P0816 HE Decision.pdfrho jsq'
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 )
}
Steve Smith Development LLC )
For a Format. Plat for a )
Townhouse Subdivision
NO. P-2008-16
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
GARY HAAKENSON
. MAYOR
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse
lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 —
23824 Edmonds Way in.Edmonds, Washington is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Jean Morgan and John Parsaie of Morgan Design Group LLC, on behalf of Steve Smith
Development LLC (Applicant), requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into
35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily
Residential (R -M 21..5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on May 15, 2008.
The Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Michael Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
3. John Parsaie, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
4. Alvin Rutledge
5. Roger Hertrich
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
page 1 of 14
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted in the record:
1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 6, 2008
2. Preliminary Plat Map, dated received March (illegible), 2008
3. Planning Division Staff Report to City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board,
dated May 30, 2007, with attachments:
1. Land use application (ADB Review only), dated received February 15, 2007
2. Vicinity Map
3. Determination of Non -S ignificance, issued May 7, 2007
4. Site Plan
5. "Lighting fixtures and building colors" Conceptual plans (2 sheets)
6. Conceptual floor plans and elevations (14 sheets)
7. Landscape plan (3 sheets)
4. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing meeting minutes, June 6, 2007
5. Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan (1 sheet)
6. Adoption of Existing Environmental Document, dated January 23, 2008
7. Notice of Application and Public Hearing Affidavits of mailing, posting, and
publication
8. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet, prepared by William Popp Associates,
received November 6, 2007
9. Drainage Report and Calculations, prepared by CG Engineering, dated March 6,
2008
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee
simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement in a Multifamily
Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 -- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.,
Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, page 2.
2. The subject property is developed with six single -story duplexes (12 units), which would
be demolished and replaced upon approval. The site is relatively flat, sloping gently
towards State Route 104 (SR 104/Edmonds Way), just west of Highway 99. The
property abuts SR 104 to the northeast, with its northeast corner adjacent to the
intersection of SR 104 and 238th Street SW. The site borders Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) zoning to the west and south and Multifamily Residential (RM -1.5) zoning to the
southeast. The RS -8 property to the west is developed with condominiums, and the RS -8
property to the south contains single-family residential development. The RM -1.5 zoned
1 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 4 E, WAL; known by Assessor's Parcel Number 004633-010-004-2. Exhibit
2, Site Plan; Exhibit 3, Attachment 1, Architectural Design Board application.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 2 of 14
parcel to the southeast contains multifamily development. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1,
page 3; Site Visit.
3. No critical areas, floodplain, slopes, unstable soils, or surface waters have been identified
on-site. The project is not proposed within a FEMA -designated flood plain. Exhibit 1,
pages 3, S.
4. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is "Edmonds
Way Corridor". This commercial land use designation is discussed in the Comprehensive
Plan's Land Use Element, which identifies RM -1.5 zoning as compatible with the land
use designation. Exhibit 3, page 4. The Comprehensive Plan promotes a "design infill"
strategy for meeting population and employment targets set for the City by the County
and State. The proposed project is intended to be design infill development. Exhibit 1,
page 6. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following additional goals and policies
that Planning Division Staff identified as applicable to the proposal:
ResLd—ential Development, Goal B: High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of
housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic consideration ... :... (Goal B policies omitted)
Residential Development, Goal C: A broad range of housing types and densities
should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all
Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies:
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the
trees, topography, and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy
multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
Exhibit 1, pages 5-6, citing City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
5. The subject property is located in a Multiple Residential (RM -1.5) zoning district. The
purpose of the RM zones is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types,
and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone,
while still maintaining a residential environment and to provide for those additional uses
which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.30.000. Multiple- and single-family dwelling
units are permitted uses in the zone. ECDC 16.30.010(A).
