Loading...
StaffReport_AMD-07-14+attachments_web.pdf CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD To: : ____________________________ From Gina Coccia Associate Planner June 5, 2008 Date: AMD-2007-14 File: A pplication by James Underhill to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for properties thth along a portion of 215 Street SW and east of 76 Avenue West from “Mixed Use Commercial” to “Single Family Urban 1.” June 11, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Hearing Date, Time, and Place: Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex th 250 - 5 Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I.INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2 A.A...........................................................................................................................2 PPLICATION B.R.................................................................................................................2 ECOMMENDATION II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................2 .S...................................................................................................................................2 AETTING .SEPA(SEPA).......................................................................4 BTATENVIRONMENTALOLICYCT C.T..........................................................................................................4 ECHNICAL COMMITTEE D.P.................................................................................................................4 UBLIC COMMENTS E.CPZC.....................................................5 OMPREHENSIVE LAN AND ONING CODE OMPLIANCE III.ATTACHMENTS..........................................................................................................................7 IV.PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................7 City of Edmonds Planning Board Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: James Underhill (Attachment 1). thth 2. Site Location: 7528-7328 215 Street SW and 7527-7321 215 Street SW (Attachments 1-2 and 4-9). 3. Request: Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from “Mixed Use Commercial” to “Single Family Urban 1” (Attachments 1-2). 4. Review Process: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – The Planning Board conducts a public hearing and issues a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.00 (CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATION Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to the DENY request to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation from “Mixed Use Commercial” to thth “Single Family Urban 1” for properties along a portion of 215 Street SW and east of 76 Avenue West. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan nor is it in the public interest. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SETTING 1. Proposed Designation and Development of the Site The proposal would change the existing “Mixed Use Commercial” Comprehensive Plan Designation of the subject properties to “Single Family Urban 1.” The amendment would result in a density and land use change from a mix of potential commercial (office) and residential uses to solely single family residential uses with a maximum density of 5-8 dwelling units/acre. This would make the properties most compatible with a Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zoning designation (although there is no proposal to change the zoning of the neighborhood at this time). Currently, the zoning designation is Multiple Residential (RM 2.4) which allows a density of up to 18 dwelling units/acre, whereas the RS-8 designation would only allow up to 5.5 dwelling units/acre. Page 2 of 7 Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 2. Current Designation and Development of the Site th The site is comprised of 19 parcels along 215 Street SW, each at roughly 0.24 acres (approximately 4.6 acres total). The properties are developed with single family homes from the 1960s, according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. The site is currently zoned Multiple Residential (RM-2.4), which is compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan designation. The Zoning Map from 1963 (Attachment 12) shows that this area has always been zoned for multiple-residential use. The applicant argues that “throughout the almost 50 years of existence, this neighborhood has only been a single family neighborhood” (see Attachment 2). The applicant goes on to argue that, “the current and proposed zoning designations are incorrect and must change to conform to our history and future as a single-family, residential neighborhood.” The applicant’s argument is based on the current (and past) use of the properties. However, the properties have been planned and zoned for multi-family use since 1963 (see 1963 comprehensive plan and zoning maps, Attachments 11 and 12). The 1963 Dwelling Unit Distribution Map confirms that at that time the City was aware that there were single-family th dwelling units here, but that the vision for this area situated between Highway 99 and 76 Avenue West was for more intensive uses. The 1963 plan clearly intended that this area be part of a larger, more intense development area; it made no sense to create an island of single family uses within a larger area of multi family and commercial development. Over the years, development has occurred consistent with the plan, including properties at the eastern end of the street. The aerial photograph (Attachment 7) also indicates that this is a developing area, and approving such a request would take away the opportunity for this specific neighborhood to eventually redevelop if they so wished. 3. Designation and Development in the Vicinity These properties lie entirely within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center (Attachment 5). The site is surrounded by more intense multi family, commercial, medical and public uses. th Steven’s Hospital is adjacent to the south, and Edmonds Woodway High School is across 76 Avenue West to the West. Another Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone is to the east near Highway 99, and the General Commercial (CG2) zone lies to the north and east along the Highway 99 Corridor. The site is situated in the middle of an area that can be expected to continue its intensification thth into the future. 