Loading...
HE_Decisions_PLN19900078.pdf890-194 p: CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR HEARING EXAMINER 0) � P(D FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: CU -78-90 OF KENNETH & COURTNEY WILLIAMS FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION: The conditional use permit is granted subject to the conditions listed. INTRODUCTION Kenneth and Courtney Williams, 11250 Kirkland Way, Suite A, Kirk- land, WA 98033 (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of a conditional use permit for the allowance of offices in an RM zone, on property located at 7833 - 196th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter referred to as subject property). A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on January 15, 1991. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: ED SOMERS Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 COURTNEY WILLIAMS 2609 E. Beaver Lake Dr. SE Issaquah, WA 98027 CANDY BERTON 7919 - 194th P1 SW Edmonds, WA 98020 KENNETH WILLIAMS 11250 Kirkland Way Suite A Kirkland, WA 98033 STEVEN IRLE 7828 - 193rd P1 SW Edmonds, WA 98020 GREG BERTON 7919 - 194th P1 SW Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/ 91 Page 2 Witnesses (Continued): NORA ROBERTSON 7820 - 193rd P1 SW Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report 2 - Application " 3 - Site Plan and Floor Plans 4 - Declaration of Non -Significance and SEPA Checklist 5 - Hearing Examiner's Decision on File #CU -50-85 6 - Determination regarding existing uses on site 7 - Woods letter " 8 - Robertson letter After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the deci- sion of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS 1. The application is for a conditional use permit for allowance of offices in an RM zone on property located at 7833 - 196th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington. 2. The subject property is located on the north side of 196th Street SW. It has 144 feet of frontage on 196th Street, and 630 feet of lot depth. The property is zoned RM 2.4 on the southern 310 feet of the site. The north 310 feet of the site is zoned RS -8. 3. A reduced copy of a site plan is attached hereto and by this reference is incorporated as part of these Findings. The markings on the site plan, made by the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, indicate the portion of the site that is RM 2.4, and the area that is RS -8. 4. The site is currently developed with two (2) two-story concrete block buildings. These buildings contain offices, storage, and manufacturing uses. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/' 11 Page 3 5. Building #1 and a portion of Building #2 are located in the RM 2.4 zone. The northern portion of Building #2 is located in the RS -8 zone. It is the Applicant's intent to convert the spaces in the building that are not currently used for offices into office space. There is no proposal to place offices in any portion of the building that is zoned RS -8. 6. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.30.010(0)(1) identifies offices as a primary use of RM zoned property that requires that a conditional use permit. The Applicant seeks its permit pursuant to this ordinance. 7. ECDC 20.05.010 sets forth the criteria for review of a condi- tional use permit within the City of Edmonds. That criteria include: A. The proposed use must be consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. B. The proposed use and its location must be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances and the pur- poses of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and the proposed use meet all applicable require- ments of the zoning ordinance. C. The proposed use, as conditionally approved, must not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private properties or improve- ments unless the use is a public necessity. D. The Hearing Examiner must determine if the proposed use is transferable. (ECDC) 8. The historical use of the property has been commercial. How- ever, pursuant to ECDC 17.40.010(C), the Applicant was required to terminate the commercial use by January 16, 1986. The Applicant's predecessor obtained a conditional use permit for an extension of five (5) years for the termination of the commercial use. The termination deadline for the commercial use will occur on March 3, 1991, and it is the intent of the Applicant to terminate it and convert the space into office use. 9. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds designates the subject property as high density residential. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/ '91 Page 4 Offices are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan designation because the use will encourage high quality site and building design and will promote a coordinated development for the preservation of the residential nature of the neighborhood. The proposal is consistent with these policies as set forth in ECDC 15.20.005. 10. There are non -office commercial uses and outdoor storage on site. These uses and storage areas must be removed in order to comply with the zoning regulations, and in particular ECDC 17.40.010(C). 11. The site has not been landscaped to City landscaping standards. Adequate landscaping must be consistent with surrounding properties, and the Applicant must submit a landscaping plan. 12. The requested conditional use will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. No office use will be allowed in the RS -8 zoned portion of the site. In addition, with proper landscaping and limitation of office uses in the RM 2.4 zone, the site will not be detrimental to other properties in the area. 13. On site is a parking lot. According to the City of Edmonds Planning Department, the parking available on site is adequate for parking for non -customer oriented offices. 14. The Fire Department of the City of Edmonds reviewed the pro- posal and indicated that all improvements to the buildings must comply with current codes. 15. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended approval of the proposed conditional use permit subject to condi- tions as set forth in the Staff Report. 16. At the hearing the Applicant indicated that they agree with the conditions as recommended by the City. The Applicant submitted that the portion of the property that is zoned RS -8 will not be used for an office. According to the Applicant, the property will most likely be remodeled and in the future rented -out as an apartment. 17. The Applicant submitted that they are going to paint the entire Building #2, even though a portion of it is in the RS -8 zone, and will not be used for office purposes. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/ '91 Page 5 18. The Applicant submitted that most of the property in the RS -8 zone is wooded, natural area and there will be no detrimental impact to adjoining properties to the north because of the buffer. Further, he testified that the outdoor storage on site will be removed. Although their tenant has refused to remove the storage, the tenant has been given a sixty (60) day evacuation notice which will expire on February 28, 1991. At that time the outdoor storage will be removed. 