6. Development standards applicable to the RM -1.5 district require: 1,500 square foot
minimum lot area; 15 -foot minimum street and rear setbacks; 10 -foot side setbacks;
maximum lot coverage of 45%; and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit. ECDC
16.30 030(A).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court xownhomes Plat, No P-2008-16
page 3 of 14
7. The proposed site plan for townhouse subdivision was submitted to the City of Edmonds
Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review on June 6, 2007 under file number ADB -
2007 -12. The ADB reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the applicable design review criteria in the City's Urban Design Guidelines
found in ECDC 20.10 (Design Criteria) and ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping). Exhibit 3, page
6. The ADB approved the site plan with conditions requiring: compliance with the
maximum building height criteria of the zone; modification of proposed pole lights height
and/or location to comply with setbacks; redesigned "more prominent" front entries to the
buildings; the use of stamped concrete to "provide some type of legend about where
people could park or walk"; retention or replacement of the existing fence and
landscaping in order to provide screening; and identification of the specific types of
bushes to be planted adjacent to buildings 5, 6, 7, and 9. Exhibit 4, page 2 of June 6,
2007 ADB Meeting Minutes.
8. The Edmonds Community Development Code defines "townhouse" as follows:
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual
structures as defined in the zoning code; .
E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the
coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the
zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual
units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units.
ECDC 21.100. 040.
9. The RM -1.5 zone requires a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. ECDC 16.30. 030(A).
According to Planning Division analysis, with an overall area of 55,502 square feet the
subject property could contain up to 37 lots of 1,500 square feet each. Exhibit 1, page 4.
The Applicant has proposed 35 lots, ranging from 1,123 to 2,273 square feet. Exhibit 3.
10. The proposed substandard lots are based on a Planning Division policy that allows
townhouse subdivisions to have lots smaller than the minimum lot area required in the
underlying zone as long as the density of the zoning district is satisfied. This policy is
not codified in the development standards for the Multiple Residential zones or in the
subdivision chapter of the Community Development Code, but is a Planning Division
policy. The policy relies on the language of the definition of townhouse in the
Community Development Code at ECDC 21.100.040(E) to modify the minimum
development standards established for specific zones? Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
2 Title 21 is the definitions chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 4 of 14
11. Townhouse lots are defined as allowing shared common side walls joining units, which
are known as zero lot lines. ECDC 21.100.040(B). As proposed, structures would be
setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the SR 104 right-of-way and at least 10 feet from
all other property boundaries? The 35 lots would be divided among 13 buildings, each
containing two or three units (lots), organized as a perimeter ring of units surrounding a
central cluster. Lots with shared walls in common would have zero lot lines, and a
minimum of 10 feet would separate the buildings from each other. All land within the
project would be divided among the lots and be privately owned, including the
landscaping strips around the project perimeter and the internal access driveway, which
would be placed within an easement over all lots. Zero setback is proposed between the
dwelling units and the internal access driveway. Exhibit 2, Testimony of Mr. Clugston;
Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
12. The project would have a single point of access from SR 104 near the northeast corner of
the site. The proposed internal access serving the 35 lots is characterized as a private
driveway.4 The width of the proposed internal access easement is 24 or 25 feet (wider
around the comers).' Road classification, applicable development standards, and exact
proposed dimensions/design features are not addressed in the Planning Division staff
report or submitted materials, except for brief information on the Grading, Drainage, and
Street Improvement Plan in the record at Exhibit 5.6 Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5; Testimony of
Ms. Morgan; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
13. The site plan depicts "sidewalk" connecting the entrance to each unit with the access
easement. Sidewalk is also shown connecting the private access easement with existing
sidewalk along SR 104. (See Exhibit 2, Plat Map.) Two areas marked as crosswalks
would indicate pedestrian crossing locations between the central building cluster and
sidewalks connected the SR 104 sidewalks. No sidewalks are proposed along the access
easement connecting units and no pedestrian connection is provided between the
perimeter lots not adjacent to the highway and the sidewalk along SR 104, Exhibit 5,
Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan.
14. The project includes 35 two-bedroom units. According to the City's off-street parking
regulations, two bedroom units require 1.8 off-street parking spaces each, for a total of 63
required parking places. ECDC 17.50, 020(A). However, the RM -1.5 zone requires a
3 The site plan depicts units 6 through 11 as setback 15 feet from the property's southern lot line, which would be
consistent with the RM -1.5 rear setback. Exhibit 2; ECDC 16.30.030(A).
