PLN20160060_61 Westgate Woods Decision.pdf4,7C. 1 S9"
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Westgate Woods Townhomes
Variance and Design Review
PLN-20160060 (Variance) &
PLN-20160061 (Design
Review)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
INTRODUCTION
The applicant seeks approval of a height variance and design review to construct two
5-unit townhouse buildings at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The proposed height
increase for one building is 3.46 feet and 2.27 feet for the other. The applications are
approved subject to conditions.
At the hearing, a neighbor and a City resident expressed several concerns unrelated to
the height variance and design review, such as traffic impacts, allegedly contaminated
soil and stormwater control. The examiner had no authority to address these concerns
because they were not relevant to the scope of the hearing, specifically whether the
buildings should be allowed to be a few feet taller than maximum height standards
and whether the design of the building is consistent with the City's design standards
and the bulk and use requirements of the City's zoning code. See ECDC 20.11.020.
Despite this, hearing participants were given a full opportunity to voice all their
concerns and staff and the applicant did a good job in identifying how the City has
addressed those concerns.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Kernen Lien, senior planner for the City of Edmonds, summarized the proposal.
John Bissell, applicant representative, noted that the unique topographical issues of
the site are caused by the right of way being separated by a rock retaining wall that is
Subdivision P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more than six feet above the elevation of the property. The City's access standards
also require access to be taken at the lower volume street. The frontage on 95th is too
short for access to be taken. Placing access at the west end of 228th was the only
remaining option. The west end of 228th is where 228th starts sloping up, which
causes a significant difference between the elevation of the access point and the rest
of the property. This amplifies the special circumstances of the site. Attachment 21 of
the staff report includes the applicant's arguments for compliance with variance
criteria. The applicant has no objections over the recommended conditions of
approval.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds resident, expressed concerns about accidents along
Edmonds Way. He noted that a friend of his, Mr. Martin, owns property near the
project and had noted there have been several accidents in the area. He notes that at
the corner of Edmonds Way some cars run the stop light. There should be a report on
traffic accidents. There should be a safer access point to the project.
David Williams, neighbor, noted he preferred to have access on Edmonds Way. He
noted there are no sidewalks on 228th. The mailboxes should be on Edmonds Way as
well. He confirmed there are accidents, that a fence at the project corner is knocked
down it seems once per month. A traffic light was placed at the corner of 95th and
Edmonds Way and that helped a little bit, but cars still miss the turn and end up on
the project site. He noted that attachment 7 to the staff report states there's no
environmental contamination, which he believes is incorrect because the project site
has been used as a dumping ground. Construction materials, possibly including
asbestos, have been dumped at the site. The site is a low drainage location. It's the
lowest site in the vicinity so water is a problem. During the winter, the road along the
project site is often closed due to snow because it's steep. His son pulling out of his
driveway has been hit twice. He doesn't want another 10-20 cars going onto 228th
across from his home.
hi rebuttal, Mr. Lien noted that the speed limit along Edmonds Way has been reduced
recently. Edmonds Way is a state highway, so access is limited. From his experience
with past projects, Mr. Lien knows that access to Edmonds Way has been highly
restricted by the engineering department. Stormwater regulations will require storm
water generated by the site to not drain onto other properties.
In rebuttal, Mr. Bissell noted that a geotechnical report did not find any
contamination but there was "unconsolidated fill" composed of construction material.
Stormwater along the project site is piped to the stormwater system on Edmonds
Way, which as more than sufficient capacity to address stormwater. The project has
very sandy soils well equipped to handle on -site stormwater. Mr. Bissell noted he has
talked to the City Engineer about accidents and found that two traffic calming
measures have been implemented, composed of speed limit reduction along with a
flashing light warning of the reduced speed (from 40 to 35 mph) and a controlled left
only turn lane converted from a previously uncontrolled left turn lane. These
measures were made within the last year, probably the last six months.
Subdivision p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBITS
The Staff Report was entered as Exhibit 1 with Attachments 1-25 at the hearing. The
Staff power point was admitted as Exhibit 2. Written comment from David Williams
was admitted as Ex. 3.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicant is Bill Booth of Westgate Woods, LLC.