215 Street is runs east of 76 Avenue West – a “minor arterial” that provides access to many medical and office uses – and Highway 99, a principal arterial running through a high-intensity development corridor connecting Everett to Seattle. The site is north thth of 220 Street SW and south of 212 Street SW, both of which are also designated “minor arterials” that provide access to Highway 99. The entire neighborhood was part of a large annexation in 1959, and most of the houses in this neighborhood were constructed between 1958 and 1961. The 1963 Generalized Land Use Plan Map (Attachment 11) shows this site designated “Multi Family.” The 1963 Zoning Map (Attachment 12) shows this site zoned “Multi-Family 6000 Sq. Ft.” The 1963 Dwelling Unit Distribution Map shows single family dwelling units th situated along 215 Street SW in this location. Although the names of these zones and th designations have evolved over the last 45 years, the neighborhood along 215 Street SW as th it exists today is virtually unchanged from the neighborhood along 215 Street SW that is shown on the 1963 maps. The site has always been planned and zoned for more intensive multi-family development, and the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations continue this direction. Page 3 of 7 Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 The applicant argues that there are several single family neighborhoods within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. This is true. However, it should be noted that these neighborhoods are at the periphery of the Activity Center and form a transition from the more intensive uses within the Activity Center and the large, uniformly single family areas lying outside the Activity Center. If approved, this requested change would take place towards the middle of the Activity Center, affording no “transition” to other low intensity uses. Instead, making this change would create and memorialize a small island of low intensity single family uses that could be expected to experience further pressures and impacts (noise, traffic, height encroachments) from nearby uses (see Attachment 5 for nearby planned uses). Referring again to the Comprehensive Plan Map (Attachment 5), it is clear that the nearest Single Family Urban 1 designated areas are located on the western outskirts of the “Highway 99 Activity Center” and are not located near this proposal. The applicant’s arguments about how single family neighborhoods are required to be protected are taken out of context – this neighborhood is not on the periphery of the Activity Center, as are the neighborhoods he is comparing it to. 4. Previous Proposals in the Vicinity Staff is not aware of any previous requests in the vicinity. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment on May 8, 2008 (Attachment 3). The appeal period expires on June 6, 2008, and to date no appeals or comments have been received. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required for the proposal, because the impacts likely to occur due to the specific request were not determined to be so significant and adverse that they could not be adequately mitigated by the application of existing development regulations. Although environmental impacts from the request may be adequately mitigated, this does not imply that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion in Section E of this report). It should also be noted that the DNS issued for this proposal is a “non-project” determination, meaning that additional SEPA review could be required if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment were to be approved and a specific project proposed. Both the applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A. C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division as well as the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments. No comments were made. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS One public comment letter has been received to date (Attachment 17). It is a joint letter th composed by neighbors Alden R. Peppel (7528 215 Street SW) and Susana Martinez (7527 th 215 Street SW), whose properties are included in the proposal. They are generally opposed to th the proposal. They indicate that the properties along 215 Street SW are not like other single- family properties in Edmonds and that there have always been a mix of uses in the neighborhood. They feel their financial investments in their properties will be harmed if this proposal is approved, and they do not wish to be part of this proposal – they have requested that their th properties (the two properties that border 76 Avenue West) be excluded from the proposal. Staff generally agrees with the above statements. Staff agrees that this neighborhood is not like other single-family neighborhoods in Edmonds – this neighborhood is located in the middle of Page 4 of 7 Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 the Highway 99 Activity Center and is intended for a more intense future use – a consistent with the original direction for the area established in 1963. The fact that these individuals (on the western edge of the site proposed to be changed) have requested to be removed from this application suggests another problem with the proposal – it could be expected to result in a loss in future economic value and tax revenue because the future use of the neighborhood would no longer have the potential for a variety of more intense uses. If these two properties were removed from the study area, it would also further exacerbate and illustrate the island effect that approval of the proposed amendment would have on the vicinity. E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s long range vision. The following discussion reviews pertinent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the proposed amendment in the context of the requirements of the zoning code (ECDC 20.00 – Changes to the Comprehensive Plan). The full text of the Residential, Commercial, and Highway 99 Activity Center sections of the Plan, as well as the Housing Element, are included in Attachments 13-16. The applicant submitted a narrative, composed in 2004, which discusses the proposed request (Attachment 2). The Edmonds Community Development Code requires that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan be adopted only if the following findings area