4 IWS characterization is from the Applicant's testimony. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
5 The site plan states that the width of the "access/utilities easement" between Lots 34 and 7 is 25 feet in width.
Exhibit 2, Site Plan. The dimensions of the proposed access route do not appear elsewhere in the record, and the
Applicant representative testified that the road is 24 feet wide. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
6 The drainage plan contains a diagram entitled "Parking area pavement section" depicting the layers of proposed
road surface in the easement, The reference to parking in the name of this diagram is not clear, because the "parking
area." on the plan is depicted immediately inside the site access. Exhibit 5.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 5 of 14
minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit, for a total of 70 spaces. ECDC
16.30.030. As proposed, each lot would provide two parking spaces inside an attached
garage, for a total of 70 off-street parking places. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 5.
15. The site plan does not include any parking areas outside of garages. The entire internal
access easement would be required to be posted "No Parking: Fire Lane" or similar
cautionary signage. Planning Division Staff reported that, throughout the review process,
the Fire Department (and unspecified others) expressed concerns regarding the lack of
overflow parking, in anticipation that guests would park in the fire lanes. However,
Planning Division Staff determined that the project is not required to provide additional
off-street parking places for guests or delivery vehicles because it meets the Community
Development Code's minimum off-street parking requirements! Exhibit 1, page 6,
Testimony of Mr: Clugston. No Fire Department or other agency comments were
included in the record. '
16. The Applicant representative stated that the private access easement would accommodate
garbage trucks and emergency vehicles. Street parking was reported to be available on
238' Street SW; however, the number of parking spaces on 238' and the distance
between the various units and available street parking were not known at time of hearing.
Regarding the real-world consideration of guest parking, the Applicant representative
conceded that it could be challenging for guests of residents but noted that the proposal
complies with code requirements. Testimony of Ms Morgan.
17. The site plan depicts garages facing each other across the 24 -foot private access easement
in the following lots: 6 and 35; 7 and 34; 8 and 33; 13 and 32; 14 and 31; 22 and 30; 23
and 29; 24 and 28; and 25 and 27. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5.
18. As proposed, each unit's garbage cans would be kept inside the attached garage.
Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
19. In November 2007, the Applicant submitted a document entitled "Traffic impact
Analysis Worksheet" (worksheet).' The traffic worksheet indicates that the 35 -unit
project would result in a total of 205 average daily trips, including 19 PM peak hour trips.
Estimating traffic counts from the existing 12 units on-site, the worksheet projected that
the proposed development would result in 126 new average daily trips, including 12 new
PM peak hour trips. The source of the numbers for project trip generation is not provided
(no reference source is cited). The worksheet omits information and analysis regarding:
sight distance assessment at the site entrance; existing and projected levels of service at
area intersections; vehicle storage and queuing within the project or turning into the
project off of SR 104; and local accident history. The worksheet calculates traffic impact
7 The Staff report states: "It is anticipated that this inadequacy in the code will be addressed during the current code
rewrite process." Exhibit 1, page 6.
" This traffic worksheet references a project called "Edmonds Townhouses" owned/applied for by North West
Townhomes LLC; however it considers 35 lots with a single point of access to SR 104. Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16
page 6 of 14
assessment fees for the new units (35 less the existing 12 = 23 units at $492.24 each) to
be $10,064.52. Timing of payment is not identified. Exhibit 8, Traffic Impact
Worksheet.
20. There is no information in the record from the Washington State Department of
Transportation concerning the project's potential impacts to traffic on SR 104 or nearby
Highway 99, and no information concerning state highway standards with which the
project must comply, if any. The traffic impact worksheet indicates: "state mitigation to
be determined." Exhibit 8.
21. The Applicant submitted a stormwater drainage report on March 13, 2008. The drainage
report indicates that, in the existing developed condition, site stormwater runoff drains
north towards SR 104. Existing catch basins and storm pipes along the south and west
property lines capture upstream runoff and convey it to the municipal storm drain in
adjacent rights-of-way. Very little (to zero) off-site runoff enters the subject property
currently. The proposed stormwater improvements would capture and convey
stormwater from new impervious surfaces to a detention pipe that. would release through
a flow control structure to an existing municipal catch basun in 23e Street SW.
According to the Applicant's drainage report, fill would need to be imported to the
relatively flat site to provide the required 18 inches of cover in order to construct the
required conveyances. The system would be designed to detain the 10- and 100 -year
storm events. All site runoff is conveyed in pipes directly to Puget Sound. Filter
technology is proposed to provide water quality control. Erosion and sediment control
practices are proposed during construction. Exhibit 9.
22. A homeowners' association is proposed for management of the access easement and
irrigation for all landscaping on-site. Testimony of Ms. Morgan; Testimony of Mr.
Parsaie.
23. No open space or parkland dedication was required for this project. No analysis of parks
and recreation impacts was conducted during review of the project. Exhibit 1, page 5;
Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
24. All units are proposed to connect to Olympic View Water and Sewer District services.
Exhibit 2. Water and sewer availability were not addressed in the record.
25. In Washington State, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty
of the state." Subdivisions in Washington State are required to make appropriate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and
for safe walking conditions for school -aged children. RCW 58.1 ?.110. Edmonds
Community Development Code contains the same requirement. ECDC 20.75.020. The
record does not contain comments from the school district. At the time of hearing it was
not known which school facilities would serve children in the plat. No school impact
fees were assessed for this project. Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
9 Washington State Constitution, Article 9, § 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 7 of 14
26. The City of Edmonds Planning Division undertook review of the proposal pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) at the time of site plan review by the
Architectural Design Board. On May 7, 2007, the Planning Division issued a
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), which is a determination that the project
would not result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The DNS was
not appealed and became final on May 21, 2007. The DNS was based on an earlier
iteration of the project consisting of 35 units in 11 buildings with a smallest proposed lot
size of 1,473 square feet. On January 23, 2008, Planning Staff adopted the May 7, 2007
DNS for the purpose of subdivision review." Exhibit 3, Attachment 3, DNS; Testimony
of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 6.
27. The open record public hearing an the formal plat was advertised consistent with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 7; Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
28. The City received public comments expressing the following concerns: the Applicant did
not enter the site into a City stormwaer plan currently under review; lack of open space
or recreational opportunities on-site; and lack of off-street parking for delivery drivers
and guests. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide formal plat requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B)(5).
Criteria for formal plat review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.080 and ECDC 20.75.085, formal plats may be approved if
the following findings can be entered:
ECDC 20.75.080:
A, The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meets requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or other adopted city policy, and
is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification has been
approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75;
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain management.
'G Neither the May 7, 2007 DNS nor the January 23, 2008 Adoption of Existing Environmental Determination
identify the materials reviewed in reaching the environmental threshold determination. The Applicant's traffic
impact worksheet was submitted in November 2007 and the final stormwater management plan was submitted in
March 2008, after the DNS was issued. Exhibit 3, Attachment 3; Exhibit 6;• Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 8 of 14
ECDC 24.75.085:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimise significant adverse impacts to the
resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and
by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography,
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to
be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plaids, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be
denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs
A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and
so forth.
B, Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special
conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed
properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards..
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land
for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements
of:
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court 7bwnhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 9 of 14
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. ECDC Chapter 19.25, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set
forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The ECDC criteria are similar to those set forth in the state subdivision statute. Section
58.1.7.110(2) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states as follows:
A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or
county legislative body makes written findings that:
a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys,
other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all
other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from
school; and
b. the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision and dedication.
DISCUSSION
The Multiple Residential district development standards table contains a column establishing the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (See ECDC 16.30.030(A).) Footnote number four in the
minimum lot area column directs the reader to: "See definition of townhouse." On the subject of
lot area, the definition of townhouse says:
Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of
the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the
individual units. ECDC 2L 100.040(E).
The Applicant's proposal is based on a Planning Division policy allowing substandard lots in
townhouse subdivisions. According to testimony, the Planning Division policy is based on an
uncodified interpretation of the townhouse definition to mean that lot area may be reduced below
the minimum established for the particular RM zone to be as small as proposed, so long as
maximum gross density is not exceeded. This policy establishes no minimum lot size. On this
theory, developers could propose 500 square foot or even smaller lots and lump excess site area
into parking lots or other common areas and there would be no grounds for denial if the number
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, Na. P-2008.16 page 10 of 14
of lots did not exceed the gross density calculated as available to the site. Such a policy assumes
that the local government has no legitimate interest in dictating the smallest residential lot
allowed.
