21521 73RD PL W.pdfmz�
F-
uj
u)
U) i
Lij
-i
U.
0
Lu
M �
U.
01
LLJ
Z
1.- 01
Z
LU Uj
U.1 LU
�L- 0
Z
LU (n
0
Z
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS,WA98020 (206)771-0220 FAX(206)771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
kt,�, 4Z
A 2 100"
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER 0zor.
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT:
James and Sue Colbeck
CASE NO.:
AP 96-80
LOCATION:
21521 - 73d Place West
APPEAL:
Appeal of a Staff interpretation regarding the expansion of a
nonconforming residential use (see Attachments 2 and 3).'
REVIEW PROCESS:
Appeal of approval of a Staff interpretation, Hearing Examiner
conducts public hearing and makes final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 17.4 0.0 10 (NONCONFORMING USES).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT
REVIEW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Deny
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
0 After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the Colbeck appeal was opened at 9:00 a.m., July 18, 1996, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:17 a.m. Participants at the public
a
hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the
hearing is available in the Planning Division.
0
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City: John Bissell reviewed the staff report (Exhibit A), noted the assessor's
records indicate the lot to be 18,200 square feet and, therefore, the
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 e
1
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
IF
0
L
VJ
(n LU
W
There are three 2-story buildings with a total of 18 dwelling units.
-J
Cn LL
LU 01
He wants to be able to expand the kitchens in the ten 2 bedroom
units to allow space for an eating area. Each of the 10 kitchens
LL <
would be expanded by 24 square feet.
X UJ
Structural walls exist between the living rooms and the kitchens so
Z
the kitchens cannot be expanded into the living rooms.
�- 0
Z �-,
LU LU:
0 He can't retain good tenants without making some improvements.
2 D,
C3
0
9 There are 80 apartment units in the immediate area and 76 of those
P
C3 — i
LU LU I
are nonconforming. The regulations changed after all of the units
= J�
were constructed.
LL oi
.. Z
The proposal would enhance the neighborhood and would help
LU tn.,
U
create a more stable residential environment.
0
Z III o The proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies
regarding retention of older housing.
e Less than 25% of the subject site is covered by the existing
buildings.
0 He now has parking for 21 cars and he will have space for 22 or
23 cars when the restriping is completed.
9 He has encouraged senior citizens to move in as the units are close to
services.
e He is not an expert on the code, but he feels there must be a
provision whereby something beneficial to owners, tenants and the
City should be able'to be achieved.
From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the hearing.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The appellant owns property which is zoned RM 2.4 (Multiple Fan-dly Residential, 2,400 square
feet of lot area required per dwelling unit) and developed with 18 dwelling units. A review of the
assessor's map indicates that the subject lot is approximately 18,200 square feet. The owner
0
apt.
T U1,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 96-80
Page 3
claims 25,327 square feet actually exists on the site. Based on the zoning and lot area of 25,327
square feet, a maximum of ten dwelling units could be developed on the site. Therefore the
subject site is developed with a nonconforming use.
3Z
LU,
The applicant wrote a letter to the City requesting verification that the existing building could be
expanded without increasing the number of units. The city responded with a letter dated May 21,
0
a 1996, from John Bissell of the Planning Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). In this letter
LU
Mr. Bissell explained that expansion would not be permitted due to the interpretation of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Section 17.40.010(B) which states that "A
Ln U.
LU 0 nonconforming use may continue, ... but it may not be expanded in any way, including addi-
tional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation." The
U- < same letter written by John Bissell also stated that application for a variance would not be an
D available option to allow the expansion because ECDC Section 20.85.000 states that the scope of
:C UJ:
X, a variance is "to any requirement of the zoning ordinance except use and procedural require-
Z I-- ments. City staff interpreted that the request for a variance to the nonconforming section or the
�- 0:
Z �- number of dwelling units allowed would be a request for a use variance, and thus prohibited.
LU W:
The property owner has appealed the staff interpretation of ECDC Section 176.40.010(B) which
denies the expansion of the existing nonconforming use and Section 20.85.000 which would
0 prohibit the application for a variance.
LU LU
3: U
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
�L- 0!
Z
.. i A. Site Description
LU U)�
0 1. Site Development and Zoning:
Z
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The total size of the subject property is approximately
25,327 square feet.
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with
18 unit multiple family residential units in 3 buildings (see
Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3).
0
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RM-2.4 (multiple family
residential with 2,400 square feet of lot area required per dwelling
unit (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is nearly flat. The
majority of the site is covered with either asphalt or the multiple
family building. The existing building creates a courtyard in the
center of the lot which is landscaped with ornamental shrubs.
'0�
0
U) LL
--- 0
Lij
X�
Z P:
0:
ww�
MM!
0
0
W LIJI
M U
F_ -
15
Z
LU U)
Uy
F- F,
0
Z
IXA
east are developed with a retirement home and a convalescent
hospital.
B. Edmonds Community Development code (ECDC) Compliance
1 Zoning Code
a) Facts:
9
(1)
The fundamental site development standards pertaining to
development in a RM 2.4 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.30.030,
(2) The existing development does not conform to the RM 2.4
requirements in that the existing zoning would allow approxi-
mately 10 dwelling units while the site is developed with
18 dwelling units (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1, 2, and 3).
b) Hearing Examiner Conclusion: The development is a legal noncon-
forming use.
Appeal Arguments
a) Facts:
(1) Appellant Comments: The appellant argues that the interpretation
should be changed based on the intent of the zoning ordinance, and
that the expansion would not increase the nonconformance by
increasing the number of units:
"Section 1600.010 B [of the ECDC1 states a purpose of zoning
is 'to protect the character and the social and economic stability of
residential... uses within the city... ' I submit that approving this
proposal would do absolutely nothing contrary to the purposes of
the code, and would eliminate a condition that creates a transi-
tional character to our apartments. " "Ifeel that we satisfy the
0
LU
m
LLJ L)
-j
UO
a
LU
LU
-j
(n LL[ .
LU
CC
31
Z F-
1-0.
Z i-
LU LU
0
LU LU
X L)
I-- �-
U- 0
Z
L Li Cn
ZF
0
Z
It
M
,M]
Page 5
restriction of I Z40 since we are not expanding the number of
units. "
The appellant also argues that the interpretation should be
changed due to the Comprehensive Plan. "Page 30 of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan defines the goals of residential development.
Section A endorses '...an even better quality of life for its citizens'
which is exactly the intent of our proposal. Section B.4 [of
page 301 makes it a policy of the comprehensive plan to 'support
retention and rehabilitation of older housing.... "'
The applicant believes that if the interpretation is not changed, a
variance could be applied for "as we are not requesting a variance
for use " (see Attachment 2).
(2) Staff Comments: ECDC Section 17.40.010(B) states that "A
nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by
subsection C of this section, but it may not be expanded (empha-
sis added) in any way, including additional lot area, floor area
(emphasis added), height, number of employees, equipment, or
hours of operation." The code specifically calls out the expansion
of floor area as an increase which is prohibited in legal noncon-
forniing uses. Though the property owners proposal would not
expand the use based on the number of units, the proposal would
expand the amount of floor are. This has been the consistent City
interpretation since the adoption of the Edmonds Community
Development Code in 1980.
b) Hearing. Examiner Conclusions: The draftsmen of zoning legislation have
historically believed that some uses of land were incompatible with others
and that a more efficient use of land resources would be achieved if
incompatible uses were separated. The incompatible uses were to be made
nonconforming with the idea that over time the uses will cease to exist or
at least they would not be allowed to become larger. There are times when
specific nonconforming uses do not neatly fit within all of the basic
concepts envisioned by the drafters of the code.
In this case, both the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose statement in the
Zoning Code provide guidance which supports the appellant's argument,
particularly since he is proposing no additional units and is therefore not
increasing the nonconformity of the use itself. In addition, the floor area
expansion which he has proposed is so small that the de minimus doctrine
should be considered. That is to say, that the amount of expansion
requested is so small that it should be treated in that light, especially since
there appears to be policy guidance to support the request.
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 96-80
Page 6
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the staff interpretation is not upheld and the
appeal is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The appellant shall be allowed to construct the additions to the apartment complex as
explained in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, and as shown on the drawings submitted with
that attachment.
!�_' 5 2. The request is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
LU
Community Development code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
LL.
X Lu, 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
�- X,
z �_
�_ 0 4. This approval is transferable.
Z �-
LU LU
5. This approval must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of this
0, approval or the approval shall be null and void.
0—
LU
U,
1-5.. Entered this Ist day of August, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
Z' under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
LU tn�
U —
P X i
0
z
'Ron M-cConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
0
LU
D) ai
LSJ
z
Or
z
LU LU;j
0
0
LU LU
0
z
LU Cn
0
z
01
Parks Department
Public Works Department