Loading...
Resolution 8900006.150.001(6) PAO /gjz 12/3/97 R: 12/ 10 /97gjz RESOLUTION NO. sqo A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS DENYING A REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCEPT MAP TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY IN AN AREA KNOWN AS THE FIVE - CORNERS AREA ADJACENT TO MAIN STREET AND PIONEER WAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI - FAMILY, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130 states that proposed amendments to a comprehensive plan are to be considered no more frequently than once a year, and WHEREAS, as required by ECDC 20.00.010, proposed amendments to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan were submitted to the City of Edmonds for the 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendment review process by November 1, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board has reviewed the requested amendments in a series of public hearings on March 12, 1997, May 28, 1997, June 25, 1997 and July 7, 1997, and WHEREAS, as part of those hearings the Planning Commission considered a Comprehensive Plan Concept Map amendment for an area commonly referred to as the " Suchert Property" from Single Family Residential to Multi- family, Medium Density Residential, and WHEREAS, the vicinity map for the Suchert Property is attached as Exhibit A, and 180662 -1- WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Department has recommended denial of the requested amendment, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the requested amendment, and WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 7, 1997, after public hearing, has denied the requested amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Edmonds City Council denies the application for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Concept Map for the Suchert Property from Single Family Residential to Multi - Family, Medium Density Residential. In support of its denial, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the Edmonds Planning Department staff report, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Based upon the attached Findings and Conclusions and concurrent review of all proposed 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendments in addition to a review of the cumulative impacts of those amendments, the City Council also makes the following findings as required by ECDC 20.00.050: A. The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, safety and welfare of the City; and B. The area subject to the proposed amendment is not physically suitable for the requested land use designation 180662 -2- due to poor access and incompatibility with adjacent single family uses. APPROVED: MAYOR, BARBARA S. FAHt ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK.: 12/12./97 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 12/16/97 RESOLUTION NO. 890 180662 -3- T Comp. Plan change from Single Family Residential to Multi - Family- Medium Density r 20 8 �_ -' T PL SW PRD -240 � Vicinity and Zoning Map ■ P F- v CO BN 0 we. I M Item #1 Exhibit A t , t • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: / Robert Chave, AICP Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Planning Manager Current Planning Supervisor DATE: March 21, 1997 FILE: CDC- 97 -29, ITEM 41 • HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: • 0 March 26, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application........ ........................ ............................... Recommendation...... ................. Site Description ................................................................................................... ............................... 2 History 2 2 Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ........................................................................... ............................... 2 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compl iance ....................... ............................... 3 Appendices.......................................................................................................... ............................... 4 Exhbiti B s , : I. INTRODUCTION • A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Suchert 2. Site Location: On the west side Main Street and north of Bowdoin Way, near Five Corners. 3. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to "Multi - Family, Medium Density" 4. Review Process: Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Planning Board makes recommendation to the City Council for final action. U B. RECOMMENDATION Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of the applicant's request. 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Characteristics: a. Size and Shaoe: Approx. 5.2 acres. b. Existing Zoning: RS -8 (Single Family) C. Existing Land Use: Single family homes along Main Street. 2. Neighboring Characteristics: a. North: Single family neighborhood. b. South : with a fire station along Bowdoin Way. C. East: Multi- family development east of Main Street with commercial development at the Five Corners intersection. d. West: Single family neighborhood. B. HISTORY 1. No recent changes in zoning have occurred. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The Comprehensive Plan Map currently designates the property as Single Family." The following policies are contained in the Comprehensive Plan's discussion of multi - family development: C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: Staff Report: Item 1 page 2 C.1. Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. • C.l.b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning. C2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (W buildings are to be avoided. C.2. a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. C 2. b. ii. The height of RMbuildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the heightpermitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. C 2. b. iii. The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. b. Fact: The immediate vicinity to the northwest, west and southwest is dominated by single family uses, while development to the east is multi - family and commercial in nature. C.. Fact: Access to this property is limited by the natural features in the area, including the sloping topography and limited sight distances along the curving section of Main Street. • d. Conclusion: The requested change to a multi- family designation could be considered to be compatible with higher - density areas to the east and southeast, but presents significant compatibility and access issues for the single family development to the west and south. As an infill situation, the property would be well- suited to a planned development with clustered housing which would allow for buffering from the adjacent single family neighborhood. This type of development cannot be assured by a change in land use designation at this time. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: Zoning classifications are intended to be applied consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing RS -8 (Single Family) zoning classification is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation. b. Fact: If the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is approved, the existing single family zoning classification would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would need to be changed to an RM (Multiple Residential) classification: The RMzone has the following speck 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 variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; A To provide for those additional uses which complement and are • compatible with multiple residential uses. Staff Report: Item I Page 3 • 0 C. Conclusion: The existing zoning will need to be changed if the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is approved. An RM -3 zone would be the highest density zone that should be considered in light of the surrounding single family development. Ill. APPENDICES 1. Public Notice / Vicinity Map 2. Letter from Applicant Staff Report: Item I Page 4 • February 17, 1995 City of Edmonds Planning Division 250 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention Robert Chave, AICP Planning Manager RE: 5 Corners property Edmonds, Wa. Dear Mr. Chave: a,x .F ra "A0 It has been brought to my attention that you are in the process of revising the current comprehensive plan. The purpose of this letter is to formall that the attached 229,333 square feet of RS -8 be reconsidered in your current y request revision of your comprehensive plan. It was recommended by the City before to be rezoned to RM 2.4 which would be our current request. Please send me any information pertaining to this revision and or process and let me know of any meetings I should attend. Please call me if you have any questions. • Respectfully Yours, ,A- Dr. Robert E. Suchert • RCW 36.70A.130 Comprehensive plans -- Amendments. (1) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the county or city that adopted them. Any amendment or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter, and any change to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2)(a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year except that amendments may be considered more frequently under the following circumstances: (i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; and (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW. (b) All proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. (3) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.I 10 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by the county, each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty -year period. [1995 c 347 § 106; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 13.] NOTES: Finding -- Severability- -Part headings and table of contents not law- -1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A. Page [ 1 ] Adopted by Reference Resolution # FcID on /6 City Clerk 20.00.010 Submittal of amendments. In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. All amendments requested by the city or private parties shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved. All comprehensive plan amendment requests are to be provided in writing, on a form provided by the director, and are to be submitted no later than November 1st of every year, or the first business day after November 1st, should that date occur on a holiday or weekend. Applications for comprehensive plan amendments to be adopted in 1996 may be submitted on or before April 1, 1996. The council may, for good cause shown, accept applications after the prescribed deadline. [Ord. 3076 § 1, 1996]. Adopted by Reference Resolution #-99'0 on ON ©1997 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 1