An alternative interpretation of the townhouse definition at ECDC 21.100.040(E) would be that
townhouse lots may be 100% occupied by the residential structure; for example in the RM -1.5
zone, a 1,500 square foot lot would be allowed to be developed with a 1,500 square foot
residential structure. Of note, the lot area subpart of the townhouse definition (quoted above in
this discussion section) assumes that portions of a townhouse project site may not be
encompassed within individual lots. Maximum site coverage (45 % in the RM zones) could be
accomplished by retaining common areas not developed with structures. This alternative
interpretation of the townhouse definition would assume townhouse lots are required to comply
with the minimum lot area.
The Planning Division policy requiring townhouse subdivision exterior setbacks (around the
outer perimeter of the development window) to conform to the underlying zone's standards, but
excusing internal front, rear, and street setbacks, has no basis in the zoning code. By the plain
language of the definition, zero lot lines (called "common side walls joining units" in the
townhouse definition) pertain only to side setbacks in attached dwelling units.
The Planning Division policy creates a new kind of development — the townhouse subdivision —
that is not established in the City Code and grants it similar flexibility as is provided in a planned
residential development (PRD), which is expressly established in the City Code at ECDC 20.35.
In Edmonds, PRD developments may modify the bulk dimensional standards of the underlying
zoning district, subject to requirements to: 1) visually screen denser development from
surrounding land uses and 2) provide a clear benefit to the public in exchange for design
flexibility (among other requirements). Means of providing public benefit stated in the PRD
provisions include, but are not limited to, preservation of on-site natural areas, provision of more
open space or recreational opportunities than are required in the zone, and provision of additional
transportation connections beyond the minimum required. ECDC 20.35.040 and .050. The
Planning Division's townhouse subdivision policy would confer the benefits of a PRD (reduced
bulk dimensional standards) without requiring the PRD's clear public benefit, screening, or
review of an application seeking such modifications. The policy places the content of a
definition (from the definitions chapter) in a position of higher importance than the development
standard established in the zoning ordinance. Assuming no minimum lot size was contemplated
by the Code's drafters is inconsistent with the plain language of both the zoning ordinance and
the subdivision ordinance, as well as with the local government's legitimate interest in and
obligation to regulate land use for the general welfare." The RM -1.5 zone already provides the
smallest residential lot and densest residential development permitted in the City, at 29 units per
acre. In order to approve even smaller lots, more explicit direction from the legislative body is
necessary.
" See discussion of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power, generally, in Edmonds Shopping Ctr. Assocs. Y.
City of Edmonds, 117 Wn. App. 344, 352 (2003), citing Weden v San Juan County, 135 Wn.2d 678, 692 (1998).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edrnonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-200846 page 11 of 14
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with several
requirements established in ECDC 20.75.080 and .085.
A. The record doesn't demonstrate compliance with the purposes of the City's
subdivision ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.020:
"The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent
overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm
drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds,
and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumentinF of subdivisions and accurate legal
descriptions of subdivided lets." 2
1. To the extent that the record does not contain evidence of review of the following
items, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the
purposes of the City's subdivision ordinance: traffic flow within the proposed
development; compliance with City and State road standards regarding ingress/egress
on SR 104 and access easement design; and adequacy of schools and parks/recreation
facilities. The Examiner is also concerned that the proposed 35 substandard units
accessed by a 24 -foot wide access easement from a single ingress on SR 104 would
constitute overcrowding.
Findings Nos 19, 20, 23, and 25.
B. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and no modification has
been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 24.75.
1. Criteria for subdivision approval explicitly require findings of compliance with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district, specifically with dimensional.
standards. ECDC 20.75.080(C) and ECDC 20.75.085(B)(3). The minimum lot area
in the RM -1.5 zone is 1,500 square feet. Of the 35 proposed lots, 17 would be
smaller than 1,500 square feet, with the smallest lot at 1,123 square feet.
12 These purposes are substantially the same as the purposes stated in the state's subdivision regulations in the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.010, which begins with the preamble: "The legislature finds that the
process by which land is divided is a matter of stale concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by
cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and
to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to
prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion... (omitted) " (emphasis added)
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Fearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play Na P-2008-16
page 12 of 14
2. The Community Development Code defines a street as "the public or private right-of-
way or access easement which provides vehicle access to five or more lots." ECDC
21.90.120 (emphasis added). Thus, for subdivision purposes, the proposed access
easement is a street, and street setbacks must be provided on each lot." In the RM -
1.5
M1.5 zone, the minimum street setback is 15 feet. ECDC 16 30.030(A). The proposed
site plan provides no building setback from street lot lines, placing the access
easement within the required street setback.
