CU-07-3 HE Decision.pdf1,oc.1S°1v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. CU -2007-3
Manijeh Fahim Talebinia ) Farah's Hair Designs CUP
3
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
For a Conditional Use Permit. ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The request for conditional use permit (CUP) approval to operate a hair salon as a home
occupation from a 10 -foot by 12 -foot area within the existing garage at her residence located in a
Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 8830 Main Street in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject
to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Rte:
Manijeh Fahim Talebinia. (Applicant) requested CUP approval to operate a hair salon as a home
occupation from a 10 -foot by 12 -foot area within the existing garage at her residence located in a
Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 8830 Main Street in Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on
July 5, 2007. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2, Manijeh Fahim Talebinia, Applicant
3. Judy Stead
4. Mertice Anderson
5. Iris Corallo
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
Exhibit A City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report, dated June 28, 2007, with the
following attachments:
1. Land use application, dated received January 16, 2007
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Heanng Examiner
Fish's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3 page I of 9
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
2. Vicinity map
3. Criteria statement
4. Home Occupation application, dated January 1, 2007
5. Building permit plans
6. Affidavits of posting and mailing
7. Comment letter from David Cook
8. Comment letter from Sherry Anderson
9. Letter from Russell and Louise MacGilvray
10. Letter from Lori Kormanyos
11. Letter from Bonnie and Allan O'Brien
12. Letter from Janet Jensen
Exhibit B Photograph of cars parked near subject property, offered by Judy Stead
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
The Applicant requested CUP approval to operate a hair salon as a home occupation from
a 10 -foot by 12 -foot area within the existing garage at her residence located in a Single -
Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 8830 Main Street in Edmonds, Washington. Exhibit A,
page 2; Attachment 1, Application.
2. The subject property is a single-family residential lot approximately 8,328 square feet in
area. It is developed with a residence and attached two car garage fronting Main Street.
The site is primarily flat with a slight slope down to Main Street. The property frontage
contains a landscaped front yard and a concrete driveway sufficient to provide off-street
parking for two cars. Exhibit A, page 2; Exhibit A, Attachment S; Testimony of Ms
Fahim.
3. Surrounding properties consist of single-family residential lots. The site abuts Main
Street to the north. East, south, and west of the site, lots are developed with single-family
residences, as are parcels across Main Street. Yost Park is located approximately 650
feet west of the site on Main Street. Pine Ridge Park is also located in the vicinity.
Exhibit A, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment 2, Vicinity map; Site Visit.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family — Urban 1.
City Staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan policies as being applicable to the
proposal:
Residential Development Policy B.5 states: Protect residential areas from
incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development
and expansion based on the following principles:
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
page 2 of 9
B.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by
local government.
B.5.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood
must be discouraged.
B.5.c Stable 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.
Exhibit A, page 8; City of Edmonds Comprehensive flan; Testimony of Ms Coccia.
5. The subject property and surrounding area have a zoning designation of Residential
Single -Family (RS -8). The purpose of the RS zone is 1) to reserve and regulate areas
primarily for family living in single-family dwellings and 2) to provide for additional
non-residential uses that complement and are compatible with single-family dwelling use.
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.000. Home occupations are
permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, subject to the requirements of the home
occupations Chapter 20.20 ECDC. ECDC]620.010.B(3).
6. A home occupation is an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit or
accessory building to a dwelling unit. The purpose of the City's home occupation
development standards is to allow residents to carry on home occupations on their
property while guaranteeing neighboring residents freedom from excessive noise, traffic,
nuisance, fire hazard, and other potential negative impacts from commercial uses within a
residential neighborhood. The City's home occupation development standards permit
two types of economic operations to be carried on within dwelling units while prohibiting
other commercial uses in residential neighborhoods: a) economic enterprise operated
entirely within a residential structure that does not involve anyone other than residents of
the dwelling; and b) commerical activity designed to serve the immediate neighborhood
without attracting traffic from out of the vicinity, such as music teachers, newspaper
delivery, and similar enterprises. ECDC 20.20.000.
7. The Applicant proposes to operate a hair salon out of the existing garage of her single-
family residence on a part-time basis by appointment only. Plans submitted include
building permit applications for a 10 -foot by 12 -foot enclosed space within the existing
garage. No signage, storage of goods, retail sales, advertising, or employees are
proposed. Equipment used in the business would include scissors, hair dryers, and other
items associated with hair cutting and styling. No large, loud, or heavy equipment is
proposed and no deliveries from large commercial trucks are anticipated. No materials
would be stored outside. Except for customer travel and parking, no activities would
occur outside the existing structure. Proposed hours of operation would be 9:00 am to
7:00 pm seven days per week. The Applicant stated that she intended to serve only
family, friends, and patrons from the surrounding neighborhood. Exhibit A, Attachments
1, 3, 4, and 5; Testimony of Ms. Fahim; Exhibit A, page 5.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CLI -2007-3
page 3 of 9
8. The Applicant's business would involve customers visiting the residence; therefore it
must undergo CUP review. Testimony of Ms. Coccia; ECDC 20.20.010.A.
