00199r
r
ZO-9-77
if a rezone is to be done a comprehensive study should be done of the
entire downtown area of Edmonds first. He noted that
tzoning
hat forewarns
t owners
a purchaser of what he can do with the property,
and of the properties purchased them as BC. Ile also added that rezoning
would reduce the values of those properties and that the requested
change would not be in accordance with the highest and best use indicated
in the Comprehensive Plan. Dorothy Coffey of 524 Bell St. said she rents
her home, but she was concerned for the residents of the Finnigan Apart-
ments who would lose their view if an apartment building were constructed
next to them. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
COMMISSIONER: SITTAUER,MOVED,.SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER -DICKSON, TO DENY
R-8-77?BECAUSE;FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE STATED,IT"IS ACTUALLY IN A VERY
GOOD POSITION TO BE ZONED BC; AND BECAUSE•THE PRESENT ZONING I5 COMPATIBLE
WITH.JHE;,DOWNTOWN;AREA.' Commissioner Goodhope said his feeling was that
if a group of petitioners asked to downzone their property he was in favor
of it and chat even if it is close to the BC zone he felt density should
be decreased if possible. Commissioner McGibbon pointed out that only
one property owner in this particular block was requesting the downzone.
Chairman Naughten stated that he would vote against the motion for the
same reasons given by Commissioner Goodhope and that he felt this.block
does have a residential character and if it is not downzoned it will all
be apartments within ten years. Commissioner Hall stated that the most
precious possession a person has is his home and that these particular
homes are well kept. She said she wished there were some intermediate
bbloted out and
ben
overwhelmedrbytanothereapheir viw artment.
uld t AeROLLtCALL :VOTE-WAShTHEN'TAKEN ewuld t
WITH,;COMMISSIONERS:SITTAUER; DICKSON, ROSS, AND:McGIBBON VOTING -YES, AND,
COt1MISS10NERS:NAUGHTEN: 600DHOP.E; AND HALL:VOTING NO: Commissioner LaBelle
was not present during this hearing. THE MOTION CARRIED. A short recess
was announced, during which Commissioner LaBelle arrived.
Amendment to Sections 12.13.220 - 12.13.250 of the Zoning Code for
changes in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone
Ms. Charleson said the City Council had requested that the Staff establish
design districts and design elements which distinguish one zone from another
The CW zone was being addressed at this time. The Shorelines Advisory
Committee had been invited to this discussion, and George Grant and Floyd
Smith were introduced from that Committee. Also present were some of the
people who live on the waterfront. Ms. Charleson listed five primary
design elements which exist in every zone and differentiate one zone
from another. They were: lighting, landscaping, circulation, building.
volume or scale, and signage. She said the purpose this evening was
to determine how these elements should distinguish the CW zone. It was
noted that everything in the CW zone is water/boat oriented so use is a
very important determining factor. It was suggested that pedestrian
use should be encouraged and that such things as piers might be provided
to permit contact between land and water to provide services for boaters.
Height of buildings was discussed, with remarks that views of the water
should not be blocked and that appearance of height could be reduced,
for instance on the old Merry Tiller Building by changing the roof line
to mansard and using horizontal wood siding on the buildinq. It was also
suggested that the buildings could have overhangs to shield pedestrians
from the weather, and could use windows to allow views of the water.
It was commented that the industrial zone is out of place on the
waterfront and that the Union Oil property could be used for future
parking. It was agreed that safety precautions should be developed in
conjunction with the railroad tracks and that parking lots should be
well landscaped.
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 3 - October 12, 1977