Loading...
2017-04-26 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 26, 2017, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: April 12, 2017 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Amendment to change designation of two parcels designated Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor at 9111 & 9107 236th St. SW B. Public Hearing for Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 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 April 26, 2017 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 Approval of Draft Minutes: April 12, 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: PB170412d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 12, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder El BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 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 Robert Sieu advised that he owns commercial property along Highway 99 (Burlington site), and he has met several times with the City's Development Services Director, Shane Hope, and the consultant, John Fregonese, to discuss issues that concern him. He was also present at the Board's December meeting where he voiced concern that the proposal would require all future development to be brought to the street. As currently proposed, at least 50% of any new building must be within 10 feet of the curb or sidewalk. He voiced concern about uniformly applying this constraint to all property along Highway 99. He explained that some parcels are very large and it would be difficult to comply. For example, his property is located at the very south end of the Edmonds portion of Highway 99 near the interchange between SR-104 and Highway 99. It is bordered on the south side by 242"d Street, which is a dead end, and on the north side by 240"' Street, which is a very lightly -used street. The requirement that all development be placed close to Highway 99 would severely block the visibility of a large portion of his property, which is very deep. Mr. Sieu said the consultant is proposing an alternative to address properties that are constrained, which would allow buildings to be 60 feet away from the property line and have a row of parking in front. However, this alternative would still Packet Pg. 3 result in development that blocks visibility for the majority of his property. He asked that this concern be specifically addressed by the consultant. He reminded the Board of previous discussions about the uniqueness of his property, which is very large and right at the interchange. He hopes there will be some exceptions written into the code to address his needs. Otherwise, he would be precluded from further developing the site in the future. Mr. Sieu also voiced concern about the proposed requirement for an amenity zone that equals 5% of the building area footprint or 5% of the parking area, whichever is greater. It is important to note that most of the buildings on this stretch of the highway do not have structured or underground parking. While requiring amenity space equal to 5% of the building footprint may be reasonable, 5% of the parking area would not. This is particularly true if the City's intent is to encourage mid -rise buildings. Although their footprint would be rather small, the parking requirement would still be significant. He reminded the Board that it is already difficult to create feasible development proposals that meet the City's requirements, and the problem will be even greater as buildings go up in height. Mr. Sieu recalled that early discussions suggested a parking requirement of .75 spaces per residential unit, but the requirement was later increased to 1 parking space per unit. He reminded the Board that parking is one of the major c constraints of buildings going higher to maximize the use of a given property, and providing structured or underground N parking is costly. The trend in the area is for lower parking requirements, particularly for development along a transit csi corridor like Highway 99. He suggested that the City lower the requirement back to .75 unless there is a good reason for the increase. He explained that developers will need to figure out the amount of parking needed for a project to be viable. If the C market will not accept anything less than 1 space per unit, then that is likely what developers will provide. However, the code should provide flexibility. r Mr. Sieu said he recently had a discussion with Mr. Fregonese about the proposed alternative for constrained properties that c would allow for a 60-foot setback from the highway. However, he clarified that the current proposal would limit parking to just one row, even though the 60-foot setback would accommodate two rows of parking with a driveway in between. He Q asked that the Board consider his concerns and provide flexibility in the code to address his unique circumstances. For example, he pointed out that 240th Street is a dead end and no longer connects to Highway 99. In addition, his property is 0 about 9 feet higher in elevation than the street, and it would be a waste to put a sidewalk and activity area along this street. > 0 L DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD 0. a Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. She In specifically noted the forum on local low-income housing needs, sponsored by the Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition in cooperation with the City of Edmonds. The event is scheduled for April 24th at 6:30 p.m. in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds N Library. She suggested that at least one Board Member commit to attend the event. Board Member Lovell agreed to attend, N and Chair Rubenkonig asked that other Board Members who plan to attend should notify Board Member Lovell in advance. le 0 ti Board Member Lovell requested an update on the status of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Ms. Hope reported that the op City Council recently decided on Option M relative to buffers on property surrounding the marsh. The City Council's a decision was transmitted to the Department of Ecology (DOE), and the DOE will review the option and provide feedback about any changes that need to be made. After approval by the DOE, the SMP will come back before the City Council for final adoption. Board Member Lovell asked what the process would be if the DOE denies Option M. Ms. Hope answered that, if the DOE has significant concerns about Option M, they could direct the City Council to change it or come up with a M new option. However, staff does not believe that is likely. The DOE may suggest or require some minor changes, but they Q appear to be comfortable with the concept outlined in Option M. PRESENTATION ON HIGHWAY 99 CODE AMENDMENTS Ms. Hope explained that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and implementing code language are strategies to make the highway a real option for redevelopment while recognizing that there is already a lot of great development along the corridor. She introduced the consultant, John Fregonese, of Fregonese & Associates, who was present to review the proposed code language. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a John Fregonese, Fregonese & Associates, explained that when creating a subarea plan, it is helpful to use pictures to illustrate the intent and desire for the area. The intent of the code language is to create an ordinance that results in the desirable physical improvements without messing with the market or preventing development. When developing the draft code language, he reviewed examples from throughout the country of development in transit -oriented areas. He reviewed that in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, big box retail stores were the common type of development. In these situations, the buildings were set back from the street, with a sea of parking between the building and the street. People walking on the road felt isolated and vulnerable. More recent studies indicate that people would prefer to walk along a building fagade, see other people, have protection from inclement weather, and look into the shops. The intent of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan is to create new buildings that will change the environment of this fairly auto -oriented area. He acknowledged that the area will never be as pedestrian friendly as downtown Edmonds, but there are numerous examples of how placing buildings closer to the street creates a more comfortable environment for pedestrians, and recent development in the City of Shoreline is a great example. He noted that there was initially a lot of push back from larger box stores relative to the concept, but many have now created off -the -shelf designs that meet the standards. He emphasized that the intent is to make the permit process fairly routine so the standards can be applied by the Development Services Director. If the code is too discretionary, it would require a public hearing process. c N Mr. Fregonese referred to Attachment 1, which is the new language proposed for Edmonds Community Development Code cNi (ECDC) 16.40, and Attachment 2, which outlines changes to a portion of the Sign code (ECDC 20.60). He reviewed, that the zoning map would be changed consistent with the final version of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, which consolidates the C existing CG1 and CG2 zoning districts into just one General Commercial (CG) district. In addition, some parcels in the subarea that are currently zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) would be re -designated as CG. He provided the current r zoning map and the proposed zoning map to illustrate the changes. Mr. Fregonese referred to ECDC 16.60.020, which outlines the site development or site design standards that would apply in the CG zone. This section outlines elements a building design must address, such as the requirement that buildings must be located no more than 20 feet from the property line fronting the street. This allows for a Pedestrian Activity Area that is composed of an activity zone, a pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. The activity zone is described as the pedestrian realm from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The pedestrian zone would be located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone and consist of a minimum 5-foot clear and unobstructed path for pedestrians. The streetscape zone would be located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone, and must be a minimum of five feet wide. Typical amenities in the streetscape zone include benches, street lights, street trees, dining tables, bike racks, etc. Mr. Fregonese pointed out that the proposed language provides protection for properties that are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS) when located adjacent to properties zoned CG. As proposed, the portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. This step back area can be used for patios, etc. The 15-foot setback requirement with 10 feet of Type I landscaping would still apply, as well. In addition, a minimum 4-foot Type I landscape buffer would be required for residential parking areas adjacent to RS zones. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that one intent of the subarea plan is to get buildings closer to the street. The proposed code language would limit parking along the street to no more than 40% of the street frontage. Instead, parking would need to be located along the side or at the rear of the building. The idea is to cut the amount of parking adjacent to the street to a reasonable standard. Also, the proposed language would require one electric vehicle charging station for every 10 required residential parking stalls for all new development that includes housing. This will make it more feasible for people in RM developments to own electric cars. Bicycle storage spaces will also be required for RM housing. Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed code language would require pathways within parking lots, and a pedestrian plan will be required for all projects to show how pedestrians will move around the site. The pedestrian access must connect directly to the public sidewalk. For example, if a site is constrained such as to warrant the building be placed 60 feet from the street front with parking in front, a sidewalk or pathway must be provided from the building entrance to the sidewalk along the street front and the requirements for an amenity zone would still apply. He provided a picture to illustrate how this connection could occur. He commented that although the 5% amenity zone requirement can be significant, the amenity zone is important in the area to provide facilities for pedestrians to enjoy. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Mr. Fregonese noted that the proposed design standards also require transparency to prevent blank walls from being created along the street front. In addition, some minor amendments to the sign code (ECDC 20.60) have been proposed, which prohibit new pole signs and reduce the height of freestanding signs. Mr. Fregonese summarized that he would continue to work with staff to provide more details in the draft code language in preparation for a public hearing before the Planning Board in May. Board Member Crank observed that one of the presentation slides was identified as the intersection of Highway 99 and 238'h Street. She said she lives in the neighborhood and the picture does not illustrate what is currently on the ground. Mr. Fregonese responded that the slide was mislabeled, and it actually illustrates the intersection of Highway 99 and 240`' Street. He agreed to make the correction. He explained that he has done some preliminary site planning with the property owner to see how the proposed code language would be applied. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Sieu's concern and asked if the staff and consultant are confident that the proposed c code language is flexible enough to accommodate unique situations. For example, he recalled that a developer has been N trying to do a mixed -use development behind Safeway (238t' Street), but a throughway is needed in order to allow cNi pedestrians to get through the lot and to Highway 99 to catch public transportation. This has been one of the major reasons why the property has not been developed. He said he is also concerned about the applicability of the proposed code language Q' Q to properties in Esperance, which is part of unincorporated Snohomish County. Mr. Fregonese advised that Edmonds is not allowed to create code requirements that apply to these properties unless and until they are annexed into the City. r Again, Board Member Lovell asked if enough flexibility is built into the draft code to allow a property owner with an unusual c situation to redevelop his/her property. If the City wants redevelopment to happen on Highway 99, it needs to change its philosophy to move away from requiring seas of parking and buildings setback from the street. However, there also needs to be provisions in the code that allow some flexibility to make things work for all property owners. Mr. Fregonese explained that there is a tradeoff between flexibility and certainty. It is important for the City to have a process in place that allows staff G to approve development permits for projects along Highway 99 after an administrative review. However, if the code > language allows too much flexibility, the decision will become discretionary and require a public hearing process. The intent a is to provide enough certainty so that permits can be done at the counter without a hearing if the design is consistent with Q. code. The Planned Action Ordinance will also eliminate the need for SEPA review for projects are meet the requirements. Q Mr. Fregonese explained that applicants are encouraged to do their best to meet the standards and requirements. However, N the proposed language also provides an alternative standard to address unique circumstances. As proposed, applicants with unique situations can go through the same administrative permit process but propose a 60-foot setback from the street. N However, the provision that limits parking to no more than 40% of the street front would still apply. He said he believes that le the alternative will take care of most of the situations that are anticipated. Another option would be to have a design ti exception that goes to the Hearing Examiner for approval. If neither the standard nor the alternative will work, the applicant pp would be required to go before the Hearing Examiner and show how his/her proposal would meet the intent of the standards. a This process would take more time to complete, and there would be less certainty for property owners. Sometimes to get the best design possible, it is necessary for the Bity to negotiate with property owners. E Ms. Hope added that the balancing act is not only to provide certainty for the property owner who wants to develop but for t M adjacent property owners, as well. Property owners want assurance that the properties next to them will also develop in a Q nice way so they feel more comfortable doing exciting projects. She felt that most situations could be addressed by the standard or the alternative proposed by the consultant. She acknowledged that there may be some situations that cannot be addressed with the proposed language, and she is confident that the staff and consultant can come up with something that is workable for all property owners. The intent is to avoid having a corridor full of parking. Instead, it would be a more pedestrian -friendly environment where people want to go. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that the City is anticipating that 4,000 additional units and 4,000 additional jobs will be created along the corridor in coming years, and there is already a great transit service in place. As the area becomes more populated, people will likely want to walk to the various services that are offered within a 10-block radius, and the pedestrian Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a access needs to be as comfortable as possible. This concept has been applied in various areas since the 1980s and has resulted in transforming large arterials into pleasant environments that are full of people walking. Board Member Cheung asked if the consultant is aware of any other cities along Highway 99 that have similar design standards in place. Mr. Fregonese answered that Shoreline has tried to incorporate this same concept and has similar codes in place. He agreed to provide more examples at the public hearing of other communities that have implemented similar standards. Vice Chair Monroe asked why mobile home parks and storage facilities would be prohibited along the corridor. Ms. Hope noted that they are also prohibited uses in the current code. They could be added as allowed uses if that is something the Board supports. However, if the uses are not something the City wants to encourage, they should be specifically prohibited to provide additional clarity. Vice Chair Monroe noted that there are currently two mobile home parks and one storage facility along the corridor. Vice Chair Monroe asked for more information about why the minimum lot and lot width areas would be zero. Mr. c Fregonese explained that a property owner may want to create very small lots that covers the footprint of a coffee cart or a N very small kiosk. The intent of the proposed code is that the City is not interested in regulating lot width or lot area. Vice cNi Chair Monroe asked if it would be possible for a property owner to develop the back portion of a property and then subdivide and split off the front portion to use as a parking area to serve the development at the back of the property. Mr. Fregonese C agreed that a property owner may want to develop the back portion of a property first, but he felt there would be economic incentive for him/her to develop the front portion, as well. If the back portion of a property were subdivided, the access would likely be eliminated. In addition, a parking lot would not be a permitted primary use for the front lot. Ms. Hope clarified that stand-alone parking lots that are not associated with a building are not allowed. Mr. Fregonese agreed to research this potential loophole more and report back to the Board. M L Chair Rubenkonig also voiced concern about not having a standard lot area or width requirement. Mr. Fregonese explained 4- that, in commercial development, you get a lot to own or lease and a building, but you are in a planned unit development and G the parking is taken care of by the community. He said he does not believe that lot width or lot area will be a significant > issue. Chair Rubenkonig asked what would happen if a very small lot is abandoned by its former use and it is too small to a accommodate redevelopment. She recalled that, when it comes to residential zones, the City is very careful not to leave behind small lots that cannot be developed. However, this has not typically been a problem in the commercial zones where Q there has been more interest in assembling parcels. Ms. Hope explained that there are a variety of size needs in the c commercial areas, which is different than in the RS zones, where the City wants to encourage more typical yard sizes. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that a note be added to the draft code language to clarify why no minimum lot area is required. Mr. N Chave advised that, historically, there have never been minimum lot sizes in the commercial zones. N Vice Chair Monroe asked if the proposed code would eliminate some ability for flexibility in the commercial zones. Mr. T_ le ti Chave answered that the intent is to provide design standards that are more predictable going forward. However, it will also pp incorporate flexibility, where helpful, and not having a minimum lot size is probably helpful. He commented that not a lot of a subdivisions occur on Highway 99, since most were done years ago. However, there are subdivisions that allow people to lease parcels as part of a larger development. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that this explanation should be included as a note d in the code language. M Vice Chair Monroe noted that there are a number of triangular lots that may skew the frontage area and the photos provided Q in the presentation do not depict these situations. He asked if it is anticipated that the buildings would run parallel to the street. Mr. Fregonese said the triangular wedge could actually become the amenity area. He agreed to provide additional illustrations for the public hearing to show how triangular lot configurations could be dealt with. Vice Chair Monroe noted that the proposed code language would not require underground utilities. Ms. Hope said this is an entirely separate issue that will not be dealt with in the proposed code. While underground utilities are preferred, they are costly. Vice Chair Monroe noted that it would be less costly to do undergrounding as part of a development. Ms. Hope agreed but noted that development would likely occur one parcel at a time, and it is not really feasible to bring the line down to just one parcel. Vice Chair Monroe suggested that perhaps they should at least require that the conduit be laid at the time of construction in anticipation of undergrounding occurring at some point in the future. Ms. Hope agreed to consider this Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 option further. She said the City hopes to address the issue via the street projects it wants to accomplish along Highway 99, and this would take care of the City's rights -of -way. The City is currently working to secure funding for these improvements If a large chunk of the right-of-way is improved at the same time, it is likely that underground utilities would be included as part of the project. Mr. Chave explained that many cities have rules for underground utilities, but they tend to focus on certain areas. The difficulty is related to cost. Most of the utilities are located in the rights -of -way and it is extremely hard to do when development occurs project by project. However, he suggested that underground utilities should be the goal of any large project, especially City street improvement projects. Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that an exception was included in the draft proposal for unique situations. The City cannot predict into the future what great projects will come along that require exceptions. He also asked how many situations exist along the corridor where a step back would be required because the CG zone is located adjacent to an RS zone. Ms. Hope answered that there are not a lot of these situations. Board Member Robles asked if there are currently single-family homes located in the CG zone. Mr. Fregonese answered affirmatively, but clarified that the step back c requirement would only apply to RS zones adjacent to the CG zone and not single-family residential development in the CG N zone. Board Member Robles asked if the proposed code could result in a homeowner being stuck between two commercial cNi developments and unable to sell the home. Mr. Fregonese said there are not many of these situations, but the homes are already compromised as single-family residential units because they are located in a commercial zone. The properties are C zoned commercial and the owners would have a lot of other choices for redevelopment. They would not be stuck with a residential home. d r Board Member Robles asked if people who park behind the buildings will be given the same pedestrian amenities as those c provided along the street front. Mr. Fregonese answered that a pedestrian plan would be required to show a system of pedestrian pathways throughout the site. Interconnectivity would be required between the buildings and to the street front. Q As an example, he referred to the preliminary site design for the Burlington property, which shows a system of walkways that provide safe access to all of the buildings, as well as lighting, landscaping and other amenities. G Board Member Robles asked the minimum distance a building could be to the road. Ms. Hope answered that a 10-foot public a right-of-way would be required, which means the buildings must be at least 15 feet away from the street. Board Member Q. Robles asked where the bike lanes would be located. Ms. Hope answered that there would be no bike lanes on Highway 99, Q but there would be alternative routes located on parallel streets, as well as off -road paths. Board Member Robles asked if to electric scooters and electric bicycles would be accommodated, as well. Ms. Hope answered that the staff and consultant are N still looking at options to accommodate these various modes of transportation, and signing will be particularly important. Board Member Robles asked if there would be signs on the small roads located along buildings and parking areas, and Mr. N Fregonese answered that signage, crosswalks, etc. would be addressed as part of the overall parking plan. 0 ti Board Member Lovell recalled that when the Highway 99 Subarea Planning process started over a year ago, he made the pp strong suggestion that the consultant meet with property owners to find out their thoughts and desires. This work has been a supplemented with talking to the residents along the corridor on a selective basis, as well. As these discussions have occurred, he asked if any property owners expressed an interest in redeveloping their properties. If so, would the proposed d code changes help. Mr. Fregonese answered affirmatively. He said the zoning provisions and general concepts have been well accepted by the property owners they have heard from, and several have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties into 5 or 6-story mixed use buildings. Q Chair Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 16.60.005(D) and asked if it would be appropriate to name the three specific districts. Ms. Hope answered that the subarea plan calls out the three distinct districts, but the distinction is tied to land use rather than zoning. She noted that the purpose section came primarily from the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to explain why the parking requirement was changed from .75 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit. She recalled that the last time the Board discussed the subarea plan, staff explained that things have changed in terms of how much parking is needed for residential units in transit -oriented areas. The Highway 99 corridor is more urban and the Board agreed it would be appropriate to consider a lower parking ratio. Ms. Hope agreed to review the requirement again and provide feedback about whether 1 space or .75 spaces per unit would be the appropriate requirement. Mr. Chave Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 reminded the Board that 1 space per unit would be the default standard, but applicants would have the ability to propose a lower standard based on a parking study. Chair Rubenkonig referred to the proposed Building Design Standards, which lists design elements an applicant should consider. She asked if the list is intended to represent the City's priorities. Ms. Hope answered that the items are not intended to be ranked by order of priority. The elements an applicant chooses will depend on individual circumstances, and applicants are required to do four of the six. Ms. Hope summarized that, for the public hearing, the consultant and staff will provide an overview about the intent and vision of the subarea plan, as well as point out key ideas and themes throughout the draft code language. They will clearly point out where exceptions have been built into the language to address unique circumstances. Chair Rubenkonig commented that additional visuals would also be helpful. She said she has struggled to visualize how the proposed code would play out on Highway 99 given the current buildings that are not likely to redevelop in the next 10 to 15 years. Ms. Hope cautioned that the important thing is to get some development that is close to or exactly what the City is looking for. One or two developments would get things going, and they have heard from several property towners who are excited about c the changes. N N T- Chair Rubenkonig suggested that, rather than providing examples of how Highway 99 has developed in Shoreline and Seattle, it would be more helpful for the consultant to provide visuals of how the concepts being proposed have been applied C in other areas. Mr. Fregonese said he has a library of examples that would help the Board see some of the creative ideas and how big stores have adapted to meet the requirements. d Chair Rubenkonig asked how receptive developers in other areas have been to the concept of requiring amenity space. She noted that this requires them to give up developable land. Mr. Fregonese answered that the proposed standard has not proven difficult to meet in other communities, and he does not believe it would be a breaking point for developers within the Highway 99 Subarea, either. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft code language does not match the diagram provided in Slide 19. Mr. Fregonese said the code language was changed at the last minute, and the diagram has not yet been updated. He agreed to make that change prior to the public hearing. Board Member Lovell recalled that there is a large supermarket located at the intersection of Highway 99 and 220th Street. About a year ago, there was a proposal on the table where the new tenant insisted on having 6,000 square feet of retail business with blank walls facing the sidewalk on 220th Street so that internal customers visiting the supermarket could utilize his business, as well. He asked if the proposed code language would allow these situations to occur. Ms. Hope said the proposed code language would require transparency on the building facades facing the streets, and the front entrances would need to face the main street, as well. Mr. Fregonese agreed to provide illustrations showing how buildings on corner lots have provided access facing the parking and on the street. He summarized that the main entrance does not have to be on the street front, but transparency is required. Vice Chair Monroe said he was under the impression that the main entrance must be located on the primary street frontage. Mr. Fregonese said he would provide pictures to show how corner lots could be clipped to provide an entrance on both street frontages. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig announced that the Planning Board's retreat is scheduled for May 24th, and the Planning Director has secured representatives from the development arm of Bartells to share their experience with developing throughout the greater Seattle area, as well as their specific experience in Edmonds. She invited the Board Members to email her the questions they would like them to address, and suggested the following questions be included: • What sets apart one potential community from another when determining where to site a new development? • What criterial do they look for in a potential site? • What financial partnerships have they been part of that provide affordable housing? • What urban scale are the apartments and what amenities are provided on the site? • How do they view the government process for developing in Edmonds and elsewhere? Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Board Member Lovell asked if the retreat agenda would include other items, as well. He said he anticipated that there would also be a discussion to generate ideas for creating affordable housing in Edmonds. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Bartells Project must provide 20% affordable housing units. Board Member Lovell agreed that is one mechanism to get it done, but there is interest being expressed by the City Council and the general public that the city needs to do more to bring affordable housing into Edmonds. In the case of Bartells, the developer is simply utilizing one mechanism by accepting a financial offer from the State. That is one way to deliver affordable housing, but there are other mechanisms, as well. Although the presentation will be a great place to start, he thought the intent of the retreat was to explore these other options. Chair Rubenkonig felt the presentation would be an excellent use of the Board's time, but she agreed to meet with the Development Services Director to consider additional agenda topics. Projects at Westgate could be used as examples of the type of development that could be done on Highway 99. The Board will have more in-depth discussions about affordable housing options once a consultant has been hired by the City to assist in the creation of Housing Strategies. Board Member Robles agreed it would be helpful to hear about the demographic engine that Bartells uses and what research is done when deciding where to locate developments. Affordable housing is a top priority in the City, but it would be helpful c to know the types of commercial areas that Bartells prefers (i.e. low density or high density, wealthy or lower income, etc.) N N Chair Rubenkonig agreed to work with Vice Chair Monroe to write up the questions and finalize the agenda for the retreat. a Q PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Board Member comments during this portion of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 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. 04.21.17 Packet Pg. 11 5.A.a Al I a lLLei „_ a I� lL Date: April 21, 2017 line From: Subject Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." —John Muir Earu M The above quote is meant as a reminder that April 22 is Earth Day this year. May you enjoy the earth wherever you are and consider our role in taking care of this planet, our home! Next Planning Board Meeting The next Planning Board meeting is on April 26. It will include two public hearings, one for a zoning text amendment (applicant -proposed for the townhome subdivision process) and one for a zoning map amendment. See the packet for more details. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) ❑ PSRC is seeking public comment on a draft regional economic strategy for King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. The public comment period will run from April 14 - May 14, 2017. Access to jobs and education, making the region more affordable, and sustaining a healthy environment are key initiatives in the draft strategy. ❑ A new regional travel survey has been launched. It will collect information to help plan and prioritize transportation improvements. Thousands of residents have received (or will receive) invitations to participate. Demand for travel in the Puget Sound region is expected to increase by 25% between now and the year 2040. The study is intended to help understand how the region can maintain and improve mobility as population grows and travel patterns evolve. For more information, see: http://blog.psrc.org/2017/03/psrc-conducting- household-travel-survey/. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a Sound Transit ❑ Contracts awarded to disadvantaged and small business enterprises reached $51,811,835 in 2016, Sound Transit announced last month. The agency says it is continuing to exceed goals for contracting with disadvantaged business enterprises and small businesses (DBE/SBs) involving women and people of color in transit construction. Sound Transit' independent Diversity Oversight Committee recently reported that, in 2016, DBE participation comprised 15.7% of federally funded Sound Transit projects. Sound Transit will start running light rail trains on clean energy in 2019. The agency has executed a 10-year agreement with Puget Sound Energy that will allow Link light rail trains to operate on 100 percent clean energy from carbon -neutral sources. For more information, see: https://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/sound- transit-light-rail-trains-run-clean-energy. Snohomish County Housing Program Snohomish County has announced the availability of an estimated $1.6 million in federal and local funds for the development of affordable multi -unit rental housing capital projects, homeownership development projects, and for organizational support for non-profit housing developers that qualify as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). The application deadline is May 31. More information is available from the County or at: https://wa- snohomishcounty.civicplus.com/684/Applications-for-Available-Funds. LOCAL NEWS Forum on Low -Income Housing o A forum on local low-income housing needs will be held at 6:30 pm, April 24, at the Edmonds Library =' Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. It is a free public event sponsored by the Edmonds Housing Instability r Coalition in cooperation with the City of Edmonds. N The forum will feature a panel discussion about needs and trends in housing for low-income households. The moderator will be Mark Smith, executive director of Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. Panelists will include: Chris Collier, program manager at Alliance for Housing Affordability of Snohomish County; Mary Anne Dillion-Bryant, regional director at YWCA Snohomish County; and Elizabeth Kohl, director of social services at Housing Hope. For the City of Edmonds, Shane Hope, development services director, will be present to assist with information. The Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition is a relatively new local, community -based volunteer group dedicated to bringing awareness of the need for low-income housing in Edmonds. Architectural Design Board The Architectural Design Board's next meeting is scheduled for May 3. An agenda will be posted on line when available. Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission is holding a Retreat on April 21 at 3pm in the Brackett meeting room. Public comment will be accepted at the retreat. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a Economic Development Commission The Economic Development Commission met on April 19. Items of discussion included future priorities, update on development feasibility, communication, momentum & stakeholder feedback, small business forum. The next meeting is May 17. An agenda will be posted on line when available. Edmonds Sister City Commission The Edmonds Sister City Commission is providing students with a new opportunity to experience the day to day life, language, and traditions of Japan through their annual exchange program. For 15 students each summer, it is the adventure of a lifetime. While in Japan, students live with a Japanese family and travel to see the sights and sounds around Hekinan, Japan. Upon their return, they and their families offer the same consideration to the Japanese students. The City of Edmonds Sister City Commission invites students 14-18 years of age to participate in the annual student exchange to Hekinan. 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. There are still open positions for the 2017 Delegation — don't miss out on this wonderful opportunity! Deadline for applications is Tuesday, May 9, 2017 @ 4:30 pm. For applications and more information please visit http://www.edmondswa.gov/sister-city-exchange- programs.html. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner at this time has no meetings scheduled for May. Historic Preservation The Historic Preservation Commission's met on April 13 and discussed themes for the 2019 historical calendar, interpretative signage at Yost Park and waterfront, and the future of the Boys & Girls club structure at civic center filed. The next meeting will be May 11. An agenda will be posted online when available. Tree Board The next Tree Board meeting is May 4 at 6 pm in the Council Chambers. The consultant team for developing the Urban Forest Management Plan will attend the meeting and seek Tree Board member input on the project. A full agenda will be posted online when available. City Council Topics for the Council's April 18 meeting included: ❑ Economic Development Commission's annual report (presented by the EDC Chair) ❑ Code amendments for clarifying the Tree Board appointment process 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a ❑ Contracting & Purchasing Policies update —approval of all items related to federal/state requirements ❑ RFP process to obtain baseline planning -level scientific study of Edmonds Marsh Watershed Agenda topics for the Council's April 25 meeting include: ❑ Development Activities Update (Note: a similar presentation will be made in the near future to the Planning Board) ❑ YWCA Stand Against Racism Day Proclamation ❑ Cemetery Board annual report COMMUNITY CALENDAR ❑ April 22: Earth Day Ivy Pull at Hutt Park, Hutt Park at 187t" St SW & 94t" Ave W., 12:00 pm ❑ April 24: Low-income housing needs at 6:30 pm, Edmonds Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St. ❑ May 4: Open House on Highway 99 Area DEIS ❑ May 5-6: Sculptors Workshop Spring Pottery Sale, Frances Anderson Center, 1:00 pm ❑ May 6: Floretum's Annual Plant Sale: United Methodist Church — 828 Casper's St, 9 am — 12 pm ❑ May 6: Watershed Fun Fair, Willow Creek Hatchery, 11 am ❑ May 7: Historical Museum, Salish Bounty, Traditional Foods of the Native American People ❑ May 20: Health & Fitness Expo, Edmonds School District Stadium, 9:00 am ❑ May 29: Memorial Day Program, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium, 11:00 am 4 1 P Packet Pg. 15 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Amendment to change designation of two parcels designated Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor at 9111 & 9107 236th St. SW Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History The owners of two parcels in south Edmonds desire to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of their properties from the current "Single Family Urban 1 designation to "Edmonds Way Corridor." Currently, the subject properties are developed with a single family residence (9107 236th St SW.) and a legal non -conforming multi -family residence (9111236th SL SW). In order to apply for a rezone, they must first obtain a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to a designation that would allow for a future proposal to change the zoning to an RM zone. They chose to seek the designation "Edmonds Way Corridor" because it is the designation adjacent to the east, north, and south. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Edmonds Way Corridor." Narrative Staff Report is attached. Attachments: Staff Report +Attachments Packet Pg. 16 6.A.a ,h c. 18`f" CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The City Edmonds Planning Board From: Brad Shtp , Assoc to Planner Date: April 19, 2017 File: AMD20160008 Public Hearing: Wednesday April 26, 2017 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers / Public Safety Complex 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA I. INTRODUCTION A. SUMMARY The owners of two parcels in south Edmonds desire to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of their properties from the current "Single family Urban 1" designation to "Edmonds Way Corridor." Currently, the subject properties are developed with a single family residence (9107 236"' St. SW.) and a legal non -conforming multi -family residence (9111 236"' St. SW). In order to apply for a rezone, they must first obtain a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to a designation that would allow for a future proposal to change the zoning to an RM zone. They chose to seek the designation "Edmonds Way Corridor" because it is the designation adjacent to the east, north, and south. The following is staff s analysis of the proposal. B. APPLICATION 1. At)nlicants/Owners: Frasier Fir Tree, LLC. (9107 236"' St. SW) and Pinewood Management, LLC. (9111 236"' St. SW) 2. Site: Two parcels comprising 0.75 acres located at 9107/9111 236t" Street SW, Edmonds. 3. Request: To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Edmonds Way Corridor" so as to be consistent with the adjacent designation to the east, north, and south. The intent is to then apply for a rezone from single family residential (RS-8) to a multiple residential (RM) zone. 4. Review Process: Legislative "Type V" actions — decisions are made by the City Council after reviewing a recommendation made by the Planning Board. 5. Maior Issue: Compliance with ECDC 20.00 (changes to the Comprehensive Plan). Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a IL FINDINGS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an environmental checklist by the City. A SEPA determination will be made at a later date prior to any action being taken by City Council. B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received and no issues were raised by the reviewers. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS To date, no public comments have been received. D. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted at the Library, City Hall, and Public Safety Complex — as well as published in the Everett Herald, posted on site, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice have been satisfied. E. SETTING 1. Proposed designation and development of the site. The proposed designation is "Edmonds Way Corridor" so as to be consistent with the adjacent development's designation to the east. If the application at hand were to be approved, the owners have stated that they would later seek a rezone from "Residential Single Family" (RS-8) to "Residential Multi -family" (Attachment 2). The "Edmonds Way Corridor" designation is compatible with both commercial and multiple residential zones. 2. Current designation and development of the site. The sites are currently designated "Single Family Urban 1" (Attachment 5), as are the properties to the west. The sites are currently developed with a single family residence (9107 236t" St. SW) and a legal non -conforming multi -family residence (9111 236t" St. SW) (Attachment 4). 3. Designation and development in the vicinity. The neighborhood to the west is mainly developed with single family homes, with a more intense zoning and development pattern east of this site ranging from multi -family to commercial. The properties to the east are developed as apartments and are zoned RM-1.5 (Attachments 4 and 5). The neighborhood is conveniently located near SR-104, Highway 99, and public transit available along SR-104 and a park and ride is nearby at the Aurora Village shopping center. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 18 6.A.a 4. Previous proposals in the vicinity. A similar situation occurred in 2011 where City Council approved a change in Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Multi Family — Medium Density."' The subject properties were subsequently rezoned from RS-8 to RM-2.4. Another similar situation is shown on the Comprehensive Plan map (Attachment 5) where an area of "Multi Family — Medium Density" is situated between the "Edmonds Way Corridor" and "Single Family Urban 1" along 238"' Street SW near Edmonds Way. In this case, three parcels underwent a Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone from RS-8 to RM-3.2 F. ZONING COMPLIANCE The current zoning designation for these two parcels is single family residential (RS-8). The current uses of the sites are single family residential (9107 2361" St. SW) and legal non- conforming multi -family residential (9111 236"' St. SW). At this time, there is no proposed change to the zoning designation. However, if the proposed amendment is approved, the owners would be able to then seek a rezone of their properties to something compatible to the new designation. There are three Comprehensive Plan designations consistent with RM zoning: "Edmonds Way Corridor," "Multi Family — High Density," and "Multi Family — Medium Density." The "Edmonds Way Corridor" designation is compatible with (Planned Business) BP, (Neighborhood Business) BN, (Community Business) BC, or other similar commercial zone, and RM zones. The "Multi Family — High Density" could allow for a rezone to RM-1.5 or RM-2.4. The medium density designation could allow for a rezone to RM-2.4 or RM-3.0. Density is the main difference between these designations and zones (the setbacks are virtually the same). The maximum density is calculated by determining the minimum lot area per dwelling unit based on the following table from ECDC 16.30.030.A. If the site is approximately 0.75 acre, then it is roughly 32,600 square feet in area and the following calculations would apply: • RM-1.5 zone: 1,500 lot area per dwelling unit = 21 units maximum. • RM-2.4 zone: 2,400 lot area per dwelling unit = 13 units maximum. • RM-3.0 zone: 3,000 lot area per dwelling unit = 10 units maximum. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the following findings are made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and policies for multi -family developments and states "RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets, " and generally encourages any 1 File Number AMD20110001 2 File Number PLN199800008 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a new multi -family development to blend into the surrounding neighborhood while preserving the natural features of the site. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor are also discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the area of this designation is established as `portions of Edmonds Wiry between the 100" Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. " Clearly, this site does not front on Edmonds Way — but it is fairly close in proximity (Attachment 6). The description goes on to say that this area `provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. " A primary focus of the goals here is to permit small scale multi -family or commercial land uses that do not contribute significantly to traffic congestion. Because the properties are situated along 236"' Street SW, which is a "Local Street," any future small scale development should be able to be designed so as not to interfere with congestion along this road. If the owner's goal is to be able to apply for a rezone to one of the multi -family (RM) zones, then changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to either "Edmonds Way Corridor," "Multi Family — High Density," or "Multi Family — Medium Density" would suit their needs. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? The proposed amendment will not be detrimental. At this time, nothing is proposed other than a change in designation. If it were approved, then we could expect the owners to apply for a rezone to propose a change in zoning from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential (RM-1.5), which would then be consistent with the adjacent zoning. A rezone application would analyze the relationship between the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of nearby property; whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing and proposed zoning; and, the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare when compared to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? The Edmonds Way Corridor makes up approximately 1.3% of the city's land, while Single Family Urban 1 makes up approximately 43.5%. A shift of a cumulative 0.75 acres from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor will not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. Further, the Comprehensive Plan explains that 61 % of the existing land use in the City is single family, while only 5.9% is multi -family and 7.2% is commercial. An eventual shift (through a future rezone) of less than one acre from single family to either multi -family or commercial will also not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The subject parcels are physically suitable for the proposed designation change. The subject parcels are adjacent to the border of the more intense Edmonds Way Corridor designation. The adjoining land uses are both single family (to the west) and multi -family (to the north and east). III. CONCLUSIONS 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest, in that it could potentially (through a future rezone) create additional dwelling units that could accommodate the influx of population into the city. B. The instant proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city. C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. D. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development (a future rezone to an RM zone), including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. E. The Planning Board should consider a Comprehensive Plan designation change to a more intense use of the land. Because this site is surrounded on three sides by property designated "Edmonds Way Corridor" the change in designation to "Edmonds Way Corridor" would consistent with properties adjacent to this site. IV. RECOMMENDATION A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Edmonds Way Corridor." V. PARTIES OF RECORD A. Frasier Fir Tree, LLC. 1 433 Sprague St., Edmonds WA 98020 B. Pinewood Management, LLC. 1 433 Sprague St., Edmonds WA 98020 C. Martin Reimers 1 1712 Pacific Ave, Suite 107, Everett WA 98201 D. City of Edmonds VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Narrative 3. Site Plan 4. Zoning/Vicinity Map 5. Comprehensive Plan Map 6. Public Notice 5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a ATTACHMENT 1 City of Edmonds Land Use Application Cl ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW X COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT i CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT L.! HOME OCCUPATION :! FORMAL SUBDIVISION J SHORT SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT _l PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT i OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION K REZONE QLPr26I(yCot/t( l_ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION i,1 OTHER. FILE#t",M �i6&L9ZONE /?1 — r DATE 1112114 REC'D BY Ctcl'.rAn FEE 1 21 I 0t7• d 0 RECEIPT # IEARING DATE 1 HE L! STAFF ! PB ' ADB CC • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION` IS A PL"BL LC RECORD + PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 9107 and 9113 236th Street SW PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) The Pinegrove Properties Rezone Fraser Fir Tree, LLC and PROPERTY OWNER Pinewood Mgnt. LLC PHONE # ADDRESS 433 Sprague St, Edmonds, WA E-MAIL cchuckbi7@gmail.com FAX# TAX ACCOUNT # 00555300100102, 00555300100104 SEC. 31 TWP. 27 RNG. 04 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Rezgnp and Gomprehensiye Plan Aimendment DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSAR)') APPLICANT Alan Sze ADDRESS E-MAIL PHONE # 206.919.4612 FAx # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Martin Reimers, AIA PHONE# 425.377.8786 ADDRESS 1712 Pacific Avenue, Suite 107, Everett, WA 98201 E-MAIL mreimers@conceptarchitecture.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs,, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable a[tontey'i fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete infonnation furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that 1 am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization 1 Alan Sze , certify tinder the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the fallowing is a to and orr C[ s remti : l hav5.,attihorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my p misiannr tprh�imociais and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of s`ns ection nd osti ig ass}#{�f to is application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER l b l \ I. lJ 1 Vi '. %_ / DATE Packet Pg. 22 Revised on 822 ! 7 B - Land Ls,-, . Agv.``_wh21. RECEIV r) 6.A.a SEP 12 2016 CONCEPT PLANNING EEDT. ATTACHMENT 2 ARCHITECTURE, CTUREr, LLU Project — 9107 and 9111 236" St. SW Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Background — The parcels located at the 9107 and 9111 are currently designated Single Family Urban 1 in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The subject properties are currently somewhat of a peninsula extending into properties designated Edmonds Way Corridor. The current use of the properties are as follows: 9107 is a single family residence, 9111 is a legally non -conforming multifamily property. Amending the Comprehensive Plan to move these properties into the Edmonds Way Corridor would make the properties more consistent with their surroundings and in the case of 9111 would make the property more consistent with its current use. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it straightens out the boundary between SF Urban 1 and Edmonds Way Corr. The line currently jogs with no apparent reason which places the subject property in the single family designated area. A logical straight line boundary would be more understandable. Further, it is in the public interest that the properties be changed to a designation which allows multifamily development since the westernmost parcel is already a legal non -conforming multifamily use. This simplifies the situation with this property and brings a non -conforming property into compliance. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Residential Goal B2a calls for RM uses to be near arterial or collector streets. The subject sites are very near Edmonds Way which is an arterial. The Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan Goal Fla calls for encouraging a variety of housing opportunities and types according to land use patterns. Changing the designation of the subject property would be consistent with this goal in that the land use pattern in the vicinity is largely multifamily. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare of the city in that there is very little noticeable difference in how the property will be used. The subject properties are currently multifamily and single family uses. The proposed amendment would enable redevelopment of the properties which would enhance public health and safety in that a new development will be in full compliance with current ordinances for access, land use, building codes. These requirements will require a project that is safer and more accessible to user who are Edmonds Citizens. At the very least, there will be no change. The project location is ideal for multifamily as it is in walking distance to a school and to public transportation on Edmonds Way. The Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan Goal 4 discusses encouraging use and future improvement of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. This project site is already situated to utilize facilities that exists. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. The .75 combined acres being moved from single family to multi -family would have a negligible effect on the balance of land uses. The result of the zone change would be to reduce the single family zoned properties by .02% which is unnoticeable in real terms. The added space to the multifamily would be result in a 0.2% increase in multi -family zoned space. Neither is large 1712 Pacific Avenue - Suite '107, Everett. WA 98201 - 425.377,8786 1005 Terminal Way - Suite 246, Reno. NV 89502 - 775,247,7889 www.conceptarchitecture corn Packet Pg. 23 6.A.a enough to produce a shift in the balance of uses. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use section discusses the continued need for additional housing based on population projections. Short term actions on Page 53, action 9 calls for encouraging a variety of housing to be developed. This project will help increase the housing stock in the city without adversely affecting the overall balance of uses nor placing a new burden on city services. The subject parcels are appropriate and physically suitable for the requested multi -family zoning. One of the properties is already being used in this capacity and has proven suitable in terms of adequate size to contain parking, open space and buildings. The site topography is conducive to the proposed use. The site currently has ample utility service and is compatible with neighboring properties most of which are multi -family. The location of the site near public transportation and a school further demonstrate the suitability of the site for the proposed modification to multifamily. Any re -development of the sites will require updating and upgrading utility services as well as roadway improvements which will improve physical access to the property. There are no physical constraints that would be adverse to full use of the property. Packet Pg. 24 (;uauapuOWV veld •dwoo uo 6UIJeaH o!Ignd : 6660 s;uGwLl3ellV+ :pod9H jje;g :;u9wt43ejjV SITE INFORMATION - 102 SITE INFORMATION - 104 OWNER TSAR -W TCEZ LL OWNER PINE WOOD MANAGEMENT, LLG 9101 23 STREET 5W EDMONDS, WA 95020 ADDRESS 9113 236TN 5TREET SW EDMOND5, WA 95020 9 L1 e G ] 7 APN 00555900100102 APN 00555500100104 LEGAL DESO. RIDGE AGRES 001 D-02 - 5100 FT LEGAL DESG. RANGE 04 SECTION 3L TOR DC4= ACRES QUARTER NW RIDGE AORES 001-0F F H OF E kNJ FT OF W LOT PAR B OF SNO 00 BLA 01�92 REG UND q2 , is SITE AREA 024 AG AFN 9206100415 1 REV BY AFN 9305A0543 BEING PRI OF LOTS e 2 OURRENT ZONING RS-5 BLK 15D PLAT EXISTING SITE AREA 051AL GDNDOMINIUMS cuRREwr ZONING R 5 v u Q E ^ EX15TINO u RESIDENCE kkk , MLFXISTr�71L^' f ts Y� EXI5TING GONDOMINIUM5]� $�y I, 4 EXISTING EXISTING }p S RESIDENCE PARKING � 23 1 m W LOT 102 wLr� • r - 1 ? 0 m 0 EXI5TIN6 EXPS?Iti6 y� d m RE5IDENGE EXI5TIN6 ip 1 p GONDOMINIUM5 }po 5 r 2 u I C LOT 104 ---_ ._ -----------_.— —� � -__— - ___ _— RECEIVED SE '. 22916 oerti �samc" � m — � SITE PLAN I I•. i000' m c� ,. city Y (;uauaPuauafy veld •dwoo uo Bu'JeOH oilgnd : 6660 s1u8wL13e11V+ :pod9N jje;g :;u9wLj3ejjV of Edmonds AM D20160008 23414 23417 I 23422 23475 23430 23431 - s 23 508 . 23507 Z3515 13529 23516 23415 23423 Ln 73429 (; 23 507 Z l � 23515 i 9. 1 1 i1 _ 9115 Q 1 19107 9205 1 1 1 m =�L 2-3.6�H 51 WGS_1984_W eb_Mercator_Auxi I is ry_Sphere © City of Edmonds 23415 23419 23429 2341 v� 01 0 r� C j2 23509 'sl^1 23523 �o 63 8923 -A ! - Legend ❑ ReZones PRD RoW Zoning ■ RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 . RM-24 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 ® BD4 1�' �� BDS � OR O WMU °71 BP Q BN tII 8 L' FVMU ! BC 1: 2,257 O Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 6.A.a ATTACHMENT6 FILE NO.: AMD20160008 APPLICANT: Fraser Fir Tree, LLC. + Pinewood Management, LLC. DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On the 6th day of April 2017, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted in compliance with ECDC 20.03.003(D)(1) at the subject site of the above -referenced application. I, Brad Shipley, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of April, 2017 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Packet Pg. 28 6.A.a THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NAME OF APPLICANT: Fraser Fir Tree, LLC. + Pinewood Management, LLC. ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 433 Sprague Street, Edmonds, WA APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: Martin Reimers ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REP.: 1712 Pacific Ave., Suite #107, Everett, WA FILE NUMBER: AMD20160008 PROJECT LOCATION: 9107/9111— 2361h St. SW, Edmonds WA. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Board on April 26th, 2017 at 7 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment change in plan designation from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Edmonds Way Corridor" for two properties in the Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone. COMMENT PERIOD: Written comments due by April 26th, 2017 by 4:00 p.m. Any person may comment on this application up to the time of the public hearing. Information on this proposal can be viewed or obtained at no cost by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (please look either under public hearing. Information on this proposal can be viewed or obtained by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (please look either under public notices or under the appropriate public meeting agenda), or by contacting the City of Edmonds Development Services Department at 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 9802o between the hours of 8:oo A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday or between the hours of 8:3o A.M and Noon on Wednesdays. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made in person at the public hearing. STAFF REPORT: A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing. Copies will be made available at the requestor's cost. CITY CONTACT: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner 425-771-0220, brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov PUBLISH: 04/o6/2017 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington) County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH751457 AMD20160008 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 04/06/2017 and ending on 04/06/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $63.64. Subscribed and sworn before me on this +r,j,j day ul' , .■`\N� A I( A�Yj�if`F ti•.fi ■. issi � •. ��;'. m o o a = N A'�LIC = = f�'r.,� �'A51�41NG �•�� atary Public in and for the ���iirrriuts\0 State of 0 Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 BRAD SHIPLEY Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a CITY OF EOMONDS NOTICE QF PUBLIC IIEARING NAME OF APPLICANT: Faser FRrftas, LLC.. Plnawoaa WggnvvanagurEdmonds. W ment• LLC, APPLICANT HEPRESENTATIVE RESS OF APPLICANT; �:Martln Reimers ADDRESS OF APPIADANT REP,: 1712 Pacific Ave., Suite it107, Everett, WA FILE N1JMREP; AMO20100008 PROJECT LOCATION! 9107/0111- 236th St. SW, Edmonds WA. PUBLIC HEARING' A public hearing will be held botoro the Planning Board angp fiSdh ll. 20m 7IAL7 p.., In the Cou"IT Chornbem located at itl • 51h Ave North. Edmonds. WA98020. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appllcatlon for a GOmprehanslve Plan Amdndmenl change in pptan deslgnalion from'Singlo Family Urban 1'to "Edmonds Way Corridor' for two proportles in the Se FalEResldontlal (RS-5) zone. CQ4.EmRIOD:Nrt• Any parson may Cemfnanl on INS applicallon up to tho me the public hearing. Informatlon an this proposal tan W viewed or obtained at no casl by vlsrting Iha City's wobslle at www.odmondswa.gbv Splenae look either under public hearlR9. I nfor mar ton on lit r8 proposal con be vie wed or obi i nod by visilIng the City'a webslle al www.odmondswa.gov tploase leak either under putillt nalices aI under Ihp appofilfdmonlic meeting agend4. or by contacting the ('il Devalopmenl Servrees DeparIntent at I?.I 11h Ave North, Edmandti. WA 90020 rtolween the Iloufs of 8i00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Mondayy. Tuesday, Thuraday S Friday or between the nours of 8:30 A. and Noon on Wedna6days. Cam'VPBnla may be matfad, emalled, or made In parson at the public hearing. STAFF REPORT: A copy of the statl report will be available for Irtspectlon at no cost at lassl seven days Frlor to the heafing. Coples will be made available at the faquestora Clot, CITY CONTACT: Brad Shipleyy, ASSWate Planner 425-771•0226. bradsnlpkry0admpndswa,gw1457t Wished: April 6, 2017. EDH75 —III— S�j Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a FILE NO.: AMD20160008 APPLICANT: Fraser Fir Tree, LLC. + Pinewood Management, LLC. DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 51h day of April, 2017, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The names were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 51h day of April, 2017, at LAmonds, Washin.Rton. Signed: Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signatureif Apfflicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of%. , Revised on 9130111 otary Public in and forte State of Washington Residing at 5-.,Im— ! (. NE Ez-vEFFY) DEVELOPMENT SEAWar q COUNTER P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List `'G�IRISTIIyq ""►,� A%or� s pc d0% IN RO 11&NING't Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a 00944200000002 9/8/2016 00944200000003 9/8/2016 00944200000004 9/8/2016 FISCHER SHERRILL F or RESIDENT GAAL JENNIFER L or RESIDENT NIEBRUEGGE ZACHARY S or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT C 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT G 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT F EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000100 9/8/2016 00944200000200 9/8/2016 00944200000300 9/8/2016 ARZUMANOV ALBERT & ANZ or RESIDENT BUTLER SUSAN or RESIDENT FISCHER SHERRILL F or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT A 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT B 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT C EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000400 9/8/2016 00944200000500 9/8/2016 00944200000600 9/8/2016 POTTS NICHOLAS/MELISSA or RESIDENT YAN ANTHONY or RESIDENT NIEBRUEGGE ZACHARY S or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT D 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT E 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT F EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000700 9/8/2016 00463300400101 9/6/2016 00463300400400 9/8/2016 GAAL JENNIFER L or RESIDENT PERRAULT JEAN or RESIDENT MORRIS KIMBERLY or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT G 9006 236TH ST SW 9120 236TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8924 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8925 00504800000100 9/8/2016 00555300100109 9/8/2016 00837000000300 9/8/2016 SANDERSON WILLIAM W or RESIDENT LIN BIN or RESIDENT SCHAMEL STACY M TTEE or RESIDENT 9118 236TH ST SW 9013 236TH ST SW 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8925 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8930 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 00837000000400 9/8/2016 00837000000600 9/8/2016 00837000000700 9/8/2016 SANDOZ JULIE M or RESIDENT GARTON GARY L & LAURA or RESIDENT CROTTS STEPHEN J & TRA or RESIDENT 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 4 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 7 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 00837000000800 9/8/2016 00837000000900 9/8/2016 00837000000500 9/8/2016 GARTON GARY & MARTHA / or RESIDENT DAVIS TONI K or RESIDENT GRACE CYNTHIA A or RESIDENT 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 9 23632 HWY 99 STE F EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9205 00898400000300 9/8/2016 00447000200500 9/8/2016 00898400000100 9/8/2016 FELSENSTEIN MICHAEL Z or RESIDENT AGASSIZ SARA JOYCE & R or RESIDENT BUCK LAURA DIXENE or RESIDENT 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 979 HIGHWOOD DR SW 22710 95TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98026-9512 ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 KENT, WA 98031 27033600404600 9/8/2016 00555300100110 9/8/2016 00463300400200 9/8/2016 EDMONDS SCHOOL DIST 15 or RESIDENT LIN BIN & LUO YU HONG or RESIDENT PAYNE GREG or RESIDENT 20420 68TH AVE W 20817 NE 15TH ST 8837 29 NW LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-7405 SAMMAMISH, WA 98074 SEATTLE, WA 98117 00463300400202 9/8/2016 00463300400204 9/8/2016 00463300400103 9/8/2016 PAYNE GREG or RESIDENT PAYNE GREGORY or RESIDENT NORMAN KELLY D or RESIDENT 8837 29 NW 8837 29TH NW PO BOX 77176 SEATTLE, WA 98117 SEATTLE, WA 98117 SEATTLE, WA 98177 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a 00555300100200 9/8/2016 00463300400302 9/8/2016 00447000100300 9/8/2016 EATON BRAD G & ANNA W or RESIDENT WALKER WILLIAM P & DIA or RESIDENT TAYLOR JAMES & SANDRA or RESIDENT 563 8TH AVE 10201 RIDGEVIEW DR 23422 92ND AVE W MENLO PARK, CA 94063 GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00447000200300 918/2016 00504B00000200 9/8/2016 00555300100101 9/8/2016 GUTIERREZ LAURA N or RESIDENT WHITEMAN LOWELL & CYNT or RESIDENT PINE GREEN MANAGEMENT or RESIDENT 23429 92ND AVE W 23619 92ND AVE W 433 SPRAGUE ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00555300100102 9/8/2016 00555300100104 9/8/2016 00555300100201 9/8/2016 FRASER FIR TREE LLC or RESIDENT PINEWOOD MANAGEMENT or RESIDENT LAMMERSDORF VICKI L or RESIDENT 433 SPRAGUE ST 433 SPRAGUE ST 9792 EDMONDS WAY PMB #320 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00555300100502 9/8/2016 00572300200100 9/8/2016 00944200000001 9/8/2016 WARD PATRICIA C or RESIDENT SHEPARD RANDOLPH C or RESIDENT MILLER BEN or RESIDENT 23411 92ND AVE W 23431 93RD AVE W 22703 105TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00944200000800 9/8/2016 27033600111600 9/8/2016 27033600111700 9/8/2016 MILLER BENJAMIN D & DI or RESIDENT ORVIS JAMES W & MARY H or RESIDENT MESLER KRISTIN or RESIDENT 22703 105TH AVE W 23529 93RD AVENUE W 23507 93RD AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 27033600111800 9/8/2016 00447000100200 9/8/2016 00447000100400 9/8/2016 TODD JULIET ANGELINA/S or RESIDENT SINGKEO LA & KEOGH E or RESIDENT NICHOLAS JESSICA E or RESIDENT 23515 93RD AVE W 23414 92ND AVE W 23430 92ND AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 00447000200100 9/8/2016 00447000200200 9/8/2016 00447000100500 9/8/2016 LANDERS JOHN E or RESIDENT SHIPLEY CHRISTOPHER A or RESIDENT RAYBURN EVELYN C or RESIDENT 23415 92ND AVE W 23423 92ND AVE W 23508 92ND AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 00447000100600 9/8/2016 00447000200400 9/8/2016 00504800000300 9/8/2016 PORTUGAL ESTEBAN or RESIDENT BANDY JEFFERY A or RESIDENT CURRIE CHRISTINE or RESIDENT 23516 92ND AVE W 23507 92ND AVE W 23621 92ND AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5605 00504800000400 9/8/2016 27033600111500 9/8/2016 00463300400300 9/8/2016 HOLMES AMY or RESIDENT ANDERSON-TAYLOR J F or RESIDENT RADOVICH DARWIN or RESIDENT 23627 92ND AVE W 9205 236TH ST SW 5327 157TH PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-5605 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5679 EDMONDS. WA 98026 00837000000100 9/8/2016 00837000000200 9/8/2016 00898400000200 9/8/2016 ANDERSON REGGIE A & AS or RESIDENT FIEDLER ASTRID I or RESIDENT LEE SUMI or RESIDENT 9025 236TH ST SW 9025 236TH ST SW # 2 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.a 00463300400301 9/8/2016 9108 DOUGLAS LANDING L or RESIDENT PO BOX 77176 SEATTLE, WA 98177 00555300100300 9/8/2016 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF S or RESIDENT 12625 4TH AVE W STE 200 EVERETT, WA 98204 00463300300503 9/8/2016 BENNETT KAREN S or RESIDENT 29411 BEACH DR POULSBO, WA 98370 Packet Pg. 36 6.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 Public Hearing for Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003) Staff Lead: Michael Clugston, AICP Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Mike Clugston Background/History A private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V legislative decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposal. The Board first reviewed the project at their March 22, 2017 meeting. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the unit lot subdivision language as proposed in Attachment 1. Narrative As discussed last month, the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multifamily development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision does not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multifamily project - it simply overlays property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multifamily development (if it met the requirements) or with a new multifamily proposal. The process could be used in one of several zones - Multiple Residential, both General Commercial zones, and in portions of Westgate Mixed Use. These zones allow for multifamily development on the ground floor of a site whereas several other zones such as Community Business, Planned Business and Neighborhood Business do not - the residential component in those zones must be above a ground floor commercial use. Four attachments are included in the packet: 1) The proposed code amendment language 2) A comment letter from Edith Duttlinger discussed March 22 3) Excerpt minutes from the Board's March 22, 2017 meeting 4) The March 22 agenda memo In Attachment 1, the applicant's proposed language was inserted into the existing subdivision ordinance (blue text) and staff made some additions and clarifications to that (red text). Packet Pg. 37 6.B Based on the Planning Board's comments, it seemed appropriate to require a homeowners association to be formed in order to manage the common areas and jointly -owned infrastructure on the parent lot, similar to a condominium (proposed sub E). Interior maintenance of individual unit lots will be the responsibility of the owner, similar to a typical single family residence. Exterior maintenance will be subject to a maintenance agreement (proposed sub F). With the proposed changes to the applicant's original language, staff believes the unit lot process will provide ownership opportunities for some multifamily projects where they otherwise might not exist while protecting owners within the project with clear requirements for future maintenance and management. The concerns of the Hearing Examiner regarding the City's former townhouse subdivision process are also addressed in the current proposal by clarifying that development standards will be applied to the parent lot rather than the individual unit lots in a unit lot subdivision. Attachments: Attachment 1- Applicant's proposed code language with staff changes Attachment 2 - Duttlinger Comment Attachment 3 - Excerpt minutes from March 22 Board meeting Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet Packet Pg. 38 6.B.a 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. Page 1 of 23 Packet Pg. 39 6.B.a 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: 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" Page 2 of 23 Packet Pg. 40 6.B.a 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. D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 ;;4m ^'� p,rp ied t�o the�entlo-�5ee €E�29T5�� where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. E. "Parent lot" means the lot with legal lot status which rereates the beuRdaFy „f k"establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. F. "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred uaon recordine of a unit lot subdivision. 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 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; Page 3 of 23 Packet Pg. 41 6.B.a 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; 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: Page 4 of 23 Packet Pg. 42 6.B.a 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. Page 5 of 23 Packet Pg. 43 6.B.a 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, 19981. 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision - Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) comply with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. A. Applicability and PuFpese. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building in the form of flats., ^^++art^ el., ., ZE)Res+hAt AIIAW .,, e +h-,., e e .J,.,nII R9 , .,o+ e r le+ Rd e.,l., fer .detarche.d All, ;;Rd /er fer uR*tc +ham+ -,re .,er+o�-,II., c,nr�-�r;;tpd . With RA nlnw�nn+ ^f -�r�., ^nn „r�i+ ^.,nr ^r hel"\A/ arw element .,f .n., +her ..i+ a er.+ fer ev+crier ele.,,en+o i.,herer+ +^ +he 20.75.045.4 Aeeerrer., .dwell*.,n , Rks a spe6fleally e.. l,,.Je.J fre..4. this sere+ien CI + enly he ..,heir, the le+ n inita all d ell. .,*+,- g4ho h, uId* GR ..u+ B. Association with Site Development — Application TiminL-. A Unit Lot Subdi.,;,-;All .,.,n+hAd Af ,-li.,i,-linn a r�h�., of+he h„�I.J�.,.. e e.,+ The -, .,I„ --,+gin., ,- aR .,I., hn -, e-,+n vogith ;; develeigmeRtPlaR 9F aRTexeSt*Rg deve)oged 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 20.10.020.13.3 submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit. C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030.E) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit Page 6 of 23 Packet Pg. 44 6.B.a lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with resaect to the bulk and dimensional standards reauired by Title 16 ECDC. As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn -grounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the aarent lot's compliance with such reauirements. and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. ^�eeess of/te the + I.,+ free. /te the +r.� et hall h h dd the ts- f the + =ccc���rrcv-crr��u�cn•c-r�Tc-nvTiTrcv-crn�crccr✓rrcn-rcre-r�irscc��rrcrr��=ccicrr�cnTcnr�-CTrcrn�.`rce p;a R f a Fthepa Fe+g Ret-aced rta R H--;;.r d1s; f. Reir a s a io,=r D. Future Additions and Modifications. Subseauent Dlattine actions. additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot. to €EDC 2AT-5-(�-5. afferet the .Jeyel.,r,..- e.pt as a .,hele Changes tton . +Apl„ +h 9 nteF*er of building ..,III he .,val-g-- tedd ags to e.,.,-,r."-„nce y. th th., only fe. Any .,. + ,r r.r eh , , t , .,,ay ,ff ,e+ the ++ , t f..r the eFiginal .J ,.. ,I.,.,.v ppt Af the paFent !at (E6DG- 20.75:030.E.Nn swchi eases, addea REat+e„rtothe +h., ., .,l I.,+ fr.,.., ,.,h Gh +h., ., + vogethen the i9aFent let, E. Homeowners association ownership of common areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation reeardine the riehts of the homeowners association must be submitted for Page 7 of 23 Packet Pg. 45 6.B.a recording with the final plat. Aeeess E-asemeA+S and Parl-ii'^ Aceesss easepAeRts ^" ,i epee sigages f`+r Gett ge h9 1Sinn aR d etheF epeR c e) .,,J .,+her si.v.ila.r shall her eir.J.,.J An +h., fi.,-,I F. Maintenance Agreements for building exteriors. Jeipt --Se and4nMaintenance agreements sI+a4must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision Dlat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The 44PA-maintenance agreement &4a4must require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The i„i.,+ maim+^- nce -,,,r,,,,.., eRt &h-,II and must be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. 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 formalized by an easement on the final plat. H. Notice of Unit Lot on the 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> -must be noted on the final plat. I. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at n1inkn m all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. J. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are erocessed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01 and the requirements of this chapter. 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. Page 8 of 23 Packet Pg. 46 6.B.a 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-11-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; Page 9 of 23 Packet Pg. 47 6.B.a 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.]. Page 10 of 23 Packet Pg. 48 6.B.a 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. 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; Page 11 of 23 Packet Pg. 49 6.B.a Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983]. 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. 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, 1984]. 20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: Page 12 of 23 Packet Pg. 50 6.B.a 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. 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. Page 13 of 23 Packet Pg. 51 6.B.a 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, 19841. 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. Page 14 of 23 Packet Pg. 52 6.B.a 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, 2013]. 20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. 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 approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date Page 15 of 23 Packet Pg. 53 6.B.a 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 Page 16 of 23 Packet Pg. 54 6.B.a 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 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: Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 55 6.B.a 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. 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. Page 18 of 23 Packet Pg. 56 6.B.a 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. 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, 19981. 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. Page 19 of 23 Packet Pg. 57 6.B.a 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, 1994]. 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. 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. Page 20 of 23 Packet Pg. 58 6.B.a 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, 1987]. 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; Page 21 of 23 Packet Pg. 59 6.B.a 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 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, 20141. 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. ECDC 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated — i.e.: stacked above and/or below each other. ECDC 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; Page 22 of 23 Packet Pg. 60 6.B.a D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning code; Page 23 of 23 a M I Packet Pg. 61 6.B.b Clugston, Michael From: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlinger@ci.mlt.wa.us> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:21 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: RE: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment Michael, Thank you. The City of Mountlake Terrace has a fee simple unit lot subdivision provision in code, updated in 2015. htto://www.codeoublishine.comlWAlMountlakeTerracel#Ilmountlaketerracel7 MountlakeTerracel7O9.html#17.09 We require unit lots to install individual sewer lateral and water service and water meter for each unit, (This can be difficult to achieve for a party interested in overlaying a fee simple on a pre-existing development. In addition, preexisting property would need to be brought up to current code such as landscaping and frontage improvements, which may have changed since original development.) Our definition for townhomes is two or more units. If Edmonds wants to assure that townhomes occur in units of 3 or more (vs., the duplex look) it would need to modify the definition. I recommend against allowing flats for fee simple. Regards, Edith Edith L. Duttlinger, Senior Planner Community dr Economic Development Dept. City of Mountlake Terrace 6100 219th St SW, Ste 200, P.O. Box 72 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0072 Phi 425.744.6279 Fax: 425.775.0420 e-mail:eduttlinger@ci.mlt.w_a.us website: www.citvofmlt.com `4 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Clugston, Michael fmailto:Mlchael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:46 AM To: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlin er ci.mlt.wa.us> Subject: FW: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment Hi Edith, Here's the language proposed by the applicant and his application cover letter. If you need anything else, please let me know. Mike Clugston, AICP City of Edmonds I Associate Planner 425-771-0220, x 1330 michael.clu stop edmondswa. ov General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http:llwww.edmondswa.govJhandouts.htmi Packet Pg. 62 s.g.� Board Member Robles recalled that the last time the proposed code amendments were presented, there was a fairly stout comment from the Board on the viability of a 10-foot activity space given the velocity of the traffic along the corridor. However, he does not see that the proposal was adjusted to address this concern. Mr. Shipley pointed out that developers would be allowed to provide amenity space along up to 50% of the street frontage, and the 10-foot activity space between the building and the street would be separated by a 5-foot right-of-way. However, he agreed that the pedestrian atmosphere will not be similar to what exists in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there are any incentives to encourage this type of development, and Mr. Shipley pointed out that the proposal would allow buildings to be setback between 10 and 20 feet from the street, and a 5-foot right-of-way buffer was added to provide an additional buffer. Board Member Crank suggested it would be helpful for the consultant to provide mockups to illustrate how the proposed amendments would impact both existing and new development. Mr. Shipley pointed out that existing development would not be impacted by the proposed amendments, which only apply to new development. The only potential impact would be the proposed amendment that prohibits pole signs. However, existing pole signs would be allowed to remain. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the intent is to encourage new development in an existing scene. She asked where the balance would be between the current look and what is proposed as the new look. She asked how this issue would be addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Shipley noted that a lot of the existing development along the corridor is located towards the back of the lots, with parking along the street front. New development located closer to the street could take place on these properties. Mr. Chave pointed out that the properties along Highway 99 are of varying shapes, sizes and configurations. Some property owners many just want to refurbish an existing building or add additional buildings, and other property owners may want to tear down the existing buildings and replace them with new development. The intent is to figure out a way for all of these activities to move forward but at different stages. Board Member Crank said she likes the concept of activity spaces between the buildings and the sidewalks. However, she asked if the walkways in front of existing buildings would be done as part of a single project or if they would be done piecemeal. Mr. Shipley answered that sidewalks would be done has redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave added that the City has some money for this purpose and it is desirable to enhance the public spaces along the frontage, but a lot more funding will be needed. CODE AMENDMENTS FOR UNIT -LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) Mr. Clugston advised that 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 Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones as an alternative to condominium ownership. He reviewed that from 2003 to 2008, the City had a process known as a "townhouse subdivision," which was based on a 2003 staff interpretation (Attachment 6). This process resulted in several projects, two of which are included in the packet: Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2) and Cooper's Crest (Attachments 3 and 4). He noted that the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments were designed to meet all of the requirements for the particular RM zone, just like any other RM project, but the lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units. Mr. Clugston further reviewed that during review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied based on the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. In particular, the Hearing Examiner noted conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks and insufficient access within the development. The City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision, but the project was never built due to the recession, and the permit eventually expired. Since the 2008 decision, no townhouse subdivisions were approved because of the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code. Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for RM projects in the RM zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed language was included in the Staff Report as Attachments 7 and 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9, and the current RM zoning code is Attachment 10. In addition, the City received one comment letter in response to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) from a planner in Mountlake Terrace, who provided some good insight to consider. He noted that some local Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 63 s.g.� jurisdictions currently have a form of this process in place, including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, and the applicant has worked with a number of these codes. He has reviewed their processes and created a proposed amendment that takes the best of each one and refines it to meet the City of Edmonds' needs. Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the material in the Staff Report and felt it would have been beneficial to have a graphic illustration of a project that meets the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment. His understanding is that the individual living units would need to be 1,500 square feet in an RM-1.5 zone in order to be divided into fee -simple lots. He felt that would be a very difficult task to achieve. Mr. Clugston clarified that is not really the intent of the proposed amendment. He referred to Attachments 1 and 2, which provide aerial views of the Cascade Cottage Project. Attachment 1 shows a regular RM project with detached units. Per the current code for the RM-2.4 zone, each unit needs at least 2,400 square feet of lot area. However, that does not mean that each dwelling unit needs to be that size. It is more a density number. Attachment 2 show the same aerial photograph, with the lot lines drawn as part of the townhouse process. The squares are not all 2,400 square feet. The density is based on the entire lot rather than the individual lots. This needs to be clearly addressed in the proposed amendment. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He attempted to explain the concept of unit -lot subdivisions and fee -simple lots, which he agreed is very complicated and technical. He also explained the difference between a condominium project and a subdivision project. With a subdivision, lines are drawn over the ground to create separate lots, but that is not the case with a condominium. Only the units, not the underlying ground, are individually owned. He advised that State law enables jurisdictions to have subdivision laws, but condominium laws are handled by the State and local jurisdictions are excluded from the process. It is important to recognize that the processes are different, and the State's condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders cannot get insurance to design and construct condominiums. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This has resulted in a very low inventory of RM units in Washington State and rents are skyrocketing. In response to this growing problem, a number of jurisdictions are seeing the unit -lot subdivision as a solution to continue to implement their comprehensive plans in RM zones using the same density requirements and built environment as is currently allowed. Mr. Bissell explained that unless cities amend their codes in some way to support the development standards of the parent lot, they will end up creating a bunch of smaller lots. Most zoning codes have a minimum lot standard in the RM zones, which prohibits the creation of separate dwelling units. It is not possible to reach the density the comprehensive plan anticipates by using the subdivision code given the requirements for setbacks, lot area, etc. He referred to the Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2), noting that he was the planner for the project. The project was originally designed to fit the units on the site without a subdivision. The original plan looked at the exterior boundaries and how individual units could fit on the site. The units are separated from each other by six feet, as required by the building code, and the project is consistent with the required street setbacks from 75 h Avenue and 210th Street. The project was approved by the Architectural Design Board and found to be consistent with the RM development standards. Subsequently, the developer decided to sell the development as separate lots using the townhouse subdivision provision that was in place at the time. The properties were divided into 16 separate lots. Although none of the individual lots are 2,400 square feet in size, the parent lot is large enough to accommodate the 16 units based on the density allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. Although the parent lot was subdivided, the project was still required to meet all of the zoning, density, design, subdivision, and engineering standards that are required for RM development. He cautioned that any provision that allows for unit -lot subdivision and fee -simple lots should also include appropriate standards to ensure that the built environment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bissell said he has done consulting work in a number of different cities and for various developers. About 15 years ago, he contracted with the City of Edmonds to review projects under its unit subdivision code, and he has also been a development consultant for the City of Seattle and gone through the process as an applicant. The City of Seattle has had a great deal of success and very few problems with their provision, which provided a good model for him to start with. However, as well as unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have been adopted. These issues have been addressed in the proposed code amendment. He reviewed the issues/problems as follows: • There is a new trend in real estate development and investment in which a developer builds a RM site with several multiple -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 64 s.g.� individual units. This opportunity is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other jurisdictions. Because it is not prohibited, it is not considered contrary to the intent of the unit subdivision code and both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted it to occur. This option would not violate Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment expressly permits it as an option to avoid future confusion. 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. No portion of any one unit can overhang a portion of another unit. Therefore, flats are excluded from the provision. While many codes are not clear on this exclusion, the proposed language expressively excludes them. A unit -lot subdivision includes the exterior of the building, which can create a potential problem in exterior maintenance because 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. To address this concern, the proposed amendment includes a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the buildings. • Snohomish County's provision is fairly new and has experienced problems because it is too generous with the building community stakeholders group and does not include enough controls to protect the neighborhoods or county against problems that can arise. At the same time, the provision cannot be used for detached units. They now believe that was a mistake and are in the process of amending the provision to allow attached units. • The City of Redmond's provision is also new and does not consider the relationship between the code and public works standards. For example, access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a RM development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lanes are required. But if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. Because the use affects the environment and not the type of permit, language was added to clarify which regulation should apply. The City of Seattle does not accept unit -lot final plat applications until at least the development foundations are installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot lines are set on the common wall. However, this is not a codified requirement in Seattle, and it is not included in the County's provision. He explained that because foundations are not always installed precisely per plan, this requirement makes sense to him. He contacted four licensed land surveyors who have experience in constructing foundations, and received a mixed response. He expressed his belief that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the building to be staked and the inspector to verify. This requirement was included in the proposal. Mr. Bissell referred to the cover letter he submitted with the application (Attachment 7), which reviews all of the potential issues and explains how the proposed code amendment would address each one. The proposed language would be added to the subdivision code to give clear direction. The proposal includes specific requirements, such as maintenance agreements for the maintenance of the exterior of the building. In addition to minor amendments to correct terms, new definitions would be added for "unit -lot subdivision," "parent lot," and "flats." A portion of the definition of "townhouse" would also be amended. Mr. Bissell referred to the comment letter submitted by Edith Duttlinger, Senior Planner for the City of Mountlake Terrace, which recommended some potential changes. For example, she strongly recommended that flats not be allowed in townhouse subdivisions, and the proposal specifically excludes them from the provision and adds a definition for "flats." Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Clugston to explain how a private individual can propose a development code amendment. Mr. Clugston answered that the code allows citizens to make application for code amendments, which are Type 5 decisions that require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 5, which describes a townhouse proposal that failed the test as determined by the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that the proposed amendments are intended to revitalize the ability to do townhouse development in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston agreed that is the intent. He explained that the City does not currently have a process for unit -lot or townhouse subdivisions to create fee -simple lots for RM projects. The applicant has applied to amend the code to add that process within the code and make sure it fits with the rest of the code. He recalled that, with the 2008 project, the Hearing Examiner found a number of issues with the interpretation that staff had been relying on. The Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 65 s.g.� applicant's proposal is intended to address these issues so the process can work. He clarified that the development that was proposed in 2008 met the code requirements for RM development, but the Hearing Examiner found that subdividing the property into separate lots did not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She felt the minimum lot size would have to be 2,400 square feet based on the RM-2.4 zoning. This issue needs to be made clear in the proposed new language. Mr. Clugston also explained that drive aisles are typically required for dense RM development, but as soon as you have access ways that serve five or more lots, the street setbacks outlined in the code would apply. This is something the City's previous townhouse interpretation did not address. The intent is to have the same development, but allow the parent lot to be subdivided into separate lots. It is important to make sure that all of the proposed changes are consistent with the existing code. Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Bissell to share more information about the new trend of development and investment where a developer builds a RM site with several multi -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies. He asked if this must be done in order for the concept to function property. If so, what is the maximum of number of units allowed per building. Mr. Bissell said he is not proposing to alter the existing limit of six units per building. He suggested it is not so much about the number of units per building but the idea that you could have two buildings, each with a number of units, and the lot lines would go around the buildings rather than the individual units. He reminded the Board of his earlier comment that this type of development is a new market trend. While it would not alter the built environment, it would provide flexibility in the code for different ownership options. Board Member Lovell asked if this type of development has occurred in other communities, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He explained that the demand for apartment units is very high and this is a real change in how the economy of Puget Sound had been working for a long time. The people who own the buildings and lease them are called "legacy developers." For most of his career, he had one legacy developer and now he is working with about ten. He said the current market of building owners is not equipped to own 60 or 80-unit developments. As developers transition from a business model with a 4-year investment cycle to a business model with a 50 to 60-year investment cycle, this type of development will become more popular. Board Member Crank asked if the proposal is intended to apply to a specific plot of land or to a specific development proposal. She also asked how the provision would be applied to future requests of this nature in single-family zones. Mr. Clugston said the provision is only intended to apply to existing and future RM development, and not single-family residential zones. Even with the provision, RM development will still have to meet all design standards and the base zoning requirements. From the outside, the development will look no different whether it is subdivided or not. It is a matter of ownership of the different pieces of the site. For existing developments, owners can apply for a unit -lot subdivision and create fee -simple lots to sell off. The provision would apply to both existing and new RM development. It could also be utilized in other zones in the city where residential development is allowed, such as the CG zone along Highway 99 and the commercial zones at Westgate. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed provision is simply an ownership option, and it does not change zoning, density or bulk requirements. It simply gives another way to divide up ownership of a piece of property. It may apply to existing buildings as well as new construction. It is not intended to be a project -specific application. It is a legislative change to the code that would apply throughout the City. Board Member Crank asked staff to clarify the Board's role in the process of moving the proposal forward. She noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 26`". Mr. Chave said this presentation was intended to be an introduction to the proposed provision before going forward with a formal public hearing. The Board is more used to applications that are quasi-judicial, and this particular proposal is legislative. That means the Board Members are free to ask questions and discuss the proposal outside of the formal public hearing. Board Member Robles noted that condominium agreements protect people, as well. For example, one person's behavior or decision could impact the value of another's property. He asked how the rights of the individual property owners would be preserved. While he understands the reasons for pulling away from the condominium concept, it is important to recognize that subdividing into separate units would result in the residents losing their collective power to defend their properties. Mr. Bissell said that most subdivisions have a homeowner's association that has certain rights, particularly when common areas are involved. A lot of protection can be obtained through a homeowner's agreement, and he always relies on his attorneys to write the covenants for his projects. Board Member Robles asked if the code could include a provision that requires the construction company to maintain a reserve or if it would that be the responsibility of the individual owners. Mr. Chave Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 66 s.g.� expressed his belief that a not all unit -lot subdivisions would have homeowner's associations, and that is why building codes are so important. Building codes require certain things in a fee -simple setup that are different than for condominiums. The assumption is that individuals would be in charge of their own lot and not rely on the neighbors or a condominium association. Board Member Robles asked if condominiums that are subdivided into fee -simple lots retain their value more or less than the traditional type of arrangement. Mr. Bissell said that unit -lot subdivisions have been done in Seattle since the early 90s, and they have held their value as well or better than traditional condominiums. He said he does not believe value will be an issue. Some people want the condominiums for protection and others prefer not to be in condominium situations. Board Member Robles observed that property owners purchase property with certain assumptions, and he voiced concern that they might not always be fully informed. Mr. Chave said the subdivision will be recorded on the legal documents that are part of the real estate transaction. It will be up to the real estate agent to know this and inform the buyer. This is outside of the government's control. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Seattle requires that the developer be in charge of the homeowner's association for one year, and then it becomes the responsibility of the individual owners to govern themselves. Mr. Bissell agreed there is not clear answer for what the best approach would be. Mr. Chave referred to the provision in the draft proposal that would require a maintenance agreement for when the units are in a single building. This agreement will probably not be covenants to the extent of a condominium association, but maintenance of the buildings that are connected will be covered through the agreement. Typically, with subdivisions, there are also underlying utilities that have maintenance agreements attached to them, as well. Vice Chair Monroe asked what Mr. Bissell anticipates will be the counter argument against the proposal. Mr. Bissell said he does not anticipate a lot of opposition to the proposal. However, when he has been involved in projects that modify the lot area in some way, the standard objection is that the zoning code says you have to have a certain lot area and you are throwing that out the window. He tries to point out that the total lot area is the same as if there were no subdivision. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposal is essentially overlaying smaller ownership over a larger development. Any agreements for maintenance or agreements that otherwise apply to the development would still be there. All the provision would do is allow for the transfer of ownership of the units, but it would not absolve the owners from their responsibilities for maintenance, drainage, internal driveways, etc. It would not change density, either. Vice Chair Monroe emphasized that, as proposed, the provision would only apply to RM development. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the April 12'h agenda includes a presentation on the Highway 99 Code Amendments. On April 26th, there will be a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments for a proposed change from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor. A public hearing on the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment is also scheduled for April 26`h. The Board's retreat is tentatively scheduled for May 24th, pending confirmation from the Bartell Development Company that they will be able to attend that evening. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for focusing to move through the complicated proposal related to the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Monroe reported that he attended the March 151h Economic Development Commission meeting, but he did not have anything substantial to report. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 67 6.B.d 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. 68 6.B.d 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. 69 City of Edmonds IVI dP I ILIC qPIM" /+ ■ ■ ■ Meadoh 'e Edmond. Zi�5 ,• 11 u•�F ngMa Esp ... date Legend ArcSDEAMSTREET_CENTERLINE: rail other values 1 2 5.4 9; 17; I; 8 1:564 Notes CD Cascade Cottages 23.51 47.0 Feet This map is a user generated static o utput fro m an Internet mapping site and is for 20134 M reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not he accurate, RM-1.5 C4 GS 1964 Web -Mercator -Au current,orotherwisee reliahle. W City rr Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) 11 City of Edmonds IVI dp I ILiC - • ~z MMENS�,'adNES11"� • i or i d: W Y Ire► •' �1 Ida Meadoh 'e Edmond. Zi�5 ,• u•�F ngMa Esp ... date Legend ArcSDEAMSTREET_CENTERLINE: <all other values t 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 o utput fro m an Internet mapping site and is for 20134 M reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not he accurate, RM-1.5 C4 -4 GS_1984JWeb _Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere T r rr ^r1Cr^r^^^rccurrent, orotherwisereliable. City r= - -- Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) PI W Ct •'r r City of Edmonds 1VI aN I I LAC FIX Fy1• v 3 f R +I S F p ■� T .10 .r �• - sr 1� Meadoh 'e swft Fdmond� Esperarce date an�•n m.:c-.va..� Legend Arc8]EGISSffaET_CENTEH J NE gall other values 1 2 5.4 9. 17; I; 8 1:1,128 Notes n -Y t w CD Ccoper's Crest 47.02 94.0 Feet This map is ausergenerated staticoutput frornan Internet m�ppingsite and is for 2006 C4 reference only. Data Iayersthat appear onthis map mayor may not be accurate, RM-2.4 vGS_1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere ^T� ^r r^�^ current, orctherwiserel &e_ N OW, - - Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) PI W b- •�I City of Edmonds IVI dP I ILIC u y I — F ' � ,� `:� fir• �;:! ww� - 'r r � —'r T' T Meadoh 'e .. r.rM. c.c LYnn •Fdmond� 0 11 w Hwy I.Of i.. Esp ... date Legend ArcSDE.GIS. STIR EET CENTERLINE: <all other values t 2 5.4 9; 17; I; 8 1,128 Notes � x CD 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 M reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not he accurate, RM-24 C4 GS 1994 Web Mercator Auxiliary_ Sphere current,orotherwisereliahle. Attachment: Attachment 4 -March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)) PI W Ct 6.B.d 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 14 Incorporated August 11, .1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 74 6.B.d 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. 75 6.B.d 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. 76 6.B.d 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. 77 6.B.d 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 Q 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. 78 6.B.d 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. 79 6.B.d 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. M 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. 80 6.B.d 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 traftic 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. 81 6.B.d 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. 82 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. 83 6.B.d 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. 84 6.B.d 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. 85 6.B.d 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. 86 6.B.d 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. 87 6.B.d 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 a • Incorporated August 11, 1890 " Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 88 6.B.d 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. 89 6.B.d 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. 90 6.B.d 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. 91 6.B.d 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 FOLLOWI G 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. INTERPRETATION 2003-LDO019-JUN-03 L:U.IBRARYIPLANNINGSECDC INTERPREATIONSIINTERPRETATIONS LOG11999 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 92 6.B.d 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. 93 Packet Pg. 94 6.B.d LAND SURVEYING t M SENCIVIL ENGINEERING RM ES 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: ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision And to add Definitions to ECDC 20.75.030 And to Remove ECDC 21.100.040.E City Planner and Planning Board: FEB 0 DEVELOPMENT ShVMROe_:-- M NTER 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 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 from bulk standards. 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 Examiner's decision. 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 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 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 condominium insurance crises, many jurisdictions are seeing the unit lot subdivision as solution to continue implementing ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE 81h Avenue, Ste. 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 East Main Street, Ste. 104 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver www.Harmseninc.com C:IUseisl1obn\Dropbox\ProjeclsMestgate WoodMcode amendmennnarrative docx SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637 Packet Pg. 95 6.B.d 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. Packet Pg. 96 Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative February 3, 2017 6.B.d 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. 97 6.B.d Unit Subdivision Code Amendments FEB 0 DD- AELOPMENT SERACL 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. 98 6.B.d 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. 99 6.B.d 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. 100 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 1 of 16 6.B.d 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. 101 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2 of 16 6.B.d 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. 102 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3 of 16 6.B.d 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. 103 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4 of 16 6.B.d 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. 104 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5 of 16 6.B.d 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. 105 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6 of 16 6.B.d 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. 106 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 7 of 16 6.B.d 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. 107 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8 of 16 6.B.d 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. 108 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 9 of 16 6.B.d 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. 109 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 10 of 16 6.B.d 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. 110 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11 of 16 6.B.d 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. 111 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 12 of 16 6.B.d 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. 112 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 13 of 16 6.B.d 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. 113 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14 of 16 6.B.d 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. 114 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 15 of 16 6.B.d 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. 115 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 16 of 16 6.B.d 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. 116 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Page 1 of 4 6.B.d 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. 117 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 6.B.d 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. 118 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 6.B.d 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. 119 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 6.B.d 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. 120 3/15/2017 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/26/2017 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 Packet Pg. 121 OY F.➢M N pAMM BOARD "nc. 1890 Extended Agenda April 26, 2017 Meeting Item APRIL 2017 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change April 26 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Amendment for proposed change from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor (Fraser Fir Tree / AM D20160008) 2. Public Hearing on Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment MAY 2017 May 4 Open House on Highway 99 Area DEIS May 10 1. Public Hearing on 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 3. Report on Development Services Activities Presentation May 24 1. Retreat TUNE 2017 June 14 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Update 2. Public Hearing on Water Comp Plan 2017 June 28 IULY 2017 July 12 July 26 AUGUST 2017 August 9 Q Packet Pg. 122 Items and Dates are subjec August 23 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) 9.A.a to change Packet Pg. 123