Loading...
Resolution 468PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 468 A RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO REZONE FROM RD (RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX) TO RMH (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY), WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN CONTRACT, THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE NO. R-1-75. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Edmonds, pursuant to proper notice and publication, held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map of said City to re= designate certain real property from Residential Duplex to Multiple Residential, High Density, subject to certain conditions and restric- tions, and WHEREAS, having made the findings set forth in "Exhibit A" attached hereto, the Planning Commission determined that the real property described in "Exhibit B" attached hereto, subject to con- ditions and restrictions set forth in contract attached as "Exhibit C", should be redesignated; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that recommendation be and the same is hereby made to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, that the proposed amendment be approved. DATED as of the 19th day of February, 1975. Cr,a' in n, 113ndS ilann ng Ocmr3 ission Edmonds City ]a P& File No: R-1-75 Applicant: Otto Kurtz Hearing Date: 2-19-75 P.C. Resolution #468 "EXHIBIT A" The Planning Commission, in public hearing on February 19, 1975, established the following findings: 1. The proposed zoning is compatible with the area with multiple family zoning to the north, south and west of the proposed rezone. 2. It was determined that a hardship does exist at no fault of the applicant. 3. The proposed contract rezone would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. "EXHIBIT B" Legal Property Description of proposed rezone area: "Lot 7, Highlands Park, according to plat recorded in Volume 23 of Plats, Page 76, records of Snohomish County, Washington." P.C. RESOLUTION #468 "EXHIBIT C" AGREEMENT AND COVENANTS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT AND COVENANTS between OTTO KURTZ and LILLIAN KURTZ, his wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Edmonds." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner has ownership of certain land described as follows: "Lot 7, Highlands Park, according to plat recorded in Volume 23 of Plats, page 76, records of Snohomish County, Washington." which is situate in the City of Edmonds, Washington, and WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to Edmonds for a rezone from Duplex.(RD) to Multiple Residential, High Density (RMH), and WHEREAS, the Owner has offered to tender Edmonds this Agreement and Covenants respecting limitations relative to the property within Owner's ownership, and WHEREAS, the covenants of this Agreement and Covenants are intended to constitute a basis for rezoning the property as set forth herein and are intended to be in effect from the effective date of such rezone, and WHEREAS, the use of the subject property will have a substantial relation to the people, land and resources, health, welfare, safety and morals of Edmonds, and Owner recognizes a need for control and cooperation in securing the proper develop- ment of the property to be compatible with the surrounding uses, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) This Agreement and Covenants is tendered to Edmonds by Owner, and accepted by Edmonds, and all parties agree it is applicable to the parties to this Agreement, their heirs, successors and assigns, both as to duties and benefits. Owner agrees that this Agreement shall be specifically enforce- able by Edmonds in equity. (2) Edmonds shall be under no obligation to issue owner or its successors or assigns a building permit for improvements or expansion upon any of the property of Owner unless such improvements comply with the terms hereof and the applicable ordinances at the time of any application for building permit. (3) This Agreement and each part of it shall be considered covenants running with the land covered hereby, and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of owner, and shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor in the Grantor - Grantee Index with Owner being listed as Grantor and the City of Edmonds as Grantee and all costs of such recordation shall be paid by Owner. Payment of said costs shall be a condition precedent to Owner's exercising any rights under the terms of this Agreement. (4) The property owned by Owner which is subject to said covenants is legally described as follows, all situate in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, State of Washington: "Lot 7, Highlands Park, according to plat recorded in Volume 23 of Plats, page 76, records of Snohomish County, Washington." (5) This Agreement and Covenants is conditioned upon said legally described property being rezoned from Duplex (RD) to Multiple Residential, High Density (RMH). -2- (6) The Owner of the above -described real property shall not develop more than three (3) dwelling units on the subject property. (7) Upon a transfer of ownership of this property by sale, descent, inheritance or otherwise, subsequent Owner shall be required to install such landscaping and screening as is required of parking areas under the terms and provisions of the Edmonds City Code. (8) No applications shall be made by Owner or their successors or assigns to amend this Agreement and Covenants for a period of two (2) years from the date of this Agreement. Thereafter, either Owner or its successors or assigns, or Edmonds may, upon an application filed in the same manner as a rezone application, apply to amend or terminate the provi- sions and covenants of this Agreement or to change the zoning on said property. Said application to change or terminate the provisions and covenants or to rezone said property shall, as aforestated, be heard in the normal manner at appropriate public hearings as any other application for a rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. Such action by Edmonds shall not release Owner or their successors or assigns from the obligations assumed under this Agreement. (9) That in the event Edmonds must bring suit to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement and Covenants, Owners agree on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, and assigns to pay all costs of said litigation to Edmonds, together with a sum as and for reasonable- attorneys' fees. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement and Covenants this 17X v day of 1974. OWNER OTIO KURTZ -� LILLI'AN KURTZ CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this il- day of 1974, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared OTTO KURTZ and LILLIAN KURTZ, his wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the said instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary ublic in and for the State of Was ington residing at 9. . -4- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day of , 1974, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared H.H. HARRISON, Mayor of the City of Edmonds and IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the said instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at - 5- Ldmonds Planning Commission - February 19, 1975 - Page 2 P-2-73 Plat of Bodine's Addition completed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water service and enigneering as required. To be completed is the paving, curb and underground electrical telephone. Mr. Wallis said that this was in his office prior to the expiration date, and that he would recommend that the Commission extend for one year to February 14, 1976. Attorney Murphy said that he would assuir,e there %,,ould be no further home construction until the plat improvements are completed. Mr. Wallis projected slides of the Comprehensive Plan; portion of Zoning Map and views of the property and sketch of the subdivision. MR. CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. WASHBURN TO GRANT THE EXTEINSION FOR P-2-73 FOR 01E YEAR, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. !1OTION CARRIED. R-1-75 Rezone from RD to RNH (contract) - property at 551, 563 and 565 Elm Street. Otto & Lillian Kurtz. Mr. Wallis said that this matter came before the Board of Adjustment in November of 1973. At that time there was a request for a variance. The building was constructed, and there were certain provisions t.iade which appeared on the face of the original application - that there were provisions for a recreation room. Applicant performed work for original owner; there were financial difficulties and the applicant accepted the structure as partial payment for work teat he had done for them. In the interim, the area that was originally indicated as a recreation room, which had some rough -in plumbing, were indicated to be an additional dwelling unit. The applicant accepted the structure in good faith that there were three dwelling units in it. However, the zoning and building codes did not permit the three dwelling units. Mr. Wallis said that at the time it came before the Board of Adjustment it did not qualify for a variance, because the matter of hardship could riot be established. The Board delayed any action until the applicant could make an application for a contract rezone. Mr. Wallis showed sketches of the site, the comprehensive plan and the zoning map, along with pictures of the building. Mr. Wallis pointed out that the lot is 7196 sq. ft., which is adequate for three units at RML and four units at Rh1H. As far as impact of adding the additional unit, Mr. lvJallis thought that one of the constraints that should be added is that no more units be allowed than the three units that are presently permitted. The City Attorney then explained the aspects of a contract rezone, and the penalties for violation of the terms thereof. Mr. Wallis explained the reason for going from RD to RMH rather than to RML. fie said that if you go to RML you would simply be zoning the property to the use that can be there, but in going to RMH and then imposing a constraint on it, it satisfies in deed only, the city getting something for having extended the zoning i.e., there can be no more than three units. It was pointed out that the owners took over the property with the prospect of having a triplex. Building Official, Harry Whitcutt, said that he understands that there is sufficient parking for each unit. Their only requirement now would be to inspect the building to be sure it conforms to the building code, as it has never been inspected as a triplex. The hearing was then opened. Mrs. Otto Kurtz, 3828 Serene Way, Alderwood Manor, said that they accepted the building with the understanding that there were two units that were complete and that the lower unit was roughed in. They finished the _lower unit, and later found out that it did not conform to the city zoning. Following a brief discussion with respect to how they acquired the property, the hearing was closed. The City Planner stated that the neighborhood %,,as properly posted Edmonds Planning Commissioi; - February 19, 1975 - Page 3 R-1-75 Rezone from- RD to R,iH_(contract) with regard to this Dearing. He said there was one individual that at the t m e the variance was heard, had requested to be notified of any further hearings. The man was notified, but it was noted that he was out of town. There %•;as concern with regard to the time lag between the time it was discovered that this was a non -conforming use, and this proceeding. 1lowever, Mr. Naughten said that he believes there is a hardship here. FIR. iNAUGHTEN THEN 140VED, SECONDED BY MR. CARNS TO APPROVE R-1-75, SUBJECT THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY REGARDING C011PATIBILITY WITH 'THE BUILDIIIG CODE FOR A TRIPLEX. The motion was discussed. fir. Gould said that he too, was concerned for the applicant, but that he believes the Cor,iiission must be consistent in their, actions. h1r. Carns said that the zoning is compatible with that area. t; THE MOTION CARRIED FOLLO1-JING A ROLL CALL VOTE, WHICH RESULTED IN HAYES, l•,ASHBURN AND GOULD VOTIiJG AGAINST, AND THE RE^IAINING MEMBERS OF THE COi.1ISSIOiI VOTING IN FAVOR. ZO-7.0-74 Revie;r of Sideyard Regulations in RS Zones - Review and approval of resolution to be forwarded to council. Continued from agenda 1/15/75. Mr. Wallis stated that at the last meeting there was a motion that the staff draw a resolution to include the proposed amendments, and include the statement to regulate a minimurn distance between structures. The revised resolution called for the addition, "PJo two structures on separate lots may be closer together than two times the zoned sideyard setback". Fir. 11cGibbon asked what would happen if you have three lots that are developed individually, and the middle lot is undeveloped, and the ones on each side of the undeveloped lot are ten feet away from the property line facing the undeveloped lot, how would the person in the middle take advantage of the situation.. Fir. Wallis said that the reason this was included in the subdivision portion of the ordinance, and not in the regulatory section for the individual zones, was so that this would be imposed on the face of the plat in order that the individual would have ample opportunity to be aware of the restrictions and the conditions imposed at that time. The intent was to adjust the allowable building area to preserve as many trees as possible. Following discussion, it was suggested that the addition to the resolution read, "No two structures on separate lots be closer together than the sum of the sideyards listed above..". The City Attorney pointed out that this would not be applicable to a single property in the City; it would only apply to nevi plats. The public portion of the hearing was opened, however no one wished to speak and the hearing was closed. ,MR. SITTAUER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY IMR. CARNS THAT THE PLANNING COht1ISSION APPROVE P. C. RESOLUTION 466 WITH EXHIBIT "B", MODIFIED IN THE SEIITEr10E BEGINNING WITH THE ASTERISK SO THAT IT WILL READ, "HObJEVER ;JO T!JO. STRUCTURES O i SEPARATE LOTS MAY BE CLOSER, TOGETHER THAN THE SUN OF THE SIDEYARDS LISTED IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE, 14HICH IS EQUAL TO T',JO TIIES THE ZONED SIDEYARD SETBACK". THE MOTION CARRIED UNAI Ii•;OUSLY. ST-3-74 Amendment to Street Standards Code - Review and approval of resolution to be forwarded to council. Continued from agenda 1/15/75. Mr. Wallis reported that at the present time the City Engineer, the Assistant City Engineer, Leroy fliddleton, one of the Planning Assistants and himself are working on soi:re new revised standards or Street Standards. fie said that he would recoriend that this be delayed until such time as this group has a recor:mendation. In addition, a Circulation Task Force is working on some policies and sub -goals that would relate to this item. MR. NAUSHT'EN P'OVFD, SECONDED BY "R. CARNS THAT ST-3-74 BE DEFERRED UNTIL. SUCH TINE AS THE CO'`!-!ITTEES HAVE A CHAiiCE TO MAKE RECO:IMENDATIONS. 13 FT r1 w s 14 15 Coll 12 d zi kn to XX / I /;� ` •jam 'V 5 G i 3 14 Q t t2 -) 2257 - - ,0 _,o 10 � J{ -i � �• �* i C R SE. 3 to 9 !0 r' N '_'5 Li �rr�` .� � Ptf�"{.-. ova- j�'���. °'� �"�" ir` l� ..: •�1 � �f �wJ -�'�. ' GIRD. 72 E AT TESTC57,11 E Cal.m:�:� 60 p 7 ry 12 3 IAAIN ST ~� T I � 1 -I I! I j L _ —_ _ —L•" �_ .I7I _ .� "EXHIBIT A" -- — — -- — I } L - L -i}. € 17 a i tee. I 1 '� � � ail � I —lal }� I • I ��. I - J ,� _� E W - Acmc C f E E I_ _� 0 50' i00 200' aoo' EXISTING STREET R/W WAY I \ j \1 - FUTURE STREET R/W 1 - pi e�1�1lNG CoMMlS51or� REFER TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE ST-2.-75 Re;#474 CITY OF EDMONDS AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP ORD. NO- DATE APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST CITY CLERK m (n —1 r-I MF M, X, ol M _0 0 m lol, --I- 0 r- 0 CL z > cn z 0 (D m z 0 I I ................ a11 .......... . ....... ............ ............. ............... 7 t n Q z �t' GO a I Q 0 z z a rw L !ZEI U& cl :=Aar Fl C� e�narznrr.-Is lip 17, MAPLEWOOO DRIV- lea NO. a FH P! �' •• ! 17 - pp { .. M.• �. I;v' i ', ,tea T V UJI 10 00 14 ',FUTURE R/w �� i7 e0 C= ', c�. / 16 15 ;� zs• R 1 I i tii I m _� VISTA PL.f�A !! RT 'WOOD ,c;� - 0 10 � 11 12 2 i L 87 6 5 4 3c, 23 G° =y 22_0TF4— —Sate- rk c0 I 10 sA " ! G 17 ifs Ff f5 10 16 ' I 1 AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE DATE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE NO. APPROVED MAYOR ATTEST CITY CLERK 5At el— arc��r N I"=200 "EXHIBIT A" P.C. Resolution ./t482 OD 60 60 14 —, ,,- { 5 s-•:- 1'I r� Iso.7c' 55E VIEV- I -OD. DIU.E)2 34 5 6 2G 5 L 23 ! , ELf 1 i�,� E-L.M �tv L rot Yf A Y ° t, m FUTURE RIW� �- 251 25 9 rio, � -- 13 14 I 15 16 17 I lII •�� � 3 12 :. BIRCH ST; 25 -J !I (L so 23 22.� 21 23 19 ! E 10 X I PAftP;DIS !LANE f 251' 8 ! 430 32 6 `Viso �- s o 33 27�._2e. 2� �- -3 Y 13 TH WAY o _ I .315 AMENDMENT TO FUTURE R/vv S-22-7o 25' 2 3 F - -BI RCH ro 10 1?o i 3 ti e, 1 A -1" t-I THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE DATE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE NO, APPROVED MAYOR ATTEST CITY CLERK 5T --7S .x�L �l•4 -TH. ST S. V,! �d t AMENDMENT r To THE MAP OFFICIAL STRE'E ; ORDINANCC NO. ORDINANCE DATE PLANNING COMMIS-SION FILE NO. �, r'F'2OVCD MAYOR ATT&ST CITY CLGrK r' Edmonds Planning Conurission - August 27, 1975 - Page 4 P-7-75 HIGGI;IS ADDITIOi' DIVISION N0. 2 - 8 lot plat located west of 92nd Avenue, South of Cascade Drive (RS-12) Dr. Goodhope was excused from participation in this item as he is close to the property. The City Planner noted that the basis of the application is a code requirement. He indicated the area on a snap and pointed out, that the adjoining properties are also RS-12. He showed somie slides of the property in question. lie indicated that 92nd will be opened through to one lane of traffic. He said that some sizeable trees will have to be removed to open thi's up. He said that all lots do conform to 'the zoning ordinance with the exception of the frontyard setbacks, and there has been a modification request for that. He demonstrated the problem with the use of an overlay. He said the modification requested will not change the use, nor the density in that area. fie said there are unusual circumstances in that there is a combination of slope and existing structures which make it difficult to comply with the requirements. Mr. 'Wallis also stated that the applicant would be required to enlarge a lot which is already in excess of the requirement, if he were to comply with the code. In addressing the hardship provision, Mr. Wallis said that there was a hardship in that he would have to either alter the structure or forfeit the area for one lot. Ile said that this is the ininimum variance requested and would be compatible. The vegetation is sub- stantial and merits an effort to preserve it. He said the sideyard setbacks could be varied to preserve the trees. Mr. Wallis then recommended approval with tree cutting restrictions to replace any trees that are removed 8" or larger. City Engineer, Leif Larson, reported that there will be a problem on 92nd because of the one-half dedication and said there v,ill have to be some special considerations in there. He indicated that the utilities are available and recommended approval subject to final engineering on how the access will be worked in the area. At this point Mr. Larson said that he had copies of the revised street standards and passed these out to the Commission members. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. Dean Echelbarger, 555 Walnut, representing the Higgins', said that he would like the provisions of Ordinance 1775 to be applied for the preservation of the -trees. Hearing was then closed. MR. CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. f1cGIBP,ON THAT P-7-75 BE ;APPROVED 'IITH TREE CUTTING RESTRICTIONS AS OUTLINED REPLACING TREES 8" OR LARGER AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE 1775 BE APPLIED. CARRIED. iOwli-75 Adoption to allow tennis courts with fences in Single Residential i� (RS) zone with Conditional Use Permits. The City Pla�rner reported on this item and said that the situation was brought about by applications 'For three variances for tennis court 'fences in rocent months. Ile recommended that tennis courts be permitted in P,S tones with a conditional use permit and tine necessary ht:aring before the Board of Adjustment. He said that considerations �;rould be - would it restrict views, the general character of the neighborhood airci cretrte a hazard to health and safety. 4r. Hayes wondered about the lights, hours of use and the noise. )iota✓(-r, `1r. Dickson t„ought it would be self.limiting as the courts are about 60' by 120', and few people have that much land available for, this use. 1-he public portion of the hearing was then opened. Edmonds Planning Commission - August 27, 1975 - Page 5 ZO-11-75 Scontinuedj No one wished to speak on the subject, and the hearing was closed. .M ....HAYF$ MOVED, SECONDED BY 1`IR. CARNS THAT ZO-11-75 BE REJECTED BECAUSE AT THE PRESENT TIME A TENNIS COURT IS NOT PERMITTED IN RS AREA, AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL !•WITH REGARD TO THE FACTORS STIPULATED BY THE PLANNER, AND LIGHT, NOISE AND HOURS OF USE. Mr. Carns said that he considers tennis courts a nuisance in residential areas. Mr. McGibbon said that each application will be considered on its own merits, and that is why it is best to allow this activity with a conditional use permit. Mr. Dickson and Mr. Gould said that they agree with Mr. McGibbon's point of view. THE MOTION FAILED FOLLOWING A ROLL CALL VOTE, WHICH RESULTED IN A "YES" VOTE FROM CARNS AND HAYES AND "NO" FROM THE REMAINING MEMBERS. MR. DICKSON THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. McGIBBON FOL THED P OF Z0-1 - 5 o MOTION CARRIED, WITH CARNS AND HAYES VOTIiG AG NS'. ZO-12-75 Review and amend;nent to Official Ordinance to correct Sec. 12.13.110 to allow Crisis Centers in the CG zone only. Joe Wallis, the City Planner, reported that this amendment was necessary because of a typographical error which eliminated Crisis Centers from CG zones and allowed in BN and that was not the intent. Ile said the table which is a part of the ordinance will be changed to put Crisis Centers over in the CG column. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. No one wished to speak and the hearing was closed. MR. CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. GOODHOPE FOR THE ADOPTION OF ZO-12-75. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.