19. At the hearing testimony was received from various witnesses. A summary of their testimony is as follows. A. Steven Irle. The witness testified that he owns property to the north of the subject property. He was concerned about pollution impacts to his property generated from lights from the offices, and especially if the offices are in use at night. The witness was also concerned about increased criminal activity and property values. He contended that any development of the site could ruin the aesthetics of the site and that of other properties in the area. He also question whether there would be any violation of the height standards. The witness was informed by the City that the Applicant must comply with all building and development standards of the City of Edmonds. B. Nora Robertson. The witness lives to the north, behind the site. According to the witness, if the use is changed to a commercial business, the parking will impact her property. The City, in response, clarified that in order to be used for a commercial use, the property would have to be rezoned pursuant to a rezone application, and adequate parking would have to be obtained. This is not the intent of the Applicant. C. Greg Berton. The witness was concerned about additional foot traffic in the area. He stated that pedestrian traffic on 196th might continue to walk through the subject property in the northern portion of the site. He contended that there was a need to place a gate at 196th to prevent this type of pedestrian traffic. D. Candy Berton. The witness submitted that her property is northwest of the subject property. She wanted a fence on the northern portion of the site because the storage materials on site create an attractive nuisance to children. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/' `1 Page 6 20. Submitted at the public hearing as Exhibits were correspon- dences from neighbors. A summary of correspondence received is as follows: A. Jim and Janie Woods. The letter writers submitted that their residence is located twenty (20) feet from the subject pro- perty. They requested that the property not be changed to multi- family dwelling status now or in the future. They contended that many problems have been created with development of high density living areas, such as limited parking areas, inadequate play area for children, increased traffic, etc. They requested that a minimum six (6) foot high screening fence be erected to divide the "commercial" property from the residential property, and to prevent foot traffic across the residential properties. They also requested a clean up of the property and the removal of storage materials. The witnesses also requested that some maintenance program be established to ensure that the storm drainage system is functional and that there is no impact to the surrounding properties. B. Nora Robertson. The letter writer submitted a letter signed by herself and seven others. She stated that she was against the rezoning of the subject property. The signers contended that they are opposed to the encroachment of businesses into the resi- dential neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit for the allowance of an office in an RM zone on property located at 7833 - 196th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington. 2. A conditional use permit is required pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 16.30.010(C)(1). 3. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010(B)(1). 4. ECDC 20.05.010 which sets forth the criteria for review of conditional use permits within the City of Edmonds, have been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and, with conditions, the requested use satisfies those criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/ 11 Page 7 5. The proposed use in its location is consistent with the pur- poses of the zoning ordinances and the RM 2.4 zone in which the subject property is located. It is consistent because it will reserve and regulate an area that will allow for an additional use which will complement and be compatible with multiple residential uses. This consistency with the RM zone applies only to the portion of the site that is zoned RM 2.4. 6. The requested conditional use is consistent with the Compre- hensive Policy Plan of the City of Edmonds. It will provide for a use which is compatible with the adjoining multiple family resi- dential uses. 7. The requested use will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor to nearby private properties or improvements. The use will be limited to the area of the site that is zoned RM 2.4. 8. The portion of the property that is zoned RS -8 shall comply with all zoning standards and development regulations for the RS -8 zone. 9. The requested conditional use should be transferable, subject to adherence to the conditions as set forth herein. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, itis hereby ordered that the requested conditional use permit for the allowance of offices on a portion of the property located at 7833 - 196th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, that is zoned RM 2.4, is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing non -office commercial uses that are on the RM 2.4 zoned portion of the property must be terminated. Further, no non -office commercial use or office use may exist on the portion of the property that is zoned RS -8. 2. All outdoor storage on the property, including outdoor storage areas on both RM 2.4 and RS -8 zoned portions of the site must be removed. The storage must be removed before occupancy permits will be issued. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: CU -78-90 2/ 31 Page 8 3. A new landscaping plan for the relandscaping of the RM portion of the property must be submitted. 4. The Applicants shall submit paint samples for the repainting of the buildings in the RM 2.4 and the RS -8 zones to the Architectural Design Board for approval. 5. The landscaping that is to be created, and the repainting of the buildings, must comply with all of the Architectural Design Board approval and conditions. Such compliance must occur prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits or business licenses for any new tenants. 6. All tenant improvements must comply with all current codes. 7. The offices shall be non -customer oriented offices only, and must comply with the parking space requirements as set forth in ECDC 17.50.020 (B) (6) . 8. If customer oriented offices are proposed in the future, the Applicant or successors must seek an additional conditional use permit to assess the impacts of the proposal. 9. The Applicant shall provide fencing on the northern boundary of the subject property. Entered this 1st day of February, 1991, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. 4k MES M". DRISCO 4 earing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 15, 1991.