9. The home occupation would result in increased traffic in the immediate vicinity of the
site. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition,
indicates that the average single-family residence generates 9.57 vehicle trips (to and
from) per day. City Staff opined that restricting the number of customers to no more than
four per day would prevent detrimental traffic impacts in the vicinity, because it would be
less traffic than would be generated by a new single-family residence or accessory
dwelling unit. Exhibit A, page 5, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
10. Customers of the requested hair salon would generate increased parking demand in the
immediate vicinity. The RS -8 zone requires each residence to have a minimum of two
off-street parking spaces. Prior to the proposed garage renovation, the existing residence
had two off-street spaces in the garage and two more in the driveway. The alteration of
the garage would reduce the residence's off-street parking spaces to three. Main Street
allows public parking in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Planning Staff
recommended a condition of approval limiting the home occupation to four customers per
day with no overlap of appointments in order to ensure there would be no adverse
impacts due to parking. Exhibit A, pages 5-6, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
11. The City's Technical Committee, comprised of the Engineering Division and the Fire,
Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, reviewed the proposal. The Fire
Department submitted comments indicating that a fire extinguisher must be kept on-site.
Exhibit A, page 8.
12. Notice of the application and the public hearing were posted and distributed consistent
with the requirements of the City Code. Exhibit A, Attachment 6; Testimony of Ms.
Coccia. The City received several public comments from neighbors opposing the project.
The public comments expressed concerns about: allowing a commercial enterprise in a
residential zone; signage; impacts on property values; traffic safety; parking; whether
approval would set a precedent for additional home occupations; and whether the
proposed commercial activity should be located in a commercial area rather than a
residential area. Several neighbors provided testimony on these concerns at the public
hearing. Exhibit A, Attachment 7, Cook letter; Attachment 8, Anderson letter; Attachment
9, MacGilvray letter; Attachment 10, Kormanyos letter; Attachment 11, O'Brien letter;
Attachment 12; Jensen letter; Testimony of Ms. Stead; Testimony of Ms. Anderson;
Testimony of Ms. Corallo.
13. City Planning Staff responded to the concerns raised in public comment. Planning Staff
visited the site during review of the application and found it to be adequately maintained,
and not littered or unkempt. Staff noted that home occupations are allowed in the RS -8
district and opined that, as conditioned, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact
on the neighborhood. No signage or outdoor advertising would be permitted. All home
occupation activities would take place entirely with the existing structure. The business
activities would not result in noise, odor, or other impacts in excess of those generated by
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
page 4 of 9
typical single-family residential use. The City Engineering Department reviewed the
application and found no insufficiency regarding parking on the public street in the
vicinity of the site. A recommended condition would limit daily customers to four per
day and would prohibit customer appointments from overlapping, in order to prevent
detrimental traffic impacts from increased vehicle trips or customer parking. There
would be no employees aside from the Applicant. The home occupation would be
subject to compliance with all applicable noise, parking, and public nuisance regulations.
Finally, Staff indicated that abuse of the home occupation privilege would result in
revocation of the permit. Testimony of Ms. Coccia; ECDC 20.20.0.10(5).
14. The Applicant agreed to restrict her business to no more than four customers per day, to
schedule them so that no appointments overlap, and to serve only the local neighborhood,
friends, and family. Testimony of Ms Fahim.
15. City staff reviewed the CUP application and recommended approval, subject to
conditions. Staff recommended that CUP approval not be transferable to future property
owners or to other locations, should the Applicant move within the City, consistent with
home occupation regulations. Exhibit A, page 3; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; ECDC
20.20.030. The Applicant concurred with the City's analysis and agreed to the
recommended conditions of approval as discussed at the public hearing. Testimony of
Ms. Fahim.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC
20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010.
Conditional Use Permit Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, the Hearing Examiner may not approve a CUP unless the
following findings can be made:
A. That the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
B. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance;
C. Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity;
and
D, Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the
conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
page 5 of 9
Home Occupation Development Standards:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010, home occupations may be conducted as a permitted use in any
residential zone of the City subject to the following regulations:
A. Home occupation shall be a permitted use if it:
1. Is carried on exclusively by members of the family residing in the
dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any
significant outside activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools, or power sources not comment to
a residence; and
4. Has no pick up or delivery by business-related commercial vehicles
(except for US Mail) exceeding 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke, or other adverse
impact to a residential area beyond that normally associated with .
residential use; and
6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at
the residence; and
7. [Complies with] all performance criteria pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010.
B. A home occupation that does not meet one or more of the requirements of subsection
A... may be approved as a conditional use permit ... if the home occupation:
1. Will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood;
2. The temporary and permanent keeping of animals associated with home
occupations must comply with all provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC (Animal
Control) and ECDC Title 16;
3. Will not include storage, display of goods, building materials and/or the operation
of building machinery, commercial vehicles or other tools, unless it meets the
following criteria:
a. Is wholly enclosed within a structure or building,
b. Does not emit noise, odor or heat, and
c. Does not create glare or emit light from the site in violation of the
city's performance criteria;
4. Does not create a condition which injures or endangers the comfort, or pose health
or safety threats of persons on abutting properties or streets; and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
page 6 of 9
5. Will not generate traffic from outside of the neighborhood nor excessive intra -
neighborhood traffic or necessitate excessive parking beyond that normally
associated with a residential use; and all performance criteria established by
ECDC 17.60.0 10 are met. Any permit granted to such a home occupation shall
be immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by any client, patient
or customer in excess of the standard established through the conditional use
permit process, and proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void such
permit in any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to review of approved
permits.
Purusant to ECDC 20.20.015:
Examples of home occupations which might qualify for a permit include the musical
instruction of pupils in clearly defined and limited numbers which does not generate
traffic from outside of the residential neighborhood in which it is located nor in excess of
normal residential levels or operating as a news carrier from a residential home in which
the only outside traffic is delivery of papers to the site by the news agency.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.20.020.C:
Reasons for Denial. A home occupation conditional use permit is a special exception to
the zoning ordinance and the applicant has the burden of persuasion that he/she comes
within the stated purposes and criteria of this chapter. The following are among common
reasons for denial but are not intended to be exclusive:
1. The on -street or on-site parking of trucks or other types of equipment associated with
the home occupation;
2. The littered, unkempt and otherwise poorly maintained condition of the dwelling site;
3. Noncompliance with the criteria of this chapter or conditions of approval or other
provisions of city ordinance; and/or
4. The proposal cannot be conditioned in order to meet the criteria and findings of the
chapter.
_Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. With conditions, the proposed home occupation would be consistent with the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the Single Family — Urban 1 land
use designation. Home occupation activities would occur entirely within the existing
garage of the single-family residence in an interior addition. There would be no impacts
to residential privacy. Conditions of approval would ensure that the business would be
limited to four customers per day by appointment only, and that appointments would not
overlap. The increased traffic volume and parking demand would be less than that
generated by an accessory dwelling unit or new residence in the same zone. The use
would not result in noise or odor impacts nor encroachment onto surrounding properties.
The City Engineering Department reviewed the projected traffic and parking increases
and recommended approval. Conditions of approval would ensure no external evidence
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3 page 7 of 9
of business activities would affect surrounding properties. Findings Nos. 3, 4, 7, 910,
11, 13, and 14.
2. The Edmonds Community Development Code distinguishes between commercial activity
and home occupations. Home occupations are allowed in residential zones. As
conditioned, the proposed use in the proposed location is consistent with the purposes of
the RS -8 zoning district and with the home occupation development standards. The hair
salon would not result in impacts to surrounding properties greater than would be
generated by typical single-family residences. With the project, the subject property
would still satisfy off-street parking requirements of the underlying zone. Public parking
is allowed on the street in the vicinity of the site. Findings Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,
and 14.
3. As conditioned, the proposed use would not adversely impact public health, safety, or
welfare and would not be significantly detrimental to surrounding uses. Conditions
would limit the number of customers and thus the number of increased vehicle trips and
parking demand to a level less than would be expected from an accessory dwelling unit
or new residence. Findings Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
4. Pursuant to the City's home occupation development standards, the CUP is not
transferable to other operators or other locations in the City.
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for CUP approval to operate a hair
salon as a home occupation from a 10 -foot by 12 -foot area within the existing garage at her
residence located in a Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 8830 Main Street in Edmonds,
Washington is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. In order to prevent more than one customer car from parking at or near the site at a time,
services shall be provided to no more than one customer at a time, and appointments shall
not be allowed to overlap.
2. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am and 7:00 pm Monday through Sunday.
3. The home occupation may serve a maximum number of four customers per day and shall
serve only friends and family of the Applicant and customers from the local
neighborhood.
4. The salon shall maintain a five -pound size minimum fire extinguisher on site at all times.
The Applicant shall confirm the required fire extinguisher with the Fire Department.
5. 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.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
page 8 of 9
6. The permit is not transferable to other locations or other operators.
7. The salon shall not have any employees in addition to the Applicant.
8. No signage or outdoor advertising is permitted.
DECIDED this 191h day of July 2007.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Farah's Hair Designs, No. CU -2007-3
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
page 9 of 9
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 88020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Apy person within to o file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should
contact the Planning Division of the Develo went Services D artment for further procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her 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
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires
appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and
the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his
or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be
wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal 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 or her
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 five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020(C) of the ECDC states. "Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if
no building permit 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.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan