2017-03-22 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 22, 2017, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: March 8, 2017
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Introduction to Highway 99 Development Regulations
B. Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review of Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 22, 2017
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Approval of Draft Minutes: March 8, 2017
Staff Lead: N/a
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB170308d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 8, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Daniel Robles
Malia Clark, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Phil Lovell (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
Matthew Cheung (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
2
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There
was no discussion relative to the report.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE MONITORING REPORT
Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that a set of implementation actions and performance measures were adopted with the 2015
Comprehensive Plan update. The intent was to track implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and provide an annual
report to the City Council and Planning Board. This is the first annual report, which covers 2016. He reviewed that
"implementation actions" are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high -priority goals
that relate to sustainability and Comprehensive Plan elements. "Performance measures" are intended to provide targeted
Packet Pg. 3
information about the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. They are intended to help assess the
City's progress towards achieving the goals and policy direction of each Comprehensive Plan element. He reviewed the
Implementation actions and performance measures as follows:
Community Sustainability Element
• Implementation Action. By 2017, update the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emerging risks and
hazards related to climate change, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification. Mr. Shipley explained that
the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is a preparedness document that describes the potential hazards that could impact
the City and details the relative likelihood that those risks might impact people, property, and the economy. It also
lists mitigation action items being planned or undertaken to minimize or eliminate risk for those hazards. He
emphasized that the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) requires that cities have approved plans
in place in order to receive federal funding to cover disaster -related costs. He reported that FEMA recently
approved the City's HMP, so this implementation action has been met. ti
0
• Performance Measure. Annually report on energy usage within the City, both by City government and by the N
larger Edmonds community. Mr. Shipley provided data that shows that energy usage on City -owned owned properties has o
g tJ'• p Y p gY g tY- p p t
generally been decreasing. Energy use has also been decreasing for residential properties even though the number
of units has increased. Energy usage for commercial properties has remained stable. He concluded that this
performance measure is being met. _
Housing
Implementation Action. Develop a Housing Strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing
and meeting diverse housing needs. Mr. Shipley said the City recognizes that the rising cost of housing is a critical
issue. Together with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, the City is in the beginning stages of developing
a Housing Strategy with the goal of increasing the housing supply. Meanwhile, the City is working to increase the
number of affordable units. Recently, the City designated the Westgate Mixed Use Zone as a residentially targeted
area, which allows future projects to qualify for a multi -family tax exemption for affordable units. He summarized
that this implementation action is not yet due, but it may end up being completed early.
• Performance Measure. Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching
21,168 units by 2035 or approximately 112 additional dwelling units annually. Mr. Shipley provided a table of
information to illustrate the number of new housing units added each year from 2011 through 2016. He reported
that there were 126 new units added in 2016, which means that the City's target of having approximately 112 units
added to the housing supply each year was met last year. He noted that the City's best opportunity for meeting the
yearly target is via multi -family development/redevelopment.
Economic Development
• Performance Measure. Report the number of jobs within the City each year, with the goal of reaching 13,948
jobs, excluding jobs within the resource and construction sectors, by 2035. This would require adding
approximately 95 jobs annually from 2011 to 2035. Mr. Shipley reported that the number of jobs increased by
about 2,626 between 2011 and 2015, which is an average of 525 additional jobs per year. He concluded that this
performance measure, so far, has been more than met.
Community Culture and Urban Design
• Implementation Action. Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016. Mr. Shipley reported that
the Engineering Department hosted several meetings with the Public Works and Parks Departments to draft an
update to the Street Tree Plan in 2016, so this implementation action has been met. In addition to identifying
requirements for species and location, the plan includes a mechanism for removing street trees that are not
performing well or have overgrown the areas where they are planted. The Engineering Department has noted that a
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
lot of work still needs to be done to integrate the Street Tree Plan into the upcoming Urban Forest Management
Plan. Formal adoption of the Street Tree Plan was postponed until the Urban Forest Management Plan is underway.
• Implementation Action. Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) by the end of 2017. Mr. Shipley
advised that the City has just under 200 acres of publicly -owned open space and parkland. Some sites are heavily
treed and others have clusters of trees. The City recognizes that local citizens value trees but also have concerns
about having the right trees in the right place. The City's goal is to maintain and/or plant trees effectively and
sustainably on its properties. He reviewed that, two years ago, the City's Tree Board developed a draft code for tree
preservation that included private property. While the draft code contained some good ideas, its requirements for
trees on private property were broadly seen as over -reaching. The draft was not adopted, but it helped spark the
discussion about the need for an UFMP to guide policy decisions about the urban forest. The City's management of
trees on public lands is considered a priority. During the discussions about updating the Critical Areas Ordinance,
concerns were also raised about the relationship of trees on public and private lands to priority habitat corridors and
how these should be managed. He announced that the City Council recently approved authorization to executive a ti
professional services agreement with Davey Resource Group to assist staff in developing a URFP and facilitating N
the public process. The budget for the project is $130,000, and it is scheduled for completion by the end of 2017.
00
He noted that this implementation action is not yet due.
L
Utilities 2
• Performance Measure. Lineal feet of old water, sewer and stormwater mains replaced or rehabilitated. Mr.
Shipley advised that, since 2015, the City has replaced or rehabilitated 13,050 linear feet of water mains and 11,100
linear feet of sewer mains. He noted that, with the information provided, the Performance Standard has been met.
Capital Facilities
• Implementation Action. Develop Level of Service (LOS) Standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017
and consider including standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shipley advised that this implementation action
is not yet due. However, he reported that, currently, several City departments are coordinating efforts on possible
LOS Standards, and progress will be reported in 2018.
• Performance Measure. Project delivery results, based on comparing projects in the Capital Facilities Plan to
what is actually done on the projects. Mr. Shipley provided a chart that tracks the progress of each of the projects
in the Capital Facilities Plan. He reported that four projects have been completed, four are in some stage of
progress, and two remain in the conceptual stage. He noted that, with the information provided, the Performance
Standard has been met.
Transportation
• Performance Measure. Number of linear feet of sidewalk renovated or added to the City's sidewalk network.
Mr. Shipley reported that in 2016, 600 linear feet of sidewalk was added on the south side of 85th Avenue, 250 linear
feet was added on Maple Street between 6t" and 8th Avenues, 500 linear feet was added on 238th from 76th Avenue to
80th Avenue as part of the 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project, and 1,200 linear feet was added on 238th
Street SW from 1001h to 1041h Avenues. He concluded that, with the information provided, this performance
measure has been met.
Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Shipley to share background information about how the performance measures and
implementation actions came to be. Mr. Shipley answered that the performance measures and implementation actions were
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan when it was updated in 2015. They are intended to help the City track how well
the Comprehensive Plan is being implemented. The metrics in the performance measures were suggested by the departments
and a few came from the Growth Management Act (housing and jobs). The goal is for staff to report the City's progress to
the Planning Board and City Council on a regular basis.
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Strategic Action Plan also influenced the performance measures. Mr. Chave responded that
the performance measures are geared towards the Comprehensive Plan over a longer period of time, and the Strategic Action
Plan is for a much more focused period. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the dialogue pertaining to the two documents has
often been very similar. Mr. Chave agreed but said the performance measures have a different scope and timeline.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the performance measure for utilities does not include any specific goal or context.
For example, he suggested it could include a goal of a certain amount of replaced or renovated mains each year. He
commented that simply reporting what was accomplished does not seem like a very aggressive goal. The numbers would
mean more if the performance measure identified the City's goal over the next five years. Mr. Shipley explained that the
intent was to keep track of how many of the mains were being replaced, but it did not include a specific goal. Board Member
Cloutier again said it would be good to have some context for the numbers provided in the report. For example, how many
linier feet of water main is there, how many of them are over 50 years old, and how many are reaching the end of their
lifespan. He suggested that the report should provide this information in graphic format. Mr. Chave agreed that would be
helpful information. However, he explained that this year was intended to give staff experience in pulling the numbers ti
together. The performance measure could be expanded at some point to include additional context, since the Engineering c
Department has information about how many mains need to be replaced each year on average. N
z
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Hazard Mitigation Plan talks about how the City might start addressing climate
change, but there is no mentation of the Edmonds Climate Protection Committee or the Climate Action Plan that has been in M
place since 2009. Rather than rewrite the actions that need to be taken, the actions identified in the Climate Action Plan
could be integrated into the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, although a lot of numbers were provided in the report relative to electricity
consumption, the report does not address natural gas consumption, which is one of the largest contributors to global warming.
He said he understands that the information is available for inclusion in the report. In addition, the Public Utility District
(PUD) can inform the City on the amount of solar power that is generated each year. Mr. Shipley clarified that the solar
power generated was subtracted from the numbers provided for electricity.
Vice Chair Monroe agreed with Board Member Cloutier that it would be nice to know how many linier feet of water and
sewer main needs to be replaced or renovated each year. Without that information, it is impossible to know if the City is on
target or not.
Vice Chair Monroe asked if duplexes are allowed in Edmonds, and Mr. Chave answered that they are allowed and considered
to be multi -family residential development. There is not a specific duplex zone. Vice Chair Monroe suggested it would
make sense to add another column to the table provided in the report to track affordable housing. Mr. Shipley explained that
the current measure was taken directly from the Growth Management Act. The five columns provided in the report show
where the additional housing units are coming from, but the performance measure only requires the City to report on the total
number of new units. Measuring affordable housing should probably be a separate metric, since this particular measure is
intended to track the Growth Management Act requirement. Mr. Chave suggested this is something to keep in mind when
updating the Housing Strategy later in the year since it requires a different type of analysis. He noted that the Housing
Alliance of Snohomish County tracks this information and they presented a report to the Board last year. As the Board
discusses the Housing Strategy in the coming months, they could consider a potential performance measure for tracking its
success.
Chair Rubenkonig summarized that the current performance measure relative to housing is tied to the Growth Management
Act. She suggested that this should be made clear in the report and in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave explained that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act are two separate documents that are not necessarily tied together. As
the Housing Strategy is updated, it is likely that the implementation actions will need to be updated. However, performance
measures are different than implementation actions in that they need to be done on a long-term basis. Housing is just one
example where information needs to be tracked over a decade because projections will change over time. It is hoped they can
expand the number of things that are tracked to provide more elaborate information to tie back to the goals in the plan. This
is just the initial effort to track and assemble information.
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
Chair Rubenkonig commented that, as the Board works on the Housing Strategy throughout the year, one thing to consider is
the addition of a performance measure for affordable housing. Mr. Chave agreed that is something that could be decided
during the review process. He added that the Board could also address the need to amend the existing performance measures
to provide more information as the City moves forward with updates to other plans. The intent of the performance measure
data is to inform future updates. He commended Mr. Shipley for doing a great job of assembling the report, which is a good
first step but also a work in progress.
Vice Chair Monroe asked why the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) does include a performance measure that
identifies the number of linear miles of roadway that have been paved or rehabilitated. Mr. Shipley answered that the current
performance measure focuses on walkability. However, he recognized that an additional measure could be added for
roadways, too. He commented that the report takes a great deal of time to assemble, and it is important to focus on the high-
level items that will help guide the City in the future. Mr. Chave added that the Board could raise this question when the
Capital Facilities or Capital Improvement Plans are presented to the Board later in the year.
ti
Board Member Robles asked if the City's goals and metrics would change as the Federal Government changes its funding
c
priorities for disaster relief, climate impacts, etc. Mr. Shipley explained that because the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update has
cm
been completed, it will no longer be identified as an implementation action that needs to be measured. However, other
00
z
implementation actions may be added the next time the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Mr. Chave commented that there
will be additional steps coming later relative to climate impacts, but the implementation action was simply to update the
2
disaster plan. He reminded the Board that the City is also working with students from Western Washington University to
identify impacts related to sea -level rise, which was also called out as a high priority in the Comprehensive Plan. A lot of the
exploration of impacts of climate change will be ongoing.
Mr. Chave explained that the Hazard Mitigation Plan is an important requirement of FEMA as an attempt to reduce exposure
to disaster response payments. They want communities to analyze their hazards and risks and be proactive in reducing the
risks over time. That is the purpose of this exercise. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a set of plans going forward to
continually analyze the City's risks. It is a relatively new requirement, but cities must have one in place or run the risk of not
0
getting full FEMA compensation if a disaster were to occur.
>
0
L
Board Member Robles recalled that the Board has discussed branding affordable housing in Edmonds as the ability to "age in
a
place," which means retaining residents as they age, etc.
Q
Board Member Robles asked if the decline in energy use is related to technology changes or weather impacts. Mr. Shipley
ti
T
said the representative from the PUD did not have too much to say on the issue, but he did mention lower wattage bulbs and
energy -efficient appliances. Solar generation is also a small contributor. Mr. Chave commented that as older appliances are
00
replaced with more energy -efficient appliances, there will be a consistent pattern of energy use decline.
M
0
ti
Board Member Robles recalled Mr. Shipley's earlier statement that multi -family development is responsible for most of the
pp
growth in new housing units. He asked if this is because the Economic Development Commission is promoting multi -family
a
housing or is there an effort to promote affordable housing, as well. Mr. Chave explained that the City is faced with an infill
situation. There is a limited number of single-family lots available for development or redevelopment relative to
opportunities for multi -family development. When a single-family lot is redeveloped, the home is simply replaced with a
new home and there is no gain in the number of units. Many multi -family lots are underutilized, meaning that substantially
coo
more units can be added to take full advantage of the density allowed if redevelopment occurs. There are also opportunities
Q
for multi -family housing in mixed -use zones.
Board Member Robles asked if existing single-family property owners have been given the opportunity to recognize the
economic advantage associated with accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr. Chave agreed that is an important issue to
discuss as part of the Housing Strategy update. This could include a discussion about market conditions, as well as potential
code amendments to accommodate ADUs and how to communicate to citizens that ADUs are an option.
Board Member Robles noted that no water lines were rehabilitated in either 2015 or 2016. Because rehabilitation is typically
a less costly approach, he questioned if the numbers will be modified in future years to include more rehabilitation. Mr.
Chave said that is a good question for the Board to direct to the Engineering Department.
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the City already has a goal relative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Student Representative Clark voiced concern about the City's approach for providing affordable housing. She understands
that Westgate is intended to be the location for a large number of multi -family units. She said she does not want to see
housing popping up all over the place. Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that Edmonds is primarily built out, and the majority
of new multi -family development will occur along the major corridors where there are already good public transportation
opportunities. Student Representative Clark said she does not want affordable housing goals to take precedence over
protecting the environment.
Chair Rubenkonig commented that the numbers provided in the Economic Development Report do not add up to her, and Mr.
Shipley agreed to double check the math. Chair Rubenkonig commented that some very good years are needed in order to
make up for the years that were slow. Mr. Shipley agreed that the numbers are below the bar, but it is important to
understand that it is a long-range goal and there may be some very good years in the future. ti
0
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA N
t
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed the extended agenda, which was recently updated. She noted that the Parks and Recreation 0
Quarterly Report was postponed to the May 10t' meeting so that staff can introduce the Highway 99 Development
Regulations on March 22" d. A retreat is tentatively scheduled for April 12"'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig reported that representatives from the Bartell Family, the current developers at Westgate, have agreed to
attend the Board's retreat to share their thoughts and answer questions.
Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that detailed information about development permits is available via the City's
website (www.edmondswa.gov). At her request, Mr. Chave demonstrated how to access the information.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Monroe reported that, at a recent Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting, he was asked what the
EDC could provide to the Planning Board to make the process better. He asked that the Board provide feedback as he
prepares to respond. He reviewed that the EDC has been involved in the sign code, civic field, and a number of other issues.
Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the previous EDC presented periodic reports to the Planning Board, and a member of their
Commission attended the Board Meetings as a liaison. Although the new EDC has submitted letters for the Board's
consideration, they have not appointed a liaison to attend their meetings. Vice Chair Monroe agreed to make that request.
Board Member Robles reminded the Board that they will be tackling the Housing Strategy later in the year, and it would be
appropriate for the EDC to share insight on how to promote ADUs so that individual property owners have the same
advantage as developers when the message is delivered. It would be helpful for the EDC to adjudicate relative to the sign
code, as well.
Mr. Chave cautioned that the EDC and Planning Board operate in slightly different spheres. While there is some overlap, the
EDC does not work on code amendments to the same degree as the Board, and the Board does not get into the big picture
economic outlook that the EDC does. He agreed with Chair Rubenkonig that it would be helpful for each body to provide a
liaison to communicate and keep in touch. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the previous EDC requested a joint meeting with
the Board, but she has not received a similar request from the new EDC.
Vice Chair Monroe commented that the Highway 99 and Five Corners Subarea Plans are pressing agenda items for the EDC.
Mr. Chave reviewed that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan is close to being approved by the City Council, and the next step is
for the Board to review possible code amendments to implement the plan. He presumes the EDC will be interested in
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
working with property owners to kick start the plan's implementation. He said that a joint Planning Board/EDC meeting
might be appropriate for this purpose.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
C
Planning Board Minutes
March 8, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. R e p o rt.03.17.17
Packet Pg. 10
5.A.a
G � of
E &a�N
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 17, 2017
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"May your thoughts be as glad as the shamrocks. May your heart be as light as a
song. May each day bring you bright, happy hours that stays with you all the year
long." That's our Saint Patrick's Day wishes for you!
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next Planning Board meeting is on March 22 and will have introductions to a proposed
townhouse subdivision code amendment and to the Highway 99 development regulations. The full
agenda packet is online.
REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ The Regional Staff Committee met March 16. (Shane Hope attended on behalf of "other cities
in Snohomish County".) Agenda items included:
o Transportation 2040 Update
o Taking Stock 2016 Report (an assessment of the implementation of VISION 2040
through updates to local comprehensive plans and the subsequent PSRC review
process)
o "Health in Planning" discussion (including presentation from health districts)
❑ The Regional TOD Advisory Committee met March 17. (Councilmember Mesaros attended on
behalf of Edmonds.) Agenda items included:
o PSRC Regional Centers Framework Update
o PSRC analysis of economic benefits of transit -oriented development (TOD)
o PSRC Growing Transit Communities monitoring report
o Potential Fall 2017 TOD event
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ The SCT Planning Advisory Committee met March 9. (Shane Hope attended on behalf of
Edmonds.) Agenda items included:
o PSRC Regional Centers Framework Update
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
o Draft 2016 Growth Monitoring Report (countywide report)
o Alliance for Housing Affordability update
o PSRC Regional Staff Committee update
❑ The SCT Steering Committee will meet on March 22. Planned agenda items include:
o PSRC Update
o Economic Alliance Snohomish County update
o Election of officers
o EASC investment request
o Proposed SCT recommendation on Draft PSRC Regional Centers Framework
o Draft 2016 Growth Monitoring Report
o PSRC Transportation 2040 Plan Update
Community Transit
Community Transit is planning to expand its service by six percent during this next year. For more
details, see: www.communitytransit.org/ProposedService.
Federal Budget for Transportation
President Trump's proposed budget reduces transportation funding (as well as other types of
funding) that would significantly affect the Puget Sound Region, including Edmonds. Most notably,
the reduction would affect Sound Transit light rail. However, this budget is only a proposal. Congress
will decide on the final budget this fall.
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board
No meeting is scheduled for March.
Economic Development Commission
The Economic Development Commission next meeting is April 19. An agenda will be posted on line
when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner's next meeting is March 23. The public hearing is on a staff decision to deny a
business license application to operate an automotive service in a BN (Neighborhood Business) zone,
which does not allow commercial garages.
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Commission next meeting is April 13. An agenda will be posted on line
when available.
Diversity Commission
The Edmonds Diversity Commission hosted "Your Voice Matters" — Youth Forum on Diversity.
Middle-Schooler's and High-Schoolers are invited to participate on Friday, March 17 from 1:30 to 3:30
pm in the Plaza Room above the Edmonds Library. The Edmonds Diversity Commission is reaching
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
out the youth of the greater Edmonds community. The forum was planned to include discussion
about topics of concerns to youth, such as bullying, social media pressures, inclusion discrimination,
etc. For more information, click here.
Sister City Commission
The City of Edmonds Sister City Commission invites students 14-18 years of age to participate in the
annual student exchange to Hekinan, Japan. Students will travel to Hekinan for the last two weeks in
July 2017 and then host a Japanese student during their stay in Edmonds during the first two weeks
of August 2017. Student cost for the trip will range between $1,600 and $2,200 depending on the
cost of airfare. Hekinan and Edmonds have been Sister Cities since 1988 and the exchange program
has been a central component of that relationship. Deadline to apply has been extended to
Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm. For applications and more information, go online to:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/sister-city-exchange-programs.html.
Tree Board
The Tree Board's next meeting will be on April 6. An agenda will be posted on line when available
City Council
The Council's March 14 meeting included the following planning/community-related topics:
❑ Approval of Consent Agenda for:
o Resolution to initiate rezone process for property under Contract Rezone R-97-28
(changing from RS-8 to RS-12)
❑ Tree Board 2016 annual report & presentation of Tree City USA award
❑ Authorization to award construction contract for the76th & 212t" St. Intersection
Improvements Project
❑ Presentation of local agency agreement for support services for 76t" Ave and 212t" Street
Intersection Improvement/Bike2Health Project
❑ Presentation by Parks Department on2017 Special Event contracts.
❑ Presentation on design services for the 2018 Sewer Replacement Project
❑ Presentation of proposed budget amendments
❑ Critical Areas Report (a report on critical area review data)
❑ Review of potential amendments updating Pedestrian Sign Requirements in Ch. 20.60 (as
recommended by Planning Board)
Topics for the Council's March 21 meeting include:
❑ Public Hearing on updating pedestrian sign requirements in chapter 20.60 ECDC
❑ Public Hearing on Shoreline Master Program
❑ Highway 99 Subarea Plan
❑ City Council meeting format and potential committee structure
❑ 2017 first quarter budget amendments
31Pane
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
41
❑ March 17: Your Voice Matters — Youth Forum on Diversity, Plaza Room, 1:30 — 3:30 pm
❑ March 18: Free Recycling drop off, Edmonds Community College, 10 am — 3 pm
❑ April 1: Community Volunteer Open House, Edmonds Museum, 1— 4 pm, Want to get
involved in your community? Want to use your time and talents to make a difference?
❑ April 15: Rotary Easter Egg Hunt, FAC Field, 10 am
❑ May 7: Garden Market begins, 5t" & Bell St., 9 am - 2 pm
❑ May 7: Coming Exhibit, Historical Museum, Salish Bounty, Traditional Foods of the Native
American People
Packet Pg. 14
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Introduction to Highway 99 Development Regulations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
A draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan has been developed and discussed by the Planning Board. After a
public hearing, the Planning Board directed minor changes and recommended that the draft plan be
moved forward to the City Council for approval. The draft plan is now under consideration by the City
Council. The draft Subarea Plan includes recommended changes to the City's development code that
would help implement the plan.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the concepts being developed to amend the code, consistent with the direction of the draft
Highway 99 Subarea Plan
Narrative
The Highway 99 Subarea Plan envisions much of the area as a walkable, vibrant mixed use area that also
incorporates existing commercial uses that complement the community.
To implement the proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan, two sets of "code changes" would be needed.
The first set is basically a change to the zoning map to consolidate the zoning classifications in the
Highway 99 area, instead of leaving them as a patchwork. Currently, the CG 1 and CG 2 zones are
almost identical, except that the development code allows one of the two zones to have an additional
story of height. The proposed map change mainly involves consolidating the "CG 1" and "CG 2" zones
into a single "CG" zone. In addition, the zoning map changes would provide for one or more multifamily
properties in the area to be rezoned to "CG". Note: The proposed zoning map changes are consistent
with the existing Comprehensive Plan (as well as the proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan).
The second set of "code changes" involve changes to the text of the development code, primarily
Chapter 16.60 (CG- General Commercial Zone) which regulates the Highway 99 area. They can be
summarized as:
d Strengthen and clarify current design standards
d Allow for special circumstances to be considered in the design and placement of new buildings,
such as for large parcels that would have multiple buildings and/or multiple phases of
development and parcels that have unique access or transportation challenges
d Set a standard that would generally apply to and limit the amount of vehicular parking that
comprises the area between the building's front fagade and the primary street. For example,
generally, not more than 50% of total project parking spaces could be located between the
Packet Pg. 15
8.A
building's front facade and the primary street. (Exact wording can be drafted to allow
somewhat different standards for special circumstances.)
8 Set a standard for development that will result in most vehicular parking being at the side or
rear of the building. (For example, generally require parking areas of any lot that is being
developed to comprise 40% or less of the primary street frontage.)
6 Require that a certain amount of the building's street -facing facade at the ground level be
comprised of transparent windows and doors. Require that upper stories facing the street also
have transparent windows and/or doors, though they comprise a lesser percentage than on the
ground level.
6 Require that development include a "pedestrian activity zone" next to the street to encourage
pedestrian activity (with some exceptions, for example, not applying the same requirement for
new buildings that are being built on the back part of a lot and an existing building is already
closer to the street).
6 Generally, require new buildings to be built between 10 and 20 feet of the primary street it
faces (with some exceptions, for example, where there are multiple buildings on the lot).
S Require outdoor amenity space to be part of any new development. The amenity space would
need to be equal to at least 5% of the area being developed. It would typically include
landscaping and public gathering spaces.
6 Require a "stepback" for upper stories of buildings to help separate them from other uses,
especially where the buildings are adjacent to a single family zone.
A more detailed presentation will be made at the Planning Board's March 22 meeting. The meeting will
include time for Board discussion.
After the Planning Board's March 22 meeting, the next tentative meeting dates are:
6 April X (exact date TBD) for an open house on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
6 April 12- Planning Board meeting (or public hearing) on the draft Highway 99 Area development
code update.
Packet Pg. 16
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here)
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Mike Clugston
Background/History
This application is new to the Planning Board. It is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board
will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss code amendment. Public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 26.
Narrative
This is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a new
section to the subdivision code which would provide for Unit Lot subdivisions. The process would allow
for the creation of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in multifamily zones as an
alternative to condominium ownership.
Several other local jurisdictions currently have some form of this process including Seattle, Mountlake
Terrace, and Snohomish County. From 2003 to 2008, the City of Edmonds had a similar process known
as townhouse subdivision. That process resulted in several projects in town, two of which are included
in the packet: Cascade Cottages and Cooper's Crest. Each project first went through the typical review
and approval process for new multifamily developments (design review, building permits, construction
and inspections). As opposed to a standard multifamily development, these two projects then went
through the townhouse subdivision process to create fee -simple lots for each of the dwelling units.
Attachments 1 & 2 show Cascade Cottages before and after platting while Cooper's Crest is shown
before and after platting in Attachments 3 & 4. Note that the only difference between the before and
after photos is the presence of the internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments
were designed to meet the requirements for the particular RM zone like any other multifamily project
(before) but then lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units
(after).
The City's process was based on a staff interpretation of the definition of the term 'townhouse' from
2003 (Attachment 5). During review of a townhouse project in 2008, the new Hearing Examiner
identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied and
the requirements of the subdivision ordinance (Attachment 6). The Examiner found conflict with three
elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks, and insufficient access within the development. On
appeal, City Council overturned the Examiner's decision but the project was never built due to the
Packet Pg. 17
8.B
recession and it eventually expired. After the 2008 decision, no further townhouse subdivisions were
approved. Part of the problem with processing additional applications were the concerns highlighted by
the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code.
The current request is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for multifamily projects in the Multiple
Residential zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's
narrative and proposed code language are included as Attachments 7 & 8. The existing subdivision code
is included as Attachment 9 and the current multifamily zoning code is Attachment 10.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Cascade Cottages no lines
Attachment 2 - Cascade Cottages w lines
Attachment 3 - Cooper's Crest no lines
Attachment 4 - Cooper's Crest w lines
Attachment 5 - Arbor Court decision
Attachment 6 - Townhouse subdivision interpretation
Attachment 7 - Applicant Narrative
Attachment 8 - Applicant's Proposed Code Amendment
Attachment 9 - ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions)
Attachment 10 - ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential Zone)
Packet Pg. 18
■
City of Edmonds IVI dP I ILIC
/+,
L
Meado. Ie
.. rarM. c.c LYnn
Edmond. �i�5 ,• 11
u.+F ngMa
Esp ... date
Legend
ArcSQE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINE:
rail other values
1
2
5.4
9. 17; I; 8
1:564 Notes
0
w
CD Cascade Cottages
23.51 47.0 Feet This map is a user generated static outputfro m an Internet mapping site and is for 20D4
C4
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate, RM-1.5 PO
GS_1994_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reli able. W
City rr
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Cascade Cottages no lines (1917 : Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
City of Edmonds IVI dp I ILiC
- • ~z MMwM&�,,wdMMMIj"� •
i
or
i
d: W
Y
r
z
Ire► •' �1
Ida
Meadoh 'e
- .. rarM. c.c LYnn
•Edmond. *,•
u•�F ZingMa
Esp ... date
Legend
ArcSDEAMSTREET_CENTERLINE:
<all other values
1
2
5.4
9; 17; I; 8
1:564 Notes
0
w
CD Cascade Cottages
23.51 47.0 Feet This map is a user generated static outputfro m an Internet mapping site and is for 20134
C4
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate, RM-1.5
IV GS_1964_We6_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere T c r.A^ c'1 rr ^r 1Cf^r^^ ^rccurrent, orotherwise1eliable.
p City rr -
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Cascade Cottages w lines (1917 : Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
PO
r City of Edmonds IVY aN I I LIU
FIX
Fy1•
0411W
v
3
T f
R
+I S
F
p ■� T
.j
.r �• - sr 1�
� �C
Memkoh ie
- .. rarM: c.c LYnn
Fdmond� 01
w Hwy I.Of
i..
Es ... date
Legend
ArcSDEGISSRET_CENTER J NE
gall other values
1
2
5.4
9. 17; I; 8
1: 1,128
Notes
n t
CID Cooper's Crest
47.02 94.0 Feet This map is a user generated staticout put from an Internet m�;ppingsite and is for 2006
C4
reference only. Data I aferst hat appear onthis map mayor may not be accurate, RM-2.4
IV GS_1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere T n^I^` T rr ^^rnurrrent,orctherwisereliablei
City r` —
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Cooper's Crest no lines (1917 : Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
W
n
•�I
City of Edmonds IVI dP I ILIC
u y I
— F
' � ,� `:� fir• �;:! ww� -
tL
'r
r �
k
Meadoh Ie
.. rarM. c.c LYnn
_•. •Fdmond� •� I
w Hwy I.Of
i..
Esp ... date
Legend
ArcSDE.GIS. STIR EET CENTERLINE:
<all other values
t
2
5.4
9; 17; I; 8
1: 1,128 Notes
0 IF> Ir7,
CID Cooper's Crest
47.02 94.0 Feet This map is a user generated static o utput fro m an Internet mapping site and is for 2006
C4
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate, RM-24
IV GS_1964_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sphere T c..A^ c'1 rr ^r 1Cf^r^^^rccu rrrent,orotherwisereliable.
N City
Attachment: Attachment 4 -Cooper's Crest w lines (1917 : Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
PO
8.B.e
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
`-?)C. 189v
In the Matter of the Application of )
Steve Smith Development LLC )
For a Formal Plat for a )
Townhouse Subdivision )
NO. P-2008-16
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse
lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 —
23824 Edmonds Way in.Edmonds, Washington is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Jean Morgan and John Parsaie of Morgan Design Group LLC, on behalf of Steve Smith
Development LLC (Applicant), requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into
35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily
Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on May 15, 2008.
The Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Michael Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
3. John Parsaie, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
4. Alvin Rutledge
5. Roger Hertrich
Findings Conclusions and Decision
City of Edmon& Dearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P 2008-16
page 1 of 19
Incorporated August 11, .1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 23
8.B.e
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted in the record:
1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 6, 2008
2. Preliminary Plat Map, dated received March (illegible), 2008
3. Planning Division Staff Report to City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board,
dated May 30, 2007, with attachments:
1. Land use application (ADB Review only), dated received February 15, 2007
2. Vicinity Map
3. Determination of Non -Significance, issued May 7, 2007
4. Site Plan
5. "Lighting fixtures and building colors" Conceptual plans (2 sheets)
6. Conceptual floor plans and elevations (14 sheets)
7. Landscape plan (3 sheets)
4. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing meeting minutes, June 6, 2007
5. Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan (1 sheet)
6. Adoption of Existing Environmental Document, dated January 23, 2008
7. Notice of Application and Public Hearing Affidavits of mailing, posting, and
publication
8. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet, prepared by William Popp Associates,
received November 6, 2007
9. Drainage Report and Calculations, prepared by CG Engineering, dated March 6,
2008
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee
simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement in a Multifamily
Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 - 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington)
Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, page .2.
2. The subject property is developed with six single -story duplexes (12 units), which would
be demolished and replaced upon approval. The site is relatively flat, sloping gently
towards State Route 104 (SR 104/Edmonds Way), just west of Highway 99. The
property abuts SR 104 to the northeast, with its northeast corner adjacent to the
intersection of SR 104 and 238`b Street SW. The site borders Single -Family Residential
(RS-8) zoning to the west and south and Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zoning to the
southeast. The RS-8 property to the west is developed with condominiums, and the RS-8
property to the south contains single-family residential development. The RM-1.5 zoned
1 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 4 E, W.M.; known by Assessor's Parcel Number 004633-010-004-2. Exhibit
2, ,Site Plan; Exhibit 3, Attachment 1, Architectural Design Board application.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16
page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 24
8.B.e
parcel to the southeast contains multifamily development. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1,
page 3; Site Visit.
3. No critical areas, floodplain, slopes, unstable soils, or surface waters have been identified
on -site. The project is not proposed within a FEMA-designated flood plain. Exhibit 1,
pages 3, 5.
4. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is "Edmonds
Way Corridor". This commercial land use designation is discussed in the Comprehensive
Plan's Land Use Element, which identifies RM-1.5 zoning as compatible with the land
use designation. Exhibit 3, page 4. The Comprehensive Plan promotes a "design infill"
strategy for meeting population and employment targets set for the City by the County
and State. The proposed project is intended to be design infill development. Exhibit 1,
page 6. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following additional goals and policies
that Punning Division Staff identified as applicable to the proposal:
Residential Develo went Goal B: High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of
housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic consideration...:... (Goal B policies omitted)
Residential Development, Goal C: 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:
C.2. 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 (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
Exhibit 1, pages 5-6, citing City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
5. The subject property is located in a Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zoning district. The
purpose of the RM zones is 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 and to provide for those additional uses
which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC)16 30.000. Multiple- and single-family dwelling
units are permitted uses in the zone. ECDC 16.30.010(A).
6. Development standards applicable to the RM 1.5 district require: 1,500 square foot
minimum lot area; 15-foot minimum street and rear setbacks; 10-foot side setbacks;
maximum lot coverage of 45%; and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit. ECDC
16.30.030(A).
Findings Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes .flat, No. P-2008-16
page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 25
8.B.e
7. The proposed site plan for townhouse subdivision was submitted to the City of Edmonds
Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review on June b, 2007 under file number ADB-
2007-12. The ADB reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the applicable design review criteria in the City's Urban Design Guidelines
found in ECDC 20.10 (Design Criteria) and ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping). Exhibit 3, page
6. The ADB approved the site plan with conditions requiring: compliance with the
maximum building height criteria of the zone; modification of proposed pole lights height
and/or location to comply with setbacks; redesigned "more prominent" front entries to the
buildings; the use of stamped concrete to "provide some type of legend about where
people could park or walk"; retention or replacement of the existing fence and
landscaping in order to provide screening; and identification of the specific types of
bushes to be planted adjacent to buildings 5, b, 7, and 9. Exhibit 4, page 2 ofJrune 6,
2007 ADB Meeting Minutes.
8. The Edmonds Community Development Code defines "townhouse" as follows:
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual
structures as defined in the zoning code;
E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the
coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the
zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual
units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units.
ECDC 21.100.040.
9. The RM-1.5 zone requires a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. ECDC 16 30 030(A).
According to Planning Division analysis, with an overall area of 55,502 square feet the
subject property could contain up to 37 lots of 1,500 square feet each. Exhibit 1, page 4,
The Applicant has proposed 35 lots, ranging from 1,123 to 2,273 square feet. Exhibit 3.
10. The proposed substandard lots are based on a Planning Division policy that allows
townhouse subdivisions to have lots smaller than the minimum lot area required in the
underlying zone as long as the density of the zoning district is satisfied. This policy is
not codified in the development standards for the Multiple Residential zones or in the
subdivision chapter of the Community Development Code, but is a Planning Division
policy. The policy relies on the language of the definition of townhouse in the
Community Development Code at ECDC 21.100.040(E) to modify the minimum
development standards established for specific zones.' Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
1 Title 21 is the definitions chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Cade.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 26
8.B.e
1.1. Townhouse lots are defined as allowing shared common side walls joining units, which
are known as zero lot lines. ECDC 21.100.040(B). As proposed, structures would be
setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the SR 104 right -of --way and at least 10 feet from
all other property boundaries? The 35 lots would be divided among 13 buildings, each
containing two or three units (lots), organized as a perimeter ring of units surrounding a
central cluster. Lots with shared walls in common would have zero lot lines, and a
minimum of 10 feet would separate the buildings from each other. All land within the
project would be divided among the lots and be privately owned, including the
landscaping strips around the project perimeter and the internal access driveway, which
would be placed within an easement over all lots. Zero setback is proposed between the
dwelling units and the internal access driveway. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Mr_ Clugston;
Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
12. The project would have a single point of access from. SR 104 near the northeast corner of
the site. The proposed internal access serving the 35 lots is characterized as a private
driveway.4 The width of the proposed internal access easement is 24 or 25 feet (wider
around the corners).' Road classification, applicable development standards, and exact
proposed dimensions/design features are not addressed in the Planning Division staff
report or submitted materials, except for brief :information on the Grading, Drainage, and
Street Improvement Plan in the record at Exhibit 5.6 .Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5; Testimony of
Ms Morgan, Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
13. The site plan depicts "sidewalk" connecting the entrance to each unit with the access
easement. Sidewalk is also shown connecting the private access easement with existing
sidewalk along SR 104. (See Exhibit 2, Plat Map.) Two areas marked as crosswalks
would indicate pedestrian crossing locations between the central building cluster and
sidewalks connected the SR 104 sidewalks, No sidewalks are proposed along the access
easement connecting units and no pedestrian connection is provided between the
perimeter lots not adjacent to the highway and the sidewalk along SR 104. Exhibit 5,
Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan.
14. The project includes 35 two -bedroom units. According to the City's off-street parking
regulations, two bedroom units require 1.8 off-street parking spaces each, for a total of 63
required parking places. ECDC 17.50.020(A). However, the RM-1.5 zone requires a
3 The site plan depicts units 6 through 11 as setback 15 feet from the property's southern lot line, which would be
consistent with the RM-1.5 rear setback, Exhibit 2; ECDC 16.30.030(A).
4 This characterization is from the Applicant's testimony. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
' The site plan states that the width of the "access/utilities easement" between Lots 34 and 7 is 25 feet in width.
Exhibit 2, Site Plan. The dimensions of the proposed access route do not appear elsewhere in the record, and the
Applicant representative testified that the road is 24 feet wide. Testimony ofMs. Morgan.
6 The drainage plan contains a diagram entitled "Parking area pavement section" depicting the layers of proposed a
road surface in the easement. The reference to parking in the name of this diagram is not clear, because the `parking
area" on the plan is depicted immediately inside the site access. Exhibit S.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 27
8.B.e
minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit, for a total of 70 spaces. ECDC
16.30, 030. As proposed, each lot would provide two parking spaces inside an attached
garage, for a total of 70 off-street parking places. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 5.
15. The site plan does not include any parking areas outside of garages. The entire internal
access easement would be required to be posted "No Parking: Fire Lane" or similar
cautionary signage. Planning Division Staff reported that, throughout the review process,
the Fire Department (and unspecified others) expressed concerns regarding the lack of
overflow parking, in anticipation that guests would park in the fire lanes. However,
Planning Division Staff determined that the project is not required to provide additional
off-street parking places for guests or delivery vehicles because it meets the Community
Development Code's minimum off-street parking requirements! Exhibit 1, page 6;
Testimony of Mr. Clugston. No Fire Department or other agency comments were
included in the record. '
16. The Applicant representative stated that the private access easement would accommodate
garbage trucks and emergency vehicles. Street parking was reported to be available on
238t' Street SW; however, the number of parking spaces on 238ffi and the distance
between the various units and available street parking were not known at time of hearing.
