Loading...
20170320142826.pdf�' I? C. is C) v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Viking Properties, Inc. CASE NO.: P-03-146/PRD-03-147 LOCA,riON: 9015 240t' St. SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). GARY HAAKENSON MAY011 ko Arly(i APPLICATION: To divide a lot with approximately 40,000 sq. ft. into 5 lots in a Single -Family Residential zone, RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). REVIEW PROCESS. A consolidated Formal Plat and PRD application shall be processed as follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a public hearing and issues a final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20, RS- Single Family Residential. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, Public Works Requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35, Planned Residential Development's (PRD's). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75. Subdivisions. f. Conipjiance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.1100, Flearing Examiner. Platining Advisory Board and City Council Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Aearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: 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 Viking Properties application was opened at 9:35 a.m., December 18, 2003, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record. He said: • The proposal would be similar to the PRD across the street. • The modified landscape plan (Attachment 6 to Exhibit A) addresses the concerns expressed by the ADB. • Condition 4 addresses the concerns expressed by the neighbor to the north. • Exhibit B expresses a desire to save the large fir tree on the adjacent Moss property. • It would be appropriate to add a condition to protect the tree by providing a retaining wall and limit the cutting of roots. From the Applicant: Steven Michael Smith, Consultant for the Applicant, said: • He had no specific concerns with the staff report. • Recommended condition 4 is wise. He is willing to consult a qualified arborist to protect the large fir tree east of the hammerhead on the Moss property. That area will be filled, not cut, which will be better for the tree The detention pond will be away from the tree and he has no problem installing a retaining wall as necessary to protect the tree. From the Community: Chris Moss (author of Exhibit B) attended the hearing, but did not speak. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Size: The subject property is roughly rectangular with approximately 133 feet of width and 300 feet of depth. 2401h St. SW runs along the south property line and provides access for the property. The total site area is approximately 40,000 sq. ft. (see site plans included in Exhibit A, Attachment 4). b) Land Use: The site is underdeveloped with only one house on a lot that is 40,000 sq. ft. in a zone that requires a minimum of 8,000 sq. ft. The entire site is gently rolling or relatively flat and suitable for development. c) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). d) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is generally flat or gently rolling. Some mature evergreens are located on the property and around the immediate perimeters of the site. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Surrounding Development and Zoning: The subject property is completely surrounded by properties that are zoned and developed under the RS-8 zoning classification. b) Consistency with neighboring develoRment: The size of the entire property and the proposed single-family development is consistent with the surrounding development. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development which apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development, which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents, should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B. 1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines, which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 4 BA. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.c Sable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: C. I Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C. La Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). I . The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, pages 16-23, reviews the land capacity of the City and address' the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment targets set for us by the County and the State. The preferred strategy is called "Design Infill". Due to the overwhelming feedback the City received from its citizens generally stated "Preserve the single family character of Edmonds. Don't rezone areas to higher densities." The City adopted this strategy. At its core, "Designed Infill" encourages infill development under the existing densities with design controls to ensure that new development will fit into existing neighborhoods. PRD's are an identified tool to allow this to be implemented. This project, a PRD, allows a property to be developed to its full potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Typical elevations of proposed residences, as shown in Exhibit A, Attachment 4 (attachments 5-9), illustrate high quality homes that should fit into the neighborhood. The orientation of the homes and yards should also protect the privacy of adjacent properties. Also, the use of the PRD has allowed the applicant to set aside the portion of the site for a recreational area for the benefit of the development. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 5 C. COMPLIANCE WITH 20.15A, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on November 26, 2003. The Determination is included as Exhibit A, Attachment 7. No appeals were filed of the Environmental Determination. So, at this time the applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. D. COMPLIANCE WITH 20.1511, CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-2003-115. 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A waiver from needing to complete any further Critical Areas Studies was granted. The City and the applicant have complied with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. E. COMPLIANCE WITH 20.35, PRD'S 1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD a) The ADB reviewed the project on November 5, 2003 and recommended approval of the project as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5): BOARDMEMBER. CHRISTIANSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER ANDERSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PRD-03-147 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER SUBJECT TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN THE REPORT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The conditions recommended in the Design Review staff report are as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4): • Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes. • The curb cut on lot 3 must be limited to 20-feet or less. • Landscaping on the west property line must comply with ECDC 20.12. • Street trees must be planted on the front yard along the street of lots 2-5. Since the ADB's review of the project, the applicant has submitted a new landscape plan that addresses the concerns described in the last two items. At this time, City staff would be comfortable with just the first two items being included as conditions of approval. 2. Modification of Standards, ECDC 20.35.030 a) The proposed PRD / Plat application proposes to modify the following development standards, interior building setbacks, lot sizes and lot width (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2 for the applicant's declarations). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 6 1) Density for a PRD is determined as follows: Gross Lot Area/Min Lot size of underlying zoning. If more than five lots, the applicant may round to the nearest whole number. In this case 40,000/8,000=5. The applicant is proposing a 5 lot PRD and Plat. 2) The proposed setbacks match or are greater than the required setbacks for the underlying zone around the perimeter of the site. The interior setbacks, those setbacks between the proposed buildings and their proposed street will be as follows: Street setbacks — 10 feet, Side setbacks — 5 feet. There are no rear setbacks between proposed buildings. 3) Lot width is proposed specifically for each lot dependant upon the size of the house proposed for that lot. While the underlying zoning requires 80 feet in width for each lot, the variable lot width is entirely appropriate for a PRD. b) Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are permissible if the modification approval criteria are met. Also, setbacks for the plat should be shown on the final Plat and PRD recording document and a statement vesting those setbacks for those lots should be included. 3. Modification Approval Criteria, ECDC 20.35.040 a) The PRD's compatibility with surrounding properties related to (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2): I ) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A landscape plan is submitted with the proposal, which is more than is required with a standard subdivision. Additional buffering and landscaping is provided along the north, west and east property lines. Street trees have been introduced into the design of the development. 2) Efficient and safe circulation: The proposed access driveway will not in any way compromise the safety and efficiency of the circulation patterns in this area. 3) Architectural Design: Homes, which meet the spirit and letter of the PRD single- family design criteria, have been specifically selected to meet these criteria. 4) Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained. 5) Reduced visual impact: With a standard 8,000 sq. ft. lot, a building with a footprint of over 3,000 sq. ft. could be approved. Due to the size of the proposed lots and the height limitations, the proposed houses would have significantly less bulk than is allowable under RS-8 standards. 6) Preservation of Natural Features: The applicant has proposed the retention of a grove of mature evergreens along the 240th St. SW street frontage. Some additional mature trees are also being proposed along the north property line. 7) Reduction of impervious surfaces: Minimizing the building footprints has resulted in a reduction of impervious area. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 7 b) Conclusion: All of the modification approval criteria appear to be met. 4. Decision Criteria, ECDC 20.35.050 a) A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria: 1) Design Criteria: These criteria are met by complying with the Single Family Design Criteria and providing at least 2 more results from the list of 6. See Exhibit A, attachment 2 for the applicant's declaration on these items. The ADB has reviewed the proposal and except for a couple of minor conditions, have recommended the project for approval. 1) Public Facilities: This Plat / PRD is served by all public facilities in the area. 2) Perimeter Design: The applicant shows on their most recent landscape plan how an informal arrangement of plants, both trees and shrubs, around the perimeter of the site meets this requirement. A six-foot tall fence is also a part of this proposal. 3) Open Space and Recreation: For a 40,000 sq. ft. PRD with more than 5 lots, at least 4,000 sq. ft. needs to be developed as usable open space. The plans indicate 4,012 sq. ft. open space recreational area to be located in the northwest comer of the site. With the current landscape plan, this area is proposed to be lawn surrounded by landscape beds. 4) Street and Sidewalks: The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and indicated any requirements that will be made of the applicant as part of Exhibit A, Attachment 8. b) Conclusion: Generally the proposed PRD meets the decision criteria. Minor conditions recommended by the ADB and the Engineering Department should be included in any approval. F. COMPLIANCE WITH 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS 1. Subdivision Review Criteria a) Environmental Resources (1) The Critical Areas ordinance will ensure that Environmental Resources are being protected in the City of Edmonds. b) Lot and Street Layout (1) This criteria requires the Examiner to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section each of the lots appears to be buildable. (2) Lot sizes and dimensions: This criterion doesn't apply to individual lots in a PRD. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 8 (3) Setbacks: Setbacks from perimeter lot lines are proposed as follows: Street setback from 171" St. SW, lot 1: 25'(minimum 25'is required). Side setback from the west property line, Lots 1-4: 7.5' (minimum 7.5' is required). Interior setbacks are proposed as shown on the site development plan included in Exhibit A, Attachment 10 (the preliminary plat map dated 9/16/2003). All of the proposed setbacks are acceptable through the PRD process. However, in the interest of enhancing safety for cars coming out of garages and providing as much parking as possible a condition requiring garages to be setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk would seem justified. (4) Comer Lots: Because the setbacks are established through the PRD process it is not relevant. (5) Flag or Interior lot determination: None (6) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: (a) See the PRD criteria on this issue. It is acceptable. c) Dedications (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit A, Attachment 8). d) Improvements. (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit A, Attachment 8). e) Flood Plain Management (1) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. f) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 1) The Examiner finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. See section B for details. g) Compliance with the Zoning Code 1) The Examiner finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section F. Lb for details. h. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 1) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 9 G. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following comments have been received for the project: 1. Letter from Mr. Dale Novstrup, received 12/9/03 (Exhibit A, Attachment 9). This letter raises a concern related to protecting the neighbor's privacy form the new house located on lot 5 along the north property line. With photographs and a site plan, Mr. Novstrup requests that landscaping be used to block direct lines of site between windows on the proposed home and his home to protect his family's privacy. Examiner's Response: It is recognized that there is approximately 30 feet of space between the Novstrup's house and the proposed house, and that development of the property through a standard subdivision would not obligate a property owner or builder to install any landscaping to enhance privacy between the properties. However, in this case, the applicant is already proposing a mix of trees and shrubs to be located along the north property line as part of demonstrating how their proposed development complies with the PRD requirements. It seems to be a reasonable request that the trees located along the north property line of lot 5 should be planted after the home is built and located in a manner to block direct sight lines between windows and sliding glass doors of the houses. 2. Letter from Ms. Chris Moss, received 12/18/03 (Exhibit B). This letter raises a concern related to protecting a large fir tree on the Moss property. Ms. Moss requests that the she didn't want to see the health and stability of the tree impacted. She also expressed concerns about water runoff from the development onto her property. Examiner's Response: Both staff and the Applicant's Consultant responded to the issue relative to the tree at the public hearing. The Applicant's Consultant suggested that an arborist be hired to review the situation and make a recommendation to protect the tree. The required drainage plan will address the issues relative to water runoff. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Preliminary Plat and Planned Residential Development is approved, subject to the following conditions: I . This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination dated 11/26/2003 (see Exhibit A, attachment 7). 3. Prior to approval of the final subdivision and PRD, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) The applicant must include in their final plat documents as either notes or elements on the map which depict the ADB's recommended conditions as follows: (1) The driveway for lot 3 may not exceed 20 feet in width. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 10 (2) Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes. b) Submit to the Planning Division a title report, which verifies ownership of the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the subdivision documents. c) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans the applicant must address the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording" on Exhibit A, Attachment 8. d) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall include the following information: (1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under the PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (2) An additional note or incorporated into the statement referred to above must be included which states: "Garage doors shall be setback a minimum of 18 feet from property line adjacent to the access drive. (3) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks. (4) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the requirements of ECDC section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements including landscaping which have not been completed. (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved.) 4. Prior to or as part of the City approving the installed landscaping, the applicant shall locate the proposed trees along the north property line of lot 5 in a manner to block direct sight lines between windows and sliding glass doors of the house on lot 5 and the house directly to the north of it. 5. The Applicant shall employ an arborist, approved by the City, to review and make recommendations on the protection of the large fir tree on the adjacent Moss property. The arborists' recommendations shall then be reviewed and must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. After recording the plat, the applicant must: a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Exhibit A, Attachment 8. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page I I Entered this 22nd day of December 2003 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FA01) Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20. 100.01 O.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. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-03-146/PRD-03-147 Page 12 LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 10 attachments B. Letter from Chris Moss, dated 12/18/03 PARTIES OF RECORD: Viking Homes, Eric Sundquist P.O. Box 1034 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Dale Novstrup 23828 90" Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Division Lovell Sauerland & Assoc. Michael Smith 19400 33rd Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Chris Moss 9003 240" St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Ir Exhibit List for File P-2003-146 & PRD-2003-147. A. Staff Report for P-2003-146 & PRD-2003-147 B. Letter from Chris Moss, received December 18,2003 C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. S. T. U. December 18, 2003 City of Edmonds 121 5 th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Bullock, RECEIVED DEC 1 8 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES This letter is in response to the PIRD proposed at 9015 240th St. SW. I own property immediately to the east of the proposed development. My property is approx. 32,000 sq feet and has a natural park -like setting on the north side which contains many fir, cedar trees and madrona trees. One of these trees is a monumental fir that sits close to the boundary which borders the proposed development. This tree is quite old and adds considerable landscape value to our property. With the removal of so many trees from the proposed development site, it is increasingly important for us to retain the original "charm" of our property. The placement of the road on the proposed PRID site is shown as a drive which sits approx 4' from the property line on the opposite side of the fence from the monumental fir tree. it is my concern that in the development of the PRID site, the root system of my tree could be compromised. Thus impacting the health and stability of the tree. I am requesting that precautionary measures be put in place so that the PIRD development will have no impact what -so -ever on this monumental fir tree. This would include any disturbance of the root system as well as other natural elements such as food and water. During the construction phase of the house that is currently being erected, a pump was placed in the foundation hole and water was pumped out to our fence line. This water ran under the fence, near the base of the large tree and under the wood shed. This water eroded the earth at the fence and compromised the seasoned firewood. When determining the impact of this PIRD on the neighborhood, please do not overlook the change of water run-off during the construction phase as well as after the development is completed. This additional saturation of the earth can impact the stability of trees as well as cause land erosion. Your consideration of these concerns would be appreciated. Thank you, NAW" ��v X4,d Chris Moss 9003 240th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: (425) 775-7492 EXHIBIT 12 FILE NO.. �)� '- 14(9,J- 14J