The URL can be used to link to this page

PLN199700028-8803 (3)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 184t' 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 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 strictures. 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 1 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 3,1 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'` Avenue. 80`s 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 196 h before you were able to go back to the west end of the neighborhood. You follow 76 h from Perrinville virtually down to 196 h 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 76'h 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 (80'h 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 80a' 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 790' Avenue West that comes off of 186 h Street. As you see where it splits off to 185a` Place Southwest and then the cul-de-sac goes off to the northwest, which is 79"' 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 80t' and Olympic View Drive would be a very important element of the project. I parked along side of 80d' 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 80a'. It is possible that it even might help to alleviate some of the existing traffic on 80ffi 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 runs 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 any 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 35 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. 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 f 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 1846' 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. I 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 - 80`s Avenue West, 18305 - 80'h Avenue West and 18408 - 791' 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 Perrinville 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 Page 1 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 80"' 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 80'h Avenue West, and then again to the northern edge of the plat of Hidden Glen following what is the alignment of the 184"' 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 80 Avenue West and angling to the northeast corner 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 80t' 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 80t' Avenue West. Verbatim Transcripts of Planning 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's Avenue West at 184d' 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 locating 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. W. 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 proprrty. 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 i 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 80d' 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 80 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 staff's 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. Maki 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'h 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. I 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.A.d.B.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 correct. 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"d 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 100`h or 9 h, you can get into congestion. There is never congestion on 80a'. 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" 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 184 h. 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 184a', 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" 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 north 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 — 79th 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 80th 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 79'1' 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 h 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 — 182n1 Place Southwest. I am just north of the proposed project. First a question, with the 184t' extension going across 80'h, 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 — 182°d 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 80a' 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 — 80'h 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'/2 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 to 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 tragic 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 — 79`1' 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 further 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 — 80's 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 88h to 80a'. 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 making 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 76t' 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 80a' 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 80'h 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 184d' Street Southwest connection between 80d' 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 80d' 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 80d' 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 80d' and Olympic View Drive at approximately 184d' 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 80d' 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'/z 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 process 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 it so 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 certain 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'/2-foot setback from the structure to the property line. If that RS-8 standard is maintained, you have 15 feet between structures-7'/2 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 80a' 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 j - { 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 80a' 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 180 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 80d' 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 j k y 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. I 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 Vinish 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. Maki 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 1TE (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 a.m. 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 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. CONTINUED PLANNING BOARD DELIBERATION ON PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 5.4 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 184TH STREET S.W. AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 (FILE NO. R-97-28) 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, 1998 Page 2 0., These Minutes Approved February 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 11, 1998 Chair Gary Grayson called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Libra 'Building. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF SENT Gary Grayson, Chair VJejilson, ve, Planning Division Manager Bruce Witenberg, Vice Chair Current Planning Supervisor Don Bakken yes, Recorder John Dewhirst Steve Cobb APPROVAL OF MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA There were no changes made to the Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Balling Way, expressed his concern that notification of th ublic meetings is not provided adequately. The Board needs t e sure the public understands the issues being discus Jim Thompson, 18305 — 80 Avenue West, referred to the back of the meeting agenda where it owes "How to Participate in a Public Meeting. He,� articular noted the second paragraph from the bottom which states: "Further testimony from those who have spoken will be taken in the remaining time. The public hearing will be continued to another date to take additional testimony when the existing available time is not sufficient." Mr. Thompson recalled that at the last meeting, the Board continued this hearing to tonight's agenda. He would like to be able to make a rebuttal to what was said by the applicant just prior to the closure of the public hearing. He understands, however, that he will not be allowed to do so. 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. Mr. 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 staff 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 80s' 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`h 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 80t' Avenue West and Olympic View Drive would be an important element of the project. He noted that even in the middle of the day, 80t' 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 80a' 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) (FILE 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 TMS 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 (B 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 95`s 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 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 HEARING FOR PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE (FILE NO R-97-28) 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 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`s Avenue West, 18408 0 79 h Place West; and the vacant parcel lying between 18325 and 18305 — 80"' 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 80's Avenue West at 180 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. Mr. 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 (PM). 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 — 80's 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 80d' 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— 184d' 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 184h 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 January28,1998 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 80a' 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 79a' 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 — 79t' 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 80'h 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 January28, 1998 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 79d' 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 180 Street extension will cross 80d' 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 comer 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 — 79di 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 — 80`s 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 January28, 1998 Page 6 Muriel Quick, 7914 — 182nd 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 January28, 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`s 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 h 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%s-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 '/2 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 January28, 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�/2-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 80th 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 84'` 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 January 28, 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 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 Mr. 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 Re 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 Mr. Dewhirst encouraged the Board members to attend a commuter rail scoping meeting in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building on February 5, 1998 from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Burlington Northern has some phenomenal plans that could impact the City's plans tremendously. Mr. Bakken said he would try to come up to speed as soon as possible and become a participating Board member. He is reviewing the short course planning study and finds it very informative. Mr. Cobb reminded the Board that Mr. Grayson will be submitting the Board's recommendation to fill the Planning Board vacancies. He asked that staff forward this information to the Mayor's office as soon as possible. Mr. Wilson said he would talk with the City Clerk. He anticipates that this item will be on the February 17, 1998 agenda at the earliest. Mr. Witenberg expressed his appreciation to Ms. Lacy for the excellent job she did as Chair of the Board the past year. He thanked her for her dedication and service on the Board. Her contribution and insight proved invaluable. Planning Board Minutes January 28, 1998 Page 12 j CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor DATE: June 5, 1992 FILE: R-92-39 HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: JUNE 10, 1992 AT 7:00 PM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page Application........................................................................................... 1 Recommendations................................................................................... 2 SiteDescription...................................................................................... 2 History........................................................................................ 3 State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA)....................................................... 3 Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance ........................................ 4 TechnicalCommittee............................................................................... 5 ComprehensivePlan.................................................................. 5 Appendices........................................................................................... 6 Partiesof Record.................................................................................... 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park (see Attachment 2). EXHIBIT E File No. R-97-28 R9239/6492 Russell K' File No.. -39 Page 2 of 6 0 2. Site Location: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive; the west side of Olympic View Drive, west of the new Edmonds Post Office facility (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from (RS-12) Single Residential - 12,000 square foot lot size to (RS-8) Single -Residential - 8,000 square foot lot size (see Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Review Process: Rezone; Planning Board conducts public hearing and makes recommendation, City Council makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 178,596 square feet (4.1 acres) in area (see Attachment 3). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with two (2) detached single-family residences, on lots 9 & 10, with the remaining area of the subject property undeveloped (see Attachment 3). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS - Single - Family Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (see Attachment 1). R92-39l6492 Russell Y' File No, t-39 Page 3 of 6 b. Conclusion: The orientation of the subject property is towards the north, west and east which are areas which are zoned RS-12. The property is not oriented or accessed from the south, which is the only adjacent area which is zoned RS-8. Therefore, the existing zoning and development pattern support the continued development of the subject in a manner consistent with its existing zoning as RS-12. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) North: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). (2) South: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1). (3) East: Currently being developed with the new Edmonds Postal facility and zoned BN (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences and zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1). b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone of the property from one single-family to another would still maintain development which is consistent with the surrounding properties, however, it would result in an island of RS-8 zoning which would not be consistent with the pattern of zoning in the area of the subject property. B. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The applicant has petitioned the City to vacate the undeveloped portion of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way which bisects the subject property (File No. ST-92-38). The vacation request was denied by the City Council on June 2nd, 1992. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ACT (SEPA) a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on April 21, 1992. The Environmental Checklist, Environmental Assessment, Determination and comment letter are included as Attachments 4 through 7. Mitigating measures required of the applicant include: (1) The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of preliminary plat application on the subject property. b. Conclusion: The applicant and City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. R92-39/&4-92 LJ Russell K' File No.. . 39 Page 4 of 6 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. 2. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to the requested RS-8 zoning designation which the applicant is seeking, are set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. a. Fact: Section 20.40.010 states that at a minimum the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: (1) Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (5) Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and, (6) The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. b. Conclusion: The proposed rezone is not consistent with all the criteria set forth in Section 20.40.010: (1) The proposed zoning classification is not specifically inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property (see Section II.F.1 below for further discussion), however, the Comprehensive Plan designation does not provide specific direction for single-family residential densities. (2) The proposed zoning change while consistent with the general land use designation for the site in the Comprehensive Plan, would result in an isolated area which would be zoned RS-8. The subject property does R92-39/&4-92 t ► , ! Russell Y' } File No. ;-39 Page 5 of 6 not have any direct orientation to the RS-8 zoned property to the south, but is directly oriented to the comparable RS-12 zoned property to the north, west and east. Therefore, the proposed rezone would not be consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses. As the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan to comply with the Growth Management Act (G.M.A.) it would be appropriate to deny this current application until a new Comprehensive Plan is adopted which would reconcile the future identified inconsistencies. (4) There does not appear to have been any recent changes in the zoning designations of surrounding property since 1971 (see Attachment 8). (5) Staff does not have sufficient data to determine the economic viability of the subject property under the present zoning. However, it does not appear that the applicant has attempted to develop the subject property in a manner consistent with the current zoning designation. (6) Approval of the proposed would simply result in the potential increase of available single-family building sites in the City. However, this increase should be weighted against the effects of a change in zoning which would result in an isolated area of RS-8 zoning, in an area which is predominantly zoned RS-12. 4. a. Fact: Chapter 20.100 establishes the procedures and criteria for review of all rezones. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a. Fact: Comments and requirements placed on the project by other departments are found in Attachments 9 through 11. b. Conclusion: The applicant must follow the requirements of other Departments as set forth in Attachments 9 through 11. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Fact: The subject property and adjacent properties are designated as Low Density Residential (see Attachment 12). 2. Fact: ECDC Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSE AND SCOPE) states the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City of Edmonds. 3. a. Facts: (1) ECDC Section 15.20.005.B.6 (LAND USE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - Goal) states that it is R92-39/64-92 Russell V File No. 2-39 Page 6 of 6 up 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 Nonsignificance (4/21/92) 7. Comment letter on Environmental Determination from (5/8/92) 8. 1971 Zoning Map 9. Comments from Public Works Division (2/25/92) 10. Comments from Fire Department (2/27/92) 11. Comments from Parks & Recreation Division (2/28/92) 12. Comprehensive Plan Map PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Determination of Community Transit R92-39/64-92 Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT 1 FILE NO. R-92-39 city of edmonus' land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD �` ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE n ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # K'�I:) 35 ZONE ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE 'Q- ci Zl- dt ❑ HOME OCCUPATION � REC D BY 7_ ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FEE Zb 4-''- RECEIPT # LEH G ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. ❑ HE ❑ STAFF RPB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ® REZON ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ STREET VACATION APPEAL # ❑ VARIANCE ❑ RESUBMITTAL FILE # (CONTAOT) �ut55C(( Vcjei �-os)752--��is Applicant Phon Address (O fro 7 N ,lei i4-Y A-V6. , U K Ltd . Cyr 1 '731 Z a Property Address �orrtLocation 1000 r$ L-O&K OF PropertyO.1wriner _ __.1i 2 44W Z-, Phon��b� Address t t�� ®Lf�t``%�lG Ui6-Vi DMONDer (A))4 ggoZfo Agentl Phone Address Tax Acc # Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description Details of Projector Proposed Use `�� /O S -(Z g 4 t c=}0 S' O &D ;�q. 66 LorS 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 Survey Map Y CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUNDI/ 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: �fPC 2. Name of applicant: ,✓ t I" �' ss l �'��''V 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 0 d -y Pig Vn&Vi !fir, c-00o0as,wPg80:zc, coPTP<,T � �jvi �e l ��(�'� , ��S�o�J Ili, J`�'df+� A i/� � , �KL.14 • �fi"��, �k %3/2� 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): (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 1' 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. d (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your approval, if known. 9" 6,©1t%O17/DNe� �G— &4vit T . �� P64el%Aff , fA9D1V1!!-*00 V11'1" (STAFF COMMENTS) il. 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. acfJ(-71.- -- -��1 lull '- /J6U-4 C1 " V-5- 8 fP. AA-Pht& (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT11 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 2 of 26 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 9, / © ©r- A�w idzaprtrYl A-r. S uS7 wesT ©-F rlOj Ayc- W , E'd (4EMP(c 'V e4i Or. 01,'IMPrc,. Dr. ( STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. Genexal 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)? '6C-1 &Lymfic V(&J )/^, &Qff-r -135( 6t!P,VPfTroQ w(Tt-� f J 40^s© (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 3 of 26 C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. K,CJf 'V, ' iAIJL) . ( PSP(n-,�CB D ). (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immedgale vicinity? If so, describe. e. (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. lh P �l Ut �r 04� (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If s ,*generally describe. O . (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 4 of 26 b � t 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: .--r 2. AIR a. (STAFF COMMENTS) What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally deTcyibe and give approximate quantities if known. -A M9M& C A,1a i PPy M6_2& 7 6 7Hse (STAFF COMMENTS) 11 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect %your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLTl10-8-91.MASTER Page 5 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please descrbavailable 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 (STAFF COMMENTS) (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 1pcation on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anti ated volume of discharge. cip 0 , (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. /` I J- CHKLT/10-8-S1.MASTER Page 7 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to by served (if applicable), or the number of anima Is 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: ; , (-) &A "� P� 4. Plants t-V b. (STAFF COMMENTS) Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree:. alder, aple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, edar pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cabbage, other:_ cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and amount of vegetatiwill be remove or altered? o CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 9 of 26 ( STAFF COMMENT ) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or. -near the site. T4 W (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance veqetation on the site. if anv: (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: - birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 10 of 26 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (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: (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 usedafor heating, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1. MASTER Page 11 of 26 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent prolpfft ies? If so, generally describe. a (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of 's proposal? © f+ ' i M (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. &� Q (STAFF COMMENTS) (1)_ Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 12 of 26 (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 0 /P (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? T'k� (35 G� (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise wou d come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: IL (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 13 of 26 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? IF Z'E).. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site `even used for agriculture? If so, describe. V - (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? e -• S " ( 2 CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 14 of 26 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? �2- 5 i z (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. (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ( STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 15 of 26 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 40 k�Lup_ W�)' (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middlfJ or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 16 of 26 �a a L7-P c. Approximately how many units, Indicate whether high, middle, o: (STAFF COMMENTS) if any would be eliminated? low-income housing. Proposed/zpeasures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? N , (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ` -D o (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 17 of 26 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: tj w& , ( 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? r�. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ,L 44 /� (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 18 of 26 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: i (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? o y (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 19 of 26 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. tJ / (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. , E n�� N I i'"� , ( STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. y� ss s m TcTvr� V 5 r �i es U`% C �t/�C -s0 fJ7� - T i-C- ` Uk G3 D(Vi SIOI�3 (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLTl10-8-91.MASTER Page 20 of 26 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (STAFF COMMENTS) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? ( PL,( PO4 46-14� (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) I �I TO T k45"'A-GIPIVI 5rz)r4J . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rai , or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 21 of 26 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, othe )? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLT/10-8-91.MASTER Page 22 of 26 16. Utilities a. Circl_u. ' l hies crr�rentl a at t e site: el city, at al , er use service a hone, r, c system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE abov answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I rstain hat the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. lqz-. Signature of Proponent ate Submitted CHKLT/10-8-SI.MASTER Page 23 of 26 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? (N , 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: 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? �j V1, 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: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? CHKLT/1 0-8-9 1 WASTER Page 25 of 26 R 7. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) aI 1p' Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 0 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: (A�---t ---- Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Responsible Official DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE KIM REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8, FILE NO. R-92-39 I have had the opportunity to visit the site and review the environmental checklist, a copy of which is on file in the official City file for this permit (File No. R-92-39). Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be issued. The current proposal lacks the specific detail which would be associated with a future preliminary plat application to allow for specific impacts to be measured at the time of this application. Therefore, more detailed environmental review should occur at the time of a future preliminary plat application on the subject property. Based on my review of all information and adopted policies of the City, I am recommending that the proposal be changed or clarified to include the following mitigating measures so that a MDNS can be issued. Recommended Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject property - This recommendation is based on adopted policies of the City as found in the Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 15. pc: FILE NO. R-92-39 Robert Chave, Planning Manager 'ATTACHMENT 5 92-39EN/4-M,92.SEPA FILE NO. R-92-39 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Rezone of approximately 4.1 acres from Single Residential 12,000 square foot lot size (RS-12) to Single Residential 8,000 square foot lot size (RS-8), for a potential future subdivision. Proponent: Russell Kim as agent for Dr. Han Z. Park. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Approximately 7704 Olympic View Drive. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 6th. 1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 Sth Avenue North, Edmo s WA 98020 Date: (js t2 Signature: ,,e.�.•_ _. 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 of FILE NO. R-92-39 92-39DNS/4-20-9?.S EPA Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504-8711 XX City of Lynnwood Attn: Robert Henderson, Planning Director 19100 44th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 XX Stevens Memorial Hospital 21601 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn: Brian Benzel, Superintendent 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn: Marvin Freel 1133 164th Street Southwest, #200 Lynnwood, WA 98037 XX Applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Agent: Russell Kim 10407 N. May Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The applicant shall submit an Environmental checklist and appropriate supportive documentation and studies at the time of a preliminary plat application on the subject Property. Attachments PC: File No. R-92-39 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 92-39DNS14.2D-92. S 6PA Snohomish County Publiic Transportation Benefit Area Corporation 1133 164th St. S.W. Suite 200 (�`^ Commun ify Lynnwood, Washington 98037 QG6) 348-7100 7 c Tr. a a J I� Kenneth J. Graska Executive Director A March 24, 1992�iU 119,91? 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 APPLI' )ON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# S1-9Z-39. FROM: J. Wilson ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS AR S & REC COMMENTS: ,�- 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 2/25/92 INPUT: Yes RETURNED ` RETURNED RETURNED RETURNED lzu� sa�sr- L-Ar►'L 7)QeZ v-1 � z-25 -9 L Owner Russell Kim Doa 2/18/92 FEB 2 5 1992 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of.184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 X APPLICATION 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 HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) �(— SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed). ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) POST & MAIL Date RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 9 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT FILE N0. R-92-39 t A ')ON g 92 38 Sl-9L-39 APPLI ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIS' 1 FILE## FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 2/25/92 RETURNED FIRE 2/25/92 RETURNED /.--?--zrj PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: \� � l�L �QO iC: Oil 15 A ��'��s.J lQ�o�/ A coe:5S � t (►�S �S�- Io ¢_ ��pJ ic�ca-- RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1992 EDMONDS. FIRE DEPT= Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Did. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 �r�r��rr�r�rr�rr�rr�r�r�r�r�r�c,r�r��r�rr�r�r�r�rr�r�rr�c�r��r�r�r�rr�r�rr�r�r�r��r�c�r��r�r��r*�r�rrrr��rw��xc�r�r�r�rr��r�r�r�r��r�r�c�rr�r X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 V2" 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) —X ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)- X PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL Date ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL ## APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 10 FILE NO. R-92-39 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT _ _ )ON 1 22 gggg FILE# S�-9Z-39 APPLT ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIS- J FROM: J. Wilson INPUT: Yes 2/25/92 RECEI�M ROUTED T0: ENGINEERING RETURNED FIRE 2/25/92 - RETURNED FEB � 199Z PUBLIC WORKS 2/25/92 RETURNED PLANNING DEPT. FE 8 2 5 1992 PARKS & REC 2/25/92 RETURNED COMMENTS: �� At.c.ao Flo .,,�-�. �� A-0 -14v J. Owner Russell Kim Property Address 7600 Olympic View Dr. Doa 2/18/92 Date of Hearing Return By Type Street Vacation of 184th St. SW & Rezone property from RS-12 to RS-8 x APPLICATION -- FEE _x_ APO LIST TITLE REPORT VICINITY MAP ELEVATIONS (if applicable) x_ PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) Comments: RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS & REC APPEAL ## APPEALED BY: HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING HEARING EXAMINER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UPHELD DENIED SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11) SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4)) LEGALS(Existing & Proposed) ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable) PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable) POST & MAIL Date RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 11 FILE N0. R-92-39 MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT - x r ,o • z �\ 8 Y 127 s• 4 IS 12 & 7 S.W. 26 16 9 179 TH S�• 40 , 45 4a ?Lf 23 17 ; 33 47 •. l la ....... 19 19 '! ! " 1 •9 18 .17IOU - 2 1r1Yhr _ - % FIRS 2 ADO. I 2 3 f '3 2 1 # ] 5 4 a 3 2 PL. SW FIRST Cr 5 AVI W DYER'S 1815T. 3 _ W 4' _..__._. __-_-- 24 ADO- o,is(st 5yt ISIST PL^SW-; - 5 ,1w 4 3 3 2 2 Z 5 S.i HOMES 1-- AD IRA TYS ?! ACRES H N V I E W Ll 43 6 I TO Q T A 6 7 e Om .. .�4 ct !, I 6v1LLa 1 wo'° ST.Sw. w • , ° Q 4-- 2S 1 9 ST. S.W. C I T Y - -- 6 72 73 S9 _ �182 IM P .5 W.." 1 IS • IJ �- T..49 10F 9 > � 71 12 11 '. 10 --- ' ` Ly 2 7 FZ- - ._..:5 N 2 a0 40 11 1 W• , 14 , n cD 26 I EDMOHOS - --- � IS _ 0-OU Q - 35 CIO to 32 . r4 i ° H 1 FAN 1.2 Fy ... 44 4 S r _ to JJ I 94 J u b6 a:v9:'<."':.'3 IDS .47 16 ' a ¢ 9 10 51 SO M 6 "' r W 'GL N O SEAVIEw_ FOREST L11 ' 2 5 6' ' v re 19 20 2 SS = 2 5 e rr Q XEN DN'S AO 5 < 18•.1 PLA SW 22 .A 5.;. s' s8 24 o1V. NO. -2:xD TRACTS DIV `NO_ 3 Z j 4 3 _ ,,f• I-: �" N 25 24 q W 2 r O) �•aS S7 2S 186TH ST. SWo 0 0 1 6 S i 4 3 2 r i 2 1 3 56 .on 26 }SEAVIEw FOREST ALBERT ; --'-BALCH'S •—.�-- - -- KYL 3 e 1 9 q r rr r2 I :3 I .4 6 6 2 5 1 187TH ST. S.W. ," 56 .=y a z 9 5.2 c a3 TACT$ y T' 77_1$EAv1Eiv 4 _ o .. ]5 52 = 23 20 S 2- 20 r9 18 12 �6 . q r 2 ) 4 3 'o a TRACTS 7 l !c 3! F 22 2. 9 , IeTTH PL S.W. 'y 22 2) 24 25 26 ; 22 2e 6 ! i1 e W ' 2 3 S 6 1 4 188TK ST, S.W.- H r5 2 r3 -3 2 ( 6 - WOOOI AND ESTATE$ � - i /5 , -f zo '2 3 R 3 rt ) 1 5 6 . r 6 LYNNDALE y LYNNWOOD u 3 4 n 2 4 r I . - 4 .' 2 Z Q -.. ._._.. .._ _. 3—T..__- ___ GRACE - ;MOSS ... 8� '3 ��-i6 r0 5 _ r0 5 to 5 2' 3 a_ B 9 i q' - OSCAR E.----'—'JENSENS " cD TAR ACE' CITY PARK 96 9 6 9 ; 6 3189TH PL. S..W. aya e 7 6 -'. ' _ e .1. ..2 _.. LA r6iq S -T ADD. q 190 TH ST S.W 9 / v� ..-- .a. -"LlZ 00 F(� <Y, 31 12 2r O , 3 11 r) Q u la rl SEATTLE -` -'-- - - ,e F S is l4 c y e r2 5 12 i5 r r c LYNNDALE a s zr mlEeR4' 7 5 -q 2��<<I w .-aA.) - N TAD f t91 Si SZ..D. ELEMENTARY t.. .. ......._ ' 9 ro 5 0 „191 ST ST. S.W. e I 9 ro u .2 25 4 N ZF 15 7' 6 -. M i 22 1 2 i SCHOOL 9 ! 5 9 6 9 I 6 2 ] 3 6 7 :191 ST ST S.W. SUBURBAN—TRAC75 -- VILLAGE I:o. 2 e a 8 1 B 2 0 U 'o 6 5 4 3 2 1 SIERRA - H 2 4 6 I 9 _ 4 20 , 2 SIERRA 4 - SIERRA rK 3 �ILIa'E a rs H 5 - It1 N S 001 :SIERRA , ,6 ° 21 1~ Z� W. s 192 N[ L. S.= - 'T 192 NO PL SIN 25 24 25 : 22 •° 9 ' q o 9 ^ e 2 1 VILLAGE y ...I 75 24 2322 i 2. 5 r N I 3. ,,VILLAGE,. J r3 2 r8 22 ._ .. ' ■ O. q F 45 A 4 9 20Zt 22 � 2) 24 25 26 22 r � I 27 20 �p H 5 3 E 6 o 5 20I 'o ` wE SD0 GLEN 13 14 NIN,,bs!wdod •2 . C 3' ry o n DRIVE - re 193 RO PL. S.W. '.+y ° r H .° O I• oI V c , I ° If, '2 22 5 5 2 3 a � rp r2 i u 6 5 3 2 I ro 9' B2 ■ ATTACHMENT 12 = 5 (BELT A00dl� r 6 r 6 5! 2 FILE N0. R-92-39 AJ, 24 9 I 2 2\ 1615 -"3 S'Z00( 10 .: THE 0 p Z25eo�3 e R 194THST. S.M u 0 ElC '- 6 ... v 1 a >-zz d . '/zz zul ro e n� 4G ONIMONS 194,TH W. /• R08EaT Y E. TNOMAS ■ -- ' W c cc '`7ale 1' = 600' ' 600 1200' 1800' NOTE: These maps are provided for general informational purposes only. Interested parties should refer to the original documents prior to relying on the information represented. / Z '- � | | � | | ' | | | � | / � | | | / | | | |(n| | ____�__]�L-------------�----- '---------- -------- -- | | | | FILE NO. R-92-39 EXHIBIT 8 ` + o \ Am on? mN SW, FILE N0. 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 tine. Right now, the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Act and this area will need a lot of consideration. It appears premature to grant a rezone without the entire area being considered. She did not feel this proposal was consistent with the zoning ordinance, either. She noted the Westgate Study, which is not a legal document, but was created by the Board after lengthy discussion and review. This study has played a role in her decision. She agreed with Mr. Lewis that she would be glad to consider this use as a variance to a home occupation, but not as a rezone at this time. Mr. Capretta suggested the applicant be involved in the public hearing process of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed with the Board's hesitancy to rezone at this time. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Cooper explained that the Comprehensive Plan is of concern to him, but upon reviewing the Westgate Study, it appears that this area does not have the choice of a BN zoning classification. It is unfortunate for the applicant that the City Council has not adopted this study. This could have given the applicant some indication as to the direction the City would like to take in this area. Mr. Cooper said he, too, would not be opposed to reviewing a contract rezone or a request for a home occupation permit. He suggested the applicant explore other options to allow them to continue to operate the business. MR. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY FILE NUMBER R-1-91 BASED ON THE 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 R42-39" i. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 1992 Exhibit C Planning Board Minutes Page, 5 i Mr. Wilson entered into the record Exhibit "A" of the Staff Advisory Report. He presented a transparency of the vicinity map which is Attachment "l" to Exhibit "A". Mr. Wilson said staff recommends denial of the application. He noted that staff feels the property has an orientation to the North, West, and East, and not to the RS-8 zoning to the South. He indicated the surrounding zoning as listed in the staff report. Mr. Wilson said that while the propert;( abuts RS-8 zoning on two sides, it is important to note that the RS-8 zoned property is accessed and oriented towards the South. Access for the subject site would be from Olympic View Drive. He noted that there is an elevation change which distinguishes this property from the RS-8 zoned areas to the south and west. Mr. Wilson explained that the criteria is much the same as the previous application. Staff has concerns that a rezone change of the residential density at this point will not fit in the long term plans for what would be appropriate for this area. Mr. Wilson displayed a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Map which includes the subject property. He said the Comprehensive Plan does not give any information as to what RS density is appropriate for each specific area. This creates a problem when the City tries to determine how to meet the density needs. Mr. Wilson indicated that since 1971, there has not been a change in the zoning in this particular location. It appears this portion of property was annexed into the City in 1963. He used the oldest zoning map he could find on record. He felt there has not been sufficient change in the area to warrant a rezone of the applicant's property. Mr. Wilson reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and read the conclusions of the staff which were included in the staff report. Mr. Allen referred to the vicinity map and commented that to the North it appears the lots are oversized for an RS-12 zone. Mr. Wilson said his conclusion is that, given this is an RS-12 zoning designation, he can not imagine the lots are platted persuant to the minimum lot size. He noted that there may be some larger lots than required. If the Board would like, staff can find out the specific information on each of the surrounding plats. Mr. Lewis inquired if the City Engineer has the opportunity to evaluate the City's utility needs to ensure they can take care of any additional homes if the RS-8 zoning is allowed. Mr. Wilson noted that these are site plan issues. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that there are some water and sewer lines that bisect the property. One is them main transmission line for the water utility. No other information has been provided at this time. Mr. Lewis noted that the applicant has not shown whether or not this property can be divided as RS-8 or RS-12. Planning Board Minutes Page, 6 Mr. Wilson said that he has had some discussions with the applicant regarding a conceptual layout if the RS-8 zoning were granted. He noted that he has a dual role. He is responsible to review plans and provide help and comments to the applicant regarding their plans. He is also responsible to review the rezone request to determine if it meets the Code and make recommendations to the Board. Russell Kim, 7704 Olympic View Drive, distributed some conceptual plat drawings. Mr. Wilson marked them as Exhibits "B". Mr. Kim asked for a revision of the application because the applicant only wants to change the zoning on Lot 106. He said the lots to the north would remain RS-12. In doing this, he felt the applicant could optimize more lots. He felt the application was straight forward explaining why he wants to increase 'the density. The applicant would like higher use of the property. He noted that lots 8, 9, and 11 of the proposed conceptual plat of the subject site can be accessed from 79th Avenue West. Mr. Kim noted that the conceptual drawings can change. He said he does not know when the City annexed this area, but in talking with a representative of the County, lot 106 was previously zoned RS-8 before it was annexed into the City. Mr. Capretta inquired if it is the applicant's intent in the future to leave the northern lots 9 and 10 as RS-12. Mr. Kim said he would reserve the right to come in at a later date to request a rezone. He explained that there is a bigger picture which he cannot foresee because he does not live in the area. He noted that the property has not been developed for many years and they would like to maximize the land value. Mr. Capretta requested a topographical map which Mr. Kim presented to the Board. Mr. Wilson identified this as Exhibit C. The Board discussed the existing structures and where they are located. Mr. Capretta inquired regarding the linear distance between the existing structure on lot 5 and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson said the linear distance is approximately 80 feet and the change in elevation is approximately 50 feet. James Thompson, 18305 80th West, said his property is lot 13 adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed rezone. His concern is getting access to Olympic View Drive from his neighborhood. When he moved into his home, the City acquired property for Seaview Park and when the park was developed, they put 80th Avenue through. Mr. Thompson reminded the Board of the proposed post office and the traffic which will be generated by this use. They City, at this time, owns lot 12 and there is a proposed road going down through the ravine. This road would get a person halfway to Olympic View Drive. The City also owns a road access shown on the map as 184th Street. He suggested the City either Planning Board Minutes Page, 7 put 184th through to Olympic View Drive or they punch through the raving to reduce the traffic on 80th Avenue. He said he is concerned that the development of the property will interfere with the development of these roads. The Board discussed the traffic issue further. Mr. Wilson explained the request by the applicant for a street dedication and why it was denied by the City Council. John Heuerman, 18419 79th Place West, said that in the Magnolia area when an area was developed, retaining walls were necessary along the street and inquired if this would occur if the applicant develops his site. The neighbors in the area were assessed for these costs. Mr. Wilson said that unless there is an LID proposal, the costs will have to be borne by the applicant. If an LID is used, petitions must be signed by the residents. Mr. Wilson was concerned that the discussion was turning toward developing a traffic pattern. He indicated that this was not relevant to the proposal before the Board and would come later during the site plan review. Mr. Wilson explained that Mr. Thompson's concerns will be considered whether this rezone is approved or not. Hedid not feel these concerns could be resolved at this time. Mr. Thompson said his only concern is that if the property is changed to RS-8, the City would no longer have the option of providing access onto Olympic View Drive from the ravine. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson indicated that no matter what the zoning is, the access issue will be solved when the site plan is presented. Mr. Wilson again said that the subject property is oriented to the existing RS-8 zones in the neighborhood and does not warrant a zoning change. Mr. Lewis said that as much as he appreciates Mr. Kim working with staff, it appears that the issue has been further complicated. He did not notice that the Engineering Staff has had the opportunity to review the plans. He said he not convinced that RS-12 is or is not the proper density for the area. He said he is more of the opinion to deny the request. He felt there is a lot of missing information which should be part of the record before any approval could be granted. Mr. Lewis explained that he is very rigid on out right rezones because there is nothing to bind the applicant to the proposal. He noted the sensitivity of this area. He felt it would be more appropriate to look at this item as a contract rezone. He said that while RS-8 may work on this site, an out right rezone is not justifiable without specific plans. Planning Board Minutes Page, 8 Mr. Lewis said he would be willing to extend the public hearing which may give the applicant time to modify the application and bring it back to a future hearing as a contract rezone with restrictions. He felt there are some merits to the proposal, but he can almost guaranteed that until the concerns are resolved, any future subdivision would have difficulty being approved. Mr. Cooper said he has some concerns with granting out right rezones, as well. He said that although the applicant has only asked for a rezone of half the property, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from requesting a zoning change on the other half in the future. He agreed that the applicant could request an extension of the public hearing to allow time for modification as suggested by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Capretta did not want to encourage the applicant to go through a lot of work to come back to the Board with a plan if the Board's likely intent is to deny the request until the Comprehensive Plan is redone. He felt that unless there is a good chance this next presentation would be approved, there is no reason to ask the applicant to come back to the Board. He noted that there are many options for this parcel. Ms. Foreman said she agrees with Mr. Capretta. She noted the great amount of change going on in the Perrinville area. She felt it important that the Comprehensive Plan be in place before they ask the applicant to put in a lot of time and effort. She felt the development is not compatible with the natural constraints of the property and is not consistent with the land use designations. She said she does not feel comfortable with granting a rezone at this time. Mr. Lancaster concurred with Ms. Foreman and Mr. Capretta. Mr. Lewis felt the Board did not have sufficient information to make a decision either way. Mr. Cooper said he has concerns about the Board stalling all rezone decision until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. While the concept of waiting is well intentioned, this concept would cut all projects requiring a rezone off. Development would have to be postponed for a long time. He said that while this proposal does not fit into the Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant, can come back with some modified plans and a site plan, the Board owes it to the applicant to review these plans. Mr. Capretta said he appreciates Mr. Cooper's logic, but noted that this rezone is not a requirement for development, it is a desire of the applicant. In the absence of complete, clean cut reason for the rezone, he did not see a need for approval. Again, he pointed out that this rezone is not a requirement, it is a desire of the applicant to increase the density of his property. Mr. Wilson indicated that if the Board is suggesting the applicant propose a contract rezone, this would be a separate proposal, not a continuance. Planning Board Minutes . Page, 9 Mr. Lewis said he did not mean to suggest that the applicant have the opportunity to modify the application into a contract rezone. However, if the applicant could provide some plans for development, he felt the applicant deserves a fair review. He noted that the Board is required to review the requests using the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Foreman said she would be interested in seeing a project proposal, but it seems she would still be very reluctant to grant a rezone. She felt that flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan process is extremely important. She did not feel that every applicant who could present a good project should receive a rezone. She agreed with Mr. Capretta that the applicant could still develop the property as RS-12. If he wants to provide more information, he can do this. MR: CAPRETTA MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. FOREMAN, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT R-92-39 BE DENIED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. LEWIS AND MR. COOPER VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Wilson said the Comprehensive Plan public participation process will begin in July. Mr. Wilson informed the Board that on June 24, Mr. Wallace, the City Attorney, will be present as requested by the Board. The Board will have the opportunity to discuss the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine at that time. Mr. Wilson said the ADB will also be in attendance at that meeting. He said Mr. Wallace will also be discussing the Board's Rules of Procedures. Mr. Wilson said staff is requesting the Board members consider changing the meeting days to the second and fourth Thursdays of each month beginning in 1993. The Board members indicated that there should be no problem with this request. MR. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. PB920610 Planning Board Minutes Page, 10 EXHIBITS LIST FILE NO. R-97-28 (Submitted as of January 29, 1998) A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (prepared 1/23/98) B. Letter from Norman J. & Sally L. Barringer (received 1/26/98) C. Petition Opposed to the Requested Contract Rezone (received 1/27/98) D. Letter from Rich & Tina O'Neill (received 1/27/98) E. Copy of Planning Division Staff Report prepared for File No. R-92-39, submitted by Jim Thompson (submitted 1/28/98) F. Photo's of Bank Adjacent to Lot 12 of the Plat of Hidden Glen, submitted by Sally Barringer (submitted 1/28/98) . 97-28EXDOC\29-JAN-98 REPORTSMAMEXHIBUS JANUARY 28, 1998 Notification List PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, COMPLETE ADDRESS & ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED AND/OR SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. R-97-28 DR. PARK REZONE FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 ✓�zrry lTX7PI/ V, its 141 �AY70 zsvw 1 97 19(t 14r,4i/5A' hldt rl: k `% j kL ,-,z ��z January 24,1998 Jeff Wilson City of Edmonds Community Services Dept. Planning Division 1215th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Wilson, Itectiv PC JA N 2 7 1998 PL4 vr*jVQ D&T 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-& 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, k�<</-- o� Rich & Tina O'Neill cc Edmonds City Council cc Jim Walker EXHIBIT D File No. R-97-28 cw.IV EXHIBIT C Ito JAN Z 7 1998 File No. R-97-40 IT IS FELT THAT THE REzoT9f7ATfQ8bW4iLY 6 ACRES FROM RS12 TO RS8 IN ADMIRAITY ACRES WOULD ADVERSELY EFFECT THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES AND WOULD NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SURROUNPING ZONING & LAND USE. AN INCRESE IN BUILDING SITES WITH 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 Ok THESE NEW SMALLER BUILDING SITES. THE RESULT OF THIS I�6,ZONE WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT BE'COMPATABLE WYf'H THE `NATURAL CONSTRANTS'OF THE PROPERTY. WA hill= 1!2W*_r -va 77� lit/;%Z� �c ��1✓L�./.�"cl�s!'\ g Z.le' O J`f j� ly o _ / ? - Z d 71 /7 - 133 f � ri►o 77 �/�-Q I85riv - 7�` Pl, �. '77y- 77W zz %S%a -1 �5'�` rT Su) g n u I �78 Aso L S C E I $ E D IT IS FELT THAT THE REZONE OF ADMIRAITY ACRES WOULD ADVE L bNACRES FRo M PS12 TO RS81N NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SURROUNDING �-. VALUE OF OUR HOMES AND WOULD URROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE. AN TNCRESE IN BUILDING SITES WITH LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE CURRENT REQUIRED 1200Z6Q. FT. y QT 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 WOULD NOT BE COMPATABLE WITH THE `NATURAL CON$TRANTS'QF PROPERTY.Tfel -, / /Arr r Acld�e i � p1ld hl - E - i dt r l 2� A vL So 7� 7 zs41,4,�`/_� -o¢� ley Z.J 77 8 - y 79ZS 182-n�- L 5GJ 725-0-7 (o p1 5 5?-7 s_3 al 30 3 33 37 3� �f l6 tr r ,r SIL l 8' ill d2�a2� 5`3 JAN 2 7 IT IS FELT THAT THE REZONE RF AK"'A+7 6, P6 ACRE$ FROM R.912 TOR' N ADMIRAITY ACRES WOULD ADVERSELY EFFECT THE VAGUE OF OUR HOMES AND WOULD NOT BE CONSISTANT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE. AN INCP UESE IN BUILDING SITES WITH LOT SIZES LESS THAN THE CURRENT REQUIRED 120041Q, FT. LOT WOULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT T'HE NATURAL FEATURES WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY CHANUED 'Ib ALLow rvx OLVELOPAUN 1 ur 1tttbh Nbw JNAAI.LLhk lylJiLlllIVli bilh�. 1Hh Xh6uLl L)k llub "LuNr wVULll �L Lr V�LUYlvtbiV 1 iiY !i ivlii[vidrx vrriii�n wvu[ u iVvi i5% l vivlrr it L vYiili itir. IvtciUlcrii c viv�ineiiviS'vr iriE FROPFRTY. I,�/-K.Jfs_ /'?Z 5r SL� -77e-'�G O /f- e� go /-- � � sfs�r �man�rs 17zl 1nc.189v 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 January 27, 1998 Messrs. Don Hurter and Ed Giraud Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Subject: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED MAKI REZONE, CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NO. R-97-28 Dear Messrs. Hurter and Giraud: Your letter of January 5th, request a copy of the traffic report prepared for the proposed .rezone. The City did not request the applicant to provide a traffic report for this application, therefore, I am unable to provide a copy to you. The subject project is subject to a future application for a subdivision of the property, at which time additional information may be considered. Thank you for your interest and comments on the proposed application. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-771-0223. Sincerely, ommunity Services Department - Planning Division J ey S. Wilson, AICP Planning Supervisor/SEPA Responsible Official pc: File No. R-97-28 Jim Walker, City Engineer MAK1_01DO027.1AN-98 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 CORMSrt.=RS Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 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: RECEIVED JA N 2 6 1998 PLANNavu DEFT. 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 ouf 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 B File No. R-97-28 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 nay inquiries in this matter. Sincerely, Sally L. B finger cc: Jim Walker, City Engineer City Council Members I CPWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Sid Morrison Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 DATE: January 5, 1998 1Z404 TO: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Supervisor ; 1497 City of Edmonds Dept. of Community Services'p Planning Division 250-5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 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. � � 5 o e r, CD b° coo (DD s� z(D O O 'C3 0CD CD r ° -. 3 0 0 ID3 � °� �' � ego d m c•� 0 00 m = o 0 cr No CD b fl, N ., C. M 0 c =• d Q N CD coo coV 3 cL y O �, � o ° WCD w ° ` C> 0 o N! h cr Q w , C�7 ICD Q Z. z ¢' o mcot s o � s CD z N 4_ O � � cD 0 0r CD :3 OD CD cD � OG S (D Q b' D V C) V 0 Z °• °• 3 rn CD (D� o -° D o m ,may 0 CD70 --+% O N O v — n -a -� D 00 v n O O O � coo V O O .D v N CD CD (Q O 0 3 rn 01 0 v =' U) m Q 0 Q Cn -� 0 0 -4 v � � 0 :3 n N X O ND D 3 O < CD %< N 3 Q N in 0 (D w �] = S n O N Cr w 0 v N CDC 4�1 0 N CD 00 = 1 N 3 O O O : m 000 o 3 ° 0 ( 1 �G S OO CD 0 CD B O O O D O o Zr M C (CD C D C o CDrn oQ- CDm -0 �m 3 a c ?D (D O a Q Q N (D .r :3 FT (n cn 0 CD fD (D N CD (n N v m 0 C C � (D •_+ v 0 v 0 0 D (D O 00 CD 0 0 D c Qo cn v (D I '0 r+ 0 r+ CO N co O n CD h 0 c m O 3 o CD CD � a - O Z-0 p A. n CD �. 90 C �TT d W Q i U ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. �9a Z' - Signature of App Subscribed and sworn to before me this 49 or Hppiicant-s Kepresentative /y day of,�. 19 Notary Public in and for fhq�State of Washington Residing APO. doc\L ATemp\forms Patrick & Rosa Glass Edward & Carolyn Swanson 8001 184th St SW 8111 182nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Shimer 8117 182nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 John Hall 18226 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Joe Scialdone 18332 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Gary & Jeannette Axtell 8041 184th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 KRAVAGNA DOROTHY QSEATTLE FI PO Box 1108 Everett, WA 98206 U S PO T SERVICE 850 Che Ave San B CA 94099 Donald & Mary Robertson 18805 Sound View PI Edmonds, WA 98020 John Hall 18218 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Warren Henderson 18335 81st Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Charles Farmen 18326 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Katherine Morley 18203 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 850 Cherry Ave San Bruno, CA 94099 Charles Ka Davis 4 104 803L 7 Skip Perrin 4517 Alta Dr Las Vegas, NV 89107 Ernest Foster 1852179th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Ellen Avis Purington 8115 182nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Betty Smith & Betty Revo Smith 18208 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Gary Axtell 8041 184th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 VOL 7 & 68 2505 N Edmon A 98020 F A & Gloria Lafond 18227 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 KRA GN OROTHY QSEATTLE F PO Box 1 Everett, A 98206 Dana Gillet PO Box 7026 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Gary & Linda Johnson 7805 186th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Stephen Sullivan & Diane Ellis 7215 175th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Daniel & Careen Snow Edward & Carol Boland Patrick Siebel 7925 186th St SW Mary Farkas 7915 186th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7909 186th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 j James & Monica Turner James Lorent Guy Spellman 18516 79th PI W . 