Regarding the real -world consideration of guest parking, the Applicant representative
conceded that it could be challenging for guests of residents but noted that the proposal
complies with code requirements. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
17. The site plan depicts garages facing each other across the 24-1oot private access easement
in the following lots: 6 and 35; 7 and 34; 8 and 33; 13 and 32; 14 and 31; 22 and 30; 23
and 29; 24 and 28; and 25 and 27. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5.
18. As proposed, each unit's garbage cans would be kept inside the attached garage.
Testimony of Ms Morgan.
19. In November 2007, the Applicant submitted a document entitled "Traffic Impact
Analysis Worksheet" (worksheet).g The traffic worksheet indicates that the 35-unit
project would result in a total of 205 average daily trips, including 19 PM peak hour trips.
Estimating traffic counts from the existing 12 units on -site, the worksheet projected that
the proposed development would result in 126 new average daily trips, including 12 new
PM peak hour trips. The source of the numbers for project trip generation is not provided
(no reference source is cited). The worksheet omits information and analysis regarding:
sight distance assessment at the site entrance; existing and projected levels of service at
area intersections; vehicle storage and queuing within the project or turning into the
project off of SR 104; and local accident history. The worksheet calculates traffic impact
7 The Staff report states: " It is anticipated that this inadequacy in the code will be addressed during the current code
rewrite process." Exhibit 1, page 6.
s This traffic worksheet references a project called "Edmonds Townhouses" owned/applied for by North West
Townhomes LLQ however it considers 35 lots with a single point of access to SR 104. Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16
page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 28
8.B.e
assessment fees for the new units (35 less the existing 12 = 23 units at $472.24 each) to
be $10,064.52. Timing of payment is not identified. Exhibit 8, Traffic Impact
Worksheet.
20. There is no information in the record from the Washington State Department of
Transportation concerning the project's potential impacts to traffic on SR 104 or nearby
Highway 99, and no information concerning state highway standards with which the
project must comply, if any. The traffic impact worksheet indicates: "state mitigation to
be determined." Exhibit 8.
21. The Applicant submitted a stormwater drainage report on March 13, 2008. The drainage
report indicates that, in the existing developed condition, site stormwater runoff drains
north towards SR 104. Existing catch basins and storm pipes along the south and west
property lines capture upstream runoff and convey it to the municipal storm drain in
adjacent rights -of -way. Very little (to zero) off -site runoff enters the subject property
currently. The proposed stormwater improvements would capture and convey
stormwater from new impervious surfaces to a detention pipe that would release through
a flow control structure to an existing municipal catch basin in 238"' Street SW.
According to the Applicant's drainage report, fill would need to be imported to the
relatively flat site to provide the required 18 inches of cover in order to construct the
required conveyances. The system would be designed to detain the 10- and 100-year
storm events. All site runoff is conveyed in pipes directly to Puget Sound. Filter
technology is proposed to provide water quality control. Erosion and sediment control
practices are proposed during construction. Exhibit 9.
22. A homeowners' association is proposed for management of the access easement and
irrigation for all landscaping on -site. Testimony of Ms Morgan, Testimony of Mr.
Parsaie.
23. No open space or parkland dedication was required for this project. No analysis of parks
and recreation impacts was conducted during review of the project. Exhibit 1, page 5,
Testimony of Mr Clugston.
24. All units are proposed to connect to Olympic View Water and Sewer District services.
Exhibit 2. Water and sewer availability were not addressed in the record.
25. In Washington State, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty
of the state.' Subdivisions in Washington State are required to make appropriate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and
for safe walking conditions for school -aged children. RC3' 58.17110. Edmonds
Community Development Code contains the same requirement. ECDC 20.75.020. The
record does not contain comments from the school district. At the time of hearing it was
not known which school facilities would serve children in the plat. No school impact
fees were assessed for this project. Testimony of Mr: Clugston.
9 Washington State Constitution, Article 9, § 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 29
8.B.e
26. The City of Edmonds Planning Division undertook review of the proposal pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) at the time of site plan review by the
Architectural Design Board. On May 7, 2007, the Planning Division issued a
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), which is a determination that the project
would not result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The DNS was
not appealed and became final on May 21, 2007. The DNS was based on an earlier
iteration of the project consisting of 35 units in 11 buildings with a smallest proposed lot
size of 1,473 square feet. On January 23; 2008, Planning Staff adopted the May 7, 2007
DNS for the purpose of subdivision review." Exhibit 3, Attachment 3, DNS, Testimony
of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 6.
27. The open record public hearing on the formal plat was advertised consistent with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 7, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
28. The City received public comments expressing the following concerns: the Applicant did
not enter the site into a City stormwater plan currently under review; lack of open space
or recreational opportunities on -site; and lack of off-street parking for delivery drivers
and guests. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge, Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Tearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide formal plat requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B)(5).
Criteria for formal plat review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.080 and ECDC 20.75.085, formal plats may be approved if
the following findings can be entered:
ECDC 20.75.080:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meets requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or other adopted city policy, and
is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification has been
approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75;
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain management.
10 Neither the May 7, 2007 DNS nor the January 23, 2008 Adoption of Existing Environmental Determination
identify the materials reviewed in reaching the environmental threshold determination. The Applicant's traffic
impact worksheet was submitted in November 2007 and the final stormwater management plan was submitted in
March 2008, after the DNS was issued. Exhibit 3, Attachment 3; Exhibit 6; Exhibit S.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page S of 14
Packet Pg. 30
8.B.e
ECDC 20.75.085:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the
resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and
by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to
be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be
denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs
A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and
so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special
conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed
properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land
for streets, including those on the official street reap and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements
of:
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat No. P-2008-16
page 9of14
Packet Pg. 31
b. ECDC Chapter 19.25, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief
E. Flood Plain. Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set
forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The ECDC criteria are similar to those set forth in the state subdivision statute. Section
58.17.110(2) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states as follows:
A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or
county legislative body makes written findings that:
a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys,
other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all
other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from
school; and
b. the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision and dedication.
DISCUSSION
The Multiple Residential district development standards table contains a column establishing the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (See ECDC 16. 30.030(A).) Footnote number four in the
minimum lot area column directs the reader to: "See definition of townhouse" On the subject of
lot area, the definition of townhouse says:
Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of
the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the
individual units. ECDC 21.100.040(E).
The Applicant's proposal is based on a Planning Division policy allowing substandard lots in
townhouse subdivisions. According to testimony, the Planning Division policy is based on an
uncodifiied interpretation of the townhouse definition to mean that lot area may be reduced below
the minimum established for the particular RM zone to be as small as proposed, so long as
maximum gross density is not exceeded. This policy establishes no minimum lot size. On this
theory, developers could propose 500 square foot or even smaller lots and lump excess site area
into parking lots or other common areas and there would be no grounds for denial if the number
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 32
8.B.e
of lots did not exceed the gross density calculated as available to the site. Such a policy assumes
that the local government has no legitimate interest in dictating the smallest residential lot
allowed.
An alternative interpretation of the townhouse definition at ECDC 21.100.040(E) would be that
townhouse lots may be 100% occupied by the residential structure; for example in the RM 1.5
zone, a 1,500 square foot lot would be allowed to be developed with a 1,500 square foot
residential structure. Of note, the lot area subpart of the townhouse definition (quoted above in
this discussion section) assumes that portions of a townhouse project site may not be
encompassed within individual lots. Maximum site coverage (45 % in the RM zones) could be
accomplished by retaining common areas not developed with structures. This alternative
interpretation of the townhouse definition would assume townhouse.lots are required to comply
with the minimum lot area.
The Planning Division policy requiring townhouse subdivision exterior setbacks (around the
outer perimeter of the development window) to conform to the underlying zone's standards, but
excusing internal front, rear, and street setbacks, has no basis in the zoning code. By the plain
language of the definition, zero lot lines (called "common side walls joining units" in the
townhouse definition) pertain only to side setbacks in attached dwelling units.
The Planning Division policy creates a new kind of development -- the townhouse subdivision —
that is not established in the City Code and grants it similar flexibility as is provided in a planned
residential development (PRD), which is expressly established in the City Code at ECDC 20.35.
In Edmonds, PRD developments may modify the bulk dimensional standards of the underlying
zoning district, subject to requirements to: 1) visually screen denser development from
surrounding land uses and 2) provide a clear benefit to the public in exchange for design
flexibility (among other requirements). Means of providing public benefit stated in the PRD
provisions include, but are not limited to, preservation of on -site natural areas, provision of more
open space or recreational opportunities than are required in the zone, and provision of additional
transportation connections beyond the minimum required. ECDC 20.35.040 and. 050. The
Planning Division's townhouse subdivision policy would confer the benefits of a PRD (reduced
bulk dimensional standards) without requiring the PRD's clear public benefit, screening, or
review of an application seeking such modifications. The policy places the content of a
definition (from the definitions chapter) in a position of higher importance than the development
standard established in the zoning ordinance. Assuming no minimum lot size was contemplated
by the Code's drafters is inconsistent with the plain language of both the zoning ordinances and
the subdivision ordinance, as well as with the local government's legitimate interest in and
obligation to regulate land use for the general welfare." The R.M-1.5 zone already provides the
smallest residential lot and densest residential development permitted in the City, at 29 units per
acre. In order to approve even smaller lots, more explicit direction from the legislative body is
necessary.
i � See discussion of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power, generally, in Edmonds Shopping Cir. Assocs. Y.
City of Edmonds, 117 Wn. App. 344,352 (2003), citing Weden v. ,San Juan County,135 Wn.2d 678,692 (1998).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing _Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 33
8.B.e
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with several
requirements established in ECDC 20.75.080 and .085.
A. The record doesn't demonstrate compliance with the purposes of the City's
subdivision ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.020:
"The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare; in accordance with state standards to prevent
overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm
drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds,
and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumentinp of subdivisions and accurate legal
descriptions of subdivided lots." 2
1. To the extent that the record does not contain evidence of review of the following
items, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the
purposes of the City's subdivision ordinance: traffic flow within the proposed
development; compliance with City and State road standards regarding ingress/egress
on SR 104 and access easement design; and adequacy of schools and parks/recreation
facilities. The Examiner is also concerned that the proposed 35 substandard units
accessed by a 24-foot wide access casement from a single ingress on SR 104 would
constitute overcrowding.
Findings Nos. 19, 20, 23, and 25.
B. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and no modification has
been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75.
Criteria for subdivision approval explicitly require findings of compliance with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district, specifically with dimensional
standards. ECDC 20. 75. 080(C) and ECDC 20. 75.085(B)(3). The minimum lot area
in the RM-1.5 zone is 1,500 square feet. Of the 35 proposed lots, 17 would be
smaller than 1,500 square feet, with the smallest lot at 1,123 square feet.
'Z These purposes are substantially the same as the purposes stated in the state's subdivision regulations in the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.010, which begins with the preamble: "The legislature finds that the
process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by
cities, towns, and counties throughout the state_ The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and
to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to
prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion... (omitted) " (emphasis added)
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-200846
page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 34
8.B.e
2. The Community Development Code defines a street as "the public or private right-of-
way or access easement which provides vehicle access to five or more lots." ECDC
21.90.120 (emphasis added). Thus, for subdivision purposes, the proposed access
easement is a street, and street setbacks must be provided on each lot.13 In the RM-
1.5 zone, the minimum street setback is 15 feet. ECDC 16.30.030(A). The proposed
site plan provides no building setback from street lot lines, placing the access
easement within the required street setback.
3. The subdivision code provides a process for modifications to the development
standards of the underlying zone. The process requires notice, public hearing, and
compliance with variance criteria. ECDC 20 75. 075. The Planning Division's
uncodified townhouse policy nullifies and/or circumvents this process and is
inconsistent with the purposes of the subdivision ordinance.
Findings Nos. 9, 11, and 12.
C. The record does not contain evidence showing the project can comply with the lot
and street layout requirements at ECDC 20.75.085(B), (C), and (D). The record
contains almost no information about the proposed internal access easement and no
analysis of road standards with which it must comply. This access easement is the only
means of vehicular and pedestrian access to 35 dwelling units containing 70 off-street
parking spaces. According to testimony, the access is a `private driveway" comprised of
an easement over privately owned property belonging to each lot. However, as stated
above, it must be considered a street for subdivision lot layout purposes. ECDC
21.90.120. The townhouse definition cannot excuse projects from the requirement of
providing street setbacks consistent with zoning standards. All subdivisions are required
to set aside adequate land for roads, whether private or public. ECDC 20.75.085(B) (3),
(B) (4), (C) (3), (D) (1), and (D) (2)- As proposed, on garbage day, each unit's garbage cans
would be moved into the access easement, further complicating circulation. Morning
peak hour conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles jockeying to exit garages that face
each other across only 24 feet of roadway immediately adjacent to residential stuctures
are foreseeable, as are guest and delivery vehicle parking in the fire lane. Findings Nos.
9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
D. The record contains no evidence upon which findings of compliance with public
works and fire code requirements can be made. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2),
the Examiner is charged with determining the improvements necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of Chapter 18, Public Works, and 19.25 Fire Code." No
evidence was offered and no findings may be entered.
" Pursuant to ECDC 21..90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or
structure to be set back from the street lot line.
14 ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2)(b) refers to the Fire Code as being found in 19.75, which appears to be a typographical
error.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Totwnhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 35
8.B.e
2. The record contains insufficient evidence to enter findings for consistency with the
public health, safety, and general welfare. No analysis of open space or recreation
impacts, road standards, schools or safe walking for school children, or water and sewer
service availability was presented. The record contains no evidence that WSDOT was
contacted about the new traffic proposed on the state roadway or that regulations relating to
access to the State highway, if any, have been considered. The traffic worksheet in the
record does not consider sight distance, access design requirements, vehicle queuing within
the project, or queuing on SR 104 turning into the project. The project admittedly fails to
address the guest, delivery vehicle, or third vehicle ownership parking that must be
anticipated to accompany a 35-unit development. Parking in the fire lanes is entirely
foreseeable. Based on the record presented, the project would not provide street setbacks
between the structures and the right-of-way, creating 35 substandard lots, of which number
17 would be smaller than the minitpum lot allowed in the zone, The project as presented
cannot be found to be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Findings Nos. 9,
11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,23,and 25.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26
acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement tract in a
Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 --- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds,
Washington is DENIED.
DECIDED this 22"d day of May 2008. .
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No P-2008-16
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By.
Sharon A. Rice
page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 36
8.B.e
rh C. 1 S°Jv
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220- FAX (425) 7-71-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT )
Steve Smith Development LLC }
For a Formal Subdivision
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. P-2008-16
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on May 22, 2008 I did serve a copy of the decision in case CU-2008-09 upon the following
individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Northwest Townhomes, LLC
1316 NE 8e Street, #203
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Smith Development, LLC
9500 Roosevelt Way -NE, #300
Seattle, WA 98115
Jean Morgan
Morgan Design Group LLC
11207 Fremont Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 " Packet Pg. 37
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
8.B.e
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds Building Division
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
City of Edmonds Fire Department
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
i hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS day of MIL4 2008 at "'-LL""' , Washington.
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Packet Pg. 38
8.B.e
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
the 1S9"1
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. AU person wishing to file or reWnd to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the
Planning Division of the Development Services D artment or an gAgmey for further pLocedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her 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
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105.010(B) and ECDC
20.100. 010(E) (5)). Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2)
anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at
the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals
to be in writing and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the
decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in
the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development Services Department
within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any
required appeal fee.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For anneals to City Council, 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 or her 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 five of the appeal period, an
individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision
on the reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no further validity if
the applicant does not obtain final plat approval within five years of the date of decision (or, if
appealed, the date of final confirmation by the appeal body).
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.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 39
I
8.B.f
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 12, 2003
To: Interpretations File No. 2003-01
From: Steve Bullock
Subject: Interpretation regarding Townhouse subdivisions:
Date Issued/Posted: JUKE, , 2003
Effective Date: JULY9 2003 (unless appealed in a timely manner)
The City has received a request far a formal interpretation regarding townhouse subdivisions.
Code Sections:
—21:100A40 Townhouse.
f
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls -joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in
the zoning code;
E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of the site
not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the. owners of the individual
units:
21.60.050 Multiple dwelling.
Multiple dwelling means a building or a group of buildings on the same site containing two or
more separate dwelling units. (See also, Dwelling Unit.)
Analysis:
The townhouse section (ECDC 21.100.040) begins by indicating that a townhouse is a "multiple
dwelling" that meets certain listed criteria. The "multiple dwelling" definition (ECDC 21.60.050) makes
clear that dwelling units do not have to be attached in order to be considered multiple dwellings. While.
ECDC 21.100.040 sets forth a maximum number of dwelling units. (i.e., six units) that are allowed in a
townhouse building, no minimum number of dwelling units allowed in such a building is specified.
City of Edmonds cap Planning Division
INTERPRETATION 2003.3 DAC1194UN-43
L:ILISRARYTLANNINGTCDC INT£RPREATI'ONSVNTERPRETATIONS LOGN1999 -
Packet Pg. 40
8.B.f
Additionally, subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 imply that, in order to individually subdivide
attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines will be placed along party or common walls.
However, for detached units in townhouse subdivisions, subsections D and E imply that flexibility exists
to have internal Iot lines placed either along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units or
anywhere between the dwelling units. For either attached or detached dwelling units in townhouse
subdivisions, subsection E of ECDC 21.100.040 allows (a) residential density to be met for the overall
project site rather than on a lot -by -lot basis for the individual lots to be created by a proposed subdivision
and (b) lot areas to be as small as the coverage of the proposed individual dwelling units.
ECDC 21.100.040 does not directly discuss building setback reduction or elimination. However, in order
for (a) lot areas to be able to be as small as dwelling unit lot coverage and (b) lot lines to be able to be
placed (i) on common or party walls in the case of attached dwelling units or (ii) along the edge(s) of
exterior walls of the dwelling units in the case of detached dwelling units, individual townhouse lots
must be exempt from building setback requirements except in the case of required setbacks from a
proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior property lines. Nothing in ECDC 21.100.040 suggests that
townhouse subdivisions would be exempt from required setbacks from exterior property lines. In fact,.
the language of subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 relating to lot coverage, lot area and density
indicate an intent for a townhouse subdivision development to be considered as a whole with all of the
bulk standards to be measured as if the property was not being subdivided. While the proposed garage
appears to meet the bulk standards for developing an accessory building in the RS-12 zone, the definition
of Accessory Building states that the garage must be incidental to the use of the main building on the
property. Planning staff takes that to mean the garage must be built for andused by the primary use on
the site. It can not be a storage facility for owners or tenants who do not act as the primary users of the
site.
THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATIOT� ARE FIEREBYISSLTED ;
1. ECDC 21.100.040 authorizes subdivision of multiple family developments provided that none
of the proposed dwelling units in such a development will vertically overlap any of the other
dwelling units.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units per building in a townhouse subdivision is six.
3. Because no minimum number of dwelling units is stated in ECDC 21.1.00.040, a proposed
development of detached dwelling units. may be subdivided as a townhouse subdivision.
4. In order to individually subdivide attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines
may be placed along party or common walls.
5. For. detached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines may be placed along the edge(s)
. of exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the dwelling units.
6. Building setbacks need only be measured from a proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior
property lines, not from the proposed interior lot lines.A permit for an accessory building may
not be approved if the accessory building is not going to be used for the most part by the
permitted primary use of the property.
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 20.105.010 and 20.105.020, staff
interpretations of the text of the ECDC are appealable decisions.
0
0
0
0
N
a
c
0
N
0
J
c
0
aD
E
c
a�
E
aD
0
U
T
rn
T
c
0
m
L
CL
m
c
0
=a
0
m
0
t
c
3
0
co
c
a�
a
E
M
U
M
a
INTERPRETATION 2003-LDO019-JUN-03
L:U.IBRARYIPLANNINGSECDC INTERPREATIONSIINTERPRETATIONS LOG11999
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 41
8.B.f
Should anyone wish to appeal this interpretation, a written appeal, accompanied by the required appeal
fee (see Planning Division fee handout) must be submitted within 14 calendar days .of the date of
issuance of this interpretation (please see above).
The deadline for filing an appeal of this interpretation is:
A written appeal must contain the following:
1) A reference to the decision being appealed.
2) The name and address of the person appealing, and his or her interest in the matter.
3) The reasons why the person appealing believes the interpretation to be inappropriate.
Concurrence: C01t rrence:
RoberVChave, AICP Duane Bowman
Planning Manager Development Services Director
Posted: 1) Edmonds City Hall, 2nd Floor — Development Services Department
2) Edmonds Library
3) Edmonds Post Office
Posting Date: t2-4 103
Page 3 of 3
INTERPRETATION 2003-I.DO019-JON-03
LALTHRARYIPLANNTNGIECDCRJTj:RPREAT]ONSSMERPRF.TATj0?%'5 WGU999
Packet Pg. 42
8.B.f
r
m
E
t
u
�a
a..
a
Packet Pg. 43
8.B.g
LAND SURVEYING HAI
SENCIVIL ENGINEERING
RM
E'S INC
February 3, 2017
City of Edmonds Community Development Department
Planning Division
121 51h Ave N. _
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Request for a Code Amendment to Create a new section: FEB o , �, 7
ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision
And to add Definitions to ECDC 20.75.030 DEVELOPMENT ShVMROe_:-
And to Remove ECDC 21.100.040.E M NTER
City Planner and Planning Board:
In or around 2000, the City adopted an interpretation that Town House subdivision were permitted by the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) because ECDC 21.100.040.E provided instruction as to how to create such a
subdivision. In this interpretation, lots could be created that were non -conforming to standards of ECDC title 16, but
where the development as a whole conformed to the standards of ECDC title 16. Using that interpretation, the City
approved several such subdivisions.
Similar Codes that permit this type of development have been adopted by cities across our region as a response to a
crisis in liability in the State Condominium law. For several reasons, the State condominium statute has created unusual
liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders can't get insurance to design and
construct condos. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This situation has artificially depressed the
multiple family residential market at a time when our region is experiencing a housing crisis.
In 2008, the then Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds denied an application for a townhouse subdivision and struck
a,
down the use of the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation. The discontinuance of the interpretation did not stem from a
dissatisfaction with the process or results by staff, applicants or City residents. But rather was based on doubt expressed
>
by the Examiner as to the legal adequacy of the use of an interpretation of a definition section to effect complete deviation
p
from bulk standards.
c�
z
The solution to the Examiner's decision was either to appeal that decision as incorrect, or withdraw the interpretation and
begin work on a new code to replace the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation and to replace the Townhouse
Subdivision definition that led to said interpretation. Neither the (then) applicant nor the City chose to appeal the
Q
Examiner's decision.
Q-
Q
Following said Hearing Examiner decision, the City withdrew the interpretation of Townhouse Subdivision and began to
pursue a code amendment. The code amendment process has been tied to the overall code revision process. However,
that process is large and has inherent issues that are slowing the process. In the meantime developers are having trouble
E
moving forward with townhouse developments due to the problems with the State Condominium Statutes.
In the 1980's the City of Seattle, adopted a Unit Subdivision Code. This code allows the creation of zero lot line lots that
Q
can be as small as the footprint of a dwelling unit, so long as the overall development meets the bulk and development
standards of the parent lot. This code has been very successful and has stood the test of time. Now, with the
E
condominium insurance crises, many jurisdictions are seeing the unit lot subdivision as solution to continue implementing
c�
a
C:IUseisl1obn\Dropbox\ProjeclsMestgate WoodMcode amendmennnarrative docx
ISLAND COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY SKAGIT COUNTY
840 SE 81h Avenue, Ste. 102 125 East Main Street, Ste. 104 603 South First Street
Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 Monroe, Washington 98272 Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637
Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver
www.Harmseninc.com
Packet Pg. 44
8.B.g
Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative
February 3, 2017
their comprehensive plans in multiple family zones. Jurisdictions such as Kirkland, Redmond, and Snohomish County
have adopted similar regulations.
To create this code we propose to add a section to the subdivision code (ECDC 20.75.045). For coordination in the
overall code several other amendments are needed. First ECDC 20.75.030 contains some definitions pertinent to
subdivision. Two new definitions need to be added here. Second ECDC 21.100.040 is the existing definition of
"Townhouse". Subsection E contains the directions for a Townhouse Subdivision. That section would be in conflict and
should be deleted. And finally, since there is a "Townhouse" definition for vertically separated dwelling units, there should
be a "flats" definition for horizontally separated dwelling units. I propose that definition as ECDC 21.30.032.
As well as the unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have
been adopted. In the proposed code amendment for the City of Edmonds we have addressed these issues:
Issues of concern and addressed within Unit Subdivisions and proposals to address the issues:
1. How many units can be included in one unit lot?
There is a new trend in real estate development and investment. That is for a developer to develop a multiple
family site with several multiple unit buildings, then sell individual buildings to property management companies
for future leasing of the individual units. The option to use the unit subdivision to separate multiple unit buildings
within one development is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other
jurisdictions. However, since it is not expressly prohibited, and is not contrary to the intent of the Unit Subdivision
code of the Comprehensive Plan both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted this. In Edmonds, this
option would also not violate the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we have expressly permitted this option in this
proposal to avoid future confusion.
2. A subdivision is a two dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two
dimensional box described in the plat. Therefore, there can be no portions of any one unit that overhangs a
portion of another unit. This excludes flats. Other codes are not clear in the exclusion of flats except by
interpretation of definitions. We added a section to expressly exclude flats — except in the instance where a unit
lot would contain an entire multiple family building.
3. The point made above in number 2 also creates a potential problem in exterior maintenance. When I asked a
supervisor at the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) what is the one thing you would
change with your unit subdivision code, this is it. In point 2 above I described the projection of the two-
dimensional lot lines. When looking at the exterior of a building that is divided in this fashion, it might be hard to
tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who
maintains what. Therefore, I have added a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the
building(s).
4. A unit subdivision only works if it is associated with a development — either a development proposal or an existing
development. As in no one can apply for a unit subdivision as a standalone the way a standard subdivision is
applied for. This aspect of unit subdivision is not clear in other codes. In Seattle, this is enforced by
interpretation. Snohomish County is still struggling with this issue and is now enforcing it through their Urban
Residential Design Standards section. We created a section for this purpose.
5. In many jurisdictions (Redmond and Snohomish County are examples) access requirements are not tied to the
type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a multiple family development is proposed
with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lines are required. However, if a subdivision is proposed,
the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. In Redmond's code this conflict
is not addressed, and multiple family developments choosing to use a Unit Subdivision must either construct
roads that are not appropriate for multiple family development (and don't comply with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan), or the applicant must apply for a road deviation — which the City has been approving. This
was not the intent of Redmond's Unit Lot Subdivision. To insure that this result does not occur in Edmonds, we
have added a section to clarify which regulations should apply.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 45
Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative
February 3, 2017
8.B.g
6. Both the City of Seattle and Snohomish County have a section discussing that this process creates non-
conforming lots. Neither is explicit about how that impacts the future unit owner. Our proposal is more explicit
about the impacts to future unit lot owners. Seattle required a notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat to
ensure that future unit lot owners understand this impact. Other jurisdictions do not make this requirement. We
believe that Seattle is right to require the notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat and have included that
requirement in this proposed code amendment.
The City of Seattle will not accept a Unit Lot final plat application until at least the development foundations are
installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot line is set on the
common wall. Snohomish County does not make this requirement. This requirement is not codified in the Seattle
Code. It appears that Seattle makes this requirement based on experience. As a project manager, I have seen
very few foundations installed precisely per plan, so Seattle's requirement makes sense to me. I asked four
licensed land surveyors who have experience in construction staking what they thought of this. Two of them
agreed that Seattle's condition makes sense. Two of them said that it should be up to the building inspector to
require foundation staking in a unit subdivision. My impression is that requiring the foundations to be installed
and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the buildings to be staked and the
inspector to verify. Therefore, I have added a section requiring that, at a minimum, development foundations are
installed and located by the project licensed surveyor prior to the submittal of a final plat application.
House Keeping Amendments:
1. Two Definitions should be added to ECDC 20.75.030: "Unit Lot Subdivision" and "Parent Lot"
2. With this addition, ECDC 21.100.040.E. the portion of the definition of Townhouse that give subdivisional direction
should be removed.
3. ECDC 21.30.032 — Add a definition of "Flat(s)"
Thank you for you considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions
or concerns.
Sincerely
John Bissell, AICP
Planning Director
Harmsen Associates, INC.
Packet Pg. 46
8.B.h
Unit Subdivision Code Amendments FEB 0
i r
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
D. "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land for the purpose of
allowing fee simple ownership of dwelling units where the bulk standards are tied to the
parent lot (See ECDC 20,75.045).
E. "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status which creates the boundary of a
development application in which the proposed or approved result is multiple lots.
ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision (A New Section)
A. Applicability and Purpose.
The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family
dwelling units, townhouse, rowhouse, cottage housing exclusively in zones that allow more
than one dwelling unit per lot, and only for detached units and/or for units that are vertically
separated with no element of any one unit over or below any element of any other unit
except for exterior elements inherent to the building design or structure such as (but not
limited to) eave overhangs, gutters and siding (see 20.75.045.F). Accessory dwelling units
are specifically excluded from this section. Flats may only be included when the unit lot
contains all dwelling units within one building. One unit subdivision lot may contain
multiple dwelling units.
B. Association With Site Development — Application Timing:
A unit Lot Subdivision is a method of dividing ownership of the built environment. The
application can only be associated with a development plan or an existing developed site.
In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can
only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required
by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.B.3 submitted
conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit.
C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot
The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable to the parent lot
(ECDC 20.75.030.E) at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the unit lot
subdivision, the individual unit lots may result in different bulk standards than those
Packet Pg. 47
8.B.h
required by ECDC Title 16.
Access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn arounds and
access of/to the parent lot from/to the street shall be based on the requirements of the site
plan for the parent lot, and not based on standards for a subdivision.
D. Future Additions and Modifications
Due to 20.75.045.13 future additions, or modifications to the development may affect only
the unit lot, or may affect the development as a whole. Changes requiring permitting that
affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated as to compliance with the
requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes may affect the permitting for the
original development of the parent lot (ECDC 20.75.030.E). In such cases, additions, or
modifications to the development will be evaluated within the boundaries of the parent lot
from which the unit lot was created. Any application for such changes will require
authorization of all owners within the parent lot.
E. Access Easements and Parking
Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use
of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as but not limited to
recreation space, common courtyard open spaces for cottage housing and other open
space), and other similar features, and shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. .
F. Maintenance Agreements
Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed and recorded as an element of
the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in
cases where all dwelling units are detached. The joint maintenance agreement shall
require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The joint maintenance
agreement shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat This requirement does not apply to
detached single family dwelling units.
G. Parking on different Unit Lots Allowed:
Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different
unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is
Packet Pg. 48
8.B.h
formalized by an easement on the final plat-
H. Notice of Unit Lot on Final Plat
The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of
the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development
standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the final plat.
1. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at minimum all foundations
are installed and located by the land surveyor of record.
21.30 "F" Terms.
21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated -i.e:
stacked above and/or below each other.
21.100.040 Townhouse.
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning
code;
E. Lot area per unit fn�pur-pGses-•ct--su diviSiop—may-[ EB-a&4 4a4-as4-ie-S9vefage of-t�le-11�iV{d±��1--�1FFi-t� Li£3
long as4heoveAde not iwded-for
individual --wits steal{ he held-i GGrRoa-by-tie-awner.&W the4f4dividLal- ni{-
Packet Pg. 49
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 1 of 16
8.B.i
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
20.75.020 Purposes.
20.75.025 Scope.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
20.75.040 Application.
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
20.75.075 Modifications.
20.75.080 General findings.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
20.75.105 Repealed.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats.
20.75.110 Changes.
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
20.75.175 Court review.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
20.75.185 Penalties.
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and
implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW.
20.75.020 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are:
Packet Pg. 50
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 2 of 16
8.B.i
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in
accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots
20.75.025 Scope.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW
58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel
trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site
plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building
purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term
subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term
lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or development or
any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is
intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is
specified.
B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter.
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms provided
by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently
with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and
other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly
Packet Pg. 51
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2075.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 3 of 16
8.B.i
requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those
specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community
development department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the
land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land
surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC
20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the
applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and
other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be
used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact
of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or
unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or
his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her
designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make
existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site
or division;
Packet Pg. 52
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4 of 16
8.B.i
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and
shall at a minimum contain the following information:
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The
dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in
the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as
promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the
following:
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned
setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not
include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in
the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and
reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete
application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable
cause.
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to
the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 63,
2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
Packet Pg. 53
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 5 of 16
8.B.i
20.75.055 Lot combination.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or
nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect
at the time of said combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest
in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director
finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The
director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined,
negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant
to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning
policies.
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300
feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of
the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord.
3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing
the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed
to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a
short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state
of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of
50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats
for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an
8-1/2-by-1 1 -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
Packet Pg. 54
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 6 of 16
8.B.i
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual
shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the
owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the
community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All
contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical
relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within
or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of
existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the
proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any;
N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in
diameter in areas as requested by the planning director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to
be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and
proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and
areas subject to flooding;
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division;
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the
proposed subdivision;
U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact
of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.1.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning staff
member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works
director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary
review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
Packet Pg. 55
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 7 of 16
8.B.i
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a
date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the
following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant
to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any
portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days
prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the
city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county
boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent
to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a
location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of
filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type
III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short
subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the
community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter
20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65,
2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 19831.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
......... ......... ......... ........ .........
The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the
date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time
needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said
90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 20101.
20.75.075 Modifications.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular
subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the
requested modification.
Packet Pg. 56
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 8 of 16
8.B.i
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be
considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the
proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of
the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 3211 § 6,
1998].
20.75.080 General findings.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for
the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in
ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification
has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community
Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 19841.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the
proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent
restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be
divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or unstable soil or
geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition
can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult
to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed
on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
Packet Pg. 57
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 9 of 16
8.B.i
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible
access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets
may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities,
shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of
ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the
planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for
streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks
and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage
systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to
meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community development
director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from
the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope
conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are
met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the
Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management. [Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord.
2466, 1984].
Packet Pg. 58
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 10 of 16
8.B.i
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of
any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a
combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the
land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required
unless dedication is proposed and approved.
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision
proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a
formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks
Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for
dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land.
E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period
established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the
expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence
upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds
hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds
city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date
of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has
acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall
commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is
appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period
shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the
hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1, 20131.
20.75.105 Extensions of time.
....................................................................................................................................
Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 19831.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short
plats.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary
Packet Pg. 59
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 11 of 16
8.B.i
approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further
validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless
the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-
year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the
parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes.
A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff
decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of
approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts
to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner
as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be
processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of
correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
................................. .. ......................................................... .
A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the
applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval,
allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a
licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines
that engineer plans are not necessary.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the
public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the
applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the
applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat
is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to
guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The
bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the
director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements
for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the
applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against
defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines that
installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short
Packet Pg. 60
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 12 of 16
8.B.i
subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any
development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the
final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary
plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall
be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or
supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which
the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners,
boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land,
and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of
setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this section
shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection G is
required for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and
according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they
have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public,
acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any
governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required
improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner
of direct access to any street from any property.
Packet Pg. 61
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 13 of 16
8.B.i
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be
dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed
means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way,
design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council,
or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community
development director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of
the preliminary approval;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council
or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has
approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments
for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been
paid.
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat:
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each
check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or re-
established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of
balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and
distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one
foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and
shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Packet Pg. 62
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 14 of 16
8.B.i
The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following
circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot
proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat
that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each
proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement
plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works.
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction
within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant
agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review.
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall review
the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type
IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their
recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the
proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been
met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city
council approval on the final plat.
E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all
dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 19941.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and the
community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short
subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this
chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such
administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II
decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval
of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent
agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or
the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 §
1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a
reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be
sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall
not be considered "approved" until so filed with the county auditor.
Packet Pg. 63
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 15 of 16
8.B.i
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes
allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat
for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of the community
development code, other than lot area, are met.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the
requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years
from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains
fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the
original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a
total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 2623 § 1, 19871.
20.75.175 Court review.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful,
arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of
Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself
or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court
within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records ordered
certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless:
(1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is
determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this
section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of
record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development
regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record"
status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant
must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question.
If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question
were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not
be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction;
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject
parcel as a separate lot; and
Packet Pg. 64
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 16 of 16
8.B.i
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the
applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the
applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had
the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already
been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with
the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014].
20.75.185 Penalties.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or
transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale,
offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be
deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the
right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance
with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be
paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6,
2016.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
Packet Pg. 65
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 4
8.B.j
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 variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than
are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment;
B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple
residential uses. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.010 Uses.
..................................... ............. ........... ......... ............ ......... ....... ......... .. .......... ..............
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Multiple dwellings;
2. Single-family dwellings;
3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities;
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. Boarding houses 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);
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.
Packet Pg. 66
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/htmi/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.htm1 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 4
8.B.j
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 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;
4. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction 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 subsection (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 facilities;
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 and preschools for 13 or greater children;
4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities;
5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the
criteria for regional public facilities 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 requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential
portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the
benefit of the residents thereof;
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. 3988
§ 8, 2015; Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.020 Subdistricts.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Packet Pg. 67
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/htmi/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.htm1 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 4
8.B.j
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 factors. [Ord
3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.030 Site development standards.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Table.
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Subdistrict
Per Dwelling Unit3
Street
Side
Rear
Maximum
Maximun
Height
Coverage
(Sq. Ft.)
Setback
Setback
Setback
RM-1.5
1,500
15'
10,
15'
251
45%
RM-EW
1,500
15'
10,
15'
25A
45%
RM-2.4
2,400
15'
10,
15'
261
45%
RM-3
3,000
15'
15'
15'
25,1
45%
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 IRS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones
3 See definition of townhouse.
4 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the
following apply to the site and proposed development:
(a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design:
(1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification;
(2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish
County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units
proposed;
(3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but
are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil
quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use.
B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code
(Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to
buildings within the RM-EW zone:
1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with
preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and
glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they
Packet Pg. 68
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/htmi/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.htm1 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 4 of 4
8.B.j
replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade
materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous.
C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. [Ord. 3943 § 2
(Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.040 Site development exceptions.
........... ................ ........... ..
A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet.
B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC
16.20.050.
C. Setback Encroachments.
1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor
improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches.
2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed
porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of
the required setback, or four feet, 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 setbacks shall
be side setbacks. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6,
2016.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
u
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.htm1
Packet Pg. 69
3/15/2017
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Review of Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda is attached
Attachments:
03-22-2017 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 70
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
pAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
"n, 790
March 22, 2017 UPDATED
Meeting Item
MARCH 2O17
March 22 1. Introduction to Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment
2. Introduction to Highway 99 Development Amendments
APRIL 2017
April 12 1. Presentation on Highway 99 Code Amendments
April 26 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Amendment for proposed change
from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor (Fraser Fir
Tree / AMD20160008)
2. Public Hearing on Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment
MAY 2017
May 10 1. Rezone for Property under Contract Rezone R-97-28 (contract RS-8
to RS-12)
2. Public Hearing and Recommendation on proposed Highway 99 Code
Amendments
May 24 1. Retreat (tentative)
TUNE 2017
June 14 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Update
June 28
JULY 2017
July 12
July 26
Packet Pg. 71
Items ana Dates are
9.A.a
to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2017 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 72