2. Hem. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on October 26, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the
Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant seeks approval of a height
variance and design review two 5-unit townhouse buildings at 9511 and 9513
Edmonds Way. The proposed height increase for one building is 3.46 feet and 2.27
feet for the other.
The 10 proposed townhome units will each contain a two -car garage and an
additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. Access to the proposed
development will be taken off 228th Street SW. The subject property is vacant and
contains approximately 25,327sf.
The property is lower than the surrounding roads and is effectively, a topographic
bowl. There are no critical areas or wildlife of special significance on the property.
There are a number of trees that currently exist on the property with species primarily
being a mix of alder and cedar trees. All or most of the trees will be removed with
development of the property and replaced with landscaping indicated on the
landscape plan (Ex 1, Att. 5).
The site is located at the intersection of 228h Ste SW, 95th Place West, and Edmonds
Way and is comprised of two tax lots. The site is bounded on three sides by
developed rights of way, is triangularly shaped and is almost entirely below the
elevations of the surrounding streets and properties. The vegetation is a combination
of grasses, tress and both native and ornamental plantings that have not been
maintained in decades. There is evidence of previous filling and excavation, probably
related to a quarry project in the late 1800's that affected the Edmonds Way Corridor
from around the intersection of 100th Ave West to near the intersection of 232"d St
SW. The quarry operation was followed by road way development around the site,
which appears to have affected the site, then the development and subsequent
Subdivision p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
removal of a house on the site, followed by the redevelopment of Edmonds Way,
which raised the south property line elevation of the subject site.
The applicant is seeking a height variance for each of the structures proposed with
this development. Due to the odd shape and topography of the site, the installation of
the access and stormwater will require elevating the site, which will in turn affect
building heights and subsequently affect roof design. The site is essentially down in a
hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the
property and provide appropriate slope for connections to utilities in the adjacent
rights -of -way. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed
soil, this negatively impacts the potential heights of the structure. The average grade
calculated for Building A is 263.60 feet, so the maximum height allowed by the zone
would be 293.60 feet (30 feet). The highest point of the proposed Building A is
297.06 feet. Therefore, the applicant is seeking 3.46-foot height variance for Building
A. The average grade calculated for Building B is 265.50 feet. The maximum height
allowed by the zone would be 295.50 feet (30 feet). The highest point of the proposed
Building B is 297.77 feet. Therefore, the applicant is seeking 2.27-foot height
variance for Building B.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The
zoned for multifamily development (RM-1.5
(Ex. 1, Att. 6). The existing development o
is the only property
of 228th Street SW
ists of single family
residences. The property to the east across 95th Place West is zoned BP (Planned
Business) and includes a commercial development. The properties on the south side
of Edmonds Way are zoned RM-1.5 and mostly developed with multi -family
developments. According to the staff report, the proposed townhome configuration is
typical of the types of development the City of Edmonds is seeing in the RM zones
throughout the city. This variance would not grant special privilege to the property.
subject property
along this block
n this block cons
5. Adverse Impacts. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the requested
height variance. The proposed increase in height, at a maximum of 3.46 feet is
nominal. Since the building is within a depression (for example, right of way is six
feet above grade on one side of the building), the increased height will not be
noticeable to surrounding property owners and the overall height will be less than if
the building were built at code compliant height absent the depression. No one
complained of height or privacy impacts caused by the increase in height and none
are anticipated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 classifies design review
(where public hearing required by ADB) and variances as Type III-B actions.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the design review and variance applications have
been consolidated. ECDC 20.01.003(B) and ECDC 20.01.002(C) provides the
Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and issue final decisions upon
consolidated Type III-B applications.
Subdivision
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Substantive:
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the site as "Edmonds Way Corridor". The area is zoned Multifamily
Residential (RS-1.5).
3. SEPA Compliance and Notice.
Non -significance on February 2, 2017 (Ex
not appealed.