3. The subdivision code provides a process for modifications to the development
standards of the underlying zone. The process requires notice, public hearing, and
compliance with variance criteria. ECDC 20.75.075. The Planning Division's
uncodified townhouse policy nullifies and/or circumvents this process and is
inconsistent with the purposes of the subdivision ordinance.
Findings Nos. 9, 11, and 12.
C. The record does not contain evidence showing the project can comply with the lot
and street layout requirements at ECDC 20.75.085(B), (C), and (D). The record
contains almost no information about the proposed internal access easement and no
analysis of road standards with which it must comply. This access easement is the only
means of vehicular and pedestrian access to 35 dwelling units containing 70 off-street
parking spaces. According to testimony, the access is a `private driveway" comprised of
an easement over privately owned property belonging to each lot. However, as stated
above, it must be considered a street for subdivision lot layout purposes. ECDC
21.90.120. The townhouse definition cannot excuse projects from the requirement of
providing street setbacks consistent with zoning standards. All subdivisions are required
to set aside adequate land for roads, whether private or public. ECDC 20.75.085(B) (3),
(B)(4), (C)(3), (D)(1), and (D)(2)- As Proposed, on garbage day, each unit's garbage cans
would be moved into the access easement, further complicating circulation. Morning
peak hour conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles jockeying to exit garages that face
each other across only 24 feet of roadway immediately adjacent to residential stuctures
are foreseeable, as are guest and delivery vehicle parking in the fire lame. Findings Nos.
9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
D. The record contains no evidence upon which findings of compliance with public
works and five code requirements can be made. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2),
the Examiner is charged with determining the improvements necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of Chapter 18, Public Works, and 19.25 Fire Code.14 No
evidence was offered and no findings may be entered.
" Pursuant to ECDC 21.90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or
structure to be set back from the street lot line.
1
4 ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2)(b) refers to the Fire Code as being found in 19.75, which appears to be a typographical
error.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Heanng Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, Na. P-2008-16
page 13 of 14
2. The record contains insufficient evidence to enter findings for consistency with the
.public health, safety, and general welfare. No analysis of open space or recreation
impacts, road standards, schools or safe walking for school children, or water and sewer
service availability was presented. The record contains no evidence that WSDOT was
contacted about the new traffic proposed on the state roadway or that regulations relating to
access to the State highway, if any, have been considered. The traffic worksheet in the
record does not consider sight distance, access design requirements, vehicle queuing within
the project, or queuing on SR 104 turning into the project. The project admittedly fails to
address the guest, delivery vehicle, or third vehicle ownership parking that must be
anticipated to accompany a 35 -unit development. Parking in the fire lanes is entirely
foreseeable. Based on the record presented, the project would not provide street setbacks
between the structures and the right-of-way, creating 35 substandard lots, of which number
17 would be smaller than the minimum lot allowed in the zone. The project as presented
cannot be found to be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Findings Nos. 9,
11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 23.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26
acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement tract in a
Multifamily Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds,
Washington is DENIED.
DECIDED this 22nd day of May 2008.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
page 14 of 14
'I'V?c 1S0v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT )
Steve Smith Development LLC )
}
For a Formal Subdivision
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. P-2008-16
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on May 22, 2008 I did serve a copy of the decision in case CU -2008-09 upon the following
individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Northwest Townhomes, LLC
1316 NE 8& Street, #203
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Smith Development, LLC
9500 Roosevelt Way -NE, #300
Seattle, WA 98115
Sean Morgan
Morgan Design Group LLC
11207 Fremont Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds Building Division
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
City of Edmonds Fire Department
121 Fifth. Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct: ss�� {.,_-
DATED THIS day ofA, 2008 at _ �, Washington.
Sharon: A. Rice
ToweiIl Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
I�c.lBg� -
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. An person wishing to file or-1papond to a mquest for reconsideration or an Weal should contact the
Planning Division of the Development Services Department or an attorney 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
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105.010(B) and ECDC
20.100.010(B)(5)). 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.
TI AM LEWrS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For appeals to_CjW Council, 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
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no further validity if
the applicant does not obtain final plat approval within five years of the date of decision (or, if
appealed, the date of final confirmation by the appeal body).
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