2010/05/26 Council Agenda Packet

Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2009 4 1 P a g e Barbara Keller, 314 73d Street SW, asked if the numbers were reversed on the school mitigation charts — she thought the number would be higher for multiple family units. She asked if the streets were going to be public or private and if the streets would be wide enough for emergency vehicles. She appreciated that the number of units was decreased; however, if it is dependent upon the market as Mr. Ebert had indicated, she wondered if the mix of uses would change again. She was concerned about the loss of industrial land and asked if CEMEX could provide specific percentages about what is currently proposed for industrial land — existing remaining land. She mentioned that there is industrial land located in the Kent Valley with the possibility of flooding and those businesses may want to move to the Everett area if there is enough industrial land available. She was concerned that the traffic study was based on 1045 units and depending on the market that number could change up or down. She was also concerned about the level of service on Evergreen Way and Madison, and other surrounding streets. She was concerned about the aviation easement for Boeing and odor easement for Stockpot Soups and what the potential for home ownership would be in the area with the easements. She wondered about the impacts a potential expanded airport would have on the residential component of the site. 7:35:37 PM George Newman, 6714 123`d Place SE, Bellevue, stated that he has worked on a number of projects that absorb urban infill. He spoke in support of the amendment and rezone. t -r 7:41:48 PM John Mahoney, 7212 Upper Ridge Rd, stated that he lived on the bluff overlooking the park and would like to see the total site impacts considered. Baseball games attract a lot of people and when there is a baseball game all the parking lots are full and the street parking is full and that should be considered in their planning. He was concerned with the number of units and the impacts on traffic, schools, and drainage. Li , } 7:45:46 PM Dennis Dutter, 3811 Cady Road, was in support of the housing because of some of the changes that have been made since the original proposal; however, he was still concerned about the density. He suggested that the R-2 zone remain in the area that is east of Glenwood. He pointed to a map to show where he would like to see housing which could act as a buffer to the industrial uses. He would like to see small business type development / light manufacturing which leads to higher wages and more jobs. He was comfortable with housing in the area and felt it would be more viable and liven up the Glenwood street frontage. 7:50:33 PM Allan Pohl, 136 Magnolia Avenue, stated that he appreciated the work that had been done to address the concerns of the neighborhood. There is a permanency to whatever decision is made. Once the project is built, you can't back pedal. Developers move on and develop other projects in other areas. He is concerned about whether the proposal is a good fit for the neighborhood. He would like to see more single family homes on larger lots similar to the surrounding area. He is concerned about the density of the residential area. Currently, Glenwood Avenue is pretty packed during Boeing rush hour traffic. Street width and school district mitigation are big issues. He would like to emphasize the permanence of Planning J, Commissions action. IK ''I 7:59:04 PM