AMD-07-18+Attachments.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To:
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
From
:
Jennifer Machuga
Planner
Date:
June 6, 2008
File:
AMD-2007-18
A
pplication by Michael and Candace Dedonker (represented by Mark Flury of Flury-Wyrick
& Associates, Inc.) to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property addressed
th
615 6 Avenue North from “Single Family – Urban 1” to “Multi Family – High Density.”
Hearing Date, Time, and Place:
June 11, 2008, at 7:00 PM,
Edmonds City Council Chambers
Public Safety Complex
th
250 - 5 Avenue North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2
A.A..........................................................................................................................................2
PPLICATION
.R................................................................................................................................2
BECOMMENDATION
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................2
.S..................................................................................................................................................2
AETTING
.SEPA(SEPA).......................................................................................3
BTATENVIRONMENTALOLICYCT
.TC.........................................................................................................................4
CECHNICALOMMITTEE
D.P.................................................................................................................................4
UBLIC COMMENTS
E.CPZCC......................................................................4
OMPREHENSIVELAN AND ONINGODEOMPLIANCE
III. ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................................................7
IV.PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................................7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 2 of 8
I. INTRODUCTION
A. APPLICATION
1. Applicant: Michael and Candace Dedonker, represented by Mark Flury of Flury-Wyrick &
Associates, Inc. (Attachment 1)
th
2. Site Location: 615 – 6 Avenue North (Attachments 2 to 4)
3. Request: Application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from “Single Family – Urban 1”
to “Multiple Family – High Density” with the intent of a future rezone application to change
the zoning of the property from Single Family Residential (RS-6) to Multiple Family
Residential (RM-1.5) and development of 6 to 7 attached multi-family units (Attachment 5).
The applicant is not proposing a rezone with this application.
4. Review Process:
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues
recommendation to the City Council for final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.00
(CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010
(HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff
DENY
recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to
the request to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation from “Single Family – Urban 1”
th
to “Multiple Family – High Density” at 615 – 6 Ave. N.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan nor that it is in the public interest.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SETTING
1. Proposed Designation and Development of the Site
a. The proposal is to change the existing “Single Family – Urban 1” comprehensive plan
th
designation at 615 6 Ave. N to “Multi Family – High Density”. The amendment would
result in a density change for the parcel from approximately 7.25 units per acre to a
density ranging from 18 to 29 units per acre. Given the size of the subject parcel,
approximately 4 to 7 dwelling units would be possible when employing the compatible
zoning classifications of Multiple-Family Residential, RM-1.5 and RM-2.4. The
applicant has speculated that 6 to 7 units would be considered for future development,
which would require approval of the subject comprehensive plan amendment application
as well as a future rezone application to RM-1.5.
2. Current Designation and Development of the Site
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 3 of 8
a. The site is rectangular in shape. It is fairly level, with a slight slope downwards towards
the west, and does not appear to contain or be adjacent to any critical areas as defined by
ECDC 23.40. There are existing trees located near the northern, eastern, and southern
th
property lines. The site is accessed off of 6 Avenue North near the intersection with
th
Carol Way (located between the intersections of 6 Avenue North with Glen Street and
Aloha Way). The site is approximately 10,454 square feet in size, based on the
applicant’s submittal. The site contains an existing one-story single family residence,
which was built in 1928 according to Snohomish County Assessor records. The site is
currently zoned Single-Family Residential, RS-6, which is compatible with its current
comprehensive plan designation of “Single Family – Urban 1”.
3. Designation and Development in the Vicinity
a. The properties in the vicinity of the subject site have a variety of comprehensive plan and
zoning designations and are developed with a variety of uses. The properties located
north and west of the subject site are designated “Single Family – Urban 1”, are zoned
Single Family (RS-6), and are developed with single family residences. The properties
th
directly south and east (across 6 Avenue North) from the subject site are designated
“Multi Family – High Density”, are zoned RM-1.5, and are developed with multi-family
uses, including the Sound View apartments located directly east from the subject property
and the Crosswater apartments located directly south. Located just south of the
aforementioned multi-family properties is the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the
Community Christian Fellowship, both of which properties are designated “Public” in the
comprehensive plan and zoned Public (P).
The subject site and the surrounding properties are located within the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center overlay of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Recent Land Use Changes in the Vicinity
a. Zoning updates have been made on the blocks southwest of the subject property with the
new BD zoning designations; however, no changes have been recently made to the north
of the Edmonds Center for the Arts (within the immediate vicinity of the subject site).
Although the Edmonds Center for the Arts is a new use located only two properties to the
south of the subject site, the site for the Edmonds Center for the Arts was occupied by
other public uses (a college and high school) in the past. Therefore, there have been no
recent changes to the overall intensity of uses within the immediate vicinity of the subject
site.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
A SEPA environmental checklist was submitted with the subject application (Attachment 7). A
Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment on May 9, 2008 (Attachment 8). The comment period for the SEPA determination
ended on May 23, 2008 and the appeal period ends on June 6, 2008. Several comment letters
were received on the DNS and are included with the general comment letters on the proposal in
Attachment 9.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required for the proposal because the impacts
likely to occur due to the specific request were not determined to be so significant and adverse
that they could not be adequately mitigated by the application of existing development
regulations. The City commonly reviews 6 to 7 unit multifamily buildings in other areas of
Edmonds and mitigates impacts of those developments using existing zoning, stormwater, and
traffic regulations and the like. Although environmental impacts from the request may be
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 4 of 8
adequately mitigated, this does not imply that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction
in the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion in Section E). It should also be noted that the DNS
issued for this proposal is a “non-project” determination, meaning that additional SEPA review
could be required if the plan amendment were to be approved and a specific project proposed.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The subject application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division as well as the Fire, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments. All of these divisions/departments commented
that the proposed change would not affect their organization at this time. However, any future
development proposals and building permits would be reviewed and must meet all applicable
code requirements.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A number of comments were received regarding the proposed redesignation and are included in
Attachment 9. All of the letters received were opposed to the application and voiced similar
concerns regarding how the proposal fits with respect to the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Concerns addressed in the comment letters include: additional impervious surface will increase
current stormwater runoff issues; potential impacts to wildlife (comments stated that a heron lives
in the area and bald eagles and a falcon are often seen in the neighborhood and salmon are present
in Shell Creek); noise increases; increased traffic and speeding along a dead-end street; impacts to
th
and Daley;
pedestrian safety including safety of school children accessing the bus stop at 6
unavailability of on-street parking; impacts to air quality; tree removal; potential loss of the
opportunity for use of solar energy by neighboring properties; obstruction of views; decreased
quality of life; the possibility of further multi-family development continuing northwards along
th
Ave. N; the proposal will create a worse buffer between the multi-family and single-family
6
residential uses on the street; building height; impacts to neighborhood character; and the
necessity to reconsider the SEPA DNS.
With the exception of the need to reconsider the SEPA DNS which was discussed above in
Section II.B, the following discussion describes the proposal’s compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance and addresses several of the neighbors’ concerns.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE
The following discussion reviews pertinent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the
proposed amendment in the context of the requirements of the zoning code (ECDC 20.00 –
Changes to the Comprehensive Plan). The full text of the Residential section of the
Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment 10, and a portion of the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center section is included in Attachment 11. The applicant’s narrative describing their
reasons for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is included in Attachment 5.
1.ECDC 20.00.050 states that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be adopted only if
the following findings are made:
a.The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest;
b.The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety or welfare of the city;
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 5 of 8
c.The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses
within the city; and
d.In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject
parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the
anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision
of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical
constraints.
2.Staff’s analysis of the proposal and its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of ECDC 20.00.050 is as follows:
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the
a.
public interest?
One of the components of the overall vision for the downtown waterfront area is as
follows:
“The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and
multi family development with new mixed-use development types. Single family
neighborhoods are a part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of
housing and character of downtown.” (Comprehensive Plan pg. 26)
This implies that some single family neighborhoods situated within the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center are appropriate and should be preserved as such. It is
possible that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would set a precedent for
th
multi-family uses moving further northwards along 6 Ave. N and towards Aloha
Street. With this precedent, it is possible that the existing single family
neighborhood located to the north of the subject property would be jeopardized and
the Comprehensive Plan goal to preserve single family neighborhoods within the
downtown area would not be met.
Additionally, the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center portion of the
Comprehensive Plan designates several districts within the downtown waterfront area
(p. 35 to 37). These districts specify desired development patterns for certain
locations within the downtown area. The vicinity of the subject property is not
mentioned in any of these districts as being a desired location for a greater variety of
residential uses – especially an intensification of use and density.
The residential policies of the Comprehensive Plan generally point to the
preservation of residential neighborhoods. For example, policy number B.5.c of the
Comprehensive Plan (p. 54) states that stable property values must not be threatened
by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. It is possible that the proposed
amendment could impact property values in the vicinity due to increased traffic on a
dead-end street, potential impacts to existing views due to the increased height limit
allowed for multi-family zoned properties, and due to the fact that the single-family
properties directly adjacent to the north and east of the subject site would then be
bordered by a new multi-family building instead of the existing single-family
residence. Policy C.2.a on page 54 also states that “RM uses should be located near
th
arterial or collector streets.” It is important to note that 6 Avenue North is neither a
collector nor an arterial – it is a dead-end residential street. Increasing the density of
housing on this street would inappropriately introduce increased traffic into an area
that has only a single outlet.
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 6 of 8
Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
b.
welfare of the city?
Although the proposed amendment would most likely not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, and welfare of the city, it would have a direct impact on
property owners and residents within the immediate vicinity of the site. Neighbors of
the subject property who submitted comment letters addressed concerns over current
parking problems due to the site’s proximity to the Edmonds Center for the Arts as
well as traffic and pedestrian safety concerns due to the site being located on a dead-
end, local street.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would set a precedent for additional multi-
th
Avenue North, which would impact local
family housing further north along 6
residents who moved into homes north and west of the subject property with the
intention of locating in a single-family neighborhood.
The applicant’s narrative (Attachment 5) states that the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment would serve as a “buffer” between the Arts Center located two properties
to the south of the subject site, the apartment building located on the adjacent lot to
the south of the subject site, and the single family residences to the north of the site.
However, the applicant has indicated their desire to develop the site with 6 to 7 multi-
family units (under the densest multi-family zoning possible), which does not seem to
provide any more of a “buffer” between the existing apartment building to the south
the existing single family residences to the north and west of the subject site than the
“buffer” that currently exists between the apartment building to the south and the
existing single family residence on the subject site. The proposal would basically
shift the transition from the “Multi-Family – High Density” designation to the
“Single Family – Urban 1” designation one lot further to the north, but would not
create more of a buffer between these land use designations.
Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses
c.
within the city?
The proposed amendment – a change in the designation of a single parcel of land –
would not significantly alter the appropriate balance of land uses within the city.
However, although this site-specific proposal does not in and of itself materially
change the overall balance of land uses, if it is considered to set a precedent for
additional multi-family uses moving northwards and westwards towards the existing
thrd
single-family uses along 6 Ave. N and 3 Ave. N, approving the proposal could
significantly change the character of the area and begin to affect the overall land use
pattern.
Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s)
d.
and the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to,
access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence
of physical constraints?
The subject parcel itself is physically suitable for the existing plan designation as
well as the requested land use designation and potential development. As discussed
previously, the parcel itself is relatively level, sloping downwards slightly to the
west, and does not contain any noted critical areas. Shell Creek is located in the
general vicinity of the subject site; however, it is located over 200 feet to the east of
the subject site, several properties away. All development on the site would have to
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 7 of 8
meet the applicable zoning criteria for setbacks, coverage, and parking as well as
stormwater treatment, etc.
In addition to the comments received from neighbors who find the current traffic and
parking on the street to be a problem, Policy C.2.a.i (p. 54) of the Comprehensive
Plan states that multi-family development should take direct access from arterial and
th
collector streets rather than a minor street, and particularly a dead-end street, like 6
Ave. N. The City’s functional classification of roadways (Figure 19 of the 2002
th
Transportation Element) classifies 6 Ave. N as a local street (Attachment 12).
th
Additionally, 6 Ave. N in this location dead-ends to the north, and, therefore, only
has one outlet to the south of the subject site. The closest arterial or collector streets
th
to the subject site are 7 Avenue North, Main Street, and Caspers Street.
The applicant argues that the proposed development would create a buffer between
the existing multi-family building to the south and the single-family residences to the
north. However, the proposal would simply move the existing transition between
high-density multi-family and single-family one lot further to the north and would
not create a better buffer than that which is currently in place between the lot to the
south and the subject property.
III. ATTACHMENTS
1. Application Form
2. Comprehensive Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Photo of Vicinity
5. Applicant’s Narrative describing Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Two Attached Maps
6. Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties Submitted by Applicant
7. Environmental Checklist
8. Determination of Nonsignificance, dated May 9, 2008
9. Comment Letters Received for DNS and Proposed Amendment
10. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Residential Development, pages 50 to 55
11. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, pages 25 to 37
12. Edmonds Classification of Roadways – 2002 Transportation Element, Figure 19
IV. PARTIES OF RECORD
Planning Division Mark Flury Michael and Candace Dedonker
th
3409 McDougall Ave., Suite 102 615 – 6 Ave. N
Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020
Anita Debo-Beal Dina Turner Ronald & Gayle Richins
623 Carol Way 612 Aloha Way 720 6th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
John B. Foreman Gloria A. Hoppler Kirk Niemi & Janet Ahlquist-Niemi
625 Carol Way 520 3rd Ave. N. 609 Aloha Way
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Paul & Karin Exter Paul & Jo Jeffery Scott & Kristen Meilicke
622 Aloha Way 617 Aloha Way 712 6th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Daniel & Lisa Hopkins Kevin & Debbie Vessey John & Penelope Watridge
628 Aloha Way 626 Aloha Way 613 Carol Way
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Dedonker Comprehensive Plan Amendment
th
Ave. N
615 – 6
AMD-2007-18
Page 8 of 8
William Loughrin
Randolph Hutchins & Lynn Johnston Frank Doyle
Loughrin & Company
625 Aloha Way 626 Aloha Way
433 Sprague St.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tim & Mika McAfee Bruce McCutcheon & Donna Biscay Tom & Mary Hawley
621 Carol Way 604 Sater Lane 613 Aloha Way
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Philip & Denise Meade Michelle & Daniel Hornaday Betty Mueller
702 6th Ave. N. 813 7th Ave. N. 209 Caspers St.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Ann Marie Doran Margaret Westbrook Michael Way
632 Giltner Lane 715 7th Ave. N. 634 Giltner Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
James Haley Michael Hopkins Corinna Obar
314 Caspers St. 721 7th Ave. N. 729 7th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Tiffanie Olds Christine Kuasnikoff Kathleen & Norman Hagen
721 7th Ave. N. 633 Giltner Lane 807 7th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Lynn Galiger H.R. & Sharon Ballough Mark Levinson
725 7th Ave. N. 608 Sater Lane 630 Giltner Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Andy Roderick LaRae VanDerschelden Daniel Schalk
611 Sater Lane 656 3rd Ave. N. 616 Sater Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Michael Maestres Ted Modrzejewslal Kathleen Moellenberndt
617 Sater Lane 619 6th Ave. N. 300 Caspers St.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Pamela Lund Pete & Carole Falleen Carol Lucas
342 Caspers St. 9509 19th Ave. SE, Suite A 504 3rd Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020