00997David Kinderfather, architect for the project, said the project had been
features. The
1
kk designed to fit the natural contours and retain natural
ft. and paving will cover 9,500 sq. ft.;
I building will cover 16,000 sq.
' The balance of the site, 78.5 %, will remain undeveloped. Parking was
will be
described. Soil is well drained and stable, but a soil analysis
the project will meet or exceed all City
'
required. Mr. Kinderfather said
requirements, and he did not believe it would -negatively affect any
Staff on the
;
adjacent property. He said he had worked with the City
to relocate the road and slide one
development of an alternative plan
to disturb trees and they would make the buildings
building over so as not
closely as possible to existing grades. He submitted a, drawing
conform as
which reflected changes requested by the Staff and which resulted in a
21322 Pioneer Way asked several
loss of two parking spaces. Andy Jaeger of
was that the development would maintain what the
x
;.
questions and sati ironment. d, had written
tion of the envsfied
City had indicated it wanted forprotec
he said'most of
4,
a letter to the Commission setting forth questions but
in the Robert Brubaker of 9122 Main St.
them. were answered, presentation.
said he owns.the property between the end of Hillcrest Ave. and this site
to the
that Hillcrest would
and he did not intend area.
nothing eenhance.then
development would do 9 but
valley. He felt this
The public portion of the hearing was closed.'
'..
Commissioner Sittauer;.fe,lt. this woul.d,be a:.very,.good ,plan far this :property
BYX MMISS°IONER HALL, TO:ApPROVE
'
k.
CONWIISSIONER SIITAUER MOVED, .SECONDED
PRD=3 78 ? MOTION CARRIED
R_8_78 PACIFIC FAST MAIL - Rezone from RS-6 to BC the property at 125 Sunset Ave.
i
;'.
(RS-6)<,.
r,
Mrs. Block noted that the legal description on the application had not
in the file.
t
u,
been complete but the complete legal description was now
the was not affected. She
The item had been posted by address so posting
showed slides of the property. The applicant wished to use the site for
he wish, at
.
a parking lot for his business on the adjacent lot and might
the lot. The topography is
F
some future date, to expand his business on
is including BC and RM as well as RS.,
steep. Zoning in the area mixed,
This site had been used for parking and that use is not permitted in an
Planning Department,
RS-6 zone. It had been brought to the attention of the
The applicant proposed a contract rezone'
and had resulted in this action.
retaining the existing residential side yard setback on the north side of
for RS zoning,
i'
Lot 4, retaining the present height restriction which exists
ill.Sunset Ave. Cars
would bell
and accessing through the existing driveway at
of Sunset Ave. The app
�.
be parked below the'street grade
required to meet City standards for parking lot construction, along Sunset q
installation of a sidewalk, planting strip, and street trees g
Amenities Design Board; surfacing to City r duirrovnagetplan.
'
Ave.; review by the
and installation of improvements in accordance with an app
to BC
Of the alternatives discussed, the Staff recommended a contract rezone
d the
vshe enoted
for parking, multi-family,adofficeuses that.
to thenComprehensBivecPlan
rezone criteria. As conformance
multi -family use would conform,she �teesthaAlsoershesnoted that �there tis
rnearbt
k
of zoning on surrounding y prope
-family structure to the north. Most of the
an existing nonconforming multi
existing uses in the neighborhood have been there fora long time. She
in would
;..
he.twolots question
felt there was some question as to whether tprsen the
present land values and
be desirable for RS structures, considering
felt the building and use restrictions would benefit
4
surrounding uses. She
the public by retaining view corridors. 'The property. had been vacant for
i
,.
many y ears which she felt may indicate a reluctance to develop for single
The applicant indicated he was agreeable to the RS height
residential use.
restriction. The public portion of the hearing was opened.
EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
1 Page 4 - September ;e, 1978
13