RES 85-20 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISIONPMA:jt
9/25/85
RESOLUTION NO. 85-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WINSLOW, WASHINGTON, GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION FOR CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WINSLOW.
WHEREAS, an application was filed with the City of
Winslow for preliminary approval of a subdivision in conjunction
with a request for approval of a PUD, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Agency has reviewed the applica-
tion for the subdivision together with drawings and other docu-
ments submitted by the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on
July 16, 1985 to consider the application and at the conclusion
of said hearing the Hearing Examiner submitted findings of fact,
conclusions of law and a recommendation against the applications
based on a lack of provisions in the Winslow Municipal Code to
provide for such a project, and
WHEREAS, on August 15 the City Council passed and the
Mayor approved Ordinance No. 85-11 effective August 26, 1985
which provided that the Hearing Examiner and City Council may
modify the City's subdivision standards where a request for
subdivision approval is made in conjunction with a request for
pursuant to Chapter 18.40 of the Winslow
approval of a PUD
Municipal Code and
WHEREAS,
the City Council referred the applicant's
request for approval of the PUD/subdivision proposal back to the
Hearin9 Examiner for reconsideration and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner reconsidered the subdivi-
sion application on August 28, 1985, and submitted amended
findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation in
favor of approval of the application, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommenda-
tions of the Plannin9 Agency and Hearing Examiner and has deter-
mined to approve the application, subject to conditions, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application
meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 17.04 of the Winslow
Municipal Code for subdivisions, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby grants the applica-
tion for preliminary approval for subdivision of the property
commonly known as the Madison Avenue Townhouse Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision described as set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated hereln by this reference as if
set forth in full. The approval is subject to the limitations
and conditions set forth in the application, plans and
recommendations of the Planning Agency and Hearing Examiner.
Section 2. The City Councll hereby adopts the flndings
of fact and conclusions of law set forth by the Hearing Examiner
on July 16, 1985 as well as the amendments thereto and the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner set forth on August 28,
1985 as set forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
APPROVED:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CEE~, ~ONNA 'JEAN BUXTON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: September 27, 1985
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 0c[ober 3, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-20
RE: Madison Avenue Townhouse Subdivision and PUD
EXHIBIT A
for
RESOLUTION NO. 85-20
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST-QUARTER OF SECTION
27, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN-
NING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE N 00°04'00'E
ALONG THE EASTERLY LIMITS OF SAID SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 430.51 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 89'05'54'W, A DISTANCE OF 328.98
FEET; THENCE N 00'05'30'E, A DISTANCE OF 115.97 FEET; THENCE S 89°05'24'.E,
A DISTANCE OF 329.05 FEET; THENCE S 00°04'00'W, A DISTANCE OF 115.92 FEET,
· O THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ROADS
AND EXCEPT THE EAST 5 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO TSE CITY OF WINSLOW, UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 8003270078~
SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASH.
!
EXHIBIT B
for
RESOLUTION NO. 85-20
BEFORE THE
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF WINSLOW
In the Matter of the
Madison Avenue Townhouse
Planned Unit Development/Subdivision
Sought by
Fairbank Construction Co., Inc.,
Applicant
File No. X-4-85A
REVISED FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND RECOMMENDATION IN
LIGHT OF NEW ORDINANCE
A. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 1985, the Hearing Examiner entered findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the above case. The Hearing Examiner
recommended that the Winslow City Council not approve the
subdivision component of Fairbank Construction's PUD/Subdvision
application because:
The plan did not meet City Subdivision Standards, and
There was no provision in the Municipal Code for modifying
those Standards to accommodate the small scale and aesthetic
design of a PUD such as the one proposed by Applicant.
On August 15, 1985, the City Council passed and the Mayor approved
Ordinance No. 85-11, effective August 26, 1985. This ordinance
added subsection B to W.M.C. 17.04.210. Subsection B provides that
the Hearing Examiner and City Council may modify the City's
Subdivision Standards where a request for subdivision approval is
made in conjunction with a request for approval of a PUD pursuant
to Chapter 18.40 of the W.M.C.
The City Council then referred Applicant's request for approval of
the above PUD/Subdivision proposal back to the Hearing Examiner for
reconsideration in light of this new ordinance.
