Loading...
STF20100017 Zoning Confirmation Letter and Attachments.pdfJuly 29, 2010 ."Ti OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH d EDMONDS, WA 98020 m 425-771-0220 ® FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Terri Burt Planning & Zoning Resource Corporation 100 NE 5`h Street Oklahoma City, OK 73104 RE: Zoning Confirmation Letter — File No. STF20100017 Firdale Village Apartments 9333 — 244th Street SW, Edmonds, WA Dear Ms. Burt: This letter is in response to your inquiry received by the Planning Division on July 26, 2010 regarding the Firdale Village Apartments located at 9333 — 244th St. SW in Edmonds. Your request specifies the property at 9501 244th Sheet SW; however, we do not show that as an address in our system. Stephanie Davis of your office confirmed with me via email that your request is for the Firdale Village Apartments at 9333 — 244th St. SW (Parcel No. 27033600403800). Please refer to Attachment 1 for a zoning and vicinity map of the subject site to confirm this is the correct site. I have enclosed your receipt for this zoning compliance request. Specific answers to each of your questions follow: 1. What is the current zoning of the property? The current zoning of the subject property is Multiple -Family Residential, RM -1.5, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.30. Please refer to the enclosed copy of ECDC 16.30 (Attachment 2) for information on the allowed uses and applicable development regulations for the RM -1.5 zone. 2. What are the abutting zoning designations? Refer to the enclosed zoning and vicinity map for abutting zoning designations. The majority of the surrounding properties are located within the Single -Family Residential, RS -8, zone. Firdale Village shopping center located directly west of the subject site at 9617 Firdale Avenue is currently zoned Neighborhood Business (BN); however, the City Council recently approved a rezone of that property to Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU), which is pending recording of a development agreement before becoming effective. The properties to the south of the subject site located on the southern side of 244`x' Street Southwest are located within City of Shoreline jurisdiction, so it is advised that you contact the City of Shoreline for information on the zoning designations of the properties to the south of the subject site. dncorpop ated:d August 11, V,00 0 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 3. Was this a Planned Unit Development? If so, please provide a copy of the PUD. Unknown. This site was developed under Snohomish County codes in 1987. The site was not annexed in to the City of Edmonds until December 15, 1997. Please contact the Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Department at (425) 388-3311 for information on the codes that were in place at the time this property was developed. 4. Is the property in any special, restrictive or overlay district? The property is not located within an overlay district. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is "Multi Family — High Density." 5. Is this site in compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance? It is unknown if the site is in compliance with the current zoning ordinance, particularly since the property was developed prior to annexation in the City of Edmonds. Refer to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.30 for the current zoning regulations applicable to the RM - 1.5 zone. The current use of the property of multi -family residential is a permitted use within the RM -1.5 zone, and it appears that the County permitted a (limited) daycare use in 1986, and the City permitted a (limited) daycare use in 2002. You may refer to the enclosed Hearing Examiner's decision and conditions required for any proposed daycare use (Attachment 3). 6. Are there any legal nonconforming issues? Possibly. There was a daycare use permitted under County jurisdiction for the residents of the complex. After the site was annexed into Edmonds, "Childtime Learning Centers" applied for a Conditional Use permit to go beyond the scope of their original County permit and allow non- residents to drop off their children at the daycare (File No. CU -2002-162). You may review the attached Hearing Examiner's decision for all of the requirements applicable to the daycare (Attachment 3). It is unknown at this time if there are any nonconforming issues related to the number of residential units, number of parking stalls provided, setbacks, height, lot coverage, or any other applicable standards. The City's nonconforming regulations are within ECDC Chapter 17.40, which is included for reference (Attachment 4). 7. Was this property granted any variances, special exceptions, conditional use permits, or zoning relief of any kind? If so, please provide a copy of all available documents. If copies are unavailable, would you briefly outline the conditions of all applicable documents (excluding signage)? Unknown. This site was developed under Snohomish County codes in 1987. The site was not annexed in to the City of Edmonds until December 15, 1997. Please contact the Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Department at (425) 388-3311 for information on the codes that were in place at the time this property was developed. 8. To the best of your knowledge, do your records show any open zoning or building code violations at the present time? *Please note, this request is for any active or ongoing violations of which the jurisdiction is aware. PZR is not requesting that any on-site inspection be made. Staff is not aware of any current zoning or building code violations on the subject site. Page 2 of 3 9. Was this property developed with Site Plan approval? If so, please provide a copy of the approved plan and/or conditions. Unknown. This site was developed Under Snohomish County codes in 1987. The site was not annexed in to the City of Edmonds until December 15, 1997. Please contact the Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Department at (425) 388-3311 for information on the codes that were in place at the time this property was developed. 