CU-96-32 Hearing Examiner Decision.pdf�St. 1Sgv
CIS .... � n
�� w.� �BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH m EDMONDS, WA 98020 ® (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Op
OF THE HEARING EXAMINERLAAf`
CITY OF EDMONDS �
APPLICANT: Basketball Travelers
CASE NO.: CU -96-32
LOCATION: 225 4th Avenue S. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Office in an Multi -Family
Residential (RM -1.5) zone. This office will occupy an existing
building that has been a single-family residence in the past.
REVIEW PROCESS: Conditional Use Permit; Bearing Examiner conducts public hearing
and makes final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
1. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.50.010 (Multi -Family Residential - Uses).
2. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Bearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Bearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the Basketball Travelers application was opened at 9:44 a.m., April 4, 1996, in the
Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:52 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.
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 2
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of
the application with conditions. He noted that the code would require two parking stalls
and that the applicant is proposing five stalls.
From the Applicant:
Nels Hawkinson explained what Basketball Travelers does and said there will be no walk
in or drive in clients. All of their work is done by phone, mail, fax, etc.
From the Community:
Gayle Crawford said she and her husband own two nearby residences and are concerned
about having a business encroach into this quiet residential neighborhood. She felt that no
matter how low the impact, the business is there will still be some impact on the residential
neighborhood. She requested that the application be denied.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Carol Elwell wrote in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 to Exhibit A that she lives across the street
from the subject property and that she is in agreement with the proposed conversion of the
single family home to offices.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
The subject property is located at 225 4th Avenue South, and while developed as a single
family detached house, the current proposal requests the approval of using the existing
structure for an office. The applicant has stated in their declarations that their business
would operate during typical business hours and that it would not generate any traffic due
to the fact that all business is done over the phone. Approximately five parking stalls
should be able to be provided off of the alley which will limit any impact to the
neighborhood in the way of on street parking.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is a square of 5,400 square feet (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 1 &3).
(2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a single-family residence.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 3
(2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Multi -Family -Residential (RM -1.5)
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) Terrain and Vegetation:: The subject property is flat with limited ornamental
landscaping.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North: This area is currently zoned under the RM -1.5 zoning designation and is
developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) South: This area is currently zoned under the RM -1.5 zoning designation and is
developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) East: This area is currently zoned under the BC zoning designation and is
developed with commercial businesses (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) West: This area is currently zoned under the RM -1.5 zoning designation and is
developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with ECDC Section 16.30.010 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - USES)
a) Fact: Offices area permitted use requiring a conditional use permit in the RM -1.5
zone, per ECDC 16.30.010.
b) Parking facilities are required to comply with provisions of ECDC Chapter 17.50 (Off -
Street Parking Regulations).
c) Conclusion:
1. A conditional use is a use that has been legislatively determined to be allowed
within a given zone if appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure its
compatibility with those uses which are permitted as matter of right within that
zone. A conditional use thus carries a fairly heavy assumption of acceptability
within the zone it includes. In consideration of any conditional use permit
application, the Examiner is required to consider the degree of compatibility
which would exist between the use and its particular surroundings and may
impose such conditions as are necessary to ensure compatibility. If
compatibility can be ensured, then the permit should be approved.
2. A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the establishment of offices in a
multi -family zone. If a Conditional Use Permit is granted, the use will be
consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 4
3. Parking provided for the proposed office shall comply with the Edmonds
Community Development Code.
2. Compliance with Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS)
a) Facts:
1. ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use
Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use
Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The
findings are as follows:
• Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Zoning; Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with
the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in
which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the
applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
• 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.
• Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional
use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
2. The applicants have stated in their declarations the following:
• No additions to the existing house will be associated with this permit;
• No walk-in traffic;
• No signs on the property;
• Hours of operation 7:30 am - 6 pm;
• Five parking stalls will be provided on site.
b. Conclusions:
1. See Section B4 of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds.
2. See Section B1 of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent
with the Zoning Code for the City of Edmonds.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 5
3. Due to the description of the proposed office and how it will be run, this proposal
will have no significant impact to surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed
office will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
4. The permit should be transferable.
5. The conditional use permit for an office should be approved because it complies
with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit.
3. Compliance with ECDC Section 17.50 (OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS)
a. Facts:
1. An analysis of the proposed office and the ECDC parking requirement reveals that
2 parking stalls will be required.
2. The site plan indicates five parking spaces will be provided on the east side of the
site off of the alley (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b. Conclusion:
1. The parking requirement for an office of this size is met by the current proposal.
4. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
a. Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies
stated in the Land Use element under Commercial Land Use which relate to the
subject development proposal.
1. Commercial Land Use A. "...It is essential that future commercial developments
continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of
Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City
should develop a partnership with business, citizens and residents to help it grow
and prosper..."
2. Commercial Land Use B.4. "The design and location of all commercial sites
should provide for convenient and save access for customers, employees and
suppliers."
3. Commercial Land Use B.S. "All commercial developments should be carefully
located and designed to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy
traffic volume and other related problems on surrounding land uses."
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property High Density Residential.
Heating Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 6
b. Conclusions:
1. The proposed building and use is located in a high density residential area, adjacent
to the Mixed Use Commercial designation on the comprehensive plan and is
therefore consistent with the comprehensive plan for its location.
2. The proposal is located in an area which provides for convenient and save access
for all those who may use the facility.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the High
Density Residential and Mixed Use Commercial designation.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated by other
Departments/Divisions of the City.
a. The Engineering Department stated their concern that tandem parking would not
be allowed. Also, parking stalls located on the paved area to the east of the
building must be striped to keep tandem parking from occurring.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the application for a variance is approved,
subject to the following conditions.
1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
2. This permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to the date of submittal for any Building Permits or a Business
License. An allowance for one extension of one year is possible if approved by the
Community Development Director.
3. This permit shall be good for any proposed office use that will not provide any on site
customer service or merchandise. Any business wishing to make use of this
Conditional Use Permit on this property would not be able to do so without
demonstrating their ability to have the same impact or less than the proposed
Basketball Travelers office. Any office use which will entail customers or clients
coming to the subject building will need to go through a separate Conditional Use
Permit review.
4. Striping must be provided across the parking area adjacent to the alley to demark each
stall at 8W x 18' and keep tandem (head to tail) parking from occurring.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 7
5. The permit is transferable, except as noted in Condition #3 above.
Entered this 8th day of April, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS:
The following is a sui-mnaly 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.
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.
B. 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 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.
10.14 go 11.111113
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report with five attachments
B. Basketball Travelers, Inc. Brochure
Nels Hawkinson
19021 10th Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98177
Gayle Crawford
19925 Maplewood
Edmonds, WA 98026
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU -96-32
Page 8
Basketball Travelers, Inc.
9233 Holman Road N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Carol Elwell
242 4th Ave. South, #1
Edmonds, WA 98020-3541