Loading...
PLN198200005-2976the Council overturned the Board's decision because "the facts had not been delved into and were sloppily presented." He said he considered that a cheap shot, but he noted that particular Councilmember was not present to answer for it. Mr. Mattson said he had been at that meeting and had many reasons why he thought that should pass, but he just observed and the only thing that recommended the Board's decision was the minutes. He said the staff introduced the subject and briefly told the Council what the Board thought, so if the Council does not read the minutes they have no idea why the recommendation is made. He noted that in the compact car parking issue the first recommendation went forward based on the minutes and the Council denied it, so the Board gave them evidence --they actually counted the cars. That time it was put on the Consent Agenda and was passed with a short discussion. He said the minutes, although adequately taken by the Clerk, are not enough to convince the Council, so he asked how they are to get the information to the Council to convince them that their reasons are valid. Mr. McGibbon suggested that possibly they should find a good pitch man as the new member of the Board, as somebody needs to draft a persuasive statement as to what the Board has found. He said the Planning Board will have to develop that resource, and possibly it is a matter of somebody getting together with the staff. Councilmember Gould requested that the Planning Board provide input in writing to the Council prior to the December 21 meeting, and also that anybody else who has ideas do so, in order to help the procedure work better. Mr. Hodgin asked if the Board could anticipate having the vacancies filled in the near future, noting that it would lose two more members shortly. He was told they will not be appointed before the December 21 meeting as the Council is making an effort to make changes to support and improve the whole system. AGENDA R-5-82 CITY OF EDMONDS - Preannexation zoning request for RS-8 zoning in the vicinity of 100th Ave. W. and 236th St. S.W. (Edmonds Village Estates and including Woodway High School) Mr. Bowman identified the area on a vicinity map. It includes approxi- mately 52.11 acres and has four existing single family residences, with another 20 under construction. Six duplexes also are being built. Woodway High School is proposed to be included in this annexa- tion. Woodway High School is also included in another proposed annexa- tion. It is needed to make this area contiguous to the City of Edmonds, so if it does not first become a part of the City as a part of the other annexation it will continue to be included in this annexation. Surrounding development to the east, west, and south is single family residential, and to the north is a nonconforming automobile junkyard. The area is zoned RR-9600 and RR-8400 in Snohomish County, with RR- 8400 to the north, south, and east, and RR-9600 to the west. The proposed annexation area is being developed as a PRO (Edmonds Village Estates), with average lot sizes of approximately 6,850 sq. ft. Mr. Bowman reviewd the rezone criteria. As to consistency with the Compre- hensive Plan, he said the Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the area as Public Facilities and Low Density Residential. The proposed zoning does not appear to conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or the RS-8 zone district. As to relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property, he said the subject area is developed to a density consistent with the proposed zoning. PRDs are allowed in RS zones but attached units are presently not allowed in PRDs. The six duplexes will be considered pre-existing uses. The proposed zoning is consistent with the types of surrounding residential uses. Upon annexation the area must be given an appropriate classification, and that proposed is comparable to its former County designation --which is City policy. With the exception of the attached units in the PRO the proposed RS-8 zoning is comparable to those uses allowed in the RR-8400 zone, and economically and physically the property is suitable for those uses allowed. The proposed zoning change will cause no significant adverse impact on the property values in the annexation area. Also, a declaration PLANNING BOARD Page 4 - November 10, 1982 of nonsignificant adverse environmental impact has been issued. The Staff previously had recommended that the zoning for the Woodway High School site be RS-8 but the Planning Board felt this area should be zoned Open Space. In researching other similar types of rezone actions it was found that when the City rezoned the old Edmonds Elementary School (now the Anderson Center) the Planning Commission had recommended that the playfield portion be zoned Open Space, so based on the previous concerns of the Planning Board and the action taken on the elementary school, the Staff's recommendation for this annexation was that the Edmonds Village Estates area be zoned RS-8 and that the Woodway High School site be zoned RS-8 for the developed area and Open Space for the playfield. That would allow the high school buildings to continue as RS-8 which is an allowed use, and if the school should close and another school purchased the property that would allow them to do any expansion as a school. Mr. Bowman stated, in answer to a question, that it would be possible for the school to be razed and the owners come back with a subdivision. He also noted that in the development as proposed there are six lots that are duplex lots although four have been developed as RS-8 lots. He said the development was approved with no problem as a PRO. The question was asked as to whether those lots approved as duplex lots could later be developed into duplexes even though they now have been developed as RS-8 lots. City Attorney Mark Eames said he would have to research that. He noted that this is a special situation, being a PRO for which a particular kind of development has been approved and recorded with the County. He said the developer of the PRO would have rights vested to build that PRD which has been approved, and he would have to research what can happen subsequently down the road. He said a PRD is recorded with the County and is limited to what it shows. The hearing was opened. John McGrail, 9819 237th P1. W., on the Board of Governors of the homeowners association of this PRD, and also an employee of Bob Pantley, the developer, said the PRD was started by Panterra and later was sold to Pantley's, Inc., and he said if they were to do it over again they would develop it as single family but at the time it was started they were not sure what the market would be. He said 22 of the 26 have been sold under earnest agreements, and he did not foresee anymore duplexes being built nor did he foresee any conversion of those single family homes to duplexes. He noted that there are several acres of open space in the PRD and he would prefer that they stay open space and not become RS-8 as he would not like to see someone else get control of the homeowners' association and sell those as lots. Mr. Eames said the project was approved with that as open space and was recorded and the PRD would continue in effect if it were annexed by the City. Mr. McGrail said it had been filed as OS in perpetuity and he thought that was as good protection as any in preventing building, although no one could be sure what may happen in the far future. Mr. McGrail said everyone he had talked to regarding police protection and taxes had been in favor of the annexation. He said they had a break- in of one of the homes under construction on Halloween and they had notified the Sheriff's Department and were told someone would come in two or three hours. Evelyn Fowler, living on Lot 13, said she had heard that in the Planning office they are planning to cut the trees down in the PRD and do an improved park. She said it is all in wilderness and fully grown fir trees which gives them an excellent buffer against dirt, dust, and noise. She was also concerned about houses being constructed in the school area which she said would result in over -construction. She was assured that there was no intent to remove the trees and Mr. McGrail advised her that a covenant has been recorded requiring that this piece of property be maintained in its natural condition. Joe Callyer, property owner on 100th Ave. said he opposed the annexation for several reasons. He was concerned about fire response and asked PLANNING BOARD Page 5 - November 10, 1982 what would happen to the junk yard across the street and why it was not included to do something about it. Mr. Bowman responded that it is the County's position that it is a pre-existing nonconforming use and can continue in operation as long as it does not expand. Nothing is being done to put it out of business, and Mr. Bowman said the City has no control over who applied in the 10% petition, but it basically was the Edmonds Village Estates in this case, and the high school was included as a contiguous area. He said if the owner of the junk yard wanted to apply he would have been included. Mr. Eames advised Mr. Callyer that this hearing was primarily concerned with the zoning and that there will be a Council hearing on the other questions. Mr. McGrail added that Mr. Pantley has tried four times to by the junk yard area but the owner will not sell it at this time. He said that the property purchased for the development was originally one large piece, including the area now cut into a triangle and separated from the development by the road. Joe Dwyer, 529 Holly Dr., asked where the proposed annexation joins the City and when Mr. Bowman demonstrated it on the vicinity map Mr. Dwyer said he did not think it proper to have a little isolated piece of property annexed. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Eames cautioned the Board that anytime they proposed changing the zoning substantially from what it was they should try to make very definite findings because in any court action the City has the burden of proving that the change in the zoning is warranted. Mr. McGibbon observed that it appeared that RS-8 was consistent with the surrounding area and the development that has gone on, and he saw no reason to change that. As far as making the playfield Open Space he found that consistent with what had seen in other parts of Edmonds, and he thought zoning the playfield Open Space would keep that as a desirable feature of the neighborhood. Mr. Mattson said the six duplexes would be considered pre-existing uses in the RS-8 zone, but the Code states there will be no common walls in a PRD, so he asked why not take them into the City as an RM-3 duplex zone. Mr. McGibbon said it seemed to him that duplex zoning is an exception so you would honor the prevailing use. He asked if there was any reason to bring this in as an RM zone. Mr. Mattson said if they were to put a desirable zoning on the junk yard to the north it would expedite the selling of that property and remove an eyesore. He said there are businesses which buy property right on the edge of the City and want to do something but cannot if they are a part of the City , so they do it under the County's laws and then apply for annexation to the City. Mr. McGibbon said the alternatives are to say the City does not like some of the nonconforming uses so the property will not be allowed into the City; but the option is to say the City will make the nonconforming conditions a rule and allow it. Mr. Mattson asked why not welcome those into the City as duplex zones as they are, and he said there are two duplexes there now and zoning them RS-8 will not make them go away. Mr. McGibbon said the testimony was heard of one gentleman who said he does not like duplexes there, and the predominant theme is that. He said if the City does not want the duplexes it will deny the annexation. He did not think it made much sense to recommend that the minority use be sanctioned. Mr. Eames said it would be difficult to support zoning a specific lot differently from another. Mr. Mattson thought the six lots which were duplex zoned should be brought into the City as duplex lots, and Mr. McGibbon said the PRO action fixes the use for that area. He did not know what was to be gained by bringing those lots in as duplex. Ms. Block noted that they were overlooking the fact that the density on a PRO is overall what the underlying zoning is --in this case 8400, and these are not duplex lots developed at duplex density, and the underlying density is still 8400, regardless of common walls. Therefore, to bring it in as a duplex zone would change that density. Mr. Mattson stated that two duplexes are being included in an RS-8 zone which is against the Code. MR. McGIBBON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. PLANNING BOARD Page 6 - November 10, 1982 HODGIN, TO APPROVE R-5-82 WITH RS-8 ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT AREA EXCEPT THAT THE WOODWAY PLAYFIELD BE DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE, AND TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF. MOTION CARRIED. A recess followed. CDC-13-82 CITY OF EDMONDS - Amendment to Chapter 16.20.010(B) of the Community Development Code to allow accessory units ("mother-in-law") in single family zones with a Conditional Use Permit and to add a new Chapter 20.21 regulating accessory units. Mr. Bowman read aloud the proposed new chapter. He said he had done some quick revisions to add some of the things that the Planning Board was concerned about and he had obtained the information requested regarding UBC requirements for accessory units. He said it does not specifically address mother-in-law apartments but it does discuss efficiency dwelling units. He provided the additional criteria regarding accessory apartment units. Mr. McGibbon noted that one question which had arisen had to do with the idea of whether a unit should be in existence for a number of years before it is eligible for conversion. Mr. Bowman responded that the proposal required owner occupancy so a developer could not develop such units as apartment type units, but if the Board felt there should be such a restriction it could be included. Mr. McGibbon said the main reason would be to calm the fears of people who might oppose this on grounds that it provides too tempting a loophole to a developer. Mr. Hodgin said he would like to see a restriction that there not be any outside structure added, but other Board members commented that there is nothing to keep an owner from remodeling to make a place larger. Chairman Sittauer reminded the Board that there will not be many in the City who will use this, but he added that if a builder has that potential he will do it. Mr. Mattson stated that the new Code should reflect that this provision is for the benefit of older people --if that is what it is. Mr. McGibbon stated that it is an attempt to make more housing available and at the same time moderate the expense of housing to any number of people without damaging the so-called single family character of the neighborhood. Mr. Bowman reviewed the last Board discussion of this item, and he noted that the element of only one utility meter may discourage some people. The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. McGibbon felt that the proposal met a need which he perceived some people have, and he said experience indicated that where this sort of thing has been enacted there has not been a large percentage of people using it, but for those who are interested he thought it met a real need. He thought there were adequate safeguards in the proposal to protect the community and that each would be reviewed. He noted that some things cannot be realistically handled in an ordinance, but he thought it would be a waste of time to try to incorporate all the details in an ordinance, and he was satisfied with the provisions that the Mayor had suggested, along with the fact that he thought it would be a good idea to limit it to housing that has been occupied for three years. MR. McGIBBON THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HODGIN, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SUCH AN ORDINANCE BE ENACTED BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THERE TO BE SOME PEOPLE WHO CAN USE THIS, AND BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD NOT DAMAGE THE SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT LIMITING IT TO ONE UNIT PER BUILDING AND RESTRICTING IT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND NOT ALLOWING IT IN A GARAGE; FURTHER, THAT ONLY ONE ELECTRIC AND WATER METER BE PERMITTED, THAT THREE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES BE REQUIRED, AND THAT THE STRUCTURE BE OWNER OCCUPIED. He thought that to be a sensible and workable set of requirements. Mr. Bowman stated that Chapter 16.10 would be amended and this would be a permitted secondary use if it meets the criteria of the new Chapter 20.21 which requires the staff to conduct a public hearing. Mr. McGibbon noted that staff hearings are held in the daytime whereas the Hearing Examiner had hearings in the evening, so PLANNING BOARD Page 7 - November 10, 1982 D 'GOV &Zall CITY F PHOMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 MAYOR CITY ATTORNEY December 27,1982 Duane Bowman Assistant City Planner Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Planning Board Resolution for R-5-82 Dear Duane: Enclosed is the resolution setting forth the findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning Board regarding the above referenced pre -annexation zoning request. Let me know if this resolution does not accurately reflect the board's position. If it is acceptable have Ray Sittauer sign it at his earliest convenience. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Mark A. Eames MAE:jt Enclosure MAE:jt 12/27/82 RESOLUTION NO. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, on November 10, 1982, the Edmonds Planning Board held a public hearing, notices of which were duly posted and published pursuant to Section 20.40.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, to consider Planning Department File No. R-5- 82, a requested zone classification of a parcel of property currently being considered for annexation by the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, at such public hearing the City staff made a presentation and submitted documents for the Board's review, and public testimony was taken after which the Planning Board made the following findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation: FINDINGS OF FACT I The subject 52.11 acre parcel of property, currently located in unincorporated Snohomish County in the vicinity of ` 100th Avenue West and 236th Street southwest, as legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is currently zoned by Snohomish County for residential use with a mixed density of RR-9600 and RR-8400, and is presently developed with four (4) existing single family residences, with another twenty (20) single family residences and six (6) duplexes under construction, and with the Woodway Senior High School and playing field. The portion, of the property proposed for annexation is I being developed pursuant to a planned residential development (Snohomish County File No. 8104101 providing for an average lot size of 6,850 square feet and for certain areas of open space). II The surrounding property is currently zoned by Snohomish County RR-8400 to the north, south, and east of the property and RR-9600 to the west of the property. III The staff has recommended that the subject property be zoned for single family residential use, RS-8, subject to the annexation of this property into the City of Edmonds. IV The comprehensive plan for the City of Edmonds designates the area as public facilities and low density residential. u Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act the City`s responsible official has issued a declaration that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact from the proposed action. VI There are currently two sources of open space in the area proposed for annexation. The first are those identified and preserved by the planned residential development as the Edmonds Village Estates. The second significant parcel of open space is the playing field associated with the Woodway Senior High School. -2- 0 This open space has been used as a playing field for a number of years prior to this zoning request and is likely to continue in such use as long as the property continues to be used as a school. CONCLUSIONS I The proposed zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, does not conflict with the City of Edmonds zoning ordinance, and is generally consistent with the existing land uses and zoning of the surrounding, nearby properties. II The proposed action is required to provide zoning regulations for the subject property upon annexation. The proposed zoning for all of the area to be annexed except the Woodway High School playfield will not have a substantial effect upon the property values of such area because the proposed zoning is substantially the same as the existing zoning. III The Woodway High School playfield is currently an area affording open space to the surrounding neighborhoods and, as long as the school continues to operate, it is unlikely that the open space of such playing field would be reduced. The public interest of health, safety, and general welfare would be promoted if the playfield were zoned for open space. - 3 - Ry 0 IV The proposed zone classification of the subject property, together with an open space classification of the Woodway High School playfield, will not significantly adversely effect the quality of the environment. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board recommends to the City Council that the subject property be given a zoning classification of RS-8 except for the Woodway High School playfield, which should be given an open space classification. RESOLVED this day of , 19 APPROVED: RAY SITTAUER CHAIRMAN, PLANNING BOARD - 4 - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FILE #R-5-82 HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1982 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Preannexation zoning request from RR-8400 to RS-8 for the area in the vicinity of 100th Avenue West and 236th Street S.W. (Edmonds Village Estates and including Woodway High School). II. APPLICANT: City of Edmonds 505 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 III. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT: The subject area comprises approximately 52.11 acres. There are four existing single family residences, with another 20 under construction. Six duplexes are also being built. Woodway High School is also proposed to be included in this annexation. Surrounding development to the east, west and south is single family residential. To the north is an automobile junkyard. IV. ZONING The subject area is zoned a mixture of RR-9600 and RR-8400 in Snohomish County. Surrounding Zoning North South East West R -8400 RR-8400 RR-8400 RR- 600 Edmonds Village Estates is being developed as a planned residential development (Snohomish County File #8104-101),There are twenty single family lots and six duplex lots. The average lot size is approximately 6,850 square feet. V. OFFICIAL STREET MAP: 100th Avenue West VI. REZONE CRITERIA: Proposed R/W Existing R/W 60' 60' 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject area as Public Facilities and Low Density Residential. 2. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the proposed zone district? The proposed zoning does not appear to conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or RS-8 zone district. Staff Report to the Planning Board File #R-5-82/Hearing Date: 11-10-82 Page 2 3. What is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property? The subject area is developed to a density consistent with the proposed zoning. Planned Residential Developments are allowed in RS zones. Attached units are presently excluded from such PRD's. The six duplexes will be considered pre-existing uses. The proposed zoning is consistent with the types of surrounding residential uses. 4. Has there been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone? Upon annexation, the subject area will need to be zoned to an appropriate classification. It is the City's.policy to zone annexed land to a classification comparable to its former County designation. 5. Is the property both economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning? With the exception of attached units in PRD's, the proposed RS-8 zoning is comparable to those uses allowed under the RR-8400 zone. 6. What is the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners? The proposed zone change will zone the subject area to an appropriate City classification. There should be no significant adverse impact on the property values in the annexation area. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: There should be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of this annexation and zoning action. A declaration of non -significance has been issued. VIII.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Previously, the staff recommended zoning the Woodway High School site RS-8. The Planning Board felt this area should be zoned Open Space. Staff recommends that the Edmonds Village Estates area be zoned RS-8 and the Woodway High School site be zoned RS-8 for the developed area and Open Space for the playfield. INTER-OF'F'ICE COMMUNIC PiTIONS TO DAN SMITH, PLAN/ENGIN, INSPECTOR GARY MCCOMAS, FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE 1.0 -29 - 19 g2 FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: R-5-82/PREANNEXATION ZONING REQUEST/HEARING DATE: H-10-82 PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN ANY COMMENTS ON THE ATTACHED ITEM TO DUANE BOWMAN BEFORE THE HEARING DATE, THANKS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHO:KISH, PUBLIC HEARING -PL-ANNING BOARD All interested persons are hereb'>s notified that Wednes- .dav,'thi,e loth day of Novem- fiber, 1402 has been set as .the date foP hearing by the City 'of Edmonds Planning Board Ion proposed preannexation faring request for RS-8 :on. king in the vicinity of 100th 4Yenue West and 236th Street ?.tW. (Edmonds Village Es* Ates and including Woodwav High School). Said hearing will be at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Edmonds, Ed- monds„ Washington, and all interested persons ore invited to appear. IRENE VARNEY MORAN ' City Clerk, City of Edmonds FILE NO. R-5-82 Published; Oct, 30, 1982, _ Affidavit of Publication The undersigned, being, first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news- paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho- mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice .................................... NOTICE OF P?JBLIC 1JFARING ...................................................................................................................................... a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: OCT------ 3Q� 19-82----- _------------------------- ................ .............................................. ------------------------- ------------........................................ .................................................... and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. --------------•----•----•• C .. ... ...........�, Principal Clerk 1st Subscribed and sworn to before me this ........................ NOVEMBER 82 day of �......... -•--------•- --- - -------------------••------• ............... •. Not ublic in and for the State of Washington, res' ng at Everett, Snohomish County. B-2-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING BOARD All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 10 th day of November ,1982 has been set as the date for hearing by the City of Edmonds Planning Board on proposed Preannexation zoning request for RS-8 zoning in the vicinity of 100th Avenue West and 236th Street S.W. (Edmonds Village Estates and including Woodway High School) Said hearing will be at 7:00 p.m. in -;the Council Chambers of the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited to appear. IRENE VARNEY MORAN City Clerk, City of Edmonds FILE NO. R-5-82 PUBLISH: 10-30-82 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Duane Bowman on oath deposes and says: 2-11� That on the FILE NO. R-5-82 APPLICANT City of Edmonds AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER being first duly sworn, day of 6d:-10)5eKz,19 ?Z , the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Post Office and Civic Center, and where applic- able, on or near the subject property. e Signed 2411,t6 Subscribed and sworn to before me this IDL*iday of , a Notary Public . and for he State o Washington residing at FILE NO. R-5-82 APPLICANT City of .Edmonds AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Maryanne Townsend being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: That on the day of %� ,192�_, the attached Notice of Public of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed61 L%e Subscribed and sworn to before me this &70tday of , 19. Notary Publ in and for he State of Wa ington Residing at CITY OF EDMONDS THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10 19 82 —,ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.. R-5-82 PREANNEXATION ZONING REQUEST FOR Rs-8 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 8,000 SQUARE FEET) IN THE VICINITY OF TOOTH AVENUE WEST AND 236TH STREET S.W (EDMONDS VILLAGE ESTATES AND INCLUDING WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL) ,s " •IMI 1 THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT % :00 P ,M. , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. I M f THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING! QF THE HEARING IS AIMISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER - 11-10-82 2 CITY OF E D M O N D S HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 CITY ATTORNEY 5�1^) December 27,1982 Duane Bowman Assistant City Planner Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Planning Board Resolution for R-5-82 Dear Duane: Enclosed is the resolution setting forth the findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning Board regarding the above referenced pre -annexation zoning request. Let me know if this resolution does not accurately reflect the board's position. If it is acceptable have Ray Sittauer sign it at his earliest convenience. Very truly yours, OFFICE OFF THE CITY ATTORNEY Mark A. Eames MAE:jt Enclosure SECTION-jS, TOWNSHIP 27N.9 RANGE 3 E., W.M.`` 14 L-3J t' • S T. W m H Q S a m 2 t7f ADD. 0 cr FI R R E A D W S .�r�•. • a o cc LL. s t 234 T _ SUBJE�'T a a o PROPERTY' ~ ' a o 3 = 300 cc :1'=300' W t ¢ ' •t ~ o 10 PL. S.W. :¢ :�•' a : oiv. N0. 2 4 3 ,. o 14 f ,n to 237 lu t APPLE T a e N N ¢ t 1 1 = j n a - -- Q - -- cT SW PROPOSED ANNEXATION VICINITY OF IOOTH AVE W AND 236TH ST SW RES. NO. DATE ORD. NO. DATE SHEET NO.I50F OFFICIAL ST, MAP CITY OF EDMONDS EXHIBIT A IN-7-R-OFFICE COMMUNI'ATIONS DATE 1.0-29- 19 92 TO . DAN- SMITH; PLAN/ENGIN_, INSPECfiORI FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: R-5-82/PREANNEXATI ON ZONING REQUESTAEAR I NG DATE: PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN ANY COMMENTS ON THE ATTACHED ITEM TO DUANE BOWMAN BEFORE THE HEARING DATE. THANKS. !1-10-32 . _ .. .. •_ .�. ::a, .. '--.•^- - - — :—..•..� _- .�—. _�._ ..._.�v-..tip—��. November 3, 1982 MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Duane V. Bowman Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 10, 1982 PLANNING BOARD MEETING For Your Information: Councilman Ray Gould will be attending your meeting on November loth to discuss Planning Board problems, as he perceives them, and possible City Code amendments to strengthen the Board. Attached is a copy of his proposal for your review. R= 82 CITY OF EDMONDS Preannexation zoning request for RS-8 zoning in the vicinity of 100th Avenue West and 236th Street S.W. (Edmonds Village Estates and including Woodway High School) Please review the attached staff report. CDC-13-82 CITY OF EDMONDS Amendment to Chapter 16.20.010 (B) of the acommunity Development Code to allow accessory units ("mother-in-law") in single family zones with a Conditional Use permit and to add a new Chapter 20.21 regulating accessory units. On October 27, 1982, the staff presented a proposal to allow accessory units in single family residences. Since that meeting, the staff has addressed a number of the concerns that were raised about the units. Attached is a revised proposal for Chapter 20.21 together with a report from the American Planning Association. Please review these items. REVIEW OF STREET USE PERMIT SYSTEM The background matter on this subject was included in your October 27th packets. DUB/mt attachments SECTION36,�TOWNSHIP 27N.9 RANGE 3 E., W.M. J Iz ,• 14 ADD. w ---• o, t, 3 N ST. tAj MOR H US t aD AD. Z W R WSF N 7 234 T •: N;. u �SIJBJECT�• � ����" ' � J • z PROPERTY'-'."*-:-' • ; x 300 ......... O� .... ..... o • o m 300 •:1"=300' 600 • x U _ �� � � 0: T 10 = ICED R At D E •, —VACAT— 6 PL. S.W. • �!�:' I : 1• . 3 7 12 34 • „ " '• • o I a Z s a 13 06 2 I. J t j • 1• W 10 13 ra d • 2 •�V'. �ja..yi Io-or ' � s �• '.� a 11 tLLJ 237 12 LL 238 TH ST fc. :x : ;; • s t ' J .J • • , t 3 • S • 7 f • IU n It 1 l . 3 _._ - a - w— z APPLE T ¢ z N ¢ 7 > t > It a a - Q --- C? PROPOSED ANNEXATION VICINITY OF IOOTH AVE. W AND 236TH ST SW RES. NO. DATE ORD. NO. DATE SHEFT NQ.150F OFFICIAL ST. MAP CITY OF EDMONDS -gyp �Z EXHIBIT A 7-3611-1 �C,ea G f4t ;?C) s �► � �. ate .. 9F1 �3G / �- APO r i ov� P v., �OX 40z �vr,Pn 9'6/lv � G I GA i 16 ion OOQ �,C=- e n ,• 0:90 0 C;7� OLV o b / 000G �It,7 0 Qo Win' ®, c; or; o or o-e G 0 00 C7 S oaoJ7 �n' �r o0o n�' Z 9`' Sao - Qoo /g / 00 o �S o o . N E ��U onv JLo vG>� VUO0 i pZD V i n� vl Pop cp. O �pD � .-o (yv D CU0 v 0610 L-I�oboo 000 000 v UCpo 0 Oa) .00 0/ 49,,310 i 0¢ 1 Z/ 0 ! 03 /3� pptj / 4 g-1 3f 0 4-06) 2 3 -4 S 6 /0 !3 17 as a.� ,24 �s �9U 99/ a? r- 1 f�R "EXHIBIT B" All that portion of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 232nd St. S.W. and the easterly right-of-way margin of 100th Ave. W., said point being on the existing city limits of the City of Edmonds; Thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way margin of 100th Ave. W. to its intersection with the northerly boundary of the plat of Edmonds Village Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded on pages 171 and 172, Volume 43 of Plats, records of Snohomish County, Washington; Thence easterly along said northerly boundary to the northwesterly corner of Tract 999 of said plat; Thence southerly along the westerly boundary of said Tract 999 to the southwesterly corner of said tract; Thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract 999 to the northeasterly corner of Tract 992 of said plat; Thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of said tract; Thence westerly along the southerly boundary of said plat to the easterly right-of-way margin of 100th Ave. W.; Thence northwesterly to the intersection of the northerly right- of-way margin of 238th St. S.W. and the westerly right-of-way margin of 100th Ave. W.; Thence northerly along said westerly right-of-way margin of 100th Ave. W. to the southeasterly•corner of Tract 991 of said plat of Edmonds Village Estates; thence westerly along the southerly boundary of said Tract 991 to the southwesterly corner of said tract, said point being on the North - South centerline of said Section 36;. Thence northerly along said centerline to the southerly boundary of the northerly one-half of said Section 36; Thence westerly along,said southerly boundary to the southeasterly corner of the Plat of Sherwood Village; Thence northerly along the easterly boundary of said plat to the northeasterly corner of said plat; Thence easterly along the southerly boundary of the Plat of Westgate Park Division 2 to the westerly margin of the right-of-way of 100th Ave. W.; Thence southerly along said westerly margin to its intersection with the westerly projection of the southerly boundary of the right-of-way of 232nd St. S.W.; Thence easterly along said projection to the point of beginning. W z ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act -of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers, include your explanation in the space provided,"'or use additional pages. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to those questions now will help all agencies involved undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the permit for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts that will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all agencies involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "not applicable" (N/A) and continue on to the next question. r ND 'ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Pe 11/ 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 51 West Dayton Edmonds, WA 27_1_/- y 3 0 F3 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Edmonds 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature: Annexation into the City of Edmonds a 7.38 acre Planned Residential Development called Edmonds Village Estates. WQQdway]jigh Srh-Rnl and portions of 100th Ave w. between the parcels 7. Locaiion*of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The site fronts on 100th Avenue West lying to the east of said street bet�,.!een 236th, and 238th Street S.W. A small 1/3 acre parcel also lies on the west side of 100th Avenue West. plus Woodway High School and portions of 100th Ave w. between the parcels. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal March, 1983 9. List of all Permits, Licenses, or Government Approvals Required for all Proposal (federal, state, and local -- including rezones): Edmonds City Council acceptance. Approval from Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. Adoption of annexation ordinance by Edmonds City Council. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Annexation petition. -I- V, y� B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required). � YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes _ in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modifica- tion of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X Explanation: 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Explanation: 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course _ -or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur- face water runoff? X -2- V YES MAYBE NO c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? -- X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, deter- gents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X Explanation: 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (in- cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? c. Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of exist- ing species? d. Recution in acreage of any agri- cultural crop? Explanation: X X X X -3- ,i YES GYBE NO 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: —" a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? --X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X c. Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Explanation: Jurisdiction would be transferred from Snohomish County to the City of Edmonds. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result 'in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? X b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Explanation: I -4- r t3 YES MAYBE NO 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of explosion or release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condi- tions? Explanation: X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Explanation: There will be an increase of 32 household units and an estimated 90 persons. 12. Hou�sinq. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X Explanation: 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro- posal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X X X X X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Explanation: -5- YES ',% ,MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X Explanation: There will be an increased demand for manv Citv of Edmonds services, primarily Police, Fire and miscellaneous services. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a nee or new systems or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X Explanation: 10 L1 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result 3n the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will in an impact upon tity of existing tunities? Explanation: the proposal result the quality or quan- recreational oppor- 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: X C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration or non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of fuyl� ¢is�jgs iy ga6-` -7- CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION FOR REZONE APPLICANT: CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: =Q-28-82 FILE# R-5=82 REZONE FEE $ I70 CONTRACT REZONE $ 3.[.00 ENV.ASSESSMENT FEE ENV.CHECKLIST RECVD RECT NO. HEARING DATE November 10, 1982 ADDRESS_ 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH PHONE # 775-2525, EXT. 252 APPLICANT'.S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: OPTION HOLDER Agency requiring zoning of annexed RE CONTRACT HOLDER OTHER - Please Specify: property. OWNER ADDRESS PHONE (If more than one owner, att—a—cT list or petition) REQUEST REZONE FROM: RS-8 TO: Statement of reasons or rezone request. (Statement may be attached. Please include any plans for development.) ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: In the vicindty of 100th Avenue West and 236th Street S.W. (Edmonds Village Estates and including Woodway High School. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REZONE AREA: See attached Exhibit ""B REQUIRED SUBMITTALS (Must be submitted at time of application) 1. Map drawn to scale of the area involved, showing all property lines, dimensions- existing buildings and streets. Indicate North and adjacent zoning. 2. Vicinity sketch of the area with subject property shaded in. Indicate North and adjacent zoning. 3. Environmental Checklist, completed, with the $ �10.'jDC>fee. 4. Names and addresses of all property owners and street addresses within 80 feet of the boundaries of the proposed rezone site. This space to be completed by the Planning Division: Legal Description checked and approved by Date Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harlmess from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or inaction of the City whenever such action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. Permission to Enter Subject Property e undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting at ndant to this application. nature o er or gent or Owner