10. Were Certificates of Occupancy issued for this property? If so, please provide all available copies. If copies are unavailable, please fill out our attached letter. Unknown. This site was developed under Snohomish County codes in 1987. The site was not annexed in to the City of Edmonds until December 15, 1997. Please contact the Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Department at (425) 388-3311 for information on the codes that were in place at the time this property was developed. I hope this addresses your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Sincerely, Jennifer Machuga, Planner Development Services Department CITY of EDMONDS Attachments: 1. Zoning and Vicinity Map 2. ECDC Chapter 16.30 (RM -Multiple Residential) 3. Hearing Examiner's Decision for File No. CU -2006-1.62 4. ECDC Chapter 17.40 (Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs, and Lots) Page 3 of 3 File No. STF20100017 0 100 200 400 Feet Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM- zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a vari- ety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-fam- ily residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boardinghouses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 16-10.1 16.30.010 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multiple -family buildings; 4. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 5. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in con- junction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsec- tion (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facili- ties; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; Attachment 2 16.30.020 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facili- ties as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the require- ments of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the require- ments of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Condi- tional Use Permit. Day-care facilities of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling structure operated primarily for the benefit of the resi- dents thereof; 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other fac- tors. These subdistricts shall be known as the RM -1.5, RM —Edmonds Way (RM -EW), RM - 2.4, and RM -3 zones. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. Subdistrict Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit4 (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Street Setback2 Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback Maximum Height Maximum Coverage Minimum3 Parking (Spaces Per Unit) RM -1.5 1,500 15' 10' 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 RM -EW 1,500 15' 10' 15' 25'5A7 45% 2 RM -2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 RM -3 3,000 15' 15' 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 4 See definition of townhouse. 5 Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet. 6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least 50 percent of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; (b) The subject property is at least five feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residentially (R) zoned property measured at its lowest elevation; and (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this sub- section, "low impact development techniques" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not make the use of the impact development unreasonable or unfeasible. 7 In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 6) provide a minimum 15 percent slope or pitch. (Revised 7/07) 16-10.2 Edmonds Community Development Code B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. D. Landscaping. In addition to the land- scaping requirements set forth in Chapter 20.13 ECDC, any development in the RM — Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35 per- cent of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks of the devel- opment site. The applicant shall retain an arborist to determine the health of all signifi- cant trees within the side and rear setbacks. For the purposes of this section, "significant tree" shall be defined as any tree with a caliper greater than six inches measured at four feet above grade. Where it is not reasonably feasi- ble for the applicant to retain 35 percent of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks, the applicant may replace any significant trees below the 35 per- cent threshold as follows: each significant tree removed that reduces the percentage of retained significant healthy trees below 35 per- cent shall be replaced with three new trees, each of no less than three-inch caliper mea- sured at four feet above grade. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing projects for the elderly are eligible for special parking and density provisions. See Chapter 20.25 ECDC. B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. C. Setback Encroachments. 1. Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. 2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unen- closed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, 16.30.040 whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. 3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street set- backs shall be side setbacks. [Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16-11 (Revised 2/09) 11?c� 1011 C '1TV OF EDM01"ADS I - 121 5TH AVEWE NORTH - Ediiop&, WA 0&'320, 025,, 771.0220, FAX (44S)7711-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF T1JL HEARING E XAMINER rut I GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICANT: Childtirne Learning Center represented by AfforneyTom g Ehrlichman (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2.) CASE NO.: CUP -2002-162 LOCATION: The dnycare center is located within the Firdale Village Apartment complex at 9329 244"' St SW (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1,) kill' tA C'A'I'l ON - The applicant rcqL1CSt.S tllHtthe f,)riginal conditional use permit be amended to exclude conditions D, E, and F. The conditions are as rollows: D) There shall be no signs advertising or indicaflng the existence. -1 of day care center visible to any motorist passing the site on 240' St SW; k) There shall be no advertising of the existence of a day care canter on the subject propert), in any niediurn sepal -ate from advertisements indication that apartments are available for rent/lease/purchase (as appropriate.); and F) All customers of the day care center shall be residenis of the on- site apartment complex, (Reller to Exhibit A, Attachment 6) RE, VIEW PROCESS: 7 b Nearing Examiner conducts public hcarin8 and makes the final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance wilh Edmonds Community Development Code ( 'ECDC) Chapter ?0.(15 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS). 1). Compliance with ECDC Chapter 17.50 (PARKING RE;( UIREMENTS) with the City of Edmonds Compi-cl-ictisive Plan, Attachment 3 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Childtime Learning Center application was opened at 10:52 a.m., March 6, 2003, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral argument at 11:06 a.m. The hearing was held open administratively to allow additional materials to be submitted. It was acknowledged in writing by the Applicant that the Hearing Examiner's decision would be delayed because the Examiner would be on vacation when the administrative continuance ended. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS/LEGAL ARGUMENT: The following is a summary of the comments/legal arguments offered at the public hearing From the City: Kathleen Taylor, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record as Exhibit A. She noted that the City and the Applicant have worked for over one year to rectify the issues. She said the Applicant has shown that there is adequate parking on site, however, the available parking does not comply with the provisions of ECDC 17.50 and staff cannot recommend approval unless a variance from the provisions of ECDC 17.50 is granted. She also said that staff could be supportive if it could be shown that Snohomish County parking requirements (in place when the CUP was approved) could be met. From the Applicant: Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney for the Applicants, argued that: • The Conditional Use Permit that applies to this case allows anyone to request reopening of the case. The request to reopen the case is due to the condition that allows only onsite clients for the school. • Childtime is seeking an update to reflect changes that have occurred since 1986 when the CUP was approved. Childtime is not requesting an expansion of the facility. • The effect of denial of the application will be to close the facility. • An order in Limine should be granted. • The applicant did a traffic analysis voluntarily based on the John Galt's decision. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 3 He believes the application is vested in Snohomish County because the language in the CUP decision states that "any party" can revisit the CUP. There is nothing in the annexation or nonconforming use language that abrogates the right to a hearing. There will be real consequences not only to Childtime, but also to the community if the modifications are not approved. Judy Werkheiser, Area Manager for Childtime, said: • Childtime wants to resolve this issue. • There is no resistance or problem from apartment residents that she is aware of. • The previous owner accepted children from off-site and Childtime was not aware of the limitation when it purchased the facility. • Childtime is licensed for 92 children by the State, and that number cannot be exceeded. Childtime would need to apply to the State to exceed that number. The maximum number of children allowed at the site is dependent on the amount of square footage in the facility. • She would like to see the CUP modified to allow children to come from off-site and to allow 92 children instead of the 100 children now authorized in the CUP. • Childtime would be forced to close the facility if it is required to serve just children from the apartments. • There are 70 children enrolled at this time and only 6 are from the apartments. Teresa Bower, Director of Childtime Edmonds, said: • She has only heard of one complaint from residents of the apartment complex and not aware of any problems since the one complaint. • The school is open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and the kids arrive between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Kids that go to the nearby elementary school get walked to and from school or are dropped off at the school by parents and picked up by Childtime staff and walked back to the Childtime facility. Seven kids are dropped off at the elementary school in the morning and twelve kids are picked up in the afternoon. • The letter from the Property Manager of Firdale Village Apartments (Exhibit M) indicates there ample parking in front of the daycare and if any overflow parking is needed there is extra open parking right around the corner from the daycare building. • Even though the State allows up to 92 children, the classroom layout effectively limits the enrollment to 82 kids. Edward Koltonowski, Traffic Consultant for the Applicant, said: • There are two issues: access on 244`h and parking. The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner included the condition regarding on-site clients only due to those two issues. • Regarding access on 244Th: • There are no sight distance problems. • There is no accident history over the past three years. • He factored the traffic study to accommodate 100 students from off-site and -factored them in during peak times. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 4 • No access problems were identified. • Regarding parking: • He considered full occupancy of the Childtime facility and he determined there is enough parking available. • The original CUP conditions were required prior to construction of the apartments; however, history has shown there are no problems with access or parking if children come from off-site. • John Galt looked at joint parking for the site, but he erred on the conservative side when he issued his decision, and there is now information to show that shared parking is occurring and working. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. INTRODUCTION: The Childtime Learning Center is located within the Firdale Village Apartment Complex. The day care center was approved in 1986 under Snohomish County jurisdiction, prior to being annexed to the city. It was approved via a conditional use permit. The conditions of approval limited service to the residents of the complex. It also restricted signage and limited advertising. The Childtime Learning Center is currently operating in violation of these set conditions. The City of Edmonds issued a determination that the daycare is a legal, non -conforming use, provided that it meets the conditions as approved under Snohomish County. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Site Description: I. Site Development and Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with an apartment complex including approximately 380 units. . (2) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multiple Residential (RM -1.5) (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1.) 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a) Fact: (1) North: Although the site is zoned single family residential, it is developed as a school facility. (2) South: The properties to the south are developed as single family residential and are located within the City of Shoreline. (3) East: The properties are zoned and developed as single family residential Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 5 (4) West: The property is zoned and developed as neighborhood commercial. b) Conclusion: The proposed development of a daycare center is consistent with the zoning and surrounding area. B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Fact: No additional building square footage or parking spaces are being added at this time. 2. Conclusion: SEPA review is not required at this time. The applicant and City have complied with SEPA regulations. C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMT) for daycare center a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, ."No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: a. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. b. Zoning Ordinance: That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. c. Not Detrimental: That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. d. Transferability: The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. (2) Applicant's Response: Refer to Exhibit A, Attachments 3, 4, and 5, and. additional information submitted by the applicant during the administrative continuance (particularly Exhibit N, Attachment Q. During the administrative continuance, the Applicant submitted additional information, which included a recommendation from the Snohomish County Planning Division (Exhibit N, Attachment B) and a decision of the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner (Exhibit N, Attachment Q. The Snohomish County Planning Division recommended approval of a request for modification of the Conditional Use Permit to eliminate Conditions D, E, and F relative to the subject day care center. The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner eliminated Conditions Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 6 D and E, and modified Condition F to read: "Not less than 50% of the customers of the daycare center shall be residents of the on-site apartment complex." a. Exhibit A, Attachment 6 includes the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's original decision on this matter. Pertinent sections of that report follow: 1 Finding 8 reads: The zoning code does not establish a parking standard for day care centers. The Examiner takes official notice that the PD (Planning Division) issued an Administrative Determination some time ago setting the parking requirements for day care centers at one stall for every 12 students (based on maximum capacity) plus one stall for each employee. On that basis, a day care center with a capacity of 100 students and 10 employees would require 19 stalls. With 15 employees, the number of parking stalls would be 24. 2 Finding 9 reads: The zoning code provides that in the case of mixed occupancies in a building or on a lot, the parking requirement shall be the sum of the requirements for all uses (SCC 18.45.060) unless some of the uses are day time and others night time, in which case some sharing of parking stalls is authorized subject to the administrative approval of the PD (SCC 18.45.070). 3 Conclusion 8 reads in part:..... There could be a strong conflict in parking if the apartment dwellers are still in their units when the day care is operating at full tilt. Of course, the parking conflict would be substantially reduced, if not totally eliminated, if all of the users of the day care center actually came from the apartment complex itself. In part for this reason, and in part for other reasons that will be mentioned in succeeding conclusions, use of the day care center will at least initially be limited to residents of the apartment complex. Even so, the PD must follow the administrative procedures of SCC 18.45.060 and. 070 regarding parking adequacy before any day care activity can occur. 4 Conclusion 9 reads: A second major reason why the Examiner is inclined to limit use of the day care center to only on-site apartment residents is the access situation. In order for an off-site parent to deliver a child to the day care center, they would have to enter the site f tom 244th Street SW and drive some 1300 feet (one-quarter of a mile) through the apartment project before they would reach the day care center. The road network in the apartment project has not been laid out with an eye towards having a heavy, off-site traffic generator located at the far end of the project. The Examiner believes that substantial traffic conflicts and inconvenience to the apartment residents could result f tom open use of the day care center by non -apartment complex residents. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 7 5 Conclusion 11 reads in part:.... If experience warrants, the permittee can petition for a reopening of the case and ask for relaxation at a later date. 6 Condition L reads: No occupancy for day care purposes shall occur until the Planning Division has determined (as it is required to do pursuant to Chapter 18.45 SCC) that on-site parking fully meets the zoning code requirements. If more parking is found necessary in order to comply with Chapter 18.45 SCC, such parking shall not reduce the community open space areas on the site. b. Exhibit N, Attachment C is the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's modified decision on this matter. Pertinent sections of that report follow: 1 Conclusion 4 reads: The original limitation against non-resident usage of the daycare center upas based upon concerns that there might be a parking conflict and that access problems could occur within the apartment complex itself (Exhibit 26, Conclusions 8 and 9). The Examiner recognized, however, that such concerns might not turn out to be significant. In Conclusion 11 of the original permit the Examiner stated that SCC 18.72.190: that SCC 18.72.190 `provides a permittee with the opportunity to ask for more flexibility and/or freedom if experience shows that such is warranted. It is usually easier and less traumatic to relax conditions than it is to tighten conditions. Therefore, the operational conditions will be initially made rather strict. If experience warrants, the permittee can petition for a reopening of the case and ask for relaxation at a later date. " 2 Conclusion 5 reads: The traffic analysis indicates that traffic conditions at the apartment complex entrance would not reach the signalization level if up to 50% of the daycare patrons came from offsite. Since that analysis is based upon an assumption of not more than 50% offsite patronage, that patronage limitation will be relaxed to 50% rather than totally eliminated as initially requested by the applicant. 3 Conclusion 7 reads: Original Condition L required that county staff ensure that adequate parking existed for the mixed use (apartment and daycare center). The Examiner finds no reason to change Condition L. Condition L will thus still be applicable and will require that adequate parking be available. The preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that adequate parking is present. 4 Conclusion 9 reads: The only reason that Conditions D and E were imposed on the original permit (barring and/or restricting advertising) was to ensure that the resident -only limitation of Condition F would be preserved. Since the Examiner is now willing to relax the limitation of Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 8 Condition F, Conditions D and E serve no useful purpose and should be eliminated. b) Hearing Examiner Analysis of CUP Criteria: a. Comprehensive Plan: The property is located within the high-density multi- family comprehensive plan designation. The comprehensive plan's goals and policies for the designation are primarily related to design, location, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Since the daycare is near a commercial complex and has access on an arterial, the examiner believes it is compatible with the neighborhood. b. Zoning Ordinance: The proposed daycare center is a commercial use. It is an allowable use in the Multiple Residential zone (RM -1.5), but requires a conditional use permit. In this case, the daycare facility is a legal nonconforming use that was approved in Snohomish County. After review of the record, the Examiner finds Snohomish County Codes and procedures were complied with when the daycare facility was approved, including the Code requirements for apartment parking and Administrative requirements for daycare parking. The instant application does not propose an increase in the size of the facility nor does it propose an increase in attendance. c. Not Detrimental: The daycare's location at the northwest corner of the site does not appear detrimental. When the daycare was originally approved, only residents of the apartment complex could use the facility. As a result, no additional traffic was generated. Over time, the vast majority of the children attending the facility have come from off-site. The current proposal does not restrict customers. The applicant has included two traffic reports and field notes, which indicate that extending the facility to customers outside of the apartment complex will not significantly impact the currently level of service on 244"' St SW. Furthermore, the information submitted, indicated that elimination of the condition will not create a parking problem on-site. d. Transferability: If the conditional use permit amendment is approved, transferability of the amended permit should run with the land. D. Technical Committee Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department. Comments were only received from the Engineering Division. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 7. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 9 E. Conclusions 1. The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner eliminated conditions D and E, related to signage and advertising in 1988 (See Exhibit N, Attachment C). Therefore, this Examiner will not address Conditions D and E any further since they had already been eliminated before the subject property was annexed into the City of Edmonds. 2. The Snohomish County Examiner, however, took a more conservative approach to his original Condition F. Here, he relaxed the requirement that all of the children attending the day care facility must be residents of the subject apartment complex and allowed up to 50% of the children attending the facility to live off-site. It is clear that his decision to limit off-site attendance to 50% was based on a traffic study submitted with the request for modification of the CUP. The traffic study submitted with that application analyzed the traffic impacts expected to occur if up to 50% of the daycare children came from off- site. It is also clear that his initial concerns about parking were resolved and that the parking requirements had been satisfactorily met. 3. In the instant case, City of Edmonds Planning Staff recommended denial of the proposal, because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the parking requirements of the ECDC 17.50 would be met. Staff suggested that Childtime either demonstrate compliance with the city's parking requirements or apply for a variance from the parking requirements. Staff also indicated at the hearing that Staff could be supportive o the request if it could be shown that Snohomish County parking requirements (in place when the CUP was approved) could be met. 4. This Examiner believes the parking requirements were complied with when the CUP was approved by Snohomish County. Furthermore, review of Exhibit N, Attachment C clearly shows that the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner believed sufficient parking was available on-site. Lack of parking was not the reason that the Examiner modified original Condition F to only allow up to 50% of the daycare children to come from offsite. Rather, the reason for the 50% limitation was that the traffic study submitted with the request to eliminate Conditions D, E and F was based on the assumption that 50% of the children would be from off-site. This Examiner concludes that issue has now been directly addressed with the testimony of Childtime's Traffic Consultant and with the information contained in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 and Exhibit K. Based on that information, this Examiner does not anticipate significant traffic impacts will occur if Condition F were to be eliminated. However, as a precaution, and in keeping with the suggestion to reduce the number of attendees offered by the Childtime Area Manager at the hearing, this Examiner concludes the total number of attendees allowed at the Childtime facility should be reduced from 100 to 92 (which, according to Childtime is the maximum number of attendees allowed by the State of Washington). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 10 DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for an amendment to eliminate Condition F of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner on August 20, 1986 (as modified by Condition C in the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner Report on March 2, 1988 - Exhibit N, Attachment C) is approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner, provided that the total number of attendees at the facility does not exceed 92 children. Entered this 14th day of May 2003 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Fr'9,��4(9�� Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION• Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his 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: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 11 TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. 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 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 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' 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. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's declaration 5. Traffic Reports, dated 9/17/02 and 2/11/03 6. Determination of Legal Non -Conforming Land Use B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. (includes conditions of original approval 7. City Engineer memo dated 12/12/02 Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 2/27/03 Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/3/03 Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 9/10/02 Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 11/14/02, with attached letter dated 9/10/02 Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 12/13/02 Letter from Kathleen Taylor, dated 2/13/03 Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/6/03, with 3 attachments A. Applicant's letters as part of CUP submittals B. Authority in support of Motion in Limine C. Materials in support of Request for Continuance Letter from Tim Davis, Childtime Childcare, Inc., dated 4/29/02 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CUP -2002-162 Page 12 J. Employee Parking Status K. Field Notes from Gibson Traffic Consultants L. Joint Use Panting Requirements M. Letter from Kimberly Travis, Property Manager, Firdale Village, dated 3/5/03 N. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/17/03, with 3 attachments A. Request for Review Checklist, dated 10/1/87 B. Planning Division Staff Recommendation, dated 2/16/88 C. Decision of the Hearing Examiner, dated 3/2/88 O. Memo from Kathleen Taylor, dated 3/19/03, with 3 attachments 1. Interlocal Agreement between City of Edmonds and Snohomish County concerning annexation within the City's Growth Planning Area. 2. ECDC 20.100 3. Memo from Zach Lell, Office of the City Attorney, dated 3/19/03 P. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 3/20/03 Q. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 4/14/03 R. Letter from Tom Ehrlichman, dated 4/22/03 PARTIES of RECORD: Equity Residential Properties Trust Tom Ehrlichman c/o Mr. Wendell Hill, VP 2717 Rockefeller Ave 16400 Southcenter Parkway Everett, WA 98201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Tim Davis Teresa Bower Childtime Learning Centers 9239 244" SW 38345 W 10 Mile Rd, Ste 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Farmington Hills, MI 48335-2883 Judy Werkheiser Childtime Learning Centers 461645 Ih Ave. NE Tacoma, WA 98422 Engineering Division Public Works Planning Division Edward Koltonowski Gibson Traffic Consultants 1712 Pacific Ave. #100 Everett, WA 98201 Kimberly Travis Property Manager Firdale Village 9501244 Ih Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Community Development Code G. The amendment of the definition of poultry was expanded by the passage of Ordi- nance No. 3655. In order to permit owners of poultry not previously regulated under the pro- visions of this code the same rights and privi- leges previously extended to other poultry owners, a new registration period is estab- lished commencing July 1, 2007, and extend- ing for a period of six months, ending on December 3, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Commencing on that date and for the period established, the keepers of pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl may be kept as poultry as a noncon- forming use if registered pursuant to the provi- sions of subsections (D) and (E) of this section. [Ord. 3759 § 2, 2009; Ord. 3655 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3343 § 1, 20011. 17.40.010 Chapter 17.40 NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTCA W Sections: 17.40.000 Purpose. 17.40.010 Nonconforming uses. 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. 17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. 17.40.030 Nonconforming lots. 17.40.040 Nonconforming signs. 17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities. 17.40.060 Setback exemption. 17.40.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow cer- tain nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots to continue while limiting the continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.010 Nonconforming uses. A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in this chapter or a prior ordinance. B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C) of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050. 1. Ord. 3696 enacted Chapter 17.40 ECC on August 31, 2008. Prior legislation: Ords. 2292, 2"-- ---- ---- 3153, 3247, 3283, 3300, 3327, 3353 a 17-10a Attachment 17.40.020 C. Lapse of Time. 1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former non- conforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance. Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed aban- doned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use. 2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within 18 months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180 -day extension may be granted. 3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not apply if: a. The building or structure was dam- aged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agent. In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall be abated if damage exceeds 25 per- cent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F). D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However, the use may not be expanded, as provided for in subsection (B) of this section, without obtaining a conditional use permit. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. (Revised 1/10) 17-10b 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordi- nance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this sec- tion, an accessory building that is not an acces- sory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other sub- stantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such pre- sumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. B. Continuation. A nonconforming build- ing or structure may be maintained and contin- ued, unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly provided in sub- sections (C) through (I) of this section. C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Noth- ing in this section shall prevent the full restora- tion by reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washing- ton State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council -approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the his- toric building or structure with as nearly the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Community Development Code Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code. D. Maintenance and Alterations. 1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted. 2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted. 3. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commer- cial and multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access easement or public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements may also be permitted in non- conforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not more than 30 inches nor one- half of the distance to the property line, which- ever is less. "Minor architectural improve- ments" are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decora- tive trim. Such improvements shall be required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt such improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes. 4. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety regulations shall be permitted. E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on the same site without full compliance if the move- ment reduces the degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a 17.40.020 nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or 17-10.1 (Revised 5/10) This page left intentionally blank. (Revised 5/10) 17-10.2 Edmonds Community Development Code structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applica- ble to the building or structure. F. Restoration. If a nonconforming build- ing or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the build- ing official and shall be appealable as a Type H staff decision under the provisions of Chap- ter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 per- cent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right of restora- tion shall not apply if: 1. The building or structure was dam- aged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or 2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such resi- dential use, may be remodeled or recon- structed without regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met: 1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original build- ._ ing or structure. "Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncov- ered decks, steps, porches, and similar fea- tures; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded 17.40.020 by more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the orig- inal style and construction after complying with current codes. 2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming resi- dential building may be remodeled or recon- structed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neigh- boring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction. 3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures. 4. A nonconforming residential single- family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type H staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006. H. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other sub- stantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such pre- sumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.. I. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be con- verted to commercial or other uses permitted ... 17-10.3 (Revised 5/10) 17.40.025 by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B). [Ord. 3781 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 13, 14, 2009; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC. B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the pro- tections and privileges afforded to a noncon- forming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, however, that such ADU shall be subject to the permit review requirement of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city council reserves the right to impose additional conditions on the continued use and occupancy of the formerly illegal ADU if it is found to constitute a nuisance or present a hazardous condition, or to revoke such registration and permit if a nuisance or hazardous condition relating to the ADU is not abated. C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit cer- tificate; provided, however, that the registra- tion and permit of a formerly illegal ADU may be revoked and/or conditioned in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.100.040. D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be considered to be presump- tive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such struc- ture may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent (Revised 5/10) 17-10.4 evidence which establishes the legal noncon- forming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the applica- ble provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.030 Nonconforming lots. A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance stan- dards as to size, width, depth and other dimen- sional regulations at the date on which it was created but which, due to the passage of a zon- ing ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zon- ing ordinance. A lot which was not legally cre- ated in accordance with the laws of the local governmental entity in which it was located at the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for development. B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the zon- ing district in which it is located, even though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and other dimensional requirements of the dis- trict, so long as all other applicable site use and development standards are met or a variance from such site use or development standards has been obtained. In order to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum lot size standards established by the provisions of this code, subject to the provisions of subsec- tion (D) of this section. C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is to be and shall be deemed to have been combined with such con- tiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may Edmonds Community Development Code only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, except as specifically provided in sub- section (D) of this section. D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build one single-fam- ily residence consisting of no more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot or parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies: 1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to the fol- lowing conditions and standards: a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot area spec- ified in the table below for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and b. Community facilities, public utili- ties and roads required to serve the noncon- forming lot are available concurrently with the proposed development; and c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to create a new buildable lot. Lot Area Table 2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the date the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully cre- ated under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws of the state of Washington; or 3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence on a nonconforming lot without regard to the 75 percent destruction require- ment of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully com- 17.40.040 pleted building permit application is submitted within one year of the destruction of the resi- dence and all other development requirements of this code are complied with; or 4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish County recorder's office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been simultaneously owned by the owner of a con- tiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the same access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by this code. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.040 Nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic and environmental living condi- tions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following terms and conditions: A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way, except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in and of themselves require con- formance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC: 1. Normal maintenance of the sign; 2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or 3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident or an act of God. B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into. immediate compliance with the code in the event that it is expanded in viola- tion of subsection (A) of this section. C. None of the foregoing provisions relat- ing to permitted maintenance, name change or preservation of the sign under subsection (A) of this section shall be construed so as to per - 17 -10.5 (Revised 1/10) % Needed for Lot Sized Needed Zone Legal Lot for Legal Lot (1) RS -20 60% 12,000 (2) RS -12 70% 8,400 (3) RS -10 75% 7,500 (4) RS -8 80% 6,400 (5) RS -6 90% 5,400 2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the date the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully cre- ated under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws of the state of Washington; or 3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence on a nonconforming lot without regard to the 75 percent destruction require- ment of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully com- 17.40.040 pleted building permit application is submitted within one year of the destruction of the resi- dence and all other development requirements of this code are complied with; or 4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish County recorder's office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been simultaneously owned by the owner of a con- tiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the same access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by this code. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.040 Nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic and environmental living condi- tions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following terms and conditions: A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way, except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in and of themselves require con- formance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC: 1. Normal maintenance of the sign; 2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or 3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident or an act of God. B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into. immediate compliance with the code in the event that it is expanded in viola- tion of subsection (A) of this section. C. None of the foregoing provisions relat- ing to permitted maintenance, name change or preservation of the sign under subsection (A) of this section shall be construed so as to per - 17 -10.5 (Revised 1/10) 17.40.050 mit the continuation or preservation of any nonconforming off -premises sign. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities. A. Local Public Facilities. Existing legal nonconforming local public facility uses, buildings, and/or signs, owned and/or operated by local, state, or federal governmental enti- ties, public service corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts, govern- mental corporations, public utilities, or similar entities) may be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to review under Chapter 20.16 ECDC, Essential Public Facilities. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.060 Setback exemption. A. Notwithstanding the current criteria in the ECDC relating to residential building set- backs, development projects in areas annexed by the city of Edmonds from unincorporated Snohomish County since January 1, 1994, with building permits from Snohomish County that were valid on the effective date of the annexation, but which have subsequently expired without final approval, shall be exempt from the setback requirements speci- fied in ECDC 16.20.030 and 16.30.030; pro- vided, that the development projects are (1) residential in nature; (2) located in residen- tially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds; (3) meet setback requirements of the then -current Snohomish County code in effect on the effec- tive date of the annexation; (4) consistent with the plans approved by the county (it will be the applicant's responsibility to provide the city with evidence that the project was approved by the county); and (5) compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC. B. Nothing in this section shall be inter- preted to allow any development project in the city of Edmonds, for which a valid building permit from the city is required under the cur- rent ECDC, to begin, proceed or be completed without the same. [Ord. 3756 § 1, 2009]. (Revised 1/10) 17-10.6 Chapter 17.50 OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS Sections: 17.50.000 Purposes. 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. 17.50.020 Parking space requirements. 17.50.030 Calculations. 17.50.040 Location. 17.50.050 Standards. 17.50.060 Joint use. 17.50.070 Downtown business area parking requirements. 17.50.075 Parking requirements for sexually oriented businesses. 17.50.090 Temporary parking lots. 17.50.100 Commercial vehicle regulations. 17.50.000 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: A. To reduce street congestion and avoid crowding of on -street parking space; B. To require adequate landscaping of off- street parking areas; C. To protect adjacent property from the impact of a use with inadequate off-street parking. [Ord. 3496 § 2, 2004]. 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. A. New Uses or Structures Not Including the Downtown Business Area. 1. Off-street parking facilities which comply with this chapter shall be provided before any new use is begun, or any new struc- ture is approved for occupancy. A detailed plan and provisions specifically setting forth the method and location by which the off- street parking required for the proposed use will be met, whether by construction, a joint use agreement, or any other method provided by this code, shall be filed and approved in conformance with the applicable provisions of this code before any building permit is issued.