and then possibly continuing the Board deliberation to the next meeting, which would be February 11. At that point, the Board would, if they so desire, make a recommendation to the City Council. Do I have consensus by the Board on that? Mr. Dewhirst: Yes, I agree with that. Mr. Cobb: I could go along with that. Mr. Grayson: Okay. John, why don't you go ahead and get started. Mr. Dewhirst: Jeff, the picture that is on the screen right now, for all intensive purposes, is just a concept. Is that correct? We are looking at zoning with some conditions, but as to the specific lot configuration, number of houses, specific locations, all that good stuff is really going to ironed out with the PRD if this should go to the next step. Is that correct? Mr. Wilson: There are certain elements of this that are more concrete than others. In terms of the conceptual layout and the layout of the road, I think the through road as an element (I am not going to say 100 percent established) is one of the more concrete items because there are only certain ways, based on topography, to get from point a to point b. This is the alignment that, after analysis by the applicant's engineers and City engineers, appears to be the alignment that will actually function to allow for that connection. The things that come off of it, the road to the south... Everything from that point then tends to fall from that original decision. There were decisions in the original street vacation and street map amendment process, itself, that tie certain things in place. Most namely of which, there is a requirement that this strip here, at least a 20-foot area from the edge of the right-of-way up to the top of the bank has to be retained as an easement. So, this becomes another fixed point. You start to establish certain fixed points and they tend to direct all the other decisions. What you see here is not 100 percent of what could ultimately come out of it, but it is much stronger than what you would see in some other conceptual applications. Some of the decisions and parameters have already been decided upon. So, this is kind of an outgrowth of those fixed points. Mr. Wilson: The number of units is a simple mathematical equation in terms of dividing the property that is available, less the right-of-way, by whatever the zoning designation is and come up with a maximum number of units. If it can be designed to be incorporated within that, then it would be an acceptable proposal. In this case, as part of the contract rezone proposal, one of the stipulations they had stipulated to... Part of this had been shown through the street vacation/street map amendment process. You would Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 18 have a rough configuration designating approximately this number of units. That is the simple mathematics of dividing that area by the RS-8 designation. Mr. Dewhirst: So the number of units is pretty well fixed if this goes through. Mr. Wilson: It could be no greater. Mr. Dewhirst: But, it could be less. I notice in the staff comments that the fire department was questioning the buildability of several of the lots. Given the concern about the stability of some of the slopes, I was thinking when specific geotechnical information came in, which I don't think is available yet, theoretically, the number of units could be reduced as more specific information became available. Mr. Wilson: Theoretically, that is possible. I think probably the one that I would find to be more relevant would be the fire department's concern regarding buildability on two of the lots as indicated. So, I am sure that the applicant, in the meantime between approval of the rezone and prior to beginning the PRD/subdivision process, would more than likely do further analysis to address the concerns of the fire department. In terms of geotechical reports, the City does not have a rule that says you cannot build on your property. We will rely on a professional geotechnical engineer to analyze the development proposal. If they are developing in areas which are over 15 percent, they are subject to what the City Engineer calls the Meadowdale Ordinance, which requires very specific geotechnical information be submitted as part of the application process for building. Typically, when you get a geotechnical engineer in the loop, the end result is not, no, you cannot build on the property. The end result tends to be, these are the steps that you need to do to build on this site. These are the certain types of foundations that you will need to put in. These are the certain measures that you will need to do to protect the integrity of the slope or to make sure that the slope will not fail for not only the house that is on the property, but the adjoining properties (primarily the downhill properties) and to make sure that they are not going to be in jeopardy. The geotechnical analysis will identify what steps need to be taken to develop on the property in a safe manner. Mr. Wilson: If you get a report that says that there is no way in the world that you can do it, then you would end up losing a lot and the applicant would say that they are not going to build on a lot that the geotech said is not a safe lot. But, I have not seen that that has been a situation yet in areas of the City that have far more significant slide areas. Mr. Dewhirst: Thank you. Mr. Grayson: Don, would you like to ask Jeff any questions? Mr. Bakken: There was some concern raised about the adequacy of the 40-foot road. Also, on safety factors, visibility, and the other things. I realize that the final road design would have to be done at some later stage. But, is it the feeling of staff that these concerns can be mitigated? Mr. Wilson: I think as Mr. Maki, the applicant, indicated (and I thought he did a very good job of stating it) the original street map required a 60-foot right-of-way. Right-of-way is just the width of property that is dedicated to the City. It is not the actual build -out width of the street. In this particular scenario, the City is willing to accept a narrower right-of-way dedication, but the improvements that occur within that right-of- way dedication are still going to be done to the same street standards. If the street requires 35 feet of paved surface from curb to curb, as an example, whether it occurs within a 60-foot right-of-way or a 50-foot right- of-way is irrelevant as long as the improvements fit within the right-of-way that is dedicated to the City. So, they will have to meet the City's design standards for road size to service this area and act as a through street. It will just be done in a narrow strip of land dedicated to the City. But, you would still see the same level of improvements in terms of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved asphalt width and sidewalks. The way this has been designed, it has been done a little bit uniquely. You will see that in certaiti right-of-way areas there are actually little bump outs where they provided for parking rather than paving the entire strip and Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 19 having the entire linear area in parking. There are certain designated areas where you will have parking as part of the right-of-way instead of having more asphalt than you need. When you have more asphalt, you have more impervious surface, which means you have to have a stronger consideration for drainage and the affect of adding that additional impervious surface on slope stability. When you do have steep slope areas, you try to minimize the amount of impervious area in terms of slope stability. The final driving width configuration is going to meet the City standards. It will just be done in a narrower right -of --way. Mr. Bakken: There was a question raised about the setback for RS-8. I think one gentleman mentioned something about 50 feet. From the information I was given, it would appear that a 25-foot setback would be the City's requirement. Is that correct? Mr. Wilson: Let me get back to finish up the second part of the question you asked earlier, which is in terms of the control measures at the intersections. Those are something that the City engineer will evaluate with our traffic engineer and our traffic engineer people to determine what type of traffic controls are necessary to provide for safe access and use of the roads. Whatever the mechanisms are, the applicant will be responsible for making those necessary traffic control improvements to ensure that whatever intersections we have will operate in a safe fashion. Mr. Wilson: Regarding the setbacks, my understanding is that most of the question related to the setback is between the structures --between houses on each one of the lots. They were looking at the conceptual design You can see that there is a rough building pad shown and looking at the separation between those, there was concern that it would be somewhere in the eight to ten feet fashion. The RS-8 designation requires a 7'/z-foot setback from the structure to the property line. If that RS-8 standard is maintained, you have 15 feet between structures-7'/z feet from each property line. The only way that that can be modified (it is open for request during the PRD process) is through an open public hearing process as part of a specific request in the PRD. If it is not requested, there is no avenue to reduce that without going through some other mechanism which involves a public hearing process. That would be a variance at a later date. I doubt the applicant would want to do that If they are going to address it, they are going to do it as part of the PRD and the overall site design. That is partly why the City, in the PRD process, gets the Architectural Design Board involved. What they do is they look at all of those requests, whether there is a modification to setbacks or not. Even though the density is the same, if you are going to build on small lots as proposed here, they get involved to look at the final product to make sure that there is some compatibility and continuity with that. Not only in the project, but make sure it is balanced out with what surrounds the project. They look at it project specific, but also the surrounding projects to balance out the two. Mr. Bakken: Thank you. Mr. Cobb: Jeff, can you tell me if any of these areas (obviously there are some pretty good slopes in through these areas, maybe not real bad) are designated as sensitive areas as far as the City is concerned? Do you know? Mr. Wilson: I believe there might be some areas of slope, and it is primarily closer to Olympic View Drive, that may have been designated on the City's critical areas map. I am going off of recollection, so I don't want to say this as an absolute fact. A steep slope area is 40 percent or greater slopes. So, we look at those as being a steep slope. With that, we have buffering requirements and setbacks from buffers. But, there are abilities to modify those, some of which require a discretionary permit through a public process and some of which are based on technical analysis by a licensed geotechnical expert where they, based on their professional judgment and their willingness to stamp it, say it is a suitable area and it is stable. Therefore, the large buffer is not necessary in order to protect any slopes. Mr. Cobb: As far as the contract for rezone goes, you have said that the street is not necessarily fixed in stone, but it is probably one of the main things the City is looking for in getting the through street connecting 8& Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. Go over that a little bit for me. Do you think the Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 20 City is definitely looking to get this street with this rezone? We have had several people concerned about that and whether it should actually go through or not. Mr. Wilson: The City is interested in implementing its adopted plan and that plan does call for the connection between Olympic View Drive and 8& Avenue West. This is one of a couple of permits that have been applied for. Two previous permits (they are both contained in the file as attachment 20, which is the Council's findings of facts and conclusions) relate to two applications applied for in 1996. There was a street vacation request and an amendment to the official street map request. Let me sum it up with the map. The street vacation request was to vacate the public interest and ownership of this 30-foot right-of-way, which is currently the 184ffi Street alignment. There is twofold to it. One, it is only 30 feet and we would need a larger area to begin with. Two, is based on technical reasons and the topography of that area, the street could not have been constructed within that existing right-of-way configuration. The Council considered that and granted provisional approval subject to (and that is where you need to refer to attachment 20.) Mr. Wilson: The second request was a request by the applicant to remove from the City's official street map that through connection from 80'h Avenue West to Olympic View Drive. That was denied. So in that action by the Council back in 1996, they reaffirmed the fact that a street will go in between the two. Part of the conditions of the provisional approval of the street vacation request is it provided certain conditions that the applicant had to adhere to. One of which was the protection of the buffer area on the slope on Olympic View Drive. The requirement was that the applicant proceed through a subsequent process (this process) through the PRD subdivision rezone process in order to come up with a final alignment configuration and development of a through road system. Once all of those things fell into place, the public's interest in this right-of-way could then be eliminated and vacated. All of these things are working in concert to partially implement the connection plan which has been on the City's official map for a long time. That was reaffirmed when they took action on the street map amendment request. This design and concept the applicant is moving forward with is part of trying to meet the conditions imposed by the Council when they considered the street vacation and street map amendment requests. Mr. Cobb: Another question for you. The section of property that is owned by Mr. Thompson right now and not yet purchased by the applicants... If that property were not included in this, would it still have the same number of building sites (26)? Mr. Wilson: No, you would have to take out that gross area and subtract it out and figure out the new net lot areas of the project. It would affect the total number of buildable sites. It would affect the total number of potential units on the site if any property were excluded from this design. Mr. Cobb: My guess is that if it were rezoned to RS-8, without Mr. Thompson's property, it would bring it down to 24. Mr. Wilson: I am not sure. Mr. Maki: 25 Mr. Cobb: So you would just reduce it one. Mr. Wilson: You would need to take it down roughly 16,000 and a little more to take it down to 24 units because there was more than enough property for 25 (a fraction of a unit). So it would take a little bit more to reduce it down two lots. The total was 26 and you round that up to the next whole number. It would take at least a 16,000 square foot reduction to drop down two units. Mr. Cobb: I realize that the property to the south of this (Hidden Glen and that area down through there) is zoned RS-8 right now. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 21 Mr. Wilson: That is correct. Mr. Cobb: Do we know the actual lot sizes of most of the lots in that plat? Mr. Wilson: I don't have any reason to dispute what the property owners have said in that their lots maybe range in the 12,000 square foot area. It does appear to be larger than typical 8,000 square foot lot size, but I can't give you actual lot size. There was comment about one lot having been built on in the past and having to get a variance to do so. It was not for the lot size, it was because of the fact that the lot itself is an odd shaped lot My recollection is that it is this parcel right here where you have a right-of-way. This is a designated right-of-way here and a designated right-of-way at this point. Because of the City's standard, any street frontage you have is considered to be front property lines so you really have two 25-foot setbacks that really diminish the buildability on that site. They needed some relief in order to find a buildable pad in order to develop on that lot. Mr. Cobb: Okay. I think that is it right now. Mr. Witenberg: Jeff, there has been some testimony about the slippage of the slope in certain areas and testimony as well. There has been information in the packet about some engineering evaluation of the slope for stability. Some of those evaluations were done a year or more ago. Did I understand you correctly to say that during the process, there would have to be further evaluation about stability of the slope before the PRD could be approved? Mr. Wilson: There is a number of different points where that could occur. At the point of a building permit on any of the lots, if the lot configurations are approved and if they have over 15 percent slope they are subject to some standards of having to provide additional technical analysis for the development on that site. For each specific building permit, itself, there is a point where geotechnical analysis might have to given on that individual lot considering the type of construction and house to be built on that lot. If the City will require addition geotechnical analysis, I will defer to our City engineer at the time he is evaluating the right-of-way configuration and location. If he needs that information and requires that information when looking at the design of the right-of-way, he would have that ability to access that information in order to know that the final design of the right-of-way is going to be done in a safe manner. We have a couple of different avenues where that could occur --some on a lot -by -lot basis. At one point it might occur is part of the analysis of the actual right-of-way design when they are looking at construction drawings and have actual technical information to evaluate for the design of the street. Mr. Witenberg: Then the applicant would have to comply with any of the requirements of the City engineer. Mr. Wilson: Those conditions are imposed. In terms of having to meet certain conditions of construction, the applicant would have to comply with those conditions. Mr. Witenberg: Now, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, as I understand it the Comprehensive Plan does not make a distinction for single family between RS-8 and RS-12. Is that correct? Mr. Wilson: It is good that I have Mr. Chave sitting over my right shoulder because I am going to say my understanding of it. I know he will correct me if I am wrong, and I am hoping that I am not. The present Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the single-family categories. If you look at the map, it identifies single-family residential. In the text of the plan, when we equate what the zoning classification would be for each of the Comprehensive Plan designations, there is a discussion of the distinction between large lot, single family and what is called small lot, single family. 1 think that is the term that is used — Large lot being RS-12 and RS-20 and small lot being RS-6 and RS-8. However, that is an implementation stage when the Comp plan, itself, is further revised in the future where we draw on the land use map those Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 22 areas that should be large lot single family and those areas that should be small lot single family. That has not occurred in our Comprehensive Plan as of yet. Therefore, you just are left with the single-family designation, theoretically, open to the range of from 6,000 to 20,000. In which case, when we evaluate a rezone proposal we are going to look at the consistency with the surrounding area and the type of development patterns that exist to find out what are the existing zonings in the area. Obviously, if, on our existing zoning map, someone came into an area that is presently zoned RS-20 and wanted to rezone to an RS-6, that is not going to make a lot of sense and is scrutinized very closely. But, if there is an area that is RS-20 and there is an adjacent area that is RS-12, and someone wanted to extend that RS-12 designation, that is something that is looked as being reasonable. We would evaluate it based on the surrounding development patterns, much as we are doing in this case where we have an area that is zoned RS-8 and an area that is zoned RS-12. It is connected to it. Is it logical to extend that boundary? Mr. Witenberg: But, it is not... The RS-12 is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is there now. It is permissible. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilson: In this particular setting, neither the RS-12 nor the RS-8 are inconsistent with the. Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Witenberg: The RS-12 development would be consistent with the zoning in the area of discussion. What we are talking about here is the factors that we have to take into consideration in making the determination. Is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Is the zoning consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance? Is the development of the property compatible with surrounding development? Those criteria—RS-12 meets all of those criteria. Mr. Wilson: The RS-12, itself, very obviously is what the property is zoned and there is nothing to preclude it from being developed in that fashion. One of the things that we consider and evaluate when you do have 12,000 square foot lots is that you may ultimately see that there is more of a pressure to develop in areas where you may have some slopes. In this particular proposal, what is being advocated by the applicant and what we considered is that if you rezone the property to RS-8 and you then reduce the developable portion of the site to a small portion of it in relationship to how much of any area you are going to preserve as buffer areas, is that still consistent? We evaluated... If you can condense those units onto a small portion of the site that is not affected by the slopes, this then gives the opportunity for the site to retain those slopes. In those particular areas where you have steep slopes, the native buffer areas, is that an appropriate method to try and deal with the particular site. That is how we evaluated the RS-8 proposal. Does it allow them the opportunity to retain areas where we do have slopes and is native buffer area? Mr. Witenberg: But, it has not been evaluated to determine whether you could retain the native buffer areas with RS-12 zoning. Mr. Wilson: The applicant could come in and request a subdivision of RS-12 lots. In a straight subdivision, there will be less flexibility to then try and retain areas as a native buffer easement. Mr. Witenberg: Of course, if it was developed as RS-12 by this applicant or someone else, there would be no requirement for the street to go through. Mr. Wilson: That is incorrect. The official street map shows a right-of-way going through it. If they were to subdivide the property in an RS-12 fashion and had all of the property as presently configured (even if they only had a portion of the property)... This came up in the rezone request in 1992. They would have at least had to extend the right-of-way to the edge of the property they own. That would have allowed for the future configuration through. As long as the right-of-way is shown on the official right-of-way map, if that property is developed, it must allow for the extension of that road to be developed through. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 23 Mr. Witenberg: Okay. Then there was a discussion about affordable housing and what the definition of that really is. We kicked the term around in different contexts. Whether it means affordable to the particular developer who is developing the site. Whether it is affordable to the public who is purchasing it. Whether it is affordable in terms of the average first-time home buyer. What is the standard we are looking at when we talk about affordable housing? Mr. Wilson: With affordable housing, you have to take it in the context that he was placing it in. The context he was placing it in was more in the sense that obviously, if you take a piece of property and on that property you put ten units, it has a cost per unit. If you, on that same piece of property, then redesign it and you are allowed to put 15 units, you have a cost per unit. That cost per unit is going to be lower as spread out over the 15 lots than it would be if it was spread out over 10. If all of the other costs are the same, if all the improvements have to be the same (the road going through would be the same) and you spread it out over 15 verses 10 lots, it will obviously have the affect of making the cost per lot a lot lower. Mr. Witenberg: It means it is more affordable to develop, but it does not necessarily mean it is more affordable to the purchaser. Mr. Wilson: Obviously, if it is more affordable to develop that would mean that the price and the cost of the unit will be more affordable and cheaper than it would have been in another fashion. Mr. Witenberg: Well, it does not necessarily set the price. Mr. Wilson: It has an affect on the price. Mr. Grayson: Jeff, I just have a couple of questions. Now that I have seen this planning division advisory report that you completed in June of 1993, I noticed that this is one of the original findings of fact (and I guess it was prepared by Kirk Vnrish back in July of 1996). Mr. Wilson: That had to the with the street vacation applications, I believe. Mr. Grayson: Whatever. Exhibit 3 makes reference to the neighboring development and zoning. It is item number 2. It says "south developed with attached single-family residents and zoned RS-12" I am assuming that is a typographical error. It should be zoned RS-8. Mr. Wilson: The City's official zoning map has that area designated as RS-8. Mr. Grayson: I think I have read somewhere else... Has this area been zoned RS-8 since 1971? Has there been any... Mr. Wilson: I am not aware of any recent changes. I know of no changes over the last seven or eight years. I don't recall. I think when I looked at this in 1992 as part of the original rezone proposal, I think it had been pretty static at that time. Mr. Grayson: It says RS-8 and I am assuming that is from 1992. But, I was not sure because there was some comments about the lots being obviously larger than RS-8 in this area. Mr. Wilson: That is one of the things is that in an RS-8 designation and an RS-12 designation, there is nothing that requires you to have that small of a lot. You can have as large of a lot as you want, but it just can't be any smaller than. Mr. Grayson: Another question I had, too, and maybe I am not sure you are going to be able to answer it for me... Maybe Mr. Mali can. In something that was submitted by the applicant in regards to details of the project, they mentioned from RS-12 to RS-8 that it would allow... At the RS-12 designation they Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 24 indicated that they would be able to build 17 houses verses RS-8 at 26. I am curious if the 17 includes the right-of-way or is that just a gross square footage issue. I mean taking that square footage and dividing it by the area Jeff, do you know the answer to that? Mr. Maki: Certainly. You always have to exclude all of the rights -of -way and deduct that from the gross area. The net area is what you are left with The answer is that 17 lots includes the right-of-ways. Mr. Grayson: Okay, so in your model that includes the right-of-way. If it was zoned RS-12, you would have 17 houses instead of 26. Mr. Wilson: I pulled out the calculator and double checked it. If everything else remains the same in terms of the area that is dedicated to the right-of-way, which more than likely would even in a 12,000 configuration, and you divide the net density you get 17 right on the button. Mr. Grayson: Right, I just wanted to clarify the numbers. The. other question, too, is I guess I am somewhat concerned with the density. We talked about increasing the density in the residential zone. I am just curious because I know the state issued a letter in regards to traffic. I think it was dated January 8, which was sent to you after your findings of fact was completed. It asked that you provide additional information about trips, and so forth. What are you required to do in that respect? Mr. Wilson: We are not required to. The state has asked for that information. The request that they submitted came in after the end of the comment period on the SEPA process, which is what they were responding to. We can provide that information if we choose. We are not obligated to do that. Typically, we try and work with the state and provide that information. The State will always request this information any time there is a development proposal within a proximity of a state highway that will add ten peak hour trips to a highway. It is kind of their rule of thumb. They will ask that a particular jurisdiction provide a traffic report on a particular project. Mr. Grayson: So, I guess your feeling is that having this right-of-way constructed and its number of trips or additional use by the existing units as well as the neighboring community is not an issue. Mr. Wilson: According to the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) manual the average daily trips generated by a single-family residence is approximately 10. It is 9.7 or 9.8, but you generally use 10 as the trips. That is average daily trips. So, a 26-lot project is going to generate on an average daily trip basis, 260 average daily trips. The rule of thumb for determining peak hours is approximately 10 percent of that so you end up with 26 peak hour trips. Now, in talking with our City engineer about it and doing a quick evaluation in looking at this project itself, if this project only had one access out to the state highway, then you would say yes, 26 trips are going to enter a state highway at this point. It is possible that it could have an affect at an intersection. In looking at the location of this project and the configuration of it and the number of roads that come in and out of it, you take those 26 trips and there are approximately five alternative routes that one could choose to leave this project during the am. peak hour. Not all of these routes take them onto the same state highway and not all take them to the highway at one particular point. So, the likelihood that there is going to be any kind of significant or measurable impact to the highway system at any particular point is probably pretty low. However, in talking with our engineers, if we felt that it is necessary to have that information, we have the ability to evaluate that again through the plat and subdivision PRD stages if we feel it is necessary to evaluate and have more specific information. The door is not completely closed at this point in time. We didn't feel it was necessary at this level based on the cursory analysis that we have done that I just talked about. The door is not completely closed if we feel that we require it at a future date. Mr. Grayson: Are there any other questions? What is the pleasure of the Board? Do you want to continue deliberation until February 11? Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 25 Mr. Dewhirst: I would like to have some time to deliberate on this and continue to a date specific. Mr. Grayson: Do we need to make a motion on that? Mr. Wilson: If you are going to continue the item, you will need to make a motion to continue and state the date, time and location. If you are looking at February 11, in this room at this same time... Mr. Dewhirst: So moved. Mr. Witenberg: Second Mr. Grayson: We have a motion on the table made by Mr. Dewhirst and seconded by Mr. Witenberg. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Wilson: Mr. Grayson, I will also, between now and then, provide the Board members with a copy of Exhibit E as submitted by Mr. Thompson so that you each have a copy of that staff report from 1992 so that you will have a full copy out of the file. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: January 28, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 8, 1998 Page 26 MWilsonJones. W6 Reference Index System 11 © 1991 Wilson Jones Company Mr. Grayson said his recollection of the last meeting was that everyone in the audience who wished to address the Board was given the opportunity to do so. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing, the applicant had the last opportunity to provide testimony after all of the public had participated. The applicant was allowed to speak again only after everyone in the audience had the opportunity to speak. Mr. Thompson said that during the applicant's rebuttal, his property was brought up and he would like an opportunity to address the Board again. He was not given this chance. Mr. Grayson said that after the applicant provided his rebuttal, the public hearing was closed for Planning Board deliberations. No public input will be allowed at this point. The Board will make a recommendation to the Council, who will make the final decision. During the City Council process there will be another opportunity for the public to participate and provide testimony. Mr. Wilson again clarified that this proceeding is a quasi-judicial issue. Since it is the applicant's responsibility to prove that the application meets the criteria, he/she is allowed the last opportunity to address the Board or Council in a public hearing process. The procedure for this type of hearing is that the staff first provides a staff report explaining the request. The applicant is then given the opportunity to provide testimony followed by the remainder of the public. Again, since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant is given another opportunity to address the Board after everyone in the audience has had an opportunity to speak. The Board is then able to close the public hearing and deliberate the issues. The public portion of this issue was closed at the last meeting. There will be another public hearing on this issue at the Council level before they make a decision on the matter. Mr. Wilson said he is available to answer any of the Board's questions regarding technical code issues. Otherwise, the public portion of the hearing has been closed for Board deliberation purposes. He noted that the staff report from 1992 regarding this same property has been copied and provided to each of the Board members as an exhibit. Mr. Dewhirst said he carefully reviewed this request and the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with the staff's recommendation that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. The next few areas, however, have created some concerns which may just be matters of interpretation. One issue involves whether or not the zoning change is compatible with the surrounding area and land use. One could argue either way. Another concern is whether there have been changes in the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding area to warrant the rezone. This could also be argued either way. To him, it all came down to the real difference between what could be developed on this property as zoned now and what would be allowed with the rezone. There could be up to 11 more houses and a new road if the rezone is approved. After reviewing this issue carefully, he said he would support the rezone request. Mr. Dewhirst said he still has areas of concern. He felt the concept they have seen for the site plan still has too many units, but he does not have sufficient information to recommend changes. This will be the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board as they consider the geotechnical information as part of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. Mr. Cobb agreed with most of what Mr. Dewhirst stated. He understands the concern of those who provided their testimony at the public hearing regarding what will be developed on the site. He compared the old Comprehensive Plan with the new Comprehensive Plan after the Growth Management Act requirements were applied. There have been enough changes to make this situation totally different than when it first came up in 1992, even though there are still a lot of neighborhood concerns. Mr. Cobb suggested that if the Board decides to recommend approval of this request, they should consider several items to make sure it does not adversely affect the neighborhood. One issue raised at the public hearing was the concern that the homes would be extremely close together and would back up against surrounding properties. With the PRD process, the developer will have the opportunity to request a change in the setback requirements on any given lot. He would like to see a Planning Board Minutes February 11, 199s Page 2 EXHIBIT 11 recommendation that the minimum setback requirements normally placed upon a lot in an RS-8 zone be maintained. This would keep some decent space between the structures. Mr. Cobb said one of the most important things about this rezone is that it is a contract rezone. This allows the City more opportunity to dictate what can be developed on the property. He referred to Attachment 6, which is a list of the conditions put forth by the applicant. These conditions are important and he reviewed his comments on each. Mr. Cobb referred to Condition 1 which states that the development must be consistent with the PRD associated with the application. He noted that the Board is not here to discuss the PRD. No approval has been given for a PRD at this time. Mr. Cobb suggested that Condition 2 is not appropriate because it binds this rezone approval to a conceptual map that has been presented. The configuration of the property should be dealt with as part of the PRD process. The PRD process should be allowed flexibility to make changes to the conceptual map. Mr. Cobb inquired regarding the definition of "total building space" as referred to in Condition 3. Mr. Wilson replied that the PRD process would exclude rights -of -way area, which is what the applicant has done. Mr. Cobb said he is concerned about the 21 percent figure provided in this condition. Mr. Wilson explained that the City calculates lot coverage as the footprint of the building, itself. It does not include patios, etc. The maximum lot coverage allowed in an RS-8 zone is 35 percent. Mr. Cobb felt that the 21 percent as proposed should become the maximum lot coverage for this development, particularly since this was the suggestion of the applicant. He suggested that this condition be changed to state that "The building pads will occupy a maximum of 21 percent of the total building space of the site." Mr. Cobb suggested that there are many references to the PRD process in the proposed conditions. However, it is not the Board's responsible to consider the PRD process at this point. They are only considering the rezone process. Any language that restricts the PRD process should be taken out of the conditions. He was concerned that these conditions not limit the ability of the ADB to control the process. W. Wilson said it appears that only condition 7 relates to the PRD process in terms of stipulating the design prior to the PRD process. The other places which reference the PRD process would be interpreted by staff to mean that the applicant will comply with whatever the PRD process stipulates. These references do not restrict or limit the process. Mr. Cobb said even if a condition does not precisely mention the PRD process, he does not want the conditions to possibly limit the PRD .process. The agreement the applicant is making with the City is that the building pad will occupy 21 percent of the total site. This may affect the PRD process, but he would like the governmental bodies who review the PRD to have the ability to make this percentage lower, if appropriate. The way it is currently written, it cannot be less than 21 percent. During the PRD process the City may find that the number of lots and the way they are depicted on the attached map is not appropriate. He noted that Mr. Thompson's property might not be included in the project even though it is included on the map. Mr. Wilson suggested that Condition 1 be changed to read: "Development of the property must be consistent with an approved PRD." He noted that the Board's responsibility at this time is to consider the zoning change, not the configuration of the lots. These conditions will guide the PRD process if the rezone is approved. They set up the parameters for the PRD process. Mr. Cobb agreed and asked that any reference that would bind the City as they go through the PRD process should be removed. Mr. Cobb felt the City should take advantage of the 21 percent lot coverage which was provided by the applicant and make this the maximum lot coverage allowed. He recommended the following change: "The building pads will occupy a maximum of 21 percent of the total building space." Mr. Wilson asked that the Board consider whether this should be calculated on a per lot basis. Planning Board Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Cobb stated that he did not feel the property would be developed without the approval of the rezone request. The City is getting something very good by having the street, but they need to be careful that the development receives the proper scrutiny. Mr. Witenberg referred to the June 5, 1992 recommendation regarding a rezone request for this property. He inquired whether some of the facts which supported the stairs conclusion and recommendation at that time have changed. He particularly noted Exhibit E of the staff advisory report. On page 3, Item lb references the orientation of the property. He inquired if this situation has changed since the 1992 report was completed. Mr. Wilson said the property orientation of this contract rezone has changed from what was considered in 1992. The first rezone request provided orientation towards Olympic View Drive only. The new contract rezone proposal includes plans for a connecting street between Olympic View Drive and 80a' Avenue West. This provides access to the south. The previous rezone only provided access from Olympic View Drive. There was no ability to intersect between Olympic View Drive and 80`s Avenue West. The through street proposed allows access to these two collector streets and provides continuity. It will act as a spine for the collector streets and will create a connection to allow the property to integrate with other access points. Mr. Witenberg referred to the one parcel of property in this area that received a variance to develop as RS-8. With the exception of this property, is it still a correct statement that there have not been any changes in the zoning designations of the surrounding properties since 1971? Mr. Wilson said the only change that has occurred is on the east side of Olympic View Drive where there is a PRD development. This allowed the lot to be developed in such a manner that would protect the wetland areas. The variance referred to by Mr. Witenberg was not related to the lot size. It was related to the setback requirements. He noted that this lot is triangular in shape and is essentially a three -sided lot. The setback requirements made development of this lot impossible. Therefore, the applicant requested, and received, a variance to the setback requirements. Again, he stated that the variance was not related to the size of the lot. Mr. Witenberg said it troubles him that the Board has received about 50 signatures from residents in this area stating that they are opposed to the rezone request. They have also heard from at least 15 people stating this same opposition. The RS- 12 zoning is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In fact the Comprehensive Plan does not make any distinction between RS-8 and RS-12. With respect to the issue of the road, the testimony he heard from the surrounding property owners was that the road is not necessary if it comes at the price of the RS-8 zoning. He would recommend to the Council that the rezone be denied. Mr. Bakken said he walked through the site, and he would doubt very much if in the final development of this property would really allow 26 residential sites. Some of these sites will most likely be eliminated because of the topography. The site has not been developed under the RS-12 zoning. He felt the developer's agreement to the contract rezone and the PRD requirements would be important factors in his recommendation. The applicant has agreed to the stricter compliance. All of the City departments will have the opportunity to review the final plans to make sure they are in compliance with codes and to mitigate any changes to protect the City and the surrounding residential area. Mr. Bakken said there were several comments in the packet that he thought were interesting. One indicated that the GMA encourages higher density in urban areas. This request would seem to be in compliance with this concept. There are probably a number of sensitive areas on the site. It seems that the connecting road between 80a' Avenue West and Olympic View Drive would be an important element of the project. He noted that even in the middle of the day, 80 h Avenue has a significant amount of traffic. It is estimated that this project will add about 260 trips per day, and this road will funnel most of this traffic onto Olympic View Drive rather than 80a' Avenue. It is possible that it may help to relieve the traffic situation that exists on 80' Avenue now. He also noted that the developer has agreed to maintain all slopes at his own expense. Mr. Bakken referred to the subject of affordable housing, which was brought up several times during the last meeting. The fact that the homes will cost about $300,000 indicates that they will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. He said he would support the contract rezone. Planning Board Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Grayson concluded that it appears the majority of the Board is in favor of the contract rezone request. Mr. Cobb said that if there is a consensus that with the proper contract the rezone should be approved, then the Board should begin discussing what issues they would like to address in the contract. The Board concurred that Condition 1 should be changed by replacing "the approved PRD" with "an approved PRD." They also concurred that Condition 2 should be deleted from the contract. They recommended that Condition 3 be changed to read: "The building pads will occupy a maximum of 21 percent..." They did not recommend any changes to Conditions 4 and 5. In Condition 6 Mr. Cobb recommended that the words "as shown on the map" be deleted. Mr. Wilson noted that the purpose of this condition is to identify this cul-de-sac as a private street rather than a public street. The Board concurred that this condition should be changed to read "A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as proposed on the attached map." The Board concurred that Condition 7 be changed by replacing the word "depicted" with "approved." This will allow whatever is approved in the PRD process to set the standard. There were no changes proposed for Conditions 8, 9 and 10. Mr. Cobb suggested that the Board add a recommendation that through the PRD process the City endeavor to keep the setback as required in an RS-8 zone. Mr. Wilson inquired if this would be for all setbacks or just for the side setbacks. Mr. Cobb said he would definitely like this to apply to all side setbacks. Mr. Wilson said one main elements of the PRD process is to allow flexibility in lot design (primarily setbacks) to allow smaller lots to protect the open space areas. Mr. Cobb said in this particular area the side setbacks are the most important because they will carry through the theme of space between the uses which currently exists in the surrounding areas. Mr. Wilson referred to the changes to Condition 3 and inquired if this would pertain to a per lot basis or would it be based upon the overall developable area. The Board indicated their desire to ask the applicant a question, and Mr. Wilson indicated that it is appropriate to ask a specific question of the applicant. Dennis Parker, 847 Dayton Street, said the intent of the phrase "21 percent of the developable land" was intended to reference the combined property. The 35 percent rule that currently exists within the code applies to the individual lot coverage. Mr. Cobb said it appears that this is a two -tiered process. The 21 percent would apply to the total developable portion of the site and 35 percent would apply to each site. Mr. Wilson reviewed the PRD regulations. He noted that these regulations allow the City to approve a change from any of its development regulations except the maximum density and building height. Lot coverage on a per lot basis may be negotiated. The overall lot coverage for the entire site as a whole cannot exceed the maximum allowed. Mr. Wilson noted that on the proposed site plan, the applicant has identified the gross and net area. The gross area is the entire property. The net area is calculated by subtracting the rights -of way area from the gross area. This leaves a net area of 204,019 square feet. That is the area used to calculate the allowed density of 25 homes. The footprints for all of the houses combined cannot exceed 21 percent of the net square footage. Mr. Grayson felt the 21 percent maximum requirement insures that the size of the development will not increase. Mr. Wilson suggested that using the term "maximum of 21 percent" would allow the development size to be decreased. The Board concurred. Mr. Grayson inquired if the Board wishes to include another condition regarding setback. Mr. Cobb suggested that in the Board's recommendation to the Council they could include a statement recommending that the review of the PRD strongly consider the spacing of the structures to make sure they are consistent with the surround area as much as possible. He felt this should be included as a recommendation from the Board rather than a condition of the contract. Mr. Witenberg felt that in light of the Board's apparent desire to recommend approval of the rezone, the contract conditions make sense. The public is also going to have the opportunity to comment at the City Council level. If the Council approves the contract rezone, the public will also have the opportunity to testify at a public hearing associated with the PRD process. Planning Board Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 5 The Board took a five minutes break at 8:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONE OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 626-630 MAIN STREET AND 617-627 DAYTON STREET FROM MULTI -FAMILY (RM-1.5) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC) (FII,E NO R-98-6) Mr. Wilson recalled that several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map regarding land use designations were adopted last year. This file is associated with one of these amendments. The property is located between Dayton Street on the south and Main Street on the north. There is a mixture of uses currently located on the property including a condominium, office and commercial space. The Council's adoption of the Board's recommendation was to amend the Comprehensive Plan for this area to identify the land use as commercial. This rezone request from RM-1.5 to BC will implement the change in the land use. He noted the property to the west is already zoned as BC. He pointed out that the Board has received copies of the minutes from the Board and Council deliberations on this issue. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONE OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 22815 EDMONDS WAY JUST WEST OF WESTGATE CHAPEL FROM MULTI -FAMILY (RM-3) TO PLANNED BUSINESS (BPI Mr. Wilson advised that this rezone request is also proposed to implement the changes adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. This area is one that the Board spent a considerable amount of time and discussion on. The final change in the land use is somewhat different than what the Board recommended to the Council. The original request for a Comprehensive Plan change included the property on the west side of 95t' Place West. The Board could not reach a consensus to forward a recommendation to the Council. The Council reviewed the request and remanded a portion of the area back to the Board for further deliberation. The Council determination was to amend the Comprehensive Plan for a portion of this property. Mr. Cobb pointed out that the Board only received the first page of the Council minutes in which this file was discussed. Mr. Wilson said these minutes are included in the file as Attachment 7, but apparently they were not included in the Board's packets. He suggested that if the Board would like to review these minutes prior to making a decision, they could continue this public hearing to a date certain for continued Board deliberation. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, expressed concern about the increased traffic this rezone could create. He said he is sure that when this rezone comes before the Council, it will require road improvements before it can be approved. The businesses in this area should have to pay for the roads. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Planning Board Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 6 0 12 WllsooJooes� Ouick Reference Index System © 1991 Wilson Jones Company VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FILE NO. R-97-28 February 11,1998 (Transcripts prepared April 8,1998) Mr. Grayson: Item number 6—unfinished business: We will be discussing continued planning deliberation on the proposed contract rezone of approximately 5.4 acres located at approximately 184th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive from RS-12 to RS-8 (File No. R-97-28). Jeff, would you like to provide any comment in regards to... Mr. Wilson: It is in the Board's hands. If there are any questions regarding any of these technical code revisions, we are here to answer these questions. Otherwise, the hearing was closed at the last meeting and brought back to the Board for deliberations and no new testimony. Mr. Grayson: Okay, Mr. Wilson: Mr. Grayson, if I could for the record, Mr. Thompson provided Exhibit E during the last hearing, which is a staff report from 1992. A full copy of that was provided to the Board members. From the one that was provided at the meeting, full copies were distributed to the Board members. Mr. Grayson: Thanks. Questions for Jeff? Mr. Dewhirst: I sat down with the Comprehensive Plan last night to go through it and apply it to this particular request. And, using the staff report as kind of an outline, I went through and I agree with the idea that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It seems to be consistent with the zoning ordinance. The next couple of areas I have some problems, and I think it really a matter of interpretation — the surrounding area and whether the zoning change is compatible with the surrounding area and existing land uses. You could argue either way. The next issue is the criteria of changes —whether there have been sufficient changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or City policy to justify this. That is another area that, in my mind, could be argued either way. The suitability is also one that could be argued either way. So, my thought process came down to what is the real difference between what could go there now and what could go there based on change. It came down to 11 or 12 houses and a new road. I was thinking that if the applicant was not going for RS-8, what would that road do to the value of the houses that could be built there. There seems to be a real trade off. Mr. Dewhirst: In my mind and after reviewing all of this I would support the application for the rezone. I still have two areas of concern. One, I think the concept we've seen on the site plan