18514 79th PI W 18512 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Davi E John & Patricia Lawrence Linda McCullough 1 18432 79th PI W 18426 79th PI W E , W 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Gary & Charlene Ramm Glenn Roberts Richard & Tina O'Neill 18418 79th PI W 18416 78th Ave W 18414 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Norman Barringer Robert Joss John Heuerman 18405 79th PI W 18415 79th PI W 18419 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 William Oakes Lynn & Rose Howerton Jr. Gary Derosa 18427 79th PI W 18501 79th PI W 17222 Greenwood PI N Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98133 L E Thornhill Steven & Kathy Slater James Street 7831 185th PI SW 7817 185th PI SW 7811 185th PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Frank J Gebel of Ro Douglas & Jerelyn Resnick 7801 185th PI SW 7802 185th PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 E s, A 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Robert & Carol Eaton Bruce Ferris Anderson Ernest & Mary Foster 7810 185th PI SW 7818 185th PI SW 18521 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Kathleen OBryan Roland & Julie Brown David Johnson 7817182nd PI SW 7809 182nd PI SW 7810 182nd PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Lars & P ettej1pson Wallace & Susan Danielson Jr. John & Muriel Quick 851 7822182nd Pl SW 7914 182nd Pl SW Edm A6 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Philip & Maryjane Hillstrom Rene' & iana Va eren 18212 76th Ave W 91 . Edmonds, WA 98026 E A 8026 Mahmoud Jahed M R Jr Wood & Bonnie Cooper 18218 76th Ave W 1746 NE 106th St Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98125 Charles R. Maki Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park 8235 Talbot Road 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98026 Edmonds, Wa. 98026 Kurt & Linda Larson 18216 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Mr..and Mrs. James Thompson 18305 - 80th Avenue W Edmonds., Wa. 98026 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applicant br pplicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1 gZ-Z Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at6e)cv-, NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Of wASFiIN6TON OW BOCK rMY APPantment ExoUp MAY 30,1997 AP0.doc1L:\Templforms r_J FILE NO..: R-97-28 APPLICANT: Park NOTICE OF APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Jason Tourtellot, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 14th day of January, 1998, the attached Notice of Application was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19. Notary Public in and forth S to of Washington'. Residing at 420ii-� &"t FILE NO.: R -97-28 APPLICANT: Park NOTICE OF APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Sharla Graham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 14th day of January, 1998, the attached Notice of Application was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 0 Notary Public in and for h State of'Washington. Residing at 1 ` d M • THIS IS A LEGAL AuVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE oiLLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING & NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: Han Park/Russell Kim Project Number: R-97-28 Project Location: 7704 Olympic View Dr. and 18305 80th Avenue West, Edmonds Project Description: Hearing on proposed contract rezone of approximately 5.4 acres from RS-12 to RS- 8. City Contact: Jeff Wilson Public Comment Period Due By: 1/28/98 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION DATE January 28, 1998 TIME: 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Sandy Chase, City Clerk Publish: January 14, 1998 RECEIVED STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHODISH, APPLICATION NAME OF APPLICANT: Han Park/Russell Kim PROJECT NUMBER: R•97-28 PROJECT LOCATION: 7704 Olymplc Vew Dr. and 18305 80th Avenue West Edmonds PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hearing on proposed contract rezone of approzlmalelyy 5.4 acres from RS-12 to RS•B. CITY CONTACT: Jeft Wilson PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DUE BY: 1/28/98 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION DATE: January 28, 1998 TIME: 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: 3rd Floor Meeting Room 650 Main St., Edmonds Sandy Chase, City Clerk Published: January 14. 1998. ss. Affidavit of Publication JAN 2 1 1998 EDMONDS CITY CLERK The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of • Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice,. ... ........ __ ...................... . .i.t<.y.....o.i....E..dm.o.n d.s.......................................................... ...................... Notice of Heariri ....................................................g................................ .............................................. Han Park/Russell Kim ................................................................................................................................... a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published. in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: ...a:nu.......x.... 1.4.......1.9.98. ..................... 1.998 ...................... ........jtjataid ............................................................................................. ............. al�d newspaper was �r ul rly di ributed to its subscribers d i of said period. `// .......................................... Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ... 1 5.t.h............ JZnyo --------- ......................... ........................... Notary Public i residing at Evel B-2-1 Inc. 1B90 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 January 13, 1998 Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: NOTICE OF COMPLETENESS AND ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Dr. & Mrs. Park: Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. Action: Contract Rezone File No. Assigned: R-97-28 Date of Hearing: JANUARY 28,1998 Time: 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Planning Board Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-771-0220. Sincerely, C unity Services Department - Planning Division Je rev ilson, AICP Planning Supervisor pc: File No. R-97-28 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 m-zsat.00c • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • ovisros.cowc>?svtxxortcs Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 7822 182 Place SW Edmonds, WA 98026-5422 December 22, 1997 Planning Manager City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 > pEC 2 � �g97 Re: Determination of Nonsignificance File No. R-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 AS-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,Al,� Wallace R. Danielson Jr. Susan L. Danielson VM 'SCNOM] M-11A D:dw�,70 ........................... .......... ..... to .. ....... ..... ... .......... ....... • • I E SEAVI&V PARK ESTATES ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING NTs I 14 1 2.•�.Z,,, E. SJ9.0. le RS 1 A2se.ea 1 7 YG� I 1C CDNc S" E . J06.02 / / // 110, 3wowI.E.xJ..2 3 j / �� / / // /j.r/�uer \ (TREE - MWL sac ;} IFOR)�� a°c •+jr 27 2753. d LW EA o 'r_`�2�...�:=•_:,- _ .-�.,J,,- /�I�II ./ ,max=, I\t�� 320 .•2. SYi ¢F fir L •;,rcl• rsr — — t J� \ I �` \` =i / / ✓pJ /// / ^ 0�\ "t 1, t 11 DO PSI' I Z j °Noscas (/ ( vQ�L ""=r _ .-�--..1�:-��[---- �----r �sn.w�_----"--' s esors • Ems_ �._2_sa• . vl n I I c«c. cuErxr . . r E _ 2JJDJ A D M I R A L T Y A C R E IN_1p�95 BLOCK 2 I I 2s100 L._.t 8 I i ll' 1 I I I I l 1 � I 3 I n l = 1 'I BBN 9 I ExfB. I I -2a wV . 3W TOP 67.01 CM& I �$'t. A K •,eaM ST. SIr I\, j•�. �. H I 0 D E !� GLEN 31S36 1 1T c0NG�Nt 12 \ \ \ I I I I I I 1 \ �11 $� I EXCF I 1C CONC iC70cV� �\ /12 I I 13°1\II �I//I 111�III1 I '1 p\ ( G pC 14 I I I I I I I I I I 1 0 6 I I� I I� I Exta I ¢ I TOP _ VE I I wv . 257.70 to n W 2e7. �+ Q .. I / �� 1 to I \ \ \ \ \ 1 '�~!j•� �r.. j� wv . a �.. I a 1 I I aim �� E D M O�I� S /�It \11 \\%% E W T R A C�TiI S IT 6 I \\ /' 17 i r i 18 t9 20 21 roll B E12T wtt MOeN1 \ su.roN. L.---_,— � 1 � \ 1 0 7 I. 5 /' 185th PLACE S.W. 1 22 I 4 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: 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. Sinc ely �4z /* Charles R. Maki Agent for Dr. and Mrs. Han Park CONDITIONAL SALES CONT�CT-" Ttse-c(-,Oyl�� ONAL SALES CONTRACT (the "Contract") is made this I 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- " /1 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 Party 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. Hann Park By 4ZZ1Z Charles Maki, ProjecAlanager Its CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -2- City of Edmonds B Barbara S. Fahey Its STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this V " day of L('�ati�ltC� sr, 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 Park, 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. VvV.0 1 (t ai Notary Public in and for the State of W hington, residing at _ �v►ti nk-dS WA My commission expires: 1GC% Type or Print Name Above STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this � day of L-:CCL4U UU , 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. Notary Public in and for the State�4 Washington, residing at _ f r{ vvurw-C{s , Loft My commission expires: CSC a Type or Print Name Above Owp51\cl ients\edsbayv\c ity.con CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -3- Lot 12,. Admiralty Acresr according to Plat thereof recorded in Volume 12, Page 48, records of Snohomish County, Washington 80th AVENUE I , ' • • / I 1 Il I I o w rz I I 1 J V a 111 Una p I" � I V Cti. � O 1 .Z -6 N St7.48• \. \\ \ m CQI JOS \ 4 IN I i IB r t o \ wt,�o _ ff Enclosure A A M L _ ......... . . .......... ............ . ............ . . ..... . . .. . . ............ . . .. . ........ . . ........... .................... . ........... . ............ . .... .. . yp .......... VA it i '40 .. ......... , . . ............ . . ............ . . ........... ....... .......... . . . . .......... . ....... . . ........... ......... . . ............ ......... . . ........ ... ... ... ... ......... - Enclosure A of EDAf N CITY OF EDMONDS Mgt. lee° 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 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, 18305 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 Jeffrev S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on December 19, 1997, 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. Pagel of 2 97-28DN.DOC 12/18/97.SEPA Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section Xx Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Department of Fisheries Attn.: Richard E. Johnson xx Regional Habitat Manger Hill Crest Plaza 430 91 st Avenue NE, #7 Everett, WA 98205 XX XX Department of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation TSM&P/Land Developer 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133 XX XX City of Lynnwood Attn.: Darryl Eastin, Senior Planner P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046 XX Stevens Memorial Hospital xx 21601 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Attachments pc: File No. R-97-28 SEPA Notebook Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Bret Carlstad, Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 1133 164th Street Southwest, 4200 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Applicant: Dr. Han Z. Park 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. James L. Thompson 18305 80th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Applicant: Paul Mar Community Services Director City of Edmonds, Community Services Dept. 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Agent: Charles Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Page 2 of 2 97-28DN.DOC IVIS/97.SEPA CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. RECEIVED MAR 1 2 1997 PERMIT COUNTER The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C 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 or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental 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 you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional 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 1. 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 City of Edmonds Charles Maki 7704 Olympic View Dr., Edmonds, WA 98026 250 5th Ave. North 825 Talbot Rd Edmonds WA 98026 (206)774-0139 (206)771-0220 (206)776-3041 4. Date checklist prepared: March 11, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Projected start time is June 1, 1997. Projected 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 Nonsignificance issued on 6/28/96 - Concerning the modification of the official street map Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 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.doc 1\ i (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 maki.doc e C 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 cuyds (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 52,183 sq. ft. will be used for roads rights -of -way and easements (not all of the right-of-way 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 Edmonds Community 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 maki.doc Emissions associated with heayyquipment, 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. (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 maki.doc r� (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. The small wetland onsite may be filled with onsite fill material. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ _�et•c Qc.�!,rcr ff 2%ti �4Z ! �t�dccae3 w�{�t (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. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 22 maki.doe (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 water runoff on -site. (STAFF COMMENTS (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (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 maki.doe 4. Plants a. b. d. 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) 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 salmonberrry, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some medium to large conifers including Douglas Fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Efforts will be made to retain as many of the large trees as possible (STAFF COMMENTS) iyeV64,t�6 u-!;t r� Ls ",g&cc &k-cm- %x3..irk% Rcx% - List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will consist of native plants and trees To the extent possible existing vegetation will be used for (STAFF COMMENTS) maki.doc Page 8 of 22 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 2/11/97 ✓ 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 flyway, a widely 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 slopes of site will be largely 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 fireplace Page 9 of 22 maki.doc (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. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed or necessary. Page 10 of 22 maki.doc r- (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 Olympic 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. Lone 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 a.m. 