AMD-07-19 Staff report.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To:
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
From
:
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Date:
June 5, 2008
File:
AMD-07-19
A
pplication by Michael & Lisa Zammit (represented by John Bissell, HBA Design Group)
for a comprehensive plan change from Single Family Resource to Multi Family High
Density at 1030 Grandview Street
Hearing Date, Time, and Place:
June 11, 2008, at 7:00 PM,
Edmonds City Council Chambers
Public Safety Complex
th
250 - 5 Avenue North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2
A.A..........................................................................................................................................2
PPLICATION
B.R................................................................................................................................2
ECOMMENDATION
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................2
A.S..................................................................................................................................................2
ETTING
B. SEPA(SEPA).......................................................................................3
TATE NVIRONMENTAL OLICY CT
C.TC.........................................................................................................................3
ECHNICAL OMMITTEE
D.PC................................................................................................................................4
UBLIC OMMENTS
E.CPZCC......................................................................4
OMPREHENSIVE LAN AND ONING ODE OMPLIANCE
III.ATTACHMENTS..........................................................................................................................................6
IV.PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................................6
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 2 of 6
I. INTRODUCTION
A. APPLICATION
1. Applicant: Michael and Lisa Zammit, rep. John Bissell of HBA Design Group.
2. Site Location: 1030 Grandview Street. (Attachments 1 3)
3. Request: Application for a comprehensive plan amendment from Single Family
Resource to Multiple Family High Density with intent of establishing transition
between existing commercial and residential zones and eventually developing housing for the
elderly on the subject site. (Attachment 4)
4. Review Process:
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues
recommendation to the City Council for final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.00
(CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010
(HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff
recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to DENY
the request to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Single Family Resource
to Multiple Family High Density at 1030 Grandview Street.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan nor in the public interest.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SETTING
1. Proposed Designation and Development of the Site
a. The proposal would change the existing Single Family Resource comprehensive plan
designation at 1030 Grandview Street to Multi Family High Density. The
amendment would result in a density change for the parcel from less than 4 units per acre
to a density ranging from 18-30 units per acre. Given the size of the subject parcel, 7 to
11 dwelling units would be possible when employing the compatible zoning
classifications of RM-1.5 and RM-2.4. The applicant has speculated that 10 units would
be considered for future development.
2. Current Designation and Development of the Site
a. The site is approximately 17,400 square feet, rectangular in shape, and is on Grandview
Street just north of the intersection of Puget Drive (SR 524) and Olympic View Drive.
There is an existing one-story single family residence on the parcel which was built in
2
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 3 of 6
1951, according to the County Assessors Office. The site is currently zoned Single-
Family Residential, RS-12, which is compatible with its comprehensive plan designation.
3. Designation and Development in the Vicinity
a. Nearly all of the surrounding parcels are designated Single Family Resource, zoned
RS-12, and developed with single family residences with the exception of a small strip of
parcels along the north side of Puget Drive that are designated Neighborhood
Commercial. The parcels are zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and are developed
accordingly with small neighborhood retail and service uses. Several multi-family
dwellings are also present along Puget Drive which are existing non-conforming uses
within the BN zone. The Edmonds Elementary School complex is across Puget Drive to
the south.
The area surrounding the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive was
annexed to the City between 1957 and 1961 (Attachment 5). The 1963 Generalized
Land Use Plan Map shows the majority of the area designated as low-density residential
with the Neighborhood Business designation at the intersection (Attachment 6). The
1963 Zoning Map (Attachment 7) shows the parcels in the vicinity to be zoned in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan dominantly single family residential with a
cluster of restricted commercial at the intersection of Puget and Olympic View Drives.
4. Previous Proposals in the Vicinity
a. R-6-63. Jerald Hall proposed to rezone a portion of his parcel at 1047 Puget Drive from
S-12 (Single Family with a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-C (Restricted
Commercial). Despite the fact that the access portion of his parcel adjacent to Puget
Drive was already zoned R-C, the proposal was denied.
b. R-6-87. Dave and Patricia Page proposed to rezone a 1,285 sq. ft. portion of their
property at 1233 Olympic View Drive from RS-12 to BN. This proposal was also
denied.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment (Attachment 8). The appeal period expires on June 5, 2008. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) was not required for the proposal because the impacts likely to occur due
to the specific request were not determined to be so significant and adverse that they could not be
adequately mitigated by the application of existing development regulations. The City
commonly reviews 10-unit multifamily buildings in other areas of Edmonds and mitigates
impacts of those developments using existing zoning, stormwater and traffic regulations and the
like. Although environmental impacts from the request may be adequately mitigated, this does
not imply that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan (see
discussion in Section E). It should also be noted that the DNS issued for this proposal is a non-
project determination, meaning that additional SEPA review will be required if the plan
amendment were to be approved and a specific project proposed.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division as well as the Fire, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments. The Fire Department commented that potential
elderly housing at the site may require an additional fire hydrant and protection system. The
other divisions commented that the proposed change would not affect their organization at this
3
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 4 of 6
time but any future development proposals and building permits would be reviewed and must
meet all applicable code requirements.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A number of comments were received regarding the proposed redesignation (Attachments 9
14). Each was opposed to the application and voiced similar concerns regarding how the
proposal fits with respect to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including: increasing density on a
street and in an area that is dominantly single family residential, access and traffic, stormwater,
and the necessity for an EIS. With the exception of the need for an EIS which was discussed
above in Section II.B, the following discussion describes the proposals compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance.