The City issued a SEPA Determination of
1, Att. 8). The SEPA determination was
4. Design Review. Design review compliance has already been addressed in
detail in the staff recommendation to the Architectural Design Board, att. 17 to the
staff report. In the absence of any error in the staff report and decision of the ADB,
there is no need for the Hearing Examiner to add to or modify upon the detailed and
technical findings and conclusions of the staff report and ADB. The findings and
conclusions of the staff report and ADB as detailed in att. 17 and 18 to the staff report
are adopted by this decision as if set forth in full.
For future reference, the staff report should expressly address compliance with ECDC
20.11.020, which provides that ADB must make the specified findings of that section
before approving any proposed development. One important element missing from
the ADB staff report is a determination that the proposal meets the "bulk and use"
requirements of the zoning ordinance as required by ECDC 20.11.020. The staff
report's finding of consistency with zoning code standards in Section VII of the
report is construed as satisfying the standard. However, since "bulk and use" is vague
term, it would be helpful for staff to identify in the report on a consistent basis that
the standards addressed in Section VII comprise all applicable "bulk and use"
standards, if that is indeed staff s understanding.
4. Review Criteria. ECDC 20.85.010 governs the criteria for variances to
ECDC Title 16. The variance criteria set by ECDC 20.85.010 are quoted below and
applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
Variance
ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this
section can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010(A) — Special Circumstances: That, because ofspecial
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
Subdivision p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal
to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be
necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any
factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property;
5. As described in Finding of Fact No. 3 and page nine of the Staff Report,
the site is triangular in shape with street frontages along SR 104, 228th Avenue SW
and 96th Street W. The site is also topographically a bowl. In order to provide an
accessible driveway and functioning utilities and stormwater infiltration, the level of
the site must be increased. Building height is measured from the average level of
undisturbed soil (ECDC 21.40.030.A). Therefore, adding fill to the site significantly
impacts the ability of the applicant to construct typical low-rise multi -family
buildings. This special circumstance is not related to any action of the present or past
owner of the property. The zoning request is justified.
ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
6. The property has a unique configuration compared to other properties in
the vicinity given its triangular shape and sunken topography. Approval of the
variance would not be a granting of special privilege in comparison with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The applicant is
proposing buildings that are 30 feet in height from finished floor and consistent with
the design standards of the comprehensive plan and general design standards of
ECDC 20.11. The proposed townhome configuration is typical of the types of
development the City of Edmonds is seeing in the RM zones throughout the city. This
variance would not grant special privilege to the property.
ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
7. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Section IX of the staff report.
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which
the property is located;
Subdivision p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8. The subject property is located within the RM-1.5 zone. Pursuant to
ECDC 16.30.000, one 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 zones, while still maintaining a residential environment. The
proposed height variance will enable the construction of townhomes at a reasonable
height compatible with other similar multifamily development in the area.
Townhomes provide for an alternate type of residential development to the typical
single-family and multi -family structures in Edmonds. For these reasons, the
proposed variance is found to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance
and district.
ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
same zone;
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts are
associated with the requested increase in height. Consequently, the variance will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
20. The variance is the minimum necessary to allow for multi -family
development in this location. The applicants have sloped the driveway into the site as
much as possible while still being able to transition from the road into the site which
impacts the height of Building A. The lowest elevation of the site is set by the lowest
possible elevation while still using a gravity sewer line. The proposed buildings are
stepped into the slope to minimize the overall height appearance of the buildings. The
applicants are not seeking to maximize the density on the site and are proposing only
10 dwelling units on a site where the RM-1.5 zoning designation would allow for 16
dwelling units on the site. The criterion is satisfied.
DECISION
All variance and design review criteria are met. The design review and variance
applications are approved. The variance approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structures, the applicant must
either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit lot subdivision consistent with
the requirements of ECDC 20.75.045.
2. The rear elevation of both buildings must be consistent with the front in color
modulation.
Subdivision p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dated this 8th day of November 2017.
Phil A. Olbrechts
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This decision is final and only subject to appeal to the City Council as a Type III-B
decision governed by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeal filing requirements are governed by
ECDC 20.07.004.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Subdivision
p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision