Loading...
HE Decision CU_07_9.pdfr 12 C I B 9\3 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 -X007-9 Alisa Na ) FINDINGS, .CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION For a Conditional Use Permit. ) GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) office use within the RM -1.5 zone is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Background/Request: On May 10, 2006, the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner approved a CUP (CU -06-03) allowing Alisa Na (Applicant) to establish a CPA office use within the RM -1.5 zone at 8319 238th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington. The approval was limited to the ground floor of an existing two-story building on the site. Through the current CUP application, the Applicant proposes to expand the CPA office use into the second floor of the building, which would increase the area of the use from approximately 1,176 square feet to 2,050 square feet. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request and a site view on May 17, 2007. Testimony: At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Jen Machuga, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Lisa Song, speaking on behalf of Applicant Alisa Na Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: A. Staff Report dated May, 10, 2007, with the following attachments: 1. Land Use Application submitted February 1, 2007 2. Applicant's Response to CUP Criteria, submitted February 1, 2007 3. Zoning and Vicinity Map Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Alisa Na CUP, No. CU -2007-9 page I of -5 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 4. Set of Project Plans dated revised January 8, 2007 (11 pages, as described on . Sheet Index) B. Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner, Case No. CU -06-3, with referenced exhibits Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. On May 10, 2006, the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner approved a CUP (CU -06-03) allowing the Applicant to establish a CPA office use within the RM -1.5 zone at 8319 238th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington. The approval was limited to the ground floor of an existing two-story building on the site. Through the current CUP application, the Applicant proposes to expand the CPA office use into the second floor of the building, which would increase the area of the use from approximately 1,176 square feet to 2,050 square feet. Exhibit A, page 2; Exhibit A, Attachments 1, 2, and 4; Exhibit B, pages I and 5. 2. The subject property is zoned RM -1.5 (Multiple Residential — minimum lot area 1,500 square feet). One of the purposes of the RM zone is "to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses." ECDC 16.30.000(B); Exhibit A, page 4. Offices are allowed in the RM zone with approval of a CUP. ECDC 16.30, 010(C). 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is "Highway 99 Corridor." One of the goals of the Highway 99 corridor is to "encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods", including development that provides services to residents. 2006 Comprehensive Plan, page 46; Exhibit A, page 5. The Highway 99 Corridor includes four "focus areas" with different characteristics and development goals. The subject property is closest to the "Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area"focus area,'which allows for mixed use development as well as larger -scale commercial development. Exhibit A, page 5; 2006 Comprehensive Plan, page 47. 4. The subject property is an approximate 11,500 -square -foot lot that is located at the corner of 84th Avenue West and 2381" Street Southwest. The lot is developed with three buildings. The western two building are duplexes, and the eastern building is the subject of this CUP application. The subject building previously contained a television repair shop on the ground floor and an apartment on the second floor. The 2006 CUP authorized conversion of the television repair shop portion of the building into a CPA office. Exhibit A, page 2. 5. There are a mixture of residential and commercial land uses in the vicinity of the site. The property to the north is zoned RM -1.5 and developed with two triplexes. The property to the south is zoned Community Business (BC) and is developed with the Skandi Village Apartments. The property to the southeast, fronting Highway 99, is zoned General Commercial (CG) and is developed with the Seoul Plaza shopping center. The Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Atisa Na CUP, No. CU -2007-9 page 2 of 5 properties to the west, on the opposite side of 84th Avenue W, are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -8) and are developed with single-family residences. The property to the east is a narrow strip of land, zoned RM -1.5, that is part of a larger parcel located to the north of the subject property. The strip of land is undeveloped except for a small parking pad. The property farther to the east, fronting Highway 99, is zoned CG and is developed with the Aurora Market Place shopping center, which contains a mixture of retail and restaurant uses. Exhibit A, page 3; Exhibit A, Attachment 3. 6. There would be four full-time employees on site (with the potential for one or two additional employees in the future), and approximately eight client visits per day. This is similar to the employee/customer volume that was considered when. CU -06-3 was issued (the previous application anticipated three full-time employees and eight client visits). The proposed expansion into the second floor of the building would allow for an - employee break room and conference room. The proposed hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exhibit A, Attachment 2; Exhibit B, page 5. .7. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) specifies that when there are multiple land uses on the same site, the parking standard for the site is the sum of all the requirements for the individual uses. ECDC 17.50.030(0). In this case there are two land uses on site: multi -family residential and office. For each two-bedroom multi -family dwelling unit, the ECDC requires 1.8 parking spaces. ECDC 17.50.020(A)(1)(b). The subject property contains two duplexes, each with two two-bedroom dwelling units. The total number of parking spaces required for the duplexes is 7.2. For business and professional offices with on-site customer service, the ECDC requires one parking space per 400 square feet of gross building area. ECDC 17.50.020(B)(5); ECDC 17.50.030(A). According to the Title Sheet of the submitted project plans (Exhibit A, Attachment 4), the area of the building that is the subject of this CUP application (both floors) is 2,050 square feet. The total number of parking spaces required for the office use is 5.125 (2,050 400 = 5.125).1 Rounding down as required by ECDC 17.50.030(E), the total number of parking spaces required on site is 12 (7.2 + 5.125 = 12.325 = 12). Exhibit A, page 4; Exhibit A, Attachment 4, Title Sheet. .8. The existing parking on site satisfies the ECDC parking standards. Each duplex unit has a two -car garage (eight parking spaces) and there are four additional parking spaces behind the buildings, for a total of 12 parking spaces. Although one of the five parking spaces allocated to the office use would be within a garage and inaccessible to office employees and customers, evidence was provided that the parking would still be adequate to serve the use. There is on -street parking available in the vicinity of the site, including two parking stalls in front of the subject building on 238th Street SW. These two stalls are mostly contained within the subject property boundaries. In addition, the parking pad to the east of the subject property may provide parking opportunities, although the The City PIanner provided a calculation that was based on 2,018 square feet of building area. Exhibit A, page 4. The Hearing Examiner was not able to locate that figure in the project plans and instead relied on the figure set forth on the Title Page (2,050 square feet). The slight discrepancy in numbers does not affect the overall parking analysis; either number results in the same parking requirement. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Alisa Na CUP, No. CU -2007-9 page 3 of 5 Applicant's right to use those spaces is not clear from the record. The City Planner submitted that the parking on site complies with the ECDC and would be adequate for the use. Exhibit A, page 4; Exhibit A, Attachment 4; Testimony of Ms. Machuga; Site View. 9. The City determined that the proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Exhibit A, page 5; see also ECDC 20.15A and WAC 197-11-800. 10. City staff reviewed the CUP application and recommended approval,. subject to conditions. Staff recommended that CUP approval run with the land and be transferable to fixture property owners for a similar office or service use. The City received no public .comment on the application. Exhibit A, page 2; Testimony of Ms. Machuga. 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. 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. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use would provide a transition between the commercial development to the east and the residential neighborhood to the west. The use would provide a service to the neighborhood and would add to the mix of uses in the vicinity of the site, but would not generate significant impacts. Findings No. 3, 5, and 6. 2. The proposed use in the proposed location is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RM zoning district, and will meet all applicable Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Alisa Na CUP, No. CU -2007-9 page 4 of 5 requirements of the zoning ordinance. Consistent with the purpose of the RM zone, the use would complement and be compatible with the multi -family uses on and off the development site. The use would provide a service to the neighborhood, but would not generate significant impacts. The existing parking on site satisfies the parking standards of ECDC 17.50. Findings Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 3. As conditioned, the use will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements. Based on the anticipated number of employees and clients, the use would generate only a modest amount of traffic. The hours of operation would be compatible with the residential neighborhood. The parking on site would be adequate to serve the use, since customers could use the two parking stalls in front of the building on 238`h Street SW. Findings Nos. 6, 7, and 8. 4. The proposed CUP is transferable to future owners of the subject property, provided the use is a similar office or service use. Any future use must be similar in character to avoid impacts to surrounding residential uses and to ensure that off-street parking is adequate. Findings Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) office use within the RM -1.5 zone at 8319 238`x' Street SW is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. All necessary City building permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of remodel work on the building. 3. All necessary City sign permits shall be obtained prior to erecting new signs. 4. This permit shall run with the land and shall be transferable to a similar office or service use. DECIDED this 22'd day of May 2007. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Alisa Na CUP, No. CU -2007-9 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: page 5 of 5 It z? C.18913 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 88020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Da 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 ppealed, 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'f;earing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. Incorporated August 11, I890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan