Loading...
Resolution 385PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.*: 385 A RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS RECOM- MENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS EACH MONTH FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. At its regular public hearing of July 19, 1972, the Edmonds Planning Commission discussed its meeting schedule in relation to the State Statute on Open Hearings. By unanimous decision, the.Commission hereby recommends that the City Council amend the City Code establishing the second and third Wednesday evenings of each month as public hearings of the Planning Commis- sion. It is further recommended that the starting time for these hearings be set for 7:30 P.M. Dated this 19th day of July, 1972. ,4&" j2k4-� Chairman, Edmonds Panning Commission mans City Planner ,•�' FERRILL'S AUTO WRECKING, INC. �0'nl I .. 1/2 Mile North of Lynnwood 18306 Highway 99 PRospect 8-3147 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 July 20, 1972 City Council of Edmonds Edmonds Washington 98020 Re: Rezone Request R-4-72 I wish to appeal the above case. Please notify me when hearing date has been set. Thank you. CF/vj Yours truly, Cecil Ferrill RECEIVED JUL 21 '72 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DEPT. 811 Edmonds Planning Commission - Regular Meeting - July 19, 1972 - Page 2 CP-1-71 Recreation Street System/ Scenic Streets. (Council Request - Continued) Mr. Logan said that the Planning Commission last fall had submitted a resolution to the Council for the recreational street systems. The Council approved two of the pro- posals and had sent the scenic streets back to the Planning Commission for further study. The Scenic Street System was established as a loop system and this had been rejected by the Council. The Council suggested that the scenic streets be designated as sectional and isolated areas rather than a continuous loop. Mr. Logan asked the Commission for a postponement for lack of staff work on the proposal. Mr. Larson asked for comment from the audience and there was none. A motion was made by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Mr. Boyd that CP-1-71 be continued until the November hearing. Motion carried unanimously. R-4-72 Rezone from BN to BC, Edmonds Seaview Tracts. (Perrinville - Applicant - Cecil Ferrill) Mr. Logan presented a map of the area and explained the request and the surrounding area. The periphery of this rezone request is RS-8 Single-family and BN. The zoning across the street which is in the County is also BN. There is a furniture factory in the County area and is probably non -conforming. Mr. Logan said there was no speci- fied use on Mr. Ferrill's application. Mr. Boye asked about the topography of the area. Mr. Logan said the BN zoning is basically flat land and the residential area is 40 to 50 feet above the buildings on 76th Ave. W. Mr. Logan said to rezone this one piece of property to BC would be in conflict with the surrounding areas which are zoned BN. The BC zoning is basically in the downtown area, with the exception of K-Mart and one at the County line and 76th Ave. W. Mr. Logan said he would recommend denial of the rezone because it would be spot zoning. He said he did not like to discourage business, but the City has set standards and should retain them. Mr. Hayes said the old Shell Station just south of Olympic also is zoned BN and wanted to know if they were repairing auto's at that location? Mr. Logan said they had been, but the City had made them stop the major repair operation. BN zoning allows service stations with minor auto repair. Mr. Larson owned the hearing at this time. Mr. Cecil Ferrill. tho of tho pro- perty said that he had a tenant fox- autotavtive repair. Mr. Ferrill said that across the street in the County BN zone this use is allowed. He said he realized that the corner is an eyesore but that without being able to rent it he could not afford to clean it up. Mr. Ferrill said that the cost of the street going in was quite expen- sive and he could not afford to do major work to the property if it was not usable. The street came so close to the pump island that it must be removed and with the hill directly behind the property there was not much else that it could be used for. Mrs. Francis Cunningham, 1030 Grandview quoted from the City Zoning Ordinance that automotive repair is a BC use, not BN. She said she did not like the idea of expand- ing BC in a residential area. Mr. Maxwell asked if a service station could be placed on the property, but not a garage? He was told yes, as a garage designation also includes major automotive re- pair. Mr. Larson asked Mr. Logan if this rezone was denied could Mr. Ferrill ask for a variance? Mr. Logan said that Mr. Ferrill could ask the Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of the use as many uses are not listed in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Murphy said that Mr. Ferrill had been paid for the removal of the pumps through condemnation process. Mr. Ferrill said that Roofing Engineers were at the time pur- chasing the property and had received the money. They have since turned the property back. Mr. Larson said he did not want to discourage the improvement of the property. Mr. Ferrill said that the BC zoning in Edmonds is about the same as the County BN zoning, so that he did not feel that this would peally constitute spot zoning. He said the County BN zoning allows auto repair outright. Mr. Ferrill said he had two prospective tenants, one for auto repair and one for motorcycle repair. He said he preferred to have the auto repair as it would not be such a noisL- nuisance to the surrounding area. The topography of the land screens the proposed rezone from the residential area. Mr. Ferrill said that on his application he had outlined his entire property for the rezone, but that he was mostly concerned with just the corner, and would be happy to leave the rest of the property zoned as it presently is. Edmonds Planning Commission - Regular Meeting - July 19, 1982 - Page 3 Mr. Christofferson said that the one problem of zoning to BC it could open the area to many uses. He asked Mr. Logan what other uses could be allowed in a BC zone? Mr. Logan said that it could be a distribution center, dry cleaning plant, auto sales, etc. He said that most things in a BC zone must be inside, with exceptions of auto sales, lumber yards, etc. It was asked if the County area would be annexed to the City and Mr. Larson, City Engineer said that a resolution has been passed by Lynnwood to annex the County area across the street. Mr. Larson asked Mr. Logan what Lynnwood would allow in a BN zone? Mr. Logan said he did not know for sure, but thought it would be close to the Edmonds zoning, as both Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace had used our zoning ordinance for a guideline. The City Engineer said that one objection he had to BC zoning on that corner, was that no setbacks would be required at the inter- section and that would not be a good idea there. Mr. Maxwell asked Mr. Ferrill if the store next to his property was a second hand store and he said it was. This is also not allowed in a BN zone. Mr. Maxwell said he thought anything that might improve or tear down the building would be an improve- ment to the corner. He asked Mr. Murphy if there was any way that they could rezone the property and restrict the use? Mr. Murphy said that a contract rezone would re- strict the use, but with the present zoning there is no question that automotive re- pair is excluded. Mr. Murphy said that the zoning ordinance could be amended to allow major auto repair with restrictions. Mr. Larson asked if a contract rezone would be feasible and was told it would be. Mr. Maxwell asked Mr. Ferrill if the building would be worth fixing? Mr. Ferrill said he felt that it would be as it is structurally sound, except that vandalism had made it look so terrible. Mr. Murphy said the re- zoning of this piece of property would be leading the way to turn the entire area into BC zoning. Mr. Maxwell asked what the zoning is at:-,196th and 76th? Mr. Logan said that Lynnwood has zoned it BN with one spot zone that is BC. Mr. Dickson said he understood the problem, however the Commission has made decisions in the past on individual basis and found later that changes in plans and usage was no longer what the Planning Commission had intended. Mr. Dickson moved, seconded by Mr. Christofferson that R-4-72, rezone from BN to BC, Edmonds Seaview Tracts be denied. Roll call vote had 4 "yes" and 2 "no".and motion carried. Mr. Larson told Mr. Ferrill not to stop his efforts as the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and that he has the right of appeal to the Council. Mr. Larson instructed Mr. Ferrill his appeal should be a letter to the Council appealing the decision of the Planning Commission and should be filed within 30 days of this hear- ing. R-5-72 Rezone from RML and RS-8 to RD at 196th St. S.W. 6 82nd Place W. (Applicant - Nord Homes, Inc.) P-10-72 Plat of Maplewood - 16-lot plat at 196th St. S.W. 6 82nd Place S.W. Nord Homes, Inc. Engineers - Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. (RML & RS-8) (Continued from 6-21-72) Mr. Larson explained that the two applications are tied together and so would be heard consecutively. Mr. Logan said that the rezone application generally conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He said the rezone would result in about the same number of dwelling units as now allowed under RS-8 and RML zoning. However the population potential could increase from about 114 to 135 people if it were developed to the maximum. The developer only proposes 32 dwelling units, or about 80 people so it would not impose an overload on any of the public facilities or utilities. Mr. Logan said that the informal zoning policy for this area has established a 300 foot depth for the multi- family zone and this proposal is at variance with this policy. The majority of the duplex zoning in the City lies along the west side of 76th Ave. W., is now developed with single family homes. Development has been stopped in this area by the Five Corners drainage problem. Mr. Logan said that adoption of this proposal would pro- bably stimulate one or two similar requests along the 196th St. area but the effect of these requests would not pose a problem to the City. Mr. Logan said this proposal is essentially an exchange of similar development rights and he recommended it be approved. As the plat is proposed it would only be using about 2/3 of the potential permitted.