Hearing Examiner Decision.pdfI
2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Courtney Williams
Conditional Use Permit
PLN20170058
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for customer -oriented
office uses within the RM-zoned portion of two existing buildings located at 7831
and 7833 196th St. SW. The application is approved subject to conditions.
This application drew a couple points of interest amongst concerned City residents.
According to one written public comment, one of the prospective tenants for the
property will be an arts and crafts type of operation with a website that suggests it
serves as a site to manufacture "riffle" guns (it was unclear if this was a typo for "rifle
guns"). Gun manufacture for sale would not be allowed at this location because such
an industrial use is not allowed by the City's zoning regulations in the RM 2-4 zoning
district. It is conceivable that the arts and crafts tools of such an establishment could
be used to manufacture guns for personal use. Under limited circumstances, the
manufacture of guns for personal use is authorized under federal law. See 26 U.S.C.
5822; 18 U.S.C. 922(p) and (r); 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105. With
exceptions that don't apply here, local government is prohibited from regulating
Conditional Use P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guns. See RCW 9.41.290; RCW 9.41.300. These state statutes preclude the
placement of any restrictions by this decision on any personal gun manufacture'.
From the limited information submitted into the record, whether or not the
Applicant's property will actually be used for any personal gun manufacturing
appears to be highly conjectural at this point with little factual substantiation. At the
hearing the Applicant stated that he would put a clause in his leases prohibiting gun
manufacturing on his property. To alleviate community concern, the Applicant is
encouraged to follow through on this promise and the tenant should also make it very
clear that no gun manufacturing will occur on the property.
Another issue raised by neighbors was traffic impacts. The staff report notes that the
roads serving the project can accommodate increases in traffic generated by the
proposed change in use. These conclusions were confirmed by the City's
Engineering Program Manager at the hearing, who has an engineering degree and
expertise in assessing traffic impacts. There was no expert testimony offered to the
contrary or any reasonable basis to conclude from the record that the City was
incorrect in its expert assessment of general traffic conditions.
TESTIMONY
[This summary is only provided for the convenience of the reader, to provide an
understanding of the testimony presented at the hearing. The summary of testimony is
not to be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law, or as
indicating what information the examiner found pertinent or significant.]
Jennifer Machuga, City of Edmonds Associate Planner, summarized the proposal.
Ms. Machuga noted that one written comment was received prior to the issuance of
the staff report and a response to this comment was included in the staff report. Two
additional comments have since been received and were entered as Exhibits 2 and 3.
An email from Kelly Radcliff explained her concerns over a potential tenant of these
offices being a gun maker. She also raised concerns related to traffic and noise. An
email from Jan and Anneli Avatare raised concerns related to traffic, problems
entering/exiting the site and concerns regarding noise and operating hours. These
concerns would be presented to the city police department and engineering
department, respectively, who would investigate compliance or issues regarding gun
regulations and traffic standards. Regarding potential noise concerns, the staff
suggested a condition of approval that would limit visits to the sites by customers:
No customers between the hours of llpm and 6am. These hours were selected to
provide consistency with the neighborhood business zone.
1 The City or any other hearing participant is invited to submit a reconsideration request if they can
find a compelling legal argument to the contrary.
Conditional Use p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Machuga noted that the code does not contain
a specific definition of customer -oriented offices, just offices. The definition of office
is found in ECDC 21.75.1010. An office is defined as a building or separately defined
space within building used for a business which does not include on -premise sales of
goods or commodities. The staff confirmed that the building would allow professional
offices and explained that RM zones specifically allow for professional offices as a
primary use requiring a conditional use permit.
Ms. Machuga2 could not state definitively whether the city would do a traffic
concurrency analysis. Many of the buildings are offices without customer onsite
service. She was unsure if the building code requires a change of use permit, which
would trigger concurrency review, for change from a no customer service to customer
service office, but doesn't think it is required. She noted that the business license
review would involve an assessment of whether a change in occupancy is involved
under the building codes. The one building permit needed for this proposal will be
for restriping the parking lot and city engineering will review the business license
application.
Jean McConnell, Edmonds Engineering Program Manager, noted that because the
application for change of use with the property has no specific business/tenant
identified, potential impacts would have to be identified based on applications for a
business license or tenant improvements. If changes must be made for tenants
coming in, then the city will re-examine these issues. As of this point in time they are
only considering the land -use designation. Regarding traffic impact, Ms. McConnell
explained that the site is located on a principal arterial and a state highway. In
response to examiner questions, Ms. McConnell noted she has an engineering degree
and part of her responsibilities for the City of Edmonds include development review
and inspections.