still has too many units on it, but I am not in a position or have sufficient information to say what is right. That would be more in line with Design Review Board to review it along with specific comments and the result of further review of tech work on those questionable slopes. However, that is my rather brief analysis of my thinking. Mr. Cobb: I agree with a lot of what John said. I understand the concerns of all the people who gave testimony in the public portion of the hearing about what is going in here. I understand, as Mr. Thompson brought up, the previous effort to rezone this area. I went back and looked at the old Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at the time that this rezone was put in as compared to the new Comprehensive Plan after the Growth Management Act came in. I think there is enough change in that to make this a totally different situation than when it first came up in 1992. But, there are still lots of concerns by the neighbors that are going to surround this project. I have a couple of things that I think if we support this rezone (If it is our Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 EXHIBIT 12 Page 1 recommendation to adopt to the Council) I would like to see several things recommended to the Council to help these people make sure that if this project is going to be done, it is going to be done in a way that it won't do any harm to them. Mr. Cobb: One of the big issues that came out was on the south end of the project. People were concerned that the houses are extremely close together and properties were going to be backing up very closely to their properties. In a PRD, which this property would have to go through and I think it is the only way to do this, they can change the setback requirements on any given lot in the project. I would like to, if possible, send the recommendation that the minimum setbacks be maintained through the PRD process — the minimum setbacks that are normally placed if this were a regular RS-8 lot. The houses out there are well spaced now, and I believe it would be useful in that area to keep some decent spacing between structures. So, I would like to see something like that go through Mr. Cobb: I think one of the most important things about the rezone is that it is a contract rezone. Since it is, we have got more of an opportunity to dictate requirements in order to protect it. There were several thing (on attachment 6, which is the conditions of the contract rezone that were put forth by the applican) that are pretty important. The first condition says it must be consistent with the approved planned residential development. I'll assume that to mean the PRD that is going to be presented if the rezone is approved. It says all lots, as depicted on the attached map, will be fixed as drawn. Well, we have got a map that shows all of the lots and everything. I don't think we can approve a condition like that saying that the PRD has to match the map that is set forth with this. This language should be change to be "are not fixed." The PRD process should determine if it should be changed from what is presented by the applicant. The way it is worded now, there would be an argument for the applicant to come back and say, "This is what was approved as part of the contract rezone." This should not be there. The PRD process should be allowed to have its full course. Mr. Cobb: Condition 3 states that building pads shall not exceed 21 percent of the total building space of the site. I would like to ask Jeff a question on that. In a PRD, what is the definition of a total building space? Mr. Wilson: In an PRD only single-family unattached homes are allowed in a RS zone, so it could not have common wall units. I think there is also an exclusion for some areas that may be set aside for open space areas. Mr. Cobb: What I was wondering about, Jeff, is the that "total space is 21 percent of what is considered total building space." Is this only the designated lots and not the open space, which in essence, this could put it considerably above what would normally be an allowed lot coverage. Mr. Wilson: The City calculates the lot coverage as the lot coverage of the building itself. It does not include patios, walkways and driveways that are on private properties as part of the lot coverage calculation. The maximum lot coverage in a single-family zone is 35 percent based on the building footprint of the lot, itself. Mr. Cobb: Well, if they are saying that the building pads, themselves, will occupy 21 percent of the total building space, that is very limited. It should be changed to a maximum of 21 percent in the rezone contract. Mr. Wilson: We wouldn't consider the easement areas that are set aside, since there are some areas that are required to be set aside. The slope preservation area adjacent to Olympic View Drive would not be considered as part of the buildable area. That is an area that they have chosen to set aside. Mr. Cobb: If the applicant is saying that they want to use 21 percent of the total building space, that is fine. But, it should not be set up as they will definitely use 21 percent. It should be set up as a maximum so that Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 2 the PRD process can allow setbacks that the PRD process feels is proper. It should not be stated as a set figure, but as a maximum figure so it can be smaller if the body approving the PRD has the chance to alter that if they need to. Mr. Cobb: In virtually all of the conditions of the contract rezone, they are referring to a PRD that we aren't even supposed to be considering at this point. All we are considering is the rezone. We are not considering the PRD process. Any language or conditions that tend to restrict the PRD process should be taken out to give that process the full opportunity for all the neighboring property owners and people that are affected by it to have their say in that process in the event that this rezone is approved. I would not want to limit it at all. Those two things in particular are limiting factors in the contract. Mr. Wilson: If I could clarify to make sure my notes are correct, it appears that only condition 7 relates to the PRD in terms of stipulating a design prior to the PRD process. The other places that reference the PRD (number 1 and 4)... The applicant's intent with number I .was to comply with whatever the PRD process stipulates as a separate process. Number 4 is referencing a PRD in terms of identifying the development and not any specific condition. At this stage we are calling the property as a total PRD in terms of classifying the site. The maintenance of the landscaping at the entrances to the PRD is not really a condition or restriction or limitation on the project, it is just identifying the site. That is how we read it when we were looking through the conditions. With number 7, right, it is kind of identifying that it is going to be consistent with what is depicted in the application for the PRD rather than what the approved PRD comes out with I think that is what you are saying. Mr. Cobb: Even if it does not mentioned that, precisely, I don't want anything in it that is going to limit the PRD process. Part of the agreement they are making with the City is for 21 percent of the total building space of the site. That is fine, and it may not even affect the PRD process. But, I would like to see people that are going through the PRD (the governmental bodies) to have the opportunity to make that lower. The way it is worded, it can't be lower. It has to be 21 percent. The same for the "number of lots" and "being as depicted on this attached map." Again, you are setting forth in a PRD process something that maybe can't be done very well and putting limitations on it. We could have problems first off because we are not even sure that the Thompson property is going to be included in this. So you've got a problem that the attached map may not be relevant at the time it goes to the PRD process. Mr. Wilson: Continuing the discussion... One possible way to address some of that might be in condition 1 we could change that to be "in redevelopment, the property must be consistent with an approved PRD." This would just drop... Probably adding "as conceptually shown on this application." This would relate the two together. Mr. Cobb: You could change it to state "the property must be consistent with an approved planned residential development, period. The planned residential development has to be associated with this property, but it is not one that we have seen and considered Okay. The lots depicted on the attached map will be fixed as drawn. No, the lots should be as agreed and as consistent the planned residential development. I don't see that as something that belongs in here. That is something that belongs with planned residential development. All we are doing is redoing this to RS-8 if we pass this. We aren't deciding, at this point, where those lots should be. Mr. Wilson: Correct. You are arbitrating the conditions that will guide the development of the property if the rezone is approved. It will guide the PRD process and is the parameters for the PRD process. Mr. Cobb: If you wanted to make a legal argument, the City would not be able to vary on this contract for rezone. Mr. Wilson: I understand. You are correct. What the Board is doing is that you are basically setting the parameters for how the PRD will be reviewed if the contract rezone is approved. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Cobb: I just want to take out everything that would bind the City to a specific thing that would be associated with a PRD that we are not considering. I am not trying to be difficult about that, I just don't want to limit the next step. Mr. Wilson: I don't know if it is taking out so much as wordsmithing to indicate what the parameters are. I am thinking of number 3, as an example, where you talk about "will occupy 20 percent of the total building space." That could be change to read, "The building pad shall not exceed 35 percent." That is the maximum allowed in an RS-8 zone-35 percent maximum coverage on an RS-8 lot. Mr. Cobb: What they are offering, I think the City should take advantage of because this does not have anything to do, necessarily, with any PRD application. Number 3 deals with this contract and with the stipulations associated with the rezone. So, take advantage of the 21 percent the applicant is saying. Mr. Wilson: All I am suggesting is that if the Board wants to make some changes , you need to articulate as specific as possible what conditions or changes you are recommending in the contract that might go along with approval or recommendation of approval. Mr. Cobb: Well, on number 3, I recommended that it read, "The building pad shall occupy a maximum of 21 percent of the total building space." Mr. Wilson: Do you want to do that on a per lot basis or... Mr. Cobb: Well. Mr. Wilson: The reason I ask that is you may have one lot that will be 23 and the other will be 19. Are we going to average all the lots or set it on a per lot basis? So I know when staff goes to approve the building permits after all this is approved, I know what was intended. Mr. Cobb: I think we need to talk about that. Those are just some of the things that I see on here. I don't think the property is going to be developed without being rezoned. I think the City is getting something very good in having the street going through there. We have just got to be careful that this step gets the scrutiny that it should. Mr. Witenberg: Jeff, I have got two questions about the June 1992 recommendation in terms of whether or not some of the facts that supported the conclusion in that recommendation have changed. On page 3 under... Mr. Wilson: Page 3 of which document. Mr. Witenberg: Page 3 of the exhibit E—the planning division staff advisory report. The exhibit says it was dated 1/23/98, but I think... Oh, I am sorry, lets just talk about it in terms of being the June 5, 1992 staff report. On page 3 at the top of the page, paragraph l.d there is a conclusion that talks about the orientation of the property. I wonder if that has changed since this report was written Mr. Wilson: At the time, you have got to remember that between that application and this application, there are actually two different plot configurations. The previous application only included property that is fronted directly on Olympic View Drive. So the access was only onto Olympic View Drive and the orientation was towards Olympic View Drive. With the current configuration you have property that runs through from Olympic View to 80`t Avenue. 80a' Avenue, itself, serves property that is RS-12 as well as RS-8. While it might not directly take access from an RS-8 neighborhood, it is accessed by a street that serves as another neighborhood that is zoned RS-8. The main difference between the project then and the project now is that through providing that connection, it provides some continuity and ability to access in Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 4 relationship to the areas to the south. When it only had access to Olympic View Drive, the access to the RS-8 neighborhood was almost down at 196t' before you were able to go back to the west end of the neighborhood. You follow 76`h from Perrinville virtually down to 196t` before there is any access to the west. So, there was no ability of interacting between the two. When that project had been considered, theoretically, they could have taken access off of 76a' Avenue west. There is a portion of a right-of-way there. The driveway was not large enough to support any meaningful access, so again, there was no interaction between the two neighborhoods. Mr. Wilson: In this particular case, with the fact that there is through road now accessing a type of neighborhood collector street (8e Avenue) it does have that ability and continuity. You can go off of an arterial or neighborhood collector street and have a series of cul-de-sacs off those streets. The cul-de-sacs may run parallel to each other and the neighborhoods may not connect to each other internally, but that is fine. The arterial and neighborhood collector street provides that continuity. Before this access was provided between the two streets, there really wasn't that opportunity or any connection available. Mr. Witenberg: You are talking about the access in terms of the proposed... Mr. Wilson: I am talking about the proposed right-of-way between 80t' and Olympic View Drive. That creates the dimension that helps to create the identity associated with the areas to the south. As with any neighborhood or any particular line, you draw a line and you try and figure out what is best. You are always going to draw the line somewhere, but with this connection and through road, there is the ability to at least have the neighborhoods integrated by providing a common access point. Before, when there was access only off of Olympic View Drive, there was no way to get from here to there, essentially. That is why we determined that... Mr. Wilson: With the exception of the one piece of property where there was a variance for an RS-8, is it still correct that there have not been any recent changes in the zoning designations of the surrounding property since 1971? Mr. Wilson: No, the only change that occurred was on the east side of Olympic View Drive where there is a PRD (north of the Perrinville postal station). Part of that PRD was to provide some developable portions on the lot because of the stream and the wetlands that basically bisected the property. There was a variance mentioned, but it was not for any density or lot sizes. It was a variance got setbacks because the property essentially was a three sided lot with street setbacks on two sides, which really reduced the building pad. You can see it if you are looking at attachment 1 of the staff report, which is a vicinity map. It is 79s' Avenue West that comes off of 186a' Street As you see where it splits off to 185 h Place Southwest and then the cul-de-sac goes off to the northwest, which is 79a' Place West, there is that little triangular shaped lot. You see a very narrow right of way that continues up to the subject property. You had two street setbacks, one from the small right-of-way running to the applicant's property as well as along the south side. Since this was a pie shaped lot, when you take 25 feet back from both of those property lines, it created a very restrictive building pad. That was the purpose of the variance because of the setback issues. It was not because of the lot size. Mr. Witenberg: I think the thing that troubles me the most about the rezone is that we have submittal from the neighbor (some 50 signatures on a petition) that are opposed to the rezone. We had 15 or 16 people testify, none of who supported it. The RS-12 zoning is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan does not make any distinctions between RS-12 and RS-8. The issue with respect to the road, the testimony as I heard it was that the neighbors did not feel that the road was necessary if it came at the price of RS-8 zoning. So, I would recommend to the City Council that the rezone be denied. Mr. Bakken: I walked through the site and I would doubt very much if, in the final development, there would really be 26 residential sites developed. I think maybe some of those will be shredded out because Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 5 of the topography and so on. The site has not been developed under the RS-12 zoning. I am brand new to this, and I am not real sure on all of the background information I have in making a determination on some of this. I guess I thought the developer's agreement to the contract rezone and the PRD requirements would be a pretty important factor in my decision to go RS-8 or RS-12 on it He has agreed to the stricter compliance. As I understand it, all of the City departments would have the opportunity to review the final plans and make sure they are in compliance with codes and to mitigate any changes that would protect the City and the surrounding residential area. Mr. Bakken: There were several comments in the packet that I thought were interesting. One indicated that the Growth Management Act encourages higher densities in the urban areas. This would seem to be in compliance with going from the RS-12 to the RS-8. There was another statement that the RS-8 might provide better protection for sensitive areas. There would probably be a number of sensitive areas on that site —at least I would think so from walking through it. It seems to me that the connecting road between 80a' and Olympic View Drive would be a very important element of the project. I parked along side of 80a' for about a half an hour, and there is a reasonable amount of traffic on 80`h going past there in the middle of the day. The estimate is that there would be some 260 trips as a result of the project and I would think that the new road would funnel a great majority of those trips off onto Olympic View Drive rather than increasing the traffic on 8&. It is possible that it even might help to alleviate some of the existing traffic on 80a' having that road through there. Mr. Bakken: The developer has indicated that he would maintain all banks and slopes at his expense, which I am sure there is going to be some problems from looking at the site. Then the question came up of affordable housing. Mr. Maki indicated that was probably not the term that should be used. But if $300,000 houses are going to be built in the project, I wouldn't think this would have any affect on the existing houses in the area. With the information that I have and my limited time on the Board, I would vote for the rezone to the RS-8. Mr. Grayson: I would say that your opinion is just as valuable as any other Board member at this point in time. It now appears that we have the making of a favorable response to the City Council. It appears that based upon what Steve suggests, the Board is interested in making some modifications to the conditions of the rezone. I don't know if this is something that is of interest to the proponents for this rezone. I guess I am trying to get a framework with which to move forward and take a vote. Mr. Cobb: If we have consensus that with the property contract to go with the contract rezone, that we would recommend approval. The question is... I know I have a few things that I feel should be either changed or included in the contract rezone. Who else has some ideas they would like to see in the contracts? It gives us a kind of open page to do what we can to protect this area and still make it developable. Having protection is the key word. It may be a good way to get the development the property owner deserves as a property owner and still protect the neighbors. I think we could use the applicant's list on attachment 6 as the starting point Mr. Cobb: On number 1, we have suggested we can edit this a little bit to be "with an approved planned residential development." Number 2, I still don't like: "The lot, as depicted on the attached map, will be fixed as drawn." I think that should be taken out. Mr. Dewhirst: I agree. Mr. Cobb: We don't know that that is the way the actual PRD is going to be presented. The building pads... Obviously, the developer is saying that they are willing to cut down the amount of building pad that is going to be use (the size of the building pa) and the amount of lot coverage that is going to be used. I would like to see that wording changed to: "The building pads will occupy a maximum of 21 percent of the total building space of the site." Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Dewhirst: Yes. Mr. Cobb: He has already offered to bring it down to that level, but if the PRD process recommends it should be more, they need to have the alternative to be able to recommend that. Number 4, I really don't have any problems with. Number 5, I think that is the mainstay of the contract rezone. Number 6, we can leave it in there indicating that, yes, this is what we feel the PRD process should do if we like the idea of the way it is construed in there with the cul-de-sac. The only problem I have is with "as shown on the map." We really aren't considering the PRD. If we want to say that a private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs from the new public street to accommodate the PRD, that is fine. But, I don't want to relegate any of this to the map that is included in this packet, because it could change dramatically if the PRD system wants it to. Mr. Wilson: If I could comment. I think part of the intent of condition 6 was to indicate that this street is a private street rather than one that is a public street under public ownership and maintenance and responsibility. Mr. Cobb: Well, say that then. Mr. Wilson: I was trying to relate my understanding. They were differentiating between what is public and what is private, what they are maintaining and what the public has the responsibility for. Mr. Cobb: In that case, lets just say, "a private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs from the new public street," period. Mr. Grayson: I was thinking you could put the words "a proposed, private cul-de-sac." Mr. Cobb: Or, we could put "as proposed on the attached map." As proposed on the attached map is fine. Mr. Wilson: "As conceptually shown on the attached map." Mr. Cobb: It says, "a private cul-de-sac will be constructed that runs south from the new public street as proposed on the attached map." Anything that is not going to limit it... Mr. Grayson: So, Steve, it would read: "A private cul-de-sac will be constructed that nuns south from the new public street as proposed on the attached map." Mr. Cobb: Yes, that would be fine. Number 7, "the houses designed for the planned residential development shall be consistent in style and theme as those depicted... We haven't even seen arty houses depicted in a PRD application. Mr. Wilson: I took a shot at that and I would just replace "depicted" with "approved." It has to go through the process and whatever is approved in the process will set the standard. Mr. Cobb: That would be fine as "those approved in the PRD application." Maximum height permitted will be 25 feet. Isn't that the maximum height for an RS-8 zone anyway. Mr. Wilson: That is correct. A PRD cannot provide for a greater height. Mr. Cobb: That is fine. Number 9 is fine. Number 10 is fine. I would like to, if not in the conditions of the contract rezone, add a recommendation that through the PRD process they endeavor to keep the minimum setbacks as normally established for an RS-8 zone. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Wilson: Just a point of clarification. All setbacks, or are we talking side setbacks? I remember the discussion at the last meeting was between the buildings, themselves, side to side. I am trying to focus this on all setbacks or just side setbacks. I want to make sure we are as explicit as possible. Mr. Cobb: I would say on all setbacks, but I would be willing to listen to other ideas on that I would definitely like to see it side -by -side so there is the space between the buildings. Mr. Wilson: That is one of the main elements of the PRD process in the City since the City's PRD process, unlike other jurisdictions, does not provide any increased density for protection of natural areas and things of that nature. It allows the ability in lot design, primarily setbacks, so you have smaller lots because you are providing open space. Therefore, at times there have been modifications to setbacks to accommodate the. small lots for the provision of retaining the open space areas. Mr. Cobb: I think in this particular area, it is the side setbacks that would be the most important. That is the area that is going to carry through and give some space between the houses like there is now in the surrounding neighborhoods. That is a recommendation, but I am up for discussion on that one. I am not set in stone on it. Mr. Wilson: Mr. Chair, if I could ask one other point of clarification. It was back on number 3 when we talked about the maximum of 21 percent. Again, I wanted to clarify if we are talking on a per lot basis or based on the overall developable area which allows it to be averaged over all of the lots. Mr. Cobb: What was their intent with it when they volunteered this condition? Mr. Wilson: I can't answer that question for you. But I believe it is appropriate, in the deliberation stage, for the Board to ask a specific question of the applicant if you want a point of clarification to help your deliberations. Mr. Cobb: Is the applicant here? Mr. Wilson: One of the representatives is here, yes. It is Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker: Thank you. My name is Dennis Parker, 847 Dayton Street. I think the intent was 21 percent of the developable land. I think, Jeff, if I am not mistaken that the 35 percent rule of the individual lot still applies. Mr. Cobb: Okay. It sounds like it is a two tiered... Twenty one percent of the total building space, maximum of 35 percent lot coverage. Mr. Wilson: It would probably be to the Board's benefit to define what the Board considers to be the developable portion of the site, so we know what we are measuring that 3 5 percent off of. Mr. Cobb: In the PRD process, do they normally allow a higher density lot coverage? Mr. Wilson: Let me look that up quick. Here is a guiding factor. The City may approve a change from any of its regular development regulations except the lot, density and building height So, maximum density is set in stone. Building height is set in stone. Setbacks. Theoretically, lot coverage on a per lot basis is negotiable. You would have to because a PRD could allow you to build within an inch of the property line and have the property line be just one inch around the perimeter of the building. You would have much higher than a 35 percent lot coverage. But the overall density and the overall lot coverage of the site, as a whole, would not exceed the maximum. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Cobb: It is difficult to set the paremiters on this because we don't really know what is going to end up in their application for the PRD. If we regulate it too much, we are going to have dinky houses on dinky lots. Mr. Grayson: Which the PRD allows that possibility. I think based on what I am hearing on number 3, the 21 percent just encompasses the buildable space. The lot coverage could potentially be 80 percent. It could be 35, it could be 40 or whatever. I think the PRD should decide this. I think the 21 percent does not really say a whole lot other than it won't be more than a maximum of 21 percent of the total buildable space. Mr. Cobb: That is probably hard for us to do anything else on it. Mr. Wilson: On their site plan they have broken down gross and net area. Gross area is the entire property. The net area is where they subtracted out the right-of-way, which left a total of 204,019 square feet. That is what was used to calculate the density, which is how they arrived at the 25 units. As Mr. Parker.described, it would be 21 percent of that, which is approximately just under 43,000 square feet of maximum buildable footprint. All the footprints for all the houses combined cannot exceed that 21 percent. I guess if you want to break it down in numbers to clarify it a little bit. That is how I would interpret if I had this condition placed on it. That is how I would interpret it, and I wanted to make sure that is consistent with what your intent is. Mr. Grayson: Obviously, they have done some research to determine the 21 percent figure. We are saying that is a maximum limit so it won't grow. Mr. Cobb: I would go along with the way you interpreted that, Jeff, being 21 percent of the net area that is described in there Mr. Wilson: If you leave it as a net area, that would also allow some flexibility such as if part of the property shrunk for any reasons, it would also shrink the net area. This would mean the 21 percent would slide with that. Mr. Cobb: I would go along with that as the appropriate interpretation of what the sentence means. Mr. Grayson: Is there any comment from the Board in regards to adding, lets say, a condition 11 or 10 if we strike out number 2 regarding minimum setbacks, side setbacks or total setbacks to the house. Mr. Cobb: I would think we could just include this in our recommendation that we feel that the review of the PRD should strongly consider the spacing of the structures of the houses to be built here to be sure it is consistent with the surrounding area as much as possible. Send it as a recommendation rather than a condition of contract. Mr. Dewhirst: That would be fine. Mr. Grayson: Bruce, I am not sure you have any comments. Mr. Witenberg: No, I think that the conditions make sense in light of the recommendation. The public will also have the opportunity to comment at the City Council level. If it is approved by the City Council, they will also have additional opportunities to testify at public hearings with regard to the PRD. Mr. Grayson: Does someone want to make a motion? Mr. Cobb: I would move that we recommend file number R-97-28 for approval by the City Council with changes as indicated on attachment 6 of the applicant's conditions of the contract for rezone and with the Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 9 suggested recommendation for building spacing. Do you want me to set out the building spacing recommendation? We can do that in the letter. Mr. Bakken: I'll second that. Mr. Grayson: We have a motion by Mr. Cobb, seconded by Mr. Bakken. All those in favor. Mr. Dewhirst: Yes Mr. Cobb: Yes Mr. Bakken: Yes Mr. Witenberg: No Mr. Grayson: We have three members for approval and one opposing. Motion carries. -4a — -1 Verbatim Transcripts of Planning Board Continued Public Hearing File No. R-97-28 Hearing Date: February 11, 1998 Date Transcripts prepared: April 9, 1998 Page 10 CITY OF LYNNWOOD PHONE (425) 775-1971 March 27, 1998 Jeffrey S. Wilson Current Planning Supervisor City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1998 PLAMING DEPT. RE: DNS for Proposed Rezone (PRD) for Seaview Park Estates Subdivision (R97-28) Dear Jeff - The City of Lynnwood Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the DNS for the above proposed rezone on January 7, 1998. The ERC has no comment on the DNS. However, traffic generated by the proposed subdivision would impact Olympic View Drive. The City is currently planning to make improvements to Olympic View Drive in the vicinity of the proposal in the near future. The ERC recommends that the developer of the proposed PRD/subdivision contribute to funding for improvements to Olympic View Drive assuming there is a cost sharing mechanism in place between the two cities for accomplishing this. Perhaps such a contribution to the street improvement project could occur as part of the review of the subsequent application for the subdivision. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this SEPA determination. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 670-6652. Sincerely, CITY OF LYNNWOOD V Darryl Eastin, AICP Senior Planner DIRECT ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO CITY OF LYNNWOOD P.O. BOX 5008 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046-5008 CITY HALL / COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING / PARK ADMIN. FIRE DEPT. HEADQUARTERS POLICE / MUNICIPAL COURT RECREATION CENTER 19100 44TH AVENUE WEST 19000 44TH AVENUE WEST 18800 44TH AVENUE WEST 19321 44TH AVENUE WEST 18900 44TH AVENUE WEST FAX (425) 771-6144 FAX (425) 771-6585 FAX (425) 771-7977 POLICE FAX (425) 672-6835 FAX (425) 771-1363 I:\W0RD\ERC\1998\109CMLT.D0C, last saved 3127/98 , Printed 3/27/98. COURT FAX (425) 774.7039