Laserfiche WebLink
- ' C. <br />*o Hugh Warren <br />rnow Bob Landlee <br />oere 7/17/79 <br />���+«* Everett Mall Area Projecte Envir. <br />Review Concerne <br />(Pnge two) <br />.._......-- <br />� .� �� <br />.,... -' ' <br />:fUL� 2 0 ig:� <br />CITY OF EVCHCTT. [VCRETT, WASHINGTON <br />Pcimary acceea to che Senttle North Residential Development ie 100th Street; and <br />primary acceee to the Qumara Zleshgin reeidential development ie Bru ' id Road. <br />Neither of theee etreete are c�irrently developed to City etanderds neither <br />hava pedeetrian fecilities. The Briervood ltanor project doee not cuu.enCly identify <br />anq legal acceea, but vould pra6ably obtain acceae via Br�ekrud Roed. Vehicle <br />tripe generated by theae three reeidential developmente alone ie esli.maled Lo be <br />approximately 1869 (7 [r.ipa x 267 unite). Thie additional traffic wnuld be addad <br />to ehe to 7th Avenue, and thie doee not coneider the three potential rezone propoaels. <br />It eleo doee not include the additional traffic rrhich will be generaY.ed by the <br />developmente lieted above which have been previously approved but are yeC to be <br />conetructed. <br />At a previoue meeting Ron Cameron indicated that the P.U.D. right-of-way is tha <br />"weak link" in the traffic circulation eystem for thie area. The AdmininCration <br />haa concacted the P.U.D. to determie�e the City's ability to obtain che rightrof-way <br />ae a publicly dediceted etreet and the P;U.D. responded negatively: P.U.D. feale <br />it is critical for their ocm uee. At this time it is crucial that we d¢Cermine ahat: <br />an acceptable traffic circulation syetem for thie entire aree ie. <br />. Should trafflc from these developmente be routed to 7th Avenue7 or nhould Craff.l.c <br />be routed to South Broadvay via another North-South Route7 What improvemente of <br />existing streete (100th; Bruekrud; 7th Ave) would be required to provide edequate <br />traffic citcula[ion and traffic and pedestrien eafety for thie area �.n conjunction <br />with the City'a approval of development applica[Sone currently proposed for the area7 <br />Our eecondary concern, particularly in relation to the Everett Mall. expanelon pcojecC, <br />relate to �tility eervices. Are eewer and weter eetvices adequate to meet tha <br />increaeed demand in this area4 and what drainage improvemente will be required <br />for the erea4 We have aeked the Cor.sultant for the Mall project for mora information <br />regarding the drainage iesue. <br />Developere with current epplicationa under review by the City hava I�een meeting <br />aith us frequently end are anxioue for the City to provide a policy direction <br />vhich would enable them to provide mitigation meesuree for their propoeala. They <br />heve Sndicated a willingnees to participate in whatever eolution t.hr. City determ]nen <br />ie acceptable. <br />At thie time, the optione of the City., ae L eee them are: <br />1. Reauire an Environmentel Impact Stn�ement of each project in thn eree <br />to provide an in-depth nnalyeie of our concerno, and iden[i.fy 1'(!NPf1119I>�f <br />mitigation measuree. <br />2. Identify potential reaolutione to our accese concerne and meeC with t.he <br />developere to allov them to coneider alternatives the City eees ee accepCabl.e <br />eolutione. Thie aould allow the developer to provide adequac� Iraftfc <br />mi N.gation meaeuree in conjunctian vith hie propnsal, and probeL)y ellminel:e <br />[he need foz EIS's [o be prepared by ench developer. <br />