E.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE
The following discussion reviews pertinent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the
proposed amendment in the context of the requirements of the zoning code (ECDC 20.00
Changes to the Comprehensive Plan). The full text of the Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial sections of the Plan as well as the Housing Element are included in Attachments 15
17.
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public
interest?
The proposed amendment is potentially consistent with portions of the Housing Element.
This section of the Plan does describe the need to create additional affordable housing
opportunities, particularly for the low-income elderly (p. 108) and cites upzoning that is,
increasing the intensity of use on a parcel(s) as an option to provide such housing in
Edmonds. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that such changes must occur in
designated corridor areas (p. 105). The Puget and Olympic View Drive area has not been
identified as a designated corridor where such parcel redesignation is anticipated. Since the
Plan is silent on the idea of redesignating an existing single family parcel to multi family
high density in a non-designated area, we can conclude it is not desired. As a result, the
process would effectively be spot redesignation (akin to spot zoning) which is not in the
public interest.
Further, the Plan does not indicate an intent to change parcel designations near
Neighborhood Commercial areas to create transitions between existing disparate
designations such as commercial and residential. For example, while the Five Corners and
Firdale Village areas have specific goals and policies particular to their locations, providing
transitional areas or buffers between existing commercial and residential areas is not
discussed (p. 57). The Plan does describe using design review along the Westgate Corridor
and Edmonds Way Corridor to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods but does not suggest redesignating parcels to provide that
transition (p. 58). A number of residents on Grandview Street described how the existing
commercial parcels act as a buffer to Puget Drive and how the existing development and
trees on the subject parcel provide additional buffering.
4
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 5 of 6
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare
of the city?
The proposed plan change would be counter to the 2004/2005 Comprehensive Plan update,
which specifically reviewed the large-lot single family residential areas in this northern part
of the city and concluded that large-lot single family development was the most appropriate
land use pattern (p. 51). Incremental changes to this established pattern are not in the public
interest because, if continued and expanded, these would result in a land use pattern which
would undermine the plan policies intended to preserve and protect sensitive environmental
features and avoid impacts on the limited public facilities serving the area. The analysis
performed as part of the 2004/2005 plan update confirmed this approach, and supported the
citys policy of using large-lot single family development patterns to help protect critical
areas and natural features from incremental development that would ultimately have a
negative impact on the public.
In terms of public facilities and services, there is only one minor arterial (Puget Drive)
serving this entire area. This is indicative of a significant problem with encouraging more
intensive development in this area there is no network of interconnected streets and high-
capacity roadways similar to other areas of the city where areas of higher intensity
development are planned (e.g. downtown or along Highway 99 or SR-104). This is one of
the reasons that multi-family development has not been envisioned in this area.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within
the city?
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
city. Changing the designation of one parcel from single family to multi-family does not
significantly affect the overall balance of land use in the City.
However, although this site-specific proposal does not in and of itself materially change the
overall balance of land uses, if it is considered to set a precedent for additional multi-family
uses in the area surrounding the small neighborhood commercial center, approving the
proposal could significantly change the character of the area and begin to affect the overall
land use pattern.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and
the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision
of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints?
The subject parcel itself is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
potential development. As discussed previously, the parcel itself is essentially flat. There
are no identified water features on the site but North Stream does run east-west
approximately 200 north of the parcel. All development on the site would have to meet the
applicable zoning criteria for setbacks, coverage, and parking as well as stormwater
treatment, etc. The parcel takes access from Grandview Street. In addition to the comments
received from neighbors on the street who find the current traffic on the street challenging,
the Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family development should take direct access from
arterial and collector streets (p. 54) rather than a minor street like Grandview.
As discussed previously, the proposal is not compatible with adjoining land uses. While
there is a strip of more intense development near the intersection of Puget and Olympic View
Drives, several of the parcels are developed with multi-family residential uses. These uses
can continue on the BN-zoned parcels, however, the multi-family buildings are non-
conforming with respect to use and have not been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
5
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 6 of 6
future high-intensity development. Including an additional multi-family structure in an
overwhelmingly single-family residential area near a small and underdeveloped
neighborhood commercial area does not make sense at this time.
III. ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Photo of Vicinity
4. Applicants Narrative describing Comprehensive Plan Amendment
5. 1963 Comprehensive Plan Annexation Map
6. 1963 Generalized Land Use Plan Map
7. 1963 Zoning Map
8. Determination of Nonsignificance, dated May 8, 2008
9. Letters from Michael and Donna Herb
10. Letter from Dorothy Gouge
11. Letters from Scott Urquhart
12. Letter from William and Gloria Hood
13. Letter from Harold Hodel
14. Letter from Kurt and Ana Stark
15. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Residential Development, pages 50 55
16. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Commercial Land Use, pages 56 59
17. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, pages 99 110
IV.PARTIES OF RECORD
John Bissell, AICP Michael & Lisa Zammit Planning Division
th
Director of Planning, Principal 12307 Avenue South Engineering Division
HBA Design Group Edmonds, WA 98020 Fire Department
1721 Hewitt Avenue Public Works Department
Everett, WA 98201
Michael & Donna Herb Dorothy Gouge Scott Urquhart
th
940 Grandview Street 1414 9 Avenue N, # 301 1016 Grandview Street
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
William & Gloria Hood Harold Hodel Kurt & Ana Stark
thth
1031 Grandview Street 20902 67 Ave. NE #332 5725 86 Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98020 Arlington, WA 98223 Mukilteo, WA 98275
6