Except as modified herein, the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Recommendation entered July 16, 1985, in this matter are
incorporated by reference.
B. REVISIONS
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Finding of Fact III
A third paragraph is added to Finding of Fact III, entered
7/16/85, reading as follows:
The project's proposed density will not be
detrimental to traffic safety, sound engineering
practice, the public health, safety or general welfare.
-1-
b. Finding of Fact V
The following sentence is added at the end of the first
paragraph of Finding of Fact V:
It appears that the access road as planned will
not be detrimental to traffic safety, sound engineering
practice, the public health, safety or general welfare.
2. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
a. Conclusion of Law VIII
The third paragraph of Conclusion of Law VIII, entered 7/16/85,
is modified, and three new paragraphs are added, as follows:
Unlike lot coverage (in Conclusion II, fn 2), density
is defined by the ordinance as a "minimum lot area."
W.M.C. 18.40.030, incorporating 18.24.040, by reference.
If the Subdivision Standards were read together with
the PUD ordinance, Subdivision Standard (9) would exclude
the 4825 square feet of access road from the 35,239 square
feet of property, leaving a lot area of 30,414 square feet.
Six lots with a minimum lot area of 5400 square feet
(W.M.C. 18.24.040.C.) would require a total minimum lot
area of 32,400 square feet, some 2000 square feet more
than available under the project's subdivision plan.
Newly enacted Ordinance No. 85-11, however, authorizes
modification of this Subdivision Standard in conjunction
with a PUD proposal. One intent of PUD Chapter 18.40 of
the W.M.C. is to allow higher density as a trade-off for
superior design. W.M.C. 18.40.010; 18.40.030. As
explained above, if Applicant were not seeking to subdivide
the proposed PUD, Title 18 would not require exclusion of
the access road from the lot area for density computation.
In light of new ordinance No. 85-11, and the small PUD
character of the proposed project, unlike a large
subdivision, it is reasonable to modify Subdivision
Standard (9) as being inapplicable to the Madison Avenue
Townhouse. Thus eliminating exclusion of the access road
from lot area for density calculation purposes, the project
meets the density requirements of Title 18, W.M.C., as set
forth in the first and second paragraphs of Conclusion of
Law VIII.
This Subdivision Standard modification is consistent with
the intents and purposes of Chapter 18.40, as set forth in
W.M.C. 18.40.010.
· -2-
b. Conclusion of Law IX
The last sentence of the fourth paragraph of Conclusion of Law
IX, beginning "Although Applicant's planned uncurbed narrow
road ...," (bottom of p. 8), is eliminated. In its place is
inserted the following:
Applicant's proposed uncurbed, narrow, gently curving
access road is an aesthetically pleasing design and is
consistent with the PUD purposes of W.M.C. 18.40.010.
The wider, paved, curbed road otherwise required by the
Subdivision Standards would be detrimental to the
aesthetic and ecological goals of the PUD ordinance and
is not required for health or safety purposes. Therefore,
it is appropriate to modify the Subdivision Standards
such that Subdivision Standard Improvements (2), requiring
curbs, and Standard (11), requiring a 24 foot width,
are not applicable to the Madison Avenue Townhouse
PUD/Subdivision application.
c. Conclusions of Law XII and XV
In light of the PUD goals of preservation of open space and
provision of useable space for active recreation for both
PUD occupants and the public (W.M.C. 18.40.010, .030,
18.68.060.F.1.), it is neither reasonable nor necessary to
modify the park dedication Subdivision Standards. Thus
Conclusions of Law XII and XV remain unchanged.
d. Conclusion of Law XIV
Conclusion of Law XIV, enfered 7/16/85, is modified to read
as follows:
Except for omission of a park dedication proposal
from its application (W.M.C. 17.08.080), the proposed
subdivision/PUD conforms with the general purposes of
the Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of the zoning
code and other applicable ordinances.
-3-
DONE THIS
3. RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation entered 7/16/85 is
modified as follows:
RECOMMENDATION
The Subdivision Standards should be modified as set forth
above. Application for the PUD/Subdivision project known
as the Madison Avenue Townhouse, should be granted,
conditioned upon Applicant's dedication of land for a park
or voluntary payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication.
3. ROBIN HUNT
WINSLOW HEARING EXAMINER
-4-
BEFORE THE
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF WINSLOW
In the Matter of the
Madison Avenue Townhouse
Planned Unit Development/Subdivision
Sought by
Fairbank Construction Co., Inc.,
Applicant
File No.
X-4-85
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND RECOMMENDATION
The application of Fairbank Construction Co., Inc. (Applicant) for
a subdivision and a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), to
be known as Madison Avenue Townhouse (the project), came before the
Hearing Examiner at a public hearing in City Hall in Winslow,
Washington, on June 18, 1985, at 7:00 P.M. Connie Toliver,
Administrative Clerk for the City of Winslow (the City) monitored
the recording of the hearing.
Applicant appeared principally through its attorney, Bruce Brunton.
Also speaking on Applicant's behalf were Tad Fairbanks, project
developer, Tom Jurcak, project landscape designer, and Tom Johnston,
project architect. The City appeared through A1 Grajeda, City Land Use
Administrator. The only other person present was Tim Dwyer, whose
residence abuts the south property line of the property. No one
opposed the project.
Witnesses were sworn, testified, and questioned. The main issues were:
1. whether the project must provide park dedication or other
public open space. '--
Whether the three duplexes will be considered single or multi-
family buildings for the purposes of Winslow Municipal Code
18.24.070 access road width requirements.
Whether City Subdivision Standards require a sidewalk or
footpath along the access road and whether the road must be
curbed.
4. Whether there should be a fence along the south property
line, parallel to the project's access road.
5. Location of a fire hydrant and adequacy of fire truck
access and storm drainage system.
From the testimony heard, the exhibits in the file, inspection of the
project site, and Bruce Brunton's letter of June 20, 1985, the Hearing
Examiner makes the following:
-1-
FINDINGS OF FACT
Notice of public hearing for the project was published for two
consecutive weeks in the Bainbridge Review, commencing May 29, 1985,
and ending June 5, 1985. Notices were also posted in several
conspicuous places on the property.
II.
The property to be developed is a rectangular lot, less than one acre
in size, located at 637 Madison Avenue North, Winslow, Washington. The
area is zoned Medium Density Multi-family Residential. A former single
family residence on the property is currently being remodelled into a
duplex. Space behind has been cleared, apparently for the second
duplex.
Single family residences are located on the properties to the north
and south, which are zoned Medium Density Multi-family Residential.
Another single family residence is located across Madison Avenue on the
property to the east, zoned High Density Multi-family Residential;
trees border the property on the west, zoned Single Family Residential
10,000 sq. ft. Further north up Madison Avenue is a condominium
called "The Madison."
III.
Applicant, Fairbank Construction Co., Inc., proposes a subdivided,
Planned Unit Development of six single-family residences, on six
fee simple lots, with common space jointly owned and maintained by
all six owners. The six units are to be grouped in three duplexes,
sharing common walls, each composed of a separate sheetrock wall, dead
space, and a second sheetrock wall. The units range in area from 1265
to 1874 square feet. The buildings cover 8158 square feet.1
The property is 35,239 square feet in size, 24,978 square feet of
which is allocated to the lots; the average lot size is 4163 feet. The
remaining 10,261 square feet is allocated to commonly held open space
and to the interior access road, which covers 4825 sq. ft. (according
to Bruce Brunton's 5/9/85 letter to A1 Grajeda). The open space is
arranged primarily as long narrow strips, the interior of the traffic
circle, and a small triangular lawn in front of Unit F. (Exhibits 14 &
15.)
Exhibit 14, the most recent Preliminary Plat, dated 6/11/85,
gives 35,239 square feet as the total area, in contrast with
Exhibit 6B, Preliminary Plat site plan dated 1/4/85, which
gives 35,830 square feet as the total area and apparently
includes a five foot wide sidewalk, previously dedicated to the
City.
-2-
IV.
All but one house will be two-stories, with 28 feet as the maximum
height (Exhibit 1C). Each will have cedar siding and roofing with
fir-lined windows. The exterior design is reminiscent of the Cape Cod
style. Although the units' exteriors will harmonize with one another,
their facades will not be identical.
Each house will have: a paved entry, a deck, an attached single car
garage, and one additional parking space. The landscape plan of
6/18/85 (Exhibit 15), calls for back-arounds for Units A, B, and E.
The front of Unit A is set back 46 feet 7-1/2 inches from the east lot
line along Madison Avenue. Most of the buildings will be set back
14-1/2 feet from the north lot line, with parts of Units B, and C and
D, set back 7-1/2 and 5 feet, respectively. (See Exhibit 6B.) Units E
and F will be set back 15' from the west lot line. Unit F is set back
10' from the south lot line.
The two-way interior access road will be 210 feet long and 22 feet wide
at its intersection with Madison Avenue, narrowing to 16 feet. In his
letter of 1/21/85, Bainbridge Island Fire Chief Don Beach stated that
he had no objection to the minimal 16 feet road width. A twelve feet
wide, one-way traffic circle is planned in front of middle units C and
D. No pathway, sidewalk or curbing is planned along the road; rather
the road will be flush with the adjacent lawns.
A sidewalk and curbing already exist along the east Madison Avenue edge
of the property.
VI.
Applicant plans to install two low-level lights and a fire hydrant near
the road's mouth at Madison Avenue. The traffic circle will also have
outdoor lighting.
VII.
No fence is planned along the south lot line, adjacent to the interior
access road. Both the applicant and the property owner/resident to the
south believe that the existing foliage together with the planned
additional landscaping will provide sufficient screening and a
protective buffer between the two properties.
VIII.
The landscaping plan is to retain much of the existing foliage around
the perimeter of the lot and to fill in the gaps with additional
foliage. Several trees in the lot's interior will also be retained.
-3-
Lawns are planned for most of the interior open space which is not
covered by pavement or buildings.
IX.
Applicant has prepared explicit covenants which will be binding on each
lot owner and will provide for the maintenance of common areas and
payment of taxes. (Exhibit 6D.)
The property is basically flat. Applicant plans two catchbasins for
the project's interior paved road, one at the mouth and one south of
the traffic circle. It plans to run water, storm and sanitary sewer
lines into the project under and along the access road (Exhibit 14).
The City Land Use Department recommends that each residential downspout
be connected to the storm drain line and that run-off from the road be
controlled with curbs (Exhibit 16). Applicant stated at the hearing
that it would like to try an alternative method to catch and distribute
water, but has not yet submitted a specific proposal.
XI.
Applicant has neither submitted a park dedication plan nor volunteered
to pay a fee in lieu of park dedication. Applicant maintains that the
small scale of the project and the availability of interior open space
is such that there will be no significant impact on the City's parks.
Since both Applicant and the southerly adjacent property owner strongly
oppose creation of a public trail going east-west along the south
property line, the City Land Use-Department has suggested that payment
of a fee in lieu of park dedication would be appropriate.
On-site inspection of the project, together with review of the plans,
shows that: 1. Each unit will have a very small private lawn.
2. Most of the project's common space is devoted to the access road,
the traffic circle, and a long 10 foot narrow set-back strip between
the road and the south lot line; Applicant stated at the hearing that
some visitor parking may be on the open grassy areas adjacent to the
road. 3. The only open space which appears useable for outdoor
recreation is the front lawn, most of which will be privately owned as
part of lot A; the adjacent 13 feet wide north-south strip to be
commonly held as open space is too narrow to be useable for most types
of outdoor activities. Similarly, the commonly held portion of the
triangular lawn in front of Unit F is too small to be useable for
outdoor recreational activities, other than perhaps a small playground
or picnic area. (See Exhibits 14 & 15.)
The little useable open space available in the project, whether
commonly or privately held, is not sufficient to provide active
recreational opportunities for the six families who will live there.
Consequently, these families will have to utilize recreational
facilities outside the project, most probably nearby City and other
-4-
island parks and recreational facilities.
XII.
Applicant appears to have met most conditions set by the Planning
Agency in its letter of 5/10/85, recommending approval of the project
(Exhibit 10); it is not known, however, whether or not the Planning
Agency has received and accepted the 6/18/85 landscape plan (Exhibit
15).
The Planning Agency did not find interior pedestrian walkways to be
necessary.
XIII.
The project retains Winslow's "present character of a primarily single
family, residential community with moderate population density."
Winslow Comprehensive Plan (WCP) 3.1.1.1. The development is
"restrained, not garish; relaxed, not frenzied; generally tasteful
.... " WCP 3.1.1.2. The development "reflect(s) the highest quality of
design and execution" and will help "insure the continuation of the
pleasing image of the City." WCP 3.1.1.6.
Except for the scarcity of open recreational space, the project appears
to have incorporated the principles of excellent design, resulting in a
more efficient, aesthetic, and desirable development than that which
might have resulted from the traditional lot by lot development. The
Planning Agency recognized that the "development appears to provide
significantly improved quality compared to an otherwise permissible
six-plex structure." (Exhibit 10)
The project has attempted to preserve open space and natural
vegetation. No special natural ecological system appears to be
involved as evidenced by the City's issuance of a declaration of
environmental non-significance (Exhibit 7). Rainwater appears
currently to be absorbed by the natural vegetation, much of which will
be displaced by buildings and pavement. Rainwater and other run-off
will then be carried to the City's storm sewer via the drainage system
planned for the project.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a permitted use in the Medium
Density Multi-family Residential zone in which the property is located.
Winslow Municipal Code (WMC) 18.24.020.G.
-5-
II.
The lot area to be covered by buildings does not exceed the 25% limit
specified by W.M.C. 18.40.050. The buildings will cover 8158 square
feet or less than 25% of the property's 35,239 square feet.2
III·
There is no minimum lot size for a PUD. W.M.C. 18.40.040.
IV.
Although Lot A faces Madison Avenue, a major arterial street, it does
not violate the letter or the spirit of Subdivision Standard (6),
incorporated by reference in W.M.C. 17.04.210, in that: a) the open
space buffer between Madison and Lot A keeps Lot A from fronting on
Madison and b) the building on Lot A, a remodel, is in essentially
the same position with respect to Madison Avenue as the original house.
It seems unreasonable to read this Subdivision Standard as requiring
reorientation of the front of the house to the south side.
There are no minimum yards required for a PUD. W.M.C. 18.40.060.
Thus it is permissible for one wall of each unit to be along a lot line
as planned. (See also City Attorney Wayne Tanaka's letter of 4/10/85,
Exhibit 3.)
VI.
The buildings will not be over 35 feet in height and thus require no
conditional use permit. W.M.C. 18.24.030.B and 18.40.080.
VII.
The project plans meet W.M.C. 18.56.080.A and .090, requiring two
parking spaces for each dwelling unit located on the same lot with the
building they serve.
VIII.
Each duplex shares a continuous roof and common wall and thus is a
single building containing two dwelling units. Therefore each duplex
is a "multi-family dwelling" for purposes of Title 18, the zoning
provisions of the Winslow Municipal Code W.M.C. 18.12.060, 18.12.160-
190.
Subdivision Standard (9) excludes access roads for computation
of "minimum lot areas" Lot coverage is described as a
"maximum lot area." W.M.C. 18.40.050. Therefore the access
road need not be excluded from the gross property area before
computing lot coverage.
-6-
Applicant does not meet the criteria for the 115% density allowed for a
PUD in W.M.C. 18.40.030 because it has not demonstrated that "the PUD
will be developed in such a manner as to provide useable space for
active recreational purposes." W.M.C. 18.40.030.A. Thus the normal
density for the underlying zone is applicable: 5400 square feet per
dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling, or a total of 32,400 square
feet for the project's six units. W.M.C. 18.24.040.C. This square
footage is well under the 35,239 square feet lot area of the project,
if the 4825 sq. ft. for the access drive is not excluded.
Unlike lot coverage (in Conclusion II, fn 2 above), density is defined
by the ordinance as a "minimum lot area." W.M.C. 18.40.030,
incorporating 18.24.040, by reference. Reading the Subdivision
Standards together with the PUD ordinance, Subdivision Standard (9)
excludes the 4825 square feet of access road from the 35,239 square
feet of property, leaving a lot area of 30,414 square feet. Six lots
with a minimum lot area of 5400 square feet (W.M.C. 18.24.040.C.) would
require a total minimum lot area of 32,400 square feet some 2000 square
feet more than available under the project's subdivision plan.
IX.
The PUD ordinance makes specific provision for such items as minimum
lot size, lot coverage, yards, building types and height, and
specifically incorporates by reference requirements for the underlying
zone for such items as permitted uses and density. However, the PUD
ordinance is silent as to access roads. W.M.C. 18.40.
The underlying zoning ordinance, W.M.C. 18.24.070.B, sets the following
access requirements for multi-family buildings in a Medium Density
zone:
1. Two-way access drives not abutted by parking shall provide
at least twenty-two feet of paved surface.
2. Two-way access drives abutted by parking shall provide
at least twenty-four feet of paved surface.
3. One-way access drives not abutted by parking shall provide
at least twelve feet of paved surface.
4. One-way access drives abutted by parking shall provide
at least twenty feet of paved surface.
The question then arises: Which applies, the underlying zone's
24 feet wide access road requirement or the flexibility principles of
the PUD ordinance? The opening section of W.M.C. Title 18, the zoning
ordinance, provides:
W.M.C.
The standards and criteria expressed in this title
shall be interpreted as minimum standards and when
two requirements of this title conflict, the one
imposing the greater restriction shall apply.
18.08.010
-7-
Three possible constructions result:
There is a conflict within Title 18. Chapter 40 is completely
silent as to minimum road width, even though it does specify
other areas in which no minimum is required, ie. lot size and
yard. W.M.C. 18.40.040 & 18.40.060. This silence is in
conflict with the underlying zone's requirement of a 24 feet
wide paved two-way road for a multi-family building in a
Medium Density zone. W.M.C. 18o24.070.B.2. The latter
imposes the greater restriction in that the former imposes
none; thus the 24 feet road width would apply under
W.M.C. 18.08.010; or
There is no conflict within Title 18. Reading the two
chapters harmoniously together, one silent and one specific,
the specific 24 feet road width requirement would apply; or
There is no conflict within Title 18. There is no conflict
between the silence of PUD Chapter 40 and the specific
width required in MDMFR Chapter 24. Rather PUD Chapter 18.40
is a uniquely special provision, the purpose of which is to
encourage superior development by allowing maximum
"flexibility of design" and "creative approaches" to result in
"a more efficient, aesthetic, and desirable development."
W.M.C. 18.40.010. W.M.C. 1.04.080 provides that all City
ordinances must be construed with a view to effect their
objects .... " Since Chapter 40 does not incorporate by
reference the road width requirement of the underlying zone,
then the ordinance's objects of flexibility and efficient,
aesthetic, desirable design should control. Thus there is no
specific road width requirement for the project othe~ than the
general "safety" and "adequacy" requirements of W.M.C.
18.68.060.
The third construction appears to be the most reasonable and thus will
be adopted here. The access road thus satisfies the PUD requirements
of safety, adequacy and aesthetic design.
However, Applicant's access road does not meet the Subdivision
Standards requirement. Subdivision Standard (11) also requires the
minimum width of a subdivision improved surface to be 24 feet for
residential access. The project's two-way access drive is 22 feet
rather than 24 feet wide where it abuts parking with Unit A. The one-
way portion is 12 feet rather than 20 feet wide where it abuts parking
for Units C and D. The two-way road is 12 feet rather 20 feet wide
when it abuts parking for Units E & F. (See Exhibits 6C, 14, and 15.)
Subdivision Standards Improvements (2) also appears to require curbs.
The project plan proposes no interior curbs. Although Applicant's
planned uncurbed narrow road width is a more aethetically pleasing
design and more in keeping with the PUD purpose of W.M.C. 18.40.010,
the Subdivision Standards do not appear to make any exception for a
PUD access road.
-8-
Although the City's Subdivision Standards of May 17, 1984, incorporated
by reference in W.M.C. 17.04.210, advocate sidewalks or 5 feet
footpaths along interior streets in a subdivision, none are absolutely
required.3 Subdivision Standard (8) provides that pedestrian walkways
will be required when the Planning Agency determines they are
"necessary"; no such determination has been made by the Planning Agency
here. Applicant's plan to encourage foot traffic along the grass
adjacent to the project's uncurbed interior road appears to be both
safe and aesthetically pleasing. It also has the added flexibility of
allowing extra parking and easy fire or emergency access on the
adjacent grassy areas if necessary.
XI.
Applicant has complied with W.M.C. 18.40.090 by providing for
maintenance and payment of taxes for common areas through covenants.
XII.
Applicant did not submit a proposal for dedication of land as a park
or payment of a fee in lieu with its original application, as required
by W.M.C. 17.08.080.A.1. Nor has applicant submitted a park proposal
by the time of the hearing, other than to oppose dedication of land for
a public trail. Because of the paucity of open space useable for
recreation within the project and the project's resultant impact on the
parks and recreational facilities, park dedication is reasonably
necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. W.M.C.
17.08.010.
There is no evidence concerning whether the City's needs for parks and
recreational facilities would be best served by dedication of land for
a trail within the project or payment of a fee in lieu of land
dedication. The City Land Use Department suggested a fee in lieu of
dedication of land for park development. W.M.C. 17.08.030. A fee in
lieu of dedication of land is appropriate because:
a. The property does not appear to be in an area which the
City plans for a future park or recreational facility, nor is
it near or adjacent to an existing park or recreational facility.
W.M.C. 17.08.040.A, E, & F.
See Subdivision Standards: Improvements: (4)
"The installation of sidewalks ... may be required for
public convenience, safety or traffic movement. Wherever
sidewalks are not installed, 5' footpaths ... may be
allowed on a case by case basis." (Emphasis added.)
W.M.C. 17.04.020 provides that use of the word "may" indicates
use of discretion in making a decision, as opposed to "shall,"
which is always mandatory.
-9-
b. Except for dedicating the southernmost east-west strip of
land as a public trail, the small size, rectangular shape and
compact design of the project allow no land suitable for
dedication. W.M.C. 17.08.040.B-D.
c. The project's open space, though protected by covenants, is
too segmented and small to provide outdoor recreational
opportunity for residents of the project or to mitigate the impact
of the development on City park and recreational facilities.
W.M.C. 17.08.040 E; 17.08.050; 17.08.060.
If Applicant voluntarily agrees to pay a fee in lieu of park
dedication, it shall be used to mitigate the impact of the project
on the park and recreational facilities of the City. W.M.C. 17.08.030.
If the Applicant does not voluntarily agree to pay a fee in lieu of
dedication of land, then Applicant shall submit a proposal for
dedication of land for park and recreational purposes as originally
required. W.M.C. 17.08.010-.040;.080. Without such park dedication,
the project would not serve the "public use" for purposes of W.M.C.
17.04.100.B. even though its superior design serves the public
"interest."
XIII.
The factors to be considered in reviewing a subdivision proposal set
forth in W.M.C. 17.04.100.A. have all been considered. Applicant has
yet to submit a plan to catch and distribute water, as an alternative
to curbing along the road. Final drainage, water and sewer plans will
need to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
XIV. - ~
Except for omission of a park dedication proposal from its application
(W.M.C. 17.08.080), the proposed subdivision/PUD conforms with the
general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the PUD aspects
of the project conform with the provisions of the zoning code and other
applicable ordinances, the subdivision aspects do not. W.M.C.
17.04.100.B. As set forth in Conclusions of Law VIII and IX, the
project does not meet density and access road width and curbing
requirements for subdivisions. The subdivision requirements appear to
make no special exceptions to accommodate either the PUD's small scale
or creativity, flexibility and aesthetic design.
XV.
At the hearing, Applicant demonstrated compliance with all of the
criteria of W.M.C. 18.68.060, except for the aforementioned park
dedication and 18.68.060.F.1. "construction and maintenance of
public open space, recreational use, and public facilities." Whether
or not failure to demonstrate provision of such open space defeats a
proposed PUD is unclear from the ordinance. Reading W.M.C.
18.68.060.F.1. together with 17.08.030-.040, however, suggests that
payment of a fee is an acceptable alternative to public dedication of
-10-
open space where such dedication is incompatible with the scale and
design of the project. Payment of such a fee would thus make off-site
provision for "public open spac~ recreational areas and public
facilities," even though not incorporated on-site into the "design of
the planned unit development." W.M.C. 18.68.060.F.1.
RECOMMENDATION
Application for the PUD component of the project known as the Madison
Avenue Townhouse, should be granted, conditioned upon Applicant's
dedication of land for a park or voluntary payment of a fee in lieu of
such dedication. Application for the subdivision component of the
project should be denied.
DoNE THIS /~ ~ DAY OF JULY, 198S.
ROBIN HUNT
WINSLOW HEARING EXAMINER
-ll-