Smith 2nd Public Comment.pdfNovember 5, 2013
To: City of Edmonds
Architectural Design Board
Attention: Michael D. Clugston, AICP
RE.PLN20130046
My husband and I relocated to Edmonds this past June 2013. We specifically
selected the Edmonds Bowl area to make our home based on what appeared to be
thoughtful development, the strong sense of community, and a commitment to
historic preservation, unlike other communities such as Kirkland and Ballard.
This is my second submission of concerns regarding the Land Use Proposal for the
property located at 130 2nd Avenue North in Edmonds, WA, ID #PLN20130046. The
permit application and supporting documents for this project identify a 95,000
square foot, mixed use building to include 43, one and two bedroom, medium
income, residential rental units for an estimated 72 occupants and 51 parking
spaces.
I continue to have concerns related to; the size of the proposed structure, the
number of intended occupants and the increased vehicular traffic burden that it will
generate in a high density area.
Although I recognize that development is inevitable, I hope that it would continue in
a prudent and thoughtful manner. The proposed building is significantly larger than
any of the residences in the adjacent area and larger than most of the buildings in
the downtown core. Is a mixed use building of this size and intent for use necessary
and/or in the best interest of the community or simply for the financial gain of the
Applicant? Some may point out that there are other large residences, to include the
Commodore and El Capitan; however, it must also be noted that both of these
buildings were built in 1978 and my hope is that we have learned from the past.
I strongly encourage that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the City Council
consider the potential ramifications in terms of the precedence this will set and the
potential negative impact on the community, especially in light of future
development in the surrounding area(s).
It is extremely disappointing to learn that the Planning Division has made the
determination to recommend that the ADB approve the proposal under File No.
PLN20130046. This recommendation is made despite an incomplete
Environmental Checklist and prior to the Engineering Division having reviewed
and/or approved the traffic impact analysis.
As previously expressed, the lack of adequate assessment(s), to include a
questionable Traffic Impact Analysis continue to raise concerns regarding the
additional traffic burden/congestion a building of this size and intended use would
impose in an area already recognized for it's heavy traffic flow patterns. This
concern is amplified with the Applicant's stated plan to further develop the existing
Post Office (not currently a part of the project site but anticipated to be developed in
the future.)
The Traffic Impact Analysis (Analysis) completed by Transportation Solutions Inc.
dated 06/26/13 stated that data used for Weekday Trips was "...not available,
assumed to be approximately 10 times the PM Peak Hour Trip Rate." It was unclear
how PM Peak Hour Trips was determined. Additionally, the alleged Analysis
focused the review on the proposed site access point designated at 2nd Avenue
North. However, the Analysis failed to evaluate how the structure with its limited
51 residential parking spaces for it's estimated 72 occupants (and visitors) in
addition to the untold number of Post Office patrons would impact either Main
Street or Third Avenue. Both Main Street and Third Avenue are busy thoroughfares
located one block South and East respectively of the proposed structure.
Furthermore the Traffic Impact Analysis, under the heading "Additional Data",
which allegedly included the determination of peak hour impact, indicated that this
Analysis was based on data from sites surveyed in the late 1980's in Montgomery
Maryland. Considering the data is 25 years old, how is this comparable to Edmonds,
in 2013?
Additionally, the Analysis failed to show evidence that it had further evaluated how
traffic generated by the structure's estimated 72 occupants and visitors (residential
and commercial) would affect ferry and train traffic each with terminals located
approximately 500 feet away and used daily by commuters. Perhaps this lack of
assessment was due to the Applicant's failure to identify in the Environmental
Checklist, line item #14. Transportation, that this project was in the vicinity of both
water and rail transportation.
Although the proposal allegedly is consistent with the zoning ordinance, design
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the specific design criteria, I would urge
the ABD and the City Council to consider the overarching plan for the community
and what ultimately would be in the best interest for all, especially looking to the
future. Please consider the potential magnitude of this project in terms of size and
increased traffic issues that are inevitable.
Thank you.
Jolene Usitalo Smith
Resident of Edmonds