A. All proposals to amend the comprehensive plan shall be reviewed not only on the basis of whether or not the proposed use would have adverse impacts, but also shall be particularly scrutinized with respect to whether or not the proposal is precedent setting with a high probability of leading to additional amendments of a similar nature (i.e., cumulative impacts).

B. Amendments to the zoning map, property subdivisions, and other land development approvals, even when consistent with the comprehensive plan, may have significant adverse impacts. Precedent-setting actions and land development proposals with potential for adverse impacts should be disclosed to the public through circulation of an EIS, mitigated by modification of the project, or both.

C. In order to fulfill the intent of SEPA, Chapter 197-11 WAC, a series of related actions should be reviewed as one. For example, a proposed private construction project may require any or all of the following approvals which are all subject to SEPA: comprehensive plan amendment, rezone, plan, conditional use permit, variance (if in an environmentally sensitive area), building permit. Such a series of functionally related and interdependent actions should be considered from start to finish in their totality, as a single action; provided, that future elements of the total proposal that are speculative in nature need not be considered.

D. If a new use or zone that did not previously exist nearby is being introduced into an area, such as property adjacent to a single-family residential zone being reclassified to a nonresidential zone, or property adjacent to a stable single-family residential area being reclassified to multiple-family on the comprehensive plan or zoning map, it is the policy of the city that, in such cases, the intruding use or zone should bear the burden of the impacts; i.e., the transition from one use to another should occur within the property proposed to be changed. A portion of the property being changed may be required to be developed at approximately the intensity of use existing on the adjacent developed property which is zoned or developed more restrictively and any development rights thus lost can be transferred to the other portion of the property by developing it more intensively. In order for this policy to be implemented, rezones, plats and other such applications should be submitted as planned unit development applications, thereby creating necessary flexibility in site plans.

E. Fill-in development of vacant parcels which were passed over by earlier development, but which are served by utilities and streets which meet current standards should be encouraged in order to maximize efficiency of existing capital improvements.

F. All parties connected with development shall be encouraged to incorporate open space into developments through setbacks, view corridors and recreation areas. Avoiding development on steep slopes, retaining open drainage ways and preserving areas with natural or scenic value can achieve open space amenities often with little or no sacrifice of development potentials. (See LMC 17.05.100, Aesthetics).

G. Whenever possible, boundaries between uses should occur along physical features such as water or slopes. Streets as boundaries should be avoided except in the case of arterials of such a scale that any use which can tolerate the street would be unlikely to be adversely impacted by any uses located across the street.

H. Where intensely zoned properties are required to provide screening next to more restrictively zoned properties, the site plan should include sound and sight buffers such as mounded site-screen planters and/or placing of blank walls next to site-screen plantings, such walls being textured or otherwise modified to soften their appearance. Textured walls are particularly needed if the height of buildings of the more intense use is considerably greater than the height of the more restrictive property.

I. Accessory activities and uses such as off-street parking, loading and unloading or outdoor activity should be located away from property lines of more restrictive zoned property or less intense uses.

J. There are no shorelines, as defined in the Shorelines Management Act, in the city of Lynnwood. (Ord. 1416 § 2, 1984)