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 maki.doc 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 maki.doc g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. (STAFF COMMENTS) fern �r-%v►- �r-F sc� e c s ��r ��c� o c a ~.Sf�� i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS)- Z • 3 cod ccc- "X"Acl �14 j Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? C C, (STAFF COMMENTS) u,� F� GLemc k(��qZ res rc► crs C 6, ll k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 22 maki.doc r 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Utilization of a Planned Residential Development_ will ensure -that all future development is single familv residential and adheres closely to the covenants and restrictions which both the developer and the City will place on the property. (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 housinla. (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 z (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 Z (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 part of the landscape plan. Additional planting along the newly proposed roadway will also be included. (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? Sodium lighting 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? No (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 maki.doc I t (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Only lighting necessary to provide safe passage along the newly light roadway and to light pedestrian paths will be (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 22 maki.doc 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. (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. None (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 maki.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 proposal. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (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 p.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) Page 18 of 22 maki.doc 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 typically associated with single-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: (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 County P.U.D. Natural gas will be provided by Washington Power Services. Water and sanitary sewer will be provided by the City of Edmonds Refuse service will be provided by Lynnwood Disposal and telephone service will be provided by GTE (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 of 22 maki.doc C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. March 7, 1997 Signature of Proponent Page 20 of 22 maki.doc Date Submitted e C C D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Discharges to the environment will be commensurate with 26 new single-family dwelling units Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None. 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 approach, we are able to retain considerable habitat which would otherwise be lost using traditional development methods .Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Retention of plant and animal habitat through a slope preservation easement along Olympic View Drive and reserving a large portion of the site in an undisturbed condition for plant and animal habitat 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Energy and natural resource depletion 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.dm r 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 species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No affect on environmentally sensitive areas should occur. No portion of the site has be designated as environmentally sensitive and there have been no threatened or endangered species. etc. found on the site. 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? There should be no adverse affect on land or shoreline use. The Proposal is consistent with the Cit 's comprehensive plan and will use approximately 22% of the site for housing units. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Use of the Planned Residential Development method of development. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The increase in demand for transportation and public services and utilities will be commensurate with 26 new single-family dwelling units. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The proposal includes a road connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts identified. maki.doc Page 22 of 22 r 1 Ti 1-61 LJ m a SEAVl?W PARK ES*TATES ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONING Nrs 14 trcyv E . 2sv.o1 I RS- 12. � �. � � . 20621 I 7 I {— Ca- 1 -1/ 1M- 44y I 1C co c W.. E _ 306.02 Gy I / / 60 w -� ♦ I / /1 i .,./nviel.lS- 1e, Li "« L = R7 i�'`—�.�.��,.1•'Op In —3320— \trv.j20�/I r.vl�l are re I -DISC �J J L i 310// rC. I � � — — -L J 0183E •e I � / / yi✓ `�c Woos[ I \� I 11 MWER, . 233.05 A D M I R A L T Y A C R E B L 0 C K 2 \ X*\,r4 111 I \1 \U I E W 16 Li 17 I I 18 19 20 21 I •--a `� lyl �.� I B Ot6, ealss / I I \ suerAa row �`.—J L----- sw II /• / ��\�� 185th PLACE S.W. � 22 K ! •,OAn, ef, Ltir• r ,HIDDEN GLEN R _ 316. 1• I rC-C -m n11 12 1\\ \ If I I� I II11\1 1�181 le cONCoke 31iao r tr co¢wE •43.10 r � 70 �,/~11 � I I I I �vjivlls�l 11 I `\I\\i_� /�rl I 111111111 I �13 M, \ \_ r 1 1 Illilltl� 24 14 8 I a RS-8Cn 7 E D M O J -D-ls'Ir Run CAP . ev 1• r 9 8 1 0 6 I r I 1 1 I I r I I I r r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TR A(�-IS I I I I 1 1 0 7 3 F— R VM 'SGNOM;] M-IIA DldVJ,70 cn .... ...... ... .......... ....... .. ....... .......... ..... . ...... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. • Environmental and Geotechnical services February 24,1997 Charles R. Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: REDUCTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS BUFFER PROPOSED SEAVIEW PARK 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 geotechnical 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-ifvrH AVF.. Ny. • P.O. BOX 10" • EDMONDS, INA 99020-9121) • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX '5091 327 061I j TACOrv1A: (206t 926.249 t -FAX (206) 926-2531 w s } E 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 J:\058\002\SEAVIEW.LTR 02/24/97 J:\058\002\SEAVIrW.LTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES L Pentec � ■� . ' r 1 L F B_i "r,. February 11, 1997 Mr. Han Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Maki 6235 Talbot Road Edmonds, Washington 9W26 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 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. The property is located in Township 27 !North, Range 4 East, Section 18 in Edmonds, Washington, between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. This letter report is intended to provide you with the documentation necessary to complete the sections of the SEPA checklist pertaining to wetlands (surface water), plants, and animals. Sutinee water There is one wetland on the site. It is located near the center of the property and occupies 1,737 fe. It is a palustrine emergent/forested wetland maintained by surface runoff from steep surrounding hillsides. plants The types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous trees, coniferous trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. The main deciduous twee species found on the site is red alder. The evergreen trees include Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Shrubs present include salmonberry, Indian plum, Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom, and sword fern. Grass exists primarily in residential lawns near the three residences, and wet soil plants including largedeaved avers and lady -fern exist in the wetland. PianMacEy+rdrwvmnWhR#=7HMAwswr8ouA%3uits110 • CatsWA S M-Altura 00M54M2'*AmMM7MB wr Mr. Han Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Mald 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 salmonberry, ltimalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some medium to large conifers 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 or would be expected to occur in the habitat found on the site; however, in order to further confirm the lack of such plant spades, a formal search of the Natural Heritage Program threatened and endangered species database could be requested from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources in Olympia. Animals The following birds were observed on the site in late January 1997: American robin, iblack -capped chickadee, golden -crowned kinglet, American crow, rufous -sided 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. PIease call me if you need additional information or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Pentec Environmental, Inc. Lizzte A. Zemke Project Botanist/Wetland Scientist LAL/dkh • .. t.$wp11:'rtft . i :# GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposal Single Family Residence 1832X - 80th 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 1-8641 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. Reanier: 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 remain near existing grades. If our understandings are incorrect, a revision of this report may be necessary. 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 ariitigation 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. 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. F-XPIRES Mark K.fDodds( 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 firth 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 DODD3 GEOGCIENCES INC. ' i3114 | | | | / |sfor � / | | | | | | || wm | | ~* |19.00 lot | °* | | / | . | | | � -318—� | °.,nEw o`C° ,=too= Job Number 6074 - Plate 3 Site Plan Ileaoiaz Single -Family Residence 1832X 80tb Avenue West Edmonds, Washington I tST PIT 1 o v w v DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/96 CL 5 3 cn a a EXCAVATION METHOD: Backhoe M 0) o uvi U) o m a 07 ix o (o _j DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: 1 324.0 MSL OL 1 1 1.0-2.0 4.1% SP-SM 3 4 2 5.0-5.5 11.5% SM 5 3 5.5-6.5 5.9% SP 6 7 ,. 4-4 Brown Gravelly Silt Sand Topsoil, moist, loose. Y Y Y P Brown Gravelly Sand with some Silt, moist, medium -dense. Gray -brown Gravelly Silty Sand, moist, very dense. (Glacial Till) o :• Gray Sand with some Gravel, moist, medium -dense to dense. o: •'o: o.: o: • •o: :o o:.•;o:. Stopped at 10.0 feet. No groundwater seepage noted during excavation. o ` N U V Z w . n cn a. a rn C3 � U)i (D of DESCRIPTION OL 0 `—^ SP-SM ' 2 3 SP 4 ° .:. 5 ° .:. o: • o: .. 6 °'. o •'o: 7 o.•. 1 DODDS Geosciences Inc. P.O. Box 6966 Bellevue, Washington Tele: (206) 867-3297 TEST PIT 2 DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/98 EXCAVATION METHOD:Backhoe LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: 1 324.0 MSL Brown Gravelly Silty Sandy Topsoil, moist, loose. Brown Gravelly Sand with some Silt to Gravelly Silty Sand, moist, medium -dense. Gray Sand 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 1 AND 2 Reanier Single —Family Edmonds, Washington TEST PIT REPORT DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 1.0' - 2.0' 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 3/8" 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 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 0 d y r DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 5.5' - 6.0' 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 Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo 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 Clearances: DepartmenVinitials Agenda Time: 10 minutes Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: December 9, 1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works 1. Vicinity Maps Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council 2. Conditional Sales Contract Mayor 3. Appraisal Report Cover Page Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Comniuiuty Sen+ices 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 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 $81,000, as shown in Exhibit 3. Recommended Action: Authorized the Mayor to sign the attached Conditional Sales Contract. piev Tr . VrCW 1 y� R .w � r • +•° _ 3 . i FIRST ADD ( TO 1 r— 2 3 iL S Avf[w W o,lel6T S.II a s T f � R • a 3 . CITY VI LAQ£ tla2 nd .Sa z z . ft � 1 0 `o EDMONDS• Y Z Q.., i J IL n a D. 4 1 z j r-- W • } RS —12 - �- Z N a PTS 2 1. .S 2. 1 3i -3 ADD 4 • ' DTER'S ' _ I 1815T PL'Sw.a > S - e • r♦0-15 ~ Ap tRA 5 ._ TY W ACRES 6 1 7(13 s O _ 3 6 I 'S . - W 2 , ' Vi G I " 29 ' e >w 10 8 N 40 J...JJJJ L • ( yro 1:11 9 SEAVIEw a TS ,♦ I(,6 •j! p 6 y t ' I s • S w SEAVIEw n f � • • i 1 S.W. 7 1 NDR I 14 11 ST F 1 IACT-S, LrSON; 7 I , _ = f SEAviEw- FOREST > ► A R R + `q N ro I70 ' 2: FOREST I f-> + 1 n Q wLN ON'SI ♦D f I TRACTS DIV NO S O OIv. NO I ! .9 1$S PLi Sw 22 i 3 3 I / I- ° j O CO . . T O, 26 71 2• 23 =186 TH S T. S.W. g ,0 •r e. •. a SEAVIEw• > T .._.. O r.� .} _T...; SEAvIEW , FOREST ALeERT •-eALCH a b. J� t< '7 13 FOREST' A ! n 1 .. 1 n IS rA 6 f ! • J7 :WY) 25 J .. ( ( 12 1 W a c 0, 1T 187TH PL.S.w. 187TH ST. S.W. - 1 % 9 2♦ 1 .9 SE+ivIEM 4p-• " IOt TRACTS 2' 7A 9 •• 1r t 16 I .. , 2 O t » 1 f7 = 23 10 = 1 7 jj ..- F H 6! 6 I♦ 3 1 TRACTS ' 1 • J 3 Y 3! 77 I 7, Do ti it - Div NO 2 • ( ' ( 3 Q R = 1.1TN ►L 3t' ' 2 tr : I rl i r6 1 z� ' T• • 1 " V3i. ,I b Lm I� 3 last". ST S W 9 f WOOOLANO E TIT? • i v i •f } a. _. 3 -- a ! ;r .—..3 ! 6 ♦ 7 • y Q _ ----- - 3----.__T.�_.—. _...-• GRACE : ;Moss Y tY It OSCAR E— — - -JENSENS I, m i 6 + 6 _ + • 189TH PL. S.W. r• ¢ 190 TH ST. S. C7� o ( a ezz c • ' lL 14 EA VIEW SEATTLE / RS e e 91ST:ST.S.W. 12 i 3 1t SIERRA PARK —T t I '• { I a A Inc TirES NO 2 4 4 " S 71 !D +. 61 n i 4 4 3 6 s o 1 j191 ST ST, S.W. • , 10 r + •i.. ro m + t + s I r f ♦ f 6 .7 :191 ST S SUBURBAN- -TR CTS •- Y!LLACE M0. E • .c • t r • 7 If I •, < 1 q If T 6 S c SIERRAA SIERRA I SIERRA / ' t - a -..� __.- ,. 19 1 r f VILLAGE 11 :SIERRA + " ++' 74 ' S.W,.* j _.• 33 1 _ Y 192 -Jd PL. S.w. zs �z2 3' o i►�6 r; . 1 1 IWlLA6E ' rs 74 11 I- rw, NOI 3 ! .• 1r ( 16 vfLLAGE T, Is 7 of r2 , j .0 = _ _ I,_' » IT q A 20 f27 (1f 7� T7 7n H ) • 1, 6 i p n M T MLA00 • LEN 34 3' N m h ." .. ..... Of v fn A pRIVE 9 .193 RD PL. S.' Y rf7 N p8'59' 20 526.00' _ pR4VE �AQN _ oty Pic 285 O / 8 .d. r �� --: ZV�—�_ fir, / 11 _, - - j \ 00, S }} �\ Oa �t \ \ 7� 566�\% \ 4 O i rL 1 y� In ode CO ago m o c� n'1) IN r Ile) _ 1.4 to ILJ ��_ I• y ��PJ. ow 1 3nN3A'd u102 L------------ -� !EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONAL !SALES CONTRACT THXS CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT (the ?'Contract") is•made this . day of , 1997, by and between Dr. and Mrs. man 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 or 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 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 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. conrnzTT40MAL 9ALES CONTRACT -1- EXHIBIT 2 WHEN the price of the subject property shall be fixed at $100,000.00" it'alb: property is rezoned. If the property is not rezoned, the price of the subject property should be -subject to negotiation. This Agreement may be modified, altered or amended only by a writing signed by each of the parties and duly notarized. Waiver of any term or provision in this Agreement by any Party shall not be considered to be a waiver of any other term or provision of this Agreement or breach or this Agreement regardless of the nature of such subsequent event or breach. This Agreement shall be interpreted as the final written agreement .of the Parties. It is agreed and understood that all prior conversations, discussions, letters, and agree1ents have been merged into this Agreement and that this written Agreement constitutes.the Final.Agreement between the Parties, notwithstanding any prior oral or written understanding.to the `contrary. . 121 WITNS66 WHER$oF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the -day and year first above -written. Dr. and mrs. Han Park ey Charles MaXi, Project Manager its CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT -2- City of Edmonds. BY Barbara S. Fahey Its EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON j COMMY or SNONOXISH ) On this _ deny of , 1997, before me, the underaigsa�d, a Notary peibl,io in and for the, state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn. Derscnally appeared CSAR XG NAY.I, to me known to be -the Representative of,Dr. and Mrs. Han Park, the Parties that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary'act and dead of Said Parties, for the uses and purposes therein•mentionid,`and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute: the said instrument. WITNESS my haknd and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above writtaift . Notary Public in an or •tha Stmto. of Washington,' residing at My commiasion expires: Type or Print Name Above STATN OF WASETNGTON ) COUNTY of SNOHOMISH' j On this flay of , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly coamsiaeioned and awora, pornanally appeared to ma, NARRLR- s. SAZZY, known to ha the'Representative of, the City of sdmonda,' the Party that executed the within and.foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and 'voluntarryy act and dead 4f 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. Rotary R511c in an or the state of Washington, residing at My aemmiaoiaa pup�,re�ct Type or Print Name Above c:\wp51\ctients\edsbayvicity.con COMTTIONAi SALES CONTRROT -3- EXHIBIT 2 1 M1 Lot 12,• Admiralty Acres, according to Plat thereof recorded in Volume 12, Page 48, records of'Snohomish. Countyr Washington ` Bradford and Robbins Software LAND APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 2J�1S Borrower N/A census Trac, .,03.00 Map Reference 111455 A3 Properly Address 183XX 80th Avenue West cl(y Edmonds County Snohomish —State —WA zip code 98026 Legal osecgiwo Block 001 D-00 - Lot 12 Admiral Acres as% Price 6 NIA Data of Salo NIA Loan Term Unlmown yn. Property Rights Apprelsed QX Fee Leasehold De MWmis Pilo Adual Real Estate Taxes S Exempt (yr) Loan Charges to be paw by seller s NIA Other sales Concessions N/A Landerrcnent City of Edmonds Address 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 ocapant Vacant Apprawr Henry L. Kleneker truwdlons to Appralser Appraise fee sin le interest in above referenced Location Q Urban X Subuiben 0 Rural Good Avg. Fat Poor Built Up ® Over 75% Q 2S%10 75% Under 29% Ue Employment Stability ❑ ® Q ❑ GrowihRate ❑ FutlyDev, ❑ Rapid Q Steady Slow ConverfencetoEmployment 0000 Properly Values ❑ Increasing 0 Slable ❑ Declining Convenience to Shopping Demand/Suppty ❑hort Sage (I In Balance ElOversuppty Convenience to Schools ❑ ®❑ ❑ Marketing Time ❑ Under Mos, Im 4.6Mos. E3 Over Mos. Adequacy of Public Transportation 0 a Presets LandUse 75 %1 Family 2 %2.4 Family 5 %Apts 3 %Condo 5 %Commercial RecivaaoWFadillles ❑ a ❑ ❑ _%Industrial 10 % Vacaft % —� Adequacy of Utilities ❑ X ❑ Change In Present tend Use 0 Not lllrely uksy(7 Taking Place (� ifacilides Property d Compa161try, ®Q Q t7 From To Protection from Detrimental Conditions a aa aPredominate Occupancy 0Owner Tenuf 0.5 %vs. Poke and Fire Protection � aaSingle Family Price Range $ 100 to$ 500 PredominantValueS 165 General AWrerance of PropertiesSingle Family Age 0 yre to 80 yrs. PredomnartAge 40 yrs Appeal to Market O ® 0 Qcomments New, nolae):The sub'eCfs nei borbood Consists main! ' including hose factors, favorable or untsvorable, affecting marketability (e.g. public perks, schools, northeast of the of averse ualit homes. The subject has access to all 11 Su rt facilities. It is located a roximatel two miles central business district of Edmonds. Commutin s stems in the area include Hi wa 99 Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Retaeadonal in die area htclude Snohomish County B404 Meadowdale Pla fields and Lnndale Park. Local shoppinly is available along Hwy 99. Dimensions See Plat Map 28,750 Sq ft sq. FL or Acres ® comer tot Zoning classification RS-12000 (Residential) Present Improvements O do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulations Highest and best use Present use Q Other (specs)i Public Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Sloped to middle Elea. QX Street Access Q Public ❑ Private Size Typical Gas Surface Paved Shape Rectangular Water Q Maintenance X Public Private View Territorial. sane. Sewer ❑X ❑X Storm sewer ❑ Cunbnuser Drainage Appears adequate ❑X Underground Eted. 6 Tel. Sidewalk M Street Lights Is the property located In a HUD Identified Special Flood Hazard Area? X No Yes commems Ilavorabte oruntavorabie including any apparent adverse easements. ercroactuneras or other adverse conditions): lbere wem no apv=i adverse encrpadmetitL.jal assessineals. or slide areas noted a Me, fime of insp=im that would negatively affect Vmpaty value SiMM"lim— of die subject is typical of the neighborhood. A tide report was not provided as part of this assignment. The undersigned has redted three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to subject and has considered these In the market analysis. The description includes a dollar adjustment reflecting market reaction to those hems of sfgnllcwl variation between the subject and comparable properties. R a significant Rem In fie comparable property Is superior to or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reducing the Indicated value of subject; R a significant Rem In the comparable is Interior to or lass favorable than the subject properly, a plus (+) o4uafmant Is made thus Increasing the Intgoated value at the subject. SU&IECT PROPERTY COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO2 COMPARABLE NO.3 - Address 183XX 80th Avenue West 7421 Meadowdale Beach Road 156XX 72nd Avenue West 87XX Olympic View Drive Edmonds Edmonds Edmonds Edmonds Proxdmft to subject 1 Mile Northeast 2 Miles North .5 Mile Northwest sales Price $ NIA ;wit + Ida`"l k fi'i €.>:. s 96 550 v 'z? v;5vay':,s:""r" M:s;,,;;z>, s 85 000 3s '?s s•.`<.z:ti r,..�:+.:: i s 80 000 Price S sane foo s N/A �`Y s 3.96 Rec#9702240229 Metro MLS Ree#9608090407 2.40 Metro MLS Data source Ins ection MetroS I Rec#9607020177 Mefro, MLS Dale of Sale and DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Ad msm DESCRIPTION d` men DESCRIPTION A' Time Ad ustment NIA Febnr 24 1997 July 2, 1996 - August 9 1996 Location Averse Averse Averse Average SaeMew 28,750 SF/Terr 24,394 SF/Terr 13,068 SF/Fair Snd Similar 33,302 SF*/Fair Snd -5 ,000 Utilities avaitabl ElectWaterSewer ElecLWater Sewer El Water Sewer Elec Water Sewer Preliminary won None known To o Geo SuryIan -15 None ]mown None known I Sales or Financing N/A Cash Cash Cash Concessions N/A None noted None noted None noted Nett atal :.ME Plus X Minus S -1$00 Plus Minus S Q $�b.i:;lur :Innficated Va e3j°of e�H'n' Sub 82, 000 hz�rx » $ 85000>?1mow. s 75 .000 comments on Market Data The adjusted value for each of the coinoarables have been rounded to the nearest S1000. The indicated sales date for each of the cost arables is the close of escrow date. *Site size of Comparable No. 3 is estimated by using MetroScan's plat map calculation section due to the lack of site size information on Snohomish County records. This estimate does not refute an actual site survey. • comments and Conditions of Appraisal: The subject is appraised "As Is" and is not subject to any repairs, alterations or further ins bons. A title report was not furnished as part of this reporL No personal Property was included in this valuation. Final Reconciliation: All com arables are located w i the determined marktL Yalu . TheLefore. in derivingComparison equally. The indicated value per square foot reflects the marginal utility of each site; as the site size increases the value per sg ft decreases. I ESTIMATE THE MARKET AL/JUEE,, AS;March 10 1a 97 lobes 81,000 DDEFINZ=viaw e -(/ Appralser(sy Appraiser (a applicable) Henry. Kieneker Did Did Not Physically Inspect Property macnppraxser- Keel tsiate Appraisal sohware by Bradford and Robbins (800) M-8727. EXHIBIT 3 r� MEMORANDUM Date: April21, 1997 To: File No. R-97-28 .S %a . From: Jeffrey S. Wilso Responsible Official Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 6 ACRES FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 AND SUBSEQUENT PRD/SUBDIVISION INTO 26 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED GRADING; FILE NO. R-97-28 I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist; February 24, 1997, geotechnical report prepared by Landau Associates, Inc.; February 11, 1997, environmental assessment prepared by Pentec; and, July 26, 1996, geotechnical engineering report prepared by DODDS Geosciences, Inc., which have been prepared for the proposed project application. A copy of which are filed in the official file for this permit. Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I have determined that an environmental determination of nonsignificance shall be issued for the project. Attachments pc: File No. R-97-28 City of Edmonds cQ Planning Division 9528E M.DOC 04/2I/97. APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering 3/11/97 Fire 3/ 11 /97 Public Works 3/ 1 1 /97 Parks &'Rec. ITT 1197 Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?_ R RETURNED 0- Ail � 2 M7 Engineering ARKS & EPiMMO N Fire Public Works Parks a Rec.�, *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED' e• *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner PARK, HAN / KIM, RUSSELL • Property Address 84TH AVE. W. & 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 Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist CITY OF EDMONDS l RECEIVED MAR 12 1997 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 or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental 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 you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional 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 1. 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 City of Edmonds Charles Maki 7704 Olympic View Dr., Edmonds, WA 98026 250 5th Ave. North 825 Talbot Rd Edmonds WA 98026 (206)774-0139 (206) 771-0220 (206) 776-3041 4. Date checklist prepared: March 11, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Projected start time is June 1, 1997. Projected 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 Nonsignificance issued on 6/28/96 - Concerning the modification of the official street map Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 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.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 maki.doc 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, 52,183 sq. ft. will be used for roads rights -of -way and easements (not all of the right-of-way 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 Edmonds Community 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 maki.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. (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. (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. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 5 of 22 maki.doc (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. (STAFF COMMENTS) �tt�'kec annjyrzs 2 %i� �41 1 �nc�ccars uue 4$�p? 1�'kO u ASS 4h— 2..s-vo d p� (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. (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 COMMENT 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 water runoff on -site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (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 maki.doe 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 salmonberrrv_ Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some medium to large conifers including Douglas Fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Efforts will be made to retain as many of the large trees as possible (STAFFCOMMENTS) l►,,e-AcyZg-greWkur% Lr 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: Landscaping will consist of native plants and trees. To the extent possible existing vegetation will be used for landscaping. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 8 of 22 maki.doc 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 2/11/97 ✓ 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 flyway, a widely 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 slopes of site will be largely undisturbed. (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. Electric, natural gas, wood fireplace Page 9 of 22 maki.doc (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. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No (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 maki.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 Olympic 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 a.m. and after 10.00 12m 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 maki.doc b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No (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 maki.doc 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. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) 4L6-, th DcmA- ct- o 4- sc-i-e Ls c cast ,-feet! " *t ,Q_-- i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? �. (STAFF COMMENTS) U Ut ttft j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? (STAFF COMMENTS) / ,-�4- 2 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 22 maki.doc 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Utilization of a Planned Residential Development 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 nronertv. (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 part of the landscape plan Additional planting along the newly proposed roadway will also be included. (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? Sodium lighting 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? No (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 maki.dm (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Only lighting necessary to provide safe passage along the newly light roadway and to light pedestrian paths will be (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. (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 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. (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 maki.doc (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 pmDosal. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (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 p.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) Page 18 of 22 maki.doc 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 typically associated with single-family development (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone sanitary sewer, septic system, other: (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 County RUB. D Natural gas will be provided by Washington Power Services. Water and sanitary sewer will be provided by the City of Edmonds Refuse service will be provided by Lynnwood Disposal and telephone service will be provided by GTE (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 of 22 maki.dm C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. March 7, 1997 Signature of Proponent Date Submitted Page 20 of 22 maki.doc D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Discharges to the environment will be commensurate with 26 new single-family dwelling units. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None. 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 approach, we are able to retain considerable habitat which would otherwise be lost using traditional development methods .Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Retention of plant and animal habitat through a slope preservation easement along Olympic View Drive and reserving a large portion of the site in an undisturbed condition for plant and animal habitat 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Energy and natural resource depletion 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.doc 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 species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No affect on environmentally sensitive areas should occur. No portion of the site has be designated as environmentally sensitive and there have been no threatened or endangered species, etc. found on the site. 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? There should be no adverse affect on land or shoreline use. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and will use approximately 22% of the site for housing units. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Use of the Planned Residential Development method of development. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The increase in demand for transportation and public services and utilities will be coinmensurate with 26 new single-family dwelling units. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The proposal includes a road connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts identified. Page 22 of 22 maki.doc APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering 3/ 11 /97 Public Works 3/ 11 /97 Parks 81 Rec. 3/ 1 1 /97 Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? RETURNED Eng ineerin t�'Z, Fire Public Works R E C E i V E D Parks 8t Rec. MAR 111997 1;,. rnitfimmnq FlPr nFrPT *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. 8I 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 Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist = I APPLICATION ROUTING FORM mil, AND CHECKLIST T0: Engineering 3/ 1 1 /97 Fire 3/ 1 1 /97 Public Works 3111197 ; 'Parks & Rec. 3/ 11 /97 Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? FILE: R-97-28 FROM: PLANNING RETURNED _ sue© 7 Engineerin Fire Public Works Parks & Rec. RAp , ,,, *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. & 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 Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING 15',-'17 ROUTED TO: tNU,INc_71IINL. Engineering_ 3/11/97 Fire 3/11/97 Public Works 3/11/97 Parks & Rec. 3/11/97 Staff Comments: SEE 1-9rrA-c1leb Awy9 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? RETURNED Engineering 1 2 inner Fired Public Works 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. & 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 Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 13, 1997 Planning Division Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinatorq af Rezone at Olympic View Dr. and 184th Ave. W. (R-97-028) sue, IkAji0tteivQ. 47 kr�',. 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 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposal Single Family Residence 1832X - 80th 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 1 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. Protect 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 remain near existing grades. If our understandings are incorrect, a revision of this report may be necessary. 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. Fmnndnticmc 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. 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. DG (� a WAF,kP / ,L2.7r'Y.Is EXPIPZS Mark KA)odds(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 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. J JI. — — sit — — A. 3I4 1611.00' at-s j �mr_ 3�__ L0T i A / 19.00.F / _ Exl.nxe "cuss / L 0 T j � lu..o• N 19 Idam �_ E00.00' =a.-- .� \ 1 I nor i e H I D D E N 0 l E N Job Number 6074 - Plate 3 Site Plan Reanier Single -Family Residence 1832X 80th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington O . W Z a .0 E Q '2 U (o v o W 0) o s Z) OL 1 1.0-2.0 4.1% SP-SM 2 5.0-5.5 11.5% SM 3 5.5-6.5 5.9% SP 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (n UUj J = a a Q (D Cr U) (0 of DESCRIPTION TL_,�T PIT 1 DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/98 EXCAVATION METHOD:Backhoe LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: t 324.0 MSL —` 4—♦ Brown Gravelly Silty Sandy Topsoil, moist, loose. Brown Gravelly Sand with some Silt, moist, medium -dense. Gray -brown Gravelly Silty Sand, moist, very dense. (Glacial Till) o :• Gray Sand with some Gravel, moist, medium -dense to dense. o.: .O .'. o v U)� W H a L = a (n a (n 0 f M in (A J OL 0 SP-SM 1 2 3 SP 4- 7 8 9 10 11 DODDS Geosciences Inc. P.O. Box 6966 Bellevue, Washington Tele: (206) 867-3297 Stopped at 10.0 feet. No groundwater seepage noted during excavation. TEST PIT 2 DATE EXCAVATED: 7/18/96 EXCAVATION METHOD:Backhoe DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds SURFACE ELEVATION: t 324.0 MSL Brown Gravelly Silty Sandy Topsoil, moist, loose. Brown Gravelly Sand with some Silt to Gravelly Silty Sand, moist, medium -dense. Gray Sand 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 1 AND 2 Reanier Single —Family Edmonds, Washington TEST PIT REPORT DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 1.0' - 2.0' 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 3/8" 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 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 4 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: TP-1; 5.5' - 6.0' 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 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: R-97-28 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering 3/ 1 1 /97 Fire 3/ 1 1 /97 Public Works 3/1 1/97 Parks & Rec. 3/1 1/97 Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? RETURNED Engineerin Public Works 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 Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance) X Environmental Checklist =1an'douse et- �nonds application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD * - ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # 2' `� 7- 2 ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DAT _'S -1 t- 5 7 REC'D BY V ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE 317 RECEIPT# 2z "" ' ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ HE ❑ STAFF Z PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC UX REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ OTHER Dr. and Mrs. Han Z . Park APPEAL# Mr. and Mrs. Russell 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 1 Phone see attached, page 1 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 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 inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT 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: 13 809 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 h (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 FAX IJ 02 �;��n tar PnrrJbeec ilroo 1a� TssoatolQn The F.�t 120 feet of Lot 13, Biock 1, pha of 1Y Ac a w recorded in Volume 12 of Plats on Page 46, Records of 500homiah Cgu*- WwbmgM 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 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 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 • 19031 33rd Ave Suite 301 P.O. Box 6638 Lynnwood, WA 98036-0638 206/775-3434 FAX 206/775-3439 TO U WE ARE SENDING YOU X Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. 3 ESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval '�< For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE ,ARKS -C_ F�-J C_ ),-- ►1 i9 111. A A-}— TO L�LS��L�UL� the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications DESCRI IPPTI ON A6 cb 0-, j vJ ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval pproval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ---- copies for distribution ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return -__ corrected prints ❑_ 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ,e) SIGNED: if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notj LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Is Environmental and Geotechnical Services February 24, 1997 Charles R. Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: REDUCTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS BUFFER PROPOSED SEAVIEW PARK 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 geotechnical 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:1 V (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- I WTH AW. W. - P.O. BOX 1029 - t D-MONDS. NVA 99020-9129 - (206) 779-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 321-9?;7 • fAX '509) 327 %r ,1 i TACONIA: (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 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. Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Engineer 1WG/tam No. 58002.10 02/24/97 J:\058\002\5EAVIEW.LTR 02/24/97 J:\058\002\SEAVIEW.I.TR 2 LANDAu AssocIATES • Pentec.., February 11,1997 Mr. Han Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Maki 8235 Talbot Road Edmonds, Washington 98M 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 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. The property is located in Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Section 18 in Edmonds, Washington, between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. . This letter report is intended to provide you with the documentation necessary to complete the sections of the SEPA checklist pertaining to wetlands (surface water), plants, and animals. Surface Water There is one wetland on the site. It is located near the center of the property and occupies 1,737 fe. It is a palustrine emergent/forested wetland maintained by surface runoff from steep surrounding hillsides. plants The 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 salmonberry, 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 avens and lady -fern exist in the wetland. PoidwAsAwinm hQ • 11O7WAvauN•Swft Bulb 110 aidlrrR ids K4 Al=— Plta=(X }7754W*F*e OW 7`Mft17 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 salmonbe", Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Some medium to large conifers 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 or 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 Resources in Olympia. Animle The following birds were observed on the site in late January 1997: American robin, black -capped chickadee, golden -crowned kinglet, American crow, rufous -sided 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 yr 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 1 can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Pentec Environmcntai, Inc. Lizzie A. Zemke Project Botanist/Wetland Scientist LAG/dish OOW.m,%-,.,. M is AAA Snohomish County Auditor's Office Recording Bob Terwdliger County Auditor Joan Hammond Chief Deputy M/S # 204 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett, Wo 98201-4046 (206) 388-3483 FAX(206) 259-2777 PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: CHARLES R MAKI 8235 TALBOT ROAD EDMONDS, WA 98026 DATE: FEBRUAR.Y 12,-19.97_. The plat name, SEAVIEW PARK ESTATES has been reserved for future use by MR. & MRS. HAN Z PARK I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in Snohomish County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire FEBRUARY 12, 1998, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. if the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. . DIA A MIX, Deputy Alt r , (L-yeied paper ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of ApplicanZ2*pplicar t's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19� . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at NOTARY PUBIC STATE OF WASHINGTON DIA BOCK Nb APPOIntment Expires MAY 30,1997 APO.doc\L:\Temp\forms James & Monica Turner James Lorent Guy Spellman 18516 79th PI W . 18514 79th PI W 18512 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Davi E John & Patricia Lawrence Linda McCullough 1 18432 79th PI W 18426 79th PI W E , W 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Gary & Charlene Ramm Glenn Roberts Richard & Tina O'Neill 18418 79th PI W 18416 78th Ave W 18414 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Norman Barringer Robert Joss John Heuerman 18405 79th PI W 18415 79th PI W 18419 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 William Oakes Lynn & Rose Howerton Jr. Gary Derosa 18427 79th PI W 18501 79th PI W 17222 Greenwood PI N Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98133 L E Thornhill Steven & Kathy Slater James Street 7831 185th PI SW 7817 185th PI SW 7811 185thPI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Frank J Gebel of Ro Douglas & Jerelyn Resnick 7801 185th PI SW 7802 185th PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 E s, A 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Robert & Carol Eaton Bruce Ferris Anderson Ernest & Mary Foster 7810 185th PI SW 7818 185th PI SW 18521 79th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Kathleen OBryan Roland & Julie Brown David Johnson 7817 182nd PI SW 7809 182nd PI SW 7810 182ndPI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 LarV&P etteJo son Wallace & Susan Danielson Jr. John & Muriel Quick 851 7822 182nd Pl SW 7914 182ndPl SW EdmA 026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Patrick & Rosa Glass Edward & Carolyn Swanson Ellen Avis Purington 8001 184th St SW 8111 182nd St SW 8115 182nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Shimer John Hall Betty Smith & Betty Revo Smith 8117 182nd St SW 18218 80th Ave W 18208 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 John Hall Warren Henderson Gary Axtell 18226 80th Ave W 18335 8lst Ave W 8041 184th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Joe Scialdone Charles Farmen VOLWh 18332 80th Ave W 18326 80th Ave W 250 5Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo98020 Gary & Jeannette Axtell Katherine Morley F A & Gloria Lafond 8041 184th St SW 18203 80th Ave W 18227 80th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 e UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE KRA GN OROTHY C;SEATTLE F 1 #201 850 Cherry Ave PO Box 1 Se 155 San Bruno, CA 94099 Everett, A 98206 KRAVAGNA DOROTHY C;SEATILE FI Charles Ka e Davis Dana Gillet PO Box 1108 4 5 104 PO Box 7026 Everett, WA 98206 L 98037 Lynnwood, WA 98046 U S PO T SERVICE Skip Perrin Gary & Linda Johnson 850 Che Ave 4517 Alta Dr 7805 186th St SW San B CA 94099 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Edmonds, WA 98026 Donald & Mary Robertson Ernest Foster Stephen Sullivan & Diane Ellis 18805 Sound View PI 18521 79th PI W 7215 175th St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Daniel & Careen Snow Edward & Carol Boland Patrick Siebel 7925 186th St SW Mary Farkas 7915 186th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7909 186th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Philip & Maryjane Hillstrom 18212 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Mahmoud Jahed 18218 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 . `1;1:►; it • :1 M R Jr Wood & Bonnie Cooper 1746 NE 106th St Seattle, WA 98125 Kurt & Linda Larson 18216 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Charles R. Maki Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park Mr..and Mrs. James Thompson 8235 Talbot Road 7704 Olympic View Drive 18305 - 80th Avenue W Edmonds, Wa. 98026 Edmonds, Wa. 98026 Edmonds, Wa. 98026 sr OLYMPIC VIEW EDMONDS, WA OLYMPIC VIEW EDMONDS, WA '= OMONDS (4343) i- oo4 180th 2 G / OZ 2 01 pt - 180th. PL. S.W 02 2 (63 716 GO 4 \\ < 3 ADD. 03 4 — 3 5 1 �, 2 / w (4 82) Vf 4 D R' Q---r—�- '� - 4 = 181 st. PL. S.W. 02 1 p3 1 of S t 5 HOMES o / SE V/EW RS 3 .. r s 7 e °0 — 5 (4 O6) 4 .4 fit - v 1 0 o /9 (72 4j a a5 - -� a 0 F 7 /5 \ n W `� 9 -1 "'IODMIRALTY e _� 6 ACRES % /4 - / /4 lO ' (708) 8404 o 0 0 861002 b-� --- _- - -- Ii� t 8 Q (' J 9 y Ur—�.5• ...� � �� I /2 07 f— 9 O/ C --' -a ► 01 / 00 /0 , 11 184th ST S-W 1,0P5 /o-- 04 /3 : 9 3 /4 0 ry /06 3 /05 J 8 0- _ /5 (` /6 6 /7 /8 /9 20 2/ 5 3 185th. PL. S. W 22 4 3 [ Q 25 l /�Z 23- _.. /04 j4 4 / 8ryp 2 / t OZ n ; rn ti co