2005/04/20 Council Agenda Packet

Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2005 Page 6 that future projects, if they aren't condos to begin with, can be developed as condos over the long term, which will provide a stable long term ownership base in downtown. Pete Newland, 2931 Bond Street, previously submitted written comments via e-mail and had noticed that his comments were not submitted as part of the Planning Commission packet. He commented that his written comments were not extensive because the environmental checklist contained no information and he could not tell if this was a good idea or a bad one based upon the information in the checklist. He felt that the checklist and process suffered from a number of fatal defects: 62 out of 70 questions in the checklist were marked "not applicable" or "this is a nonproject proposal." He presented his comments and an article from the Everett Herald regarding a quasi-judicial process that he would like added to the record. He was concerned because some of the Planning Commissioners had met with the applicant to discuss the rezone request and he felt that the rezone request was for a specific project and, therefore, an appearance of fairness issue. The following were his concerns regarding the checklist: 1. Since this is a non-project action why are we in such a hurry? Comments on the proposal were received on Feb. 9. The decision was issued on Feb 10 and the schedule for you to make a decision was advanced two weeks. 2. In the areas where tall buildings are currently allowed to be built, virtually none have been built. If the thinking behind this proposal is that the City does not have enough spots for tall buildings why does the checklist not provide any rationale in that regard? 3. If raising the height limit in the downtown core is a good idea, why are we limiting the change to this narrow isthmus of land on the east side of Rucker Avenue between California and Pacific? Why is no consideration being given to the other edges of the B-3 zone? 4. On the other hand, if we think it is in the public interest to limit the area where tall buildings are allowed, how was this area chosen? Why does the checklist not offer any rationale supporting this very specific change in the B-3 zone? What is magic about this spot? 5. One of the few questions that is answered in the checklist says the costs to the public for transit, police, fire, emergency medical and health care services " will likely increase" if this rezone is approved. Why? 6. An area where the checklist is both deficient and misleading is Section 2, Question 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation. He felt that there would be impacts to the Everett Public Library because the last library expansion was based on a plan for it to continue to expand to the south. Approving the proposal makes future expansion of the library more costly. He recommended that Commission deny the proposal so the City can move forward with their analysis during the development of a downtown plan. Howie Bargreen, 2821 Rucker Avenue, stated that he has property in the B-3 zone proposed for change and property down the hill. He stated that he sympathized with both sides since he was on both sides of the issue. He mentioned that he did send in a comment letter, which was Exhibit #7 in the staff report. He was concerned that if a 150-foot condo building was located on either side of his property and wondered if he would be asked to locate to another area in the City. He has been roasting at that location for 95 years and asked for a letter from the City Attorney stating that no matter what the zoning, he could remain at his current location. Commissioner Dutton asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Dave Mascarenas, 517 Laurel Drive, stated that he agreed with Mr. Newland's testimony but had heard that the Mayor was the one who requested the rezone; however, the Mayor missed