made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? This site is located within the “Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center” (see Attachment 16). The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, nor is it in the general public interest, as expressed in the comprehensive plan direction for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The Comprehensive Plan states that, “the overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian-friendly environment…” The Plan does not indicate the intent to change this neighborhood – it has remained essentially the same since 1963 (constructed with single- family houses, zoned for multi-family development, and planned for a future mix of commercial and residential uses). A more intense use of this area, as planned since 1963, would expand the economic tax base, which would be in the general public interest. This is most clearly stated in the goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center to “expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center.” The proposal would in effect institutionalize the existing single-family homes and would prohibit the opportunity for more intensive future use of these properties. Perhaps more importantly, changing this area to a “Single Family Urban 1” designation, as requested, would create future conflicts with the surrounding more intense designations as they ultimately redevelop, which would create an underutilized island in the middle of a more intense neighborhood. Single family areas can be expected to have a lower expectation and tolerance for traffic, noise, and other types of impacts that are part of a more intensive use environment. For the reasons cited above, the proposal does not appear to have a logical boundary; it is not in the public interest, nor is it consistent with the existing (and previous) comprehensive plan direction. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? The proposed Plan change would be counter to consistent Comprehensive Plan direction consistently established over the last 45 years. Changes to this established designation are Page 5 of 7 Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 not in the public interest because, if changed to a less intense designation as requested, it would undermine the Plan’s goals and policies to provide a future opportunity for more intensive uses. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? Changing the designation of a portion of one street from “Mixed Use Commercial” to “Single Family Urban 1” does not significantly affect the overall balance of land use in the City. However, permitting such a request would in effect create a single-family island in the middle of the intensive “Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center,” which would throw off the balance within this activity center. The applicant has argued that the current designation is, “a long- standing error in the City’s zoning code,” however, the 1963 maps point out that this area has always been intended for a more intense use than single-family development. For at least the last 45 years this area has been slated for a more intensive use consistent with the area’s significance as a primary economic development engine for the city. The existing single- family uses are permitted uses within Multiple-Residential zones, and are certainly entitled to continue as long as they desired; however, the goals for this area have always been for more intense development. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The subject area itself is physically suitable for the requested land use designation, as it is for the existing land use designation and potential development. The site and surrounding neighborhood are relatively flat (Attachment 8), and there are no identified streams or wetlands in the vicinity. All future development would have to meet the applicable zoning criteria for height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking, etc. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, the proposal is not compatible geographically with adjacent land uses. Memorializing a single-family neighborhood within the intensive Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center through the proposed request is not physically appropriate; it does not result in an appropriate boundary. Page 6 of 7 Underhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMD-2007-14 III. ATTACHMENTS Land Use Application. 1. Applicant’s Narrative. 2. SEPA DNS. 3. Neighborhood Notice. 4. Comprehensive Plan Vicinity Map. 5. Zoning Vicinity Map. 6. Aerial Photo Vicinity Map. 7. LiDAR Vicinity Map. 8. Neighborhood Map. 9. 1963 Dwelling Unit Distribution Map. 10. 1963 Generalized Land Use Plan Map. 11. 1963 Zoning Map. 12. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Residential Development, pages 50-55. 13. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Commercial Land Use, pages 55-59. 14. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element, pages 99-110. 15. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, pages 43-49. 16. Letter from Alden R. Peppel and Susana Martinez, dated 05.30.08. 17. IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Jim Underhill Alden R. Peppel Planning Division thth 7410 215 Street SW 7528 215 Street SW Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Susana Martinez th 7527 215 Street SW Edmonds WA 98026 Page 7 of 7 ComprehensivePlanAmendmentApplication byJamesUnderhill ProposaltochangetheComprehensivePlandesignation from"MixedUseCommercial"to"Single-FamilyUrban1" FileNumberAMD20070014 e \] Attachment5 JamesUnderhill ComprehensivePlanAmendment ComprehensivePlanMap FileNumberAMD-2007-14 215thStreetSW(RM-2.4Zone) !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! \] Attachment6 JamesUnderhill ComprehensivePlanAmendment ZoningMap FileNumberAMD-2007-14 215thStreetSW(RM-2.4Zone) \] Attachment7 JamesUnderhill ComprehensivePlanAmendment AerialPhotoVicinityMap FileNumberAMD-2007-14 215thStreetSW(RM-2.4Zone) \] Attachment8 JamesUnderhill ComprehensivePlanAmendment LiDARVicinityMap:10'Contours FileNumberAMD-2007-14 215thStreetSW(RM-2.4Zone) 21229 7303"3" Pool Office 7304"1" 7302"2" 21327 730 DWAY STEVE MANO HOOL 21 21 21 PLANT 2152 STEVE COUR STEVENS HOSPITAL 7320 E.R. STEVENS PAVILION \] Attachment9 JamesUnderhill ComprehensivePlanAmendment NeighborhoodMap FileNumberAMD-2007-14 215thStreetSW(RM-2.4Zone)