In response to examiner questions regarding use of the property for gun
manufacturing, Ms. Machuga explained that a non-profit known as Cogworks had
apparently expressed interest in being a tenant at the site and this is what triggered the
application process by the Applicant. From what she understands, Cogworks is a
"maker's space" and staff has not reviewed its business license to know for sure if it
will fit with the uses authorized for the proposed conditional use permit or not. She
believes that a full manufacturing business is different from what this business would
be.
Courtney Williams, applicant, states that the applicants agree with the staff report
recommendation for approval. Under Edmonds code, customer -oriented offices are
encouraged in RM zones. He believes the use is compatible as determined by the
Z It was unclear from the hearing recording whether Ms. Machuga or Ms. McConnell provided this part
of the testimony.
Conditional Use p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
staff report. This use is beneficial for the community. There is adequate parking. He
noted his appreciation for the work of the City of Edmonds. Mr. Williams explained
he's not sure what is being referenced regarding gun making, but as a landlord he'd
make sure to put in the lease that no guns could be made on the property, and if they
found out they were that the police would be called. Mr. Williams explained that
Cogworks is involved in the art community. He hasn't seen nor heard of anything
potentially dangerous being part of the business
Regarding the email from Jan and Anneli Avatare, Mr. Williams explained that 196th
Street is a major arterial with a center lane to increase safety and facilitate left turns.
There are two lanes going west, which are adjacent to their property and help
facilitate right turns for both properties. The applicants have used the site for 28 years
and he doesn't remember witnessing any accidents. The site has two legal driveways
composed of an entrance on the east side of property and exit on the west side.
Nancy Carroll lives on 196th in a residential property outside of RM 2.4 zoning. She
described herself as a proactive member of the community and wishes the applicants
well in their business pursuits. She noted that she wishes to always emphasize safety.
She asked the applicants if they lived on the property and they noted that they do not.
Ms. Carroll explained that there has been increased traffic and crime in the area. She
is happy to see progress but has concerns. There is a lot of congestion in residential
single-family areas of the neighborhood with parking overflow occurring. She noted
that much of this is based on neighborhood condominium need for overflow/relief
parking.
Ms. Carroll noted that there have been accidents on 196th and 84th and that the city
added a 4-stop light based on this issue. She is for RM 2.4 zoning for the applicants
but wants their commitment as owners that the businesses they allow on their site are
peaceful, social and appropriate for those that live in the area because of the
constraints of residential zoning. She is worried because RM2.4 produces some
transient population and there has been a continued increase in traffic. She doesn't see
the applicants' property as a contributor to this problem currently but wishes to
understand how they're going to control the appropriateness of the businesses in the
area. She is concerned about the relief lanes for turning traffic as they are limited
around these properties. She hopes for a commitment to the residents on their site that
they will bring in socially appropriate businesses for the sake of those who live in the
neighborhood. It is a public safety issue.
Ms. Carroll also emphasized that previous RM 2.4 zoned condominiums did not abide
by parking enactments and noted that there is a constant struggle for neighborhood
residents for parking on or near their property. She hopes that parking is adequate for
the applicants' proposed change.
Staff Rebuttal
Conditional Use
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Regarding parking availability, Ms. Machuga noted that the currently paved portion
of the site gives adequate parking for the new uses. A site plan was submitted that
provided enough parking and met requirements which is 1 stall per 400 square feet.
Currently the existing paved portion is not striped, so a building permit is required to
stripe the parking lot. Based on the site plan they will be able to this without
expanding paved area. She noted that medical practices require more parking than
standard professional offices. If they are to allow these types of offices, then they
would require more parking than the 1 per 400 square feet.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Williams agrees with Ms. Carroll on zoning in the neighborhood. He explained
that from his understanding, customer -oriented offices are not stores, drive-thrus, and
include no buying of goods or commodities. They are service businesses. If they did
come across a tenant that required more parking they would investigate it and see
what the City would require. They bought the property when it was in terrible
disrepair and have spent 28 years working on it and maintaining it. They believe that
the nature of these businesses will not create huge traffic or parking issues. He
explained that under the existing code they aren't allowed to have offices that allow
the sales of goods or commodities and that in the history of owning the building —
especially on the lower floors — they've found many tenants that comply with those
current rules. Allowing these customer -oriented offices will help most with renting
the second floors of their site's buildings. These floors are about 2200sq ft for the
north building and 2000 sq ft for the south building. This space constitutes about
33% of the total square footage available in these buildings. Thus, they probably
won't hit the maximum required parking spaces. Getting this permit will help them
rent these spaces and find tenants that will help serve the community as code outlines.
EXHIBITS
The Staff Report with attachments 1-17 was admitted as Ex. 1 at the February 8, 2018
hearing. A 2/8/18 email from Kelly Radcliff was admitted as Ex. 2. A 2/8/18 email
from Jan and Anneli Avatare was admitted as Ex. 3. A written statement from
Courtney Williams was admitted as Ex. 4.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Courtney Williams, 11705 7t11 PL SE, Lake Stevens, WA 98258.
2. Hearing. A hearing was conducted on the subject application on February
8, 2108 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Public Safety Complex.
Substantive:
Conditional Use p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3. Site and Proposal Description. The Applicant has applied for a
conditional use permit to allow for customer -oriented office uses within the RM-
zoned portion of two existing buildings located at 7831 and 7833 196th St. SW.
The northern building (addressed 7831 196th St. SW) contains one residential unit and
approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial space (Ex. 1, Attachment 4). The southern
building (addressed 7833 196th St. SW) contains approximately 5,320 square feet of
commercial space (Ex. 1, Attachment 5). According to Snohomish County Assessor's
records, these buildings were constructed in 1961 and 1956 respectively, which was prior to
the site's 1963 annexation into the City of Edmonds. The site was originally developed as a
commercial site; however, upon annexation into the City of Edmonds, the use of the site
became nonconforming pursuant to ECDC 17.40.010 due to the fact that the site was annexed
into residential zones.
The northern 300 feet of the site (including the northern approximate 55 feet of the building
addressed 7831 196th St. SW) is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS-8, zone,
while the southern 330 feet of the site (including the southern approximate 100 feet of the
building addressed 7831 196th St. SW and all of the building addressed 7833 196th St. SW)
is located within the Multi -Family Residential, RM-2.4, zone (Ex. 1, Attachment 10). In
order to remedy the nonconforming use of the site, the owner applied for a conditional use
permit in 1990 under File No. CU-78-90 to convert the portions of the existing buildings
located within the RM-zoned portion of the site into an office use. The requested conditional
use permit was approved in 1991 allowing non -customer -oriented offices within the RM-
zoned portion of the site, while the portion of the site located within the RS-8 zone (including
the portion of the building addressed 7831 196th St. SW containing a residential unit) was not
to be used for commercial purposes. Condition 48 of the conditional use permit approved
under File No. CU-78-90 states: "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."
At this time, the property owner is requesting a new conditional use permit in order to allow
for customer -oriented offices within all RM-zoned portions of the site (Ex. 1, Attachments 1-
5). The subject application is for a conditional use permit for the proposed use only, and does
not include design review nor review of any applicable building permit applications. All
changes that are proposed to be made to the site, including but not limited to any new
structures, modifications to existing structures, changes to the site layout, parking and
landscaping will be reviewed under the applicable building permit and design review
applications.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The adjacent properties to the north, east and
west of the portion of the site within the RS-8 zone are also zoned RS-8, and the
adjacent properties to the east and west of the portion of the site within the RM-2.4
zone are also zoned RM-2.4. The neighboring properties to the south of the subject
site (across 196th St. SW) are located within the RS-8 and RM-1.5 zones.
The neighborhood surrounding the site consists of a combination of residential and
commercial development. Generally, the adjacent properties to the north, east and
west of the portion of the site within the RS-8 zone are developed with single-family
Conditional Use p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
residences, and the adjacent properties to the east and west of the portion of the site
within the RM-2.4 zone properties are developed with multi -family developments.
There are single-family residences to the southwest of the site and multi -family
developments and a daycare to the southeast of the site. There are additional
commercial uses located within the general vicinity of the site, particularly further to
the east along 196th St. SW.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal. Impacts are more specifically addressed below:
A. Traffic. For the reasons identified in the Introduction section of this decision, the
proposal will not create any significant traffic impacts.
B. Critical Areas. The proposal involves no alterations to the existing buildings or
any improvements to the property, so critical area regulations do not apply at this
time.
C. Parking. ECDC 17.50.020(B) requires one on -site parking space per 400 square
feet for business and professional offices with on -site customer service and one
on -site parking space per 800 square feet for offices not providing on -site
customer service. According to the floor plans of the two existing buildings (Ex.
1, Attachments 4 and 5) as well as the parking information provided by the
applicant (Ex. 1, Attachment 6), the building addressed 7831 contains 7,000
square feet of commercial space, and the building addressed 7833 contains 5,320
square feet of commercial space, for a total of 12,320 square feet of commercial
space on the subject site. At a rate of one stall per 400 square feet, this yields a
total of 31 required on -site parking stalls. The site plan (Ex. 1, Attachment 3)
shows 31 proposed parking stalls to be located on the existing paved surfaces on
the site. Thus, it appears that the site will be able to accommodate the increase in
parking requirements consistent with ECDC 17.50.020 when going from offices
without on -site customer service to offices that provide on -site customer service.
A detailed review will be conducted during the associated building permit
application review for the re -striping of the parking area in order to ensure that the
site will be in compliance with all applicable standards, including the on -site
parking requirements of ECDC 17.50.
D. Compatibility. Impacts from the requested change in use for the Applicant's
property, based upon historical and contemplated use, is primarily based upon a
change from non -customer oriented office use to customer oriented office use. As
discussed with staff during the hearing, it appears this would open up uses such as
professional services involving medical, dental and legal services. Staff is also
considering whether customer oriented use would include a "makers" type
arts/crafts use that the Applicant is considering as a tenant. The primary
compatibility impact that could be contemplated from such a change in use would
be an increase in the number of people and vehicles accessing the site. The traffic
Conditional Use p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impacts associated with this increase have already been addressed. Other impacts
include increase in noise caused by the vehicular traffic and persons talking in the
parking lot. 196ei Avenue SW, which provides access to the site, is a principal
arterial. The vehicular traffic on such a major thoroughfare already creates a
significant amount of ambient noise such that any added noise by the addition of
professional offices likely will not make a major difference. The ambient noise
does reduce substantially in the evening and for this reason a condition of
approval limits office use to daytime hours to ensure that noise generated by the
proposal doesn't unreasonably disturb adjoining residential uses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The conditional use permit is classified as
a Type III-B decision under ECDC 20.01.003. ECDC 20.01.003(B) provides that the
hearing examiner holds a hearing and makes a final decision on Type III-B permits.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. Finding of Fact No. 3 details the split zoning of the
property. The RM-2.4 zoning applies to the portion of the property subject to this
conditional use permit application.
3. Permit Review Criteria. A conditional use pen -nit is required for office
use in the RM-2.4 zone as required by ECDC 16.30.010(C)(1). The criteria for a
conditional use permit are governed by ECDC 20.050.010. All applicable criteria are
quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the
findings in this section can be made.
A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons
identified at pages 5-6 of the staff report.
ECDC 20.05.010(B): Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone
district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance.
5. The purposes of the zoning districts, as specified in ECDC 16.00.010, are
focused upon providing for compatibility of uses and preventing adverse impacts. For
the reasons outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, this purpose is met by the proposal since
it will not create any significant adverse impacts and it is compatible with adjoining
Conditional Use p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
uses. One of the purposes of the RM districts is to provide for uses which
complement and are compatible with multiple residential use as specified in ECDC
16.30.000, which is a purpose also served by the proposal for the reasons identified in
Finding of Fact No. 5. The proposal meets all applicable zoning standards for the
reasons identified at pages 6-7 of the staff report.
ECDC 20.05.010(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.
6. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the project. As a consequence, the proposal will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to nearby
properties or improvements.
ECDC 20.05.010(D): Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether
the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with
the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner
may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County
auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit
may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property.
7. The conditional use permit shall run with the land. The impacts of the
proposal are not dependent upon the owner.
DECISION
The conditional use permit application complies with all applicable review criteria for
the reasons outlined in the Conclusions of Law above. The application is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary building permits. This
application is subject to the applicable requirements in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in the ordinances.
2. The applicant is responsible for seeking and obtaining all required local, state
and/or federal permits or approvals applicable to the proposal.
3. No commercial activity is allowed within the Single -Family Residential (RS)
zoned portion of the site. That potion of the northernmost building located
within the RS-zoned portion of the site may only function as a single-family
residence.
4. Offices on the subject site shall not be open to the public between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Conditional Use
P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Approval of the conditional use permit does not constitute approval of the
improvements as shown on the submitted site plan (Ex. 1, Attachment 3). If
changes are necessary to the existing parking lot in order to accommodate the
increased parking required by ECDC Chapter 17.50, then a building permit
will be necessary and the changes will be reviewed for compliance with
applicable codes and standards at that time.
6. The conditional use permit shall be transferable to subsequent property
owners.
Dated this 23rd day of February 2018.
Phi A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council
as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the
issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by
ECDC 20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Conditional Use
P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision