17619 76TH AVE W.pdfBEFORE THE EDMONDS Crff COUNCEL
Applicant: Charlotte Swift File Nos: AP-97-155
AP-97-119
S-97-3
V1
=1 F-1
U) LL
LU 0
U- 4
This matter came on before the Edmonds City Council for hearing on January 20, 1998. The
hearing was a closed record appeal based on the record developed before the Hearing Examiner.
The Applicant/Appellant in interest
X
staff, the and one party made presentations and argument.
z
In her counsel's presentation, the Applicant/Appellant argued two grounds for the appeal:
LU LU,
2 5
M
1. The exclusion set forth in ECDC 21.55.020 is constitutionally vague and therefore void
C)
as violative of the Applicant/Appellant's constitutional right of due process.
a tz
UA LU
X
If not void for vagueness, the provisions of ECDC 21.55.620 should be interpreted to
U.
include the lot area calculation from the access easement.
0i
SY)
At the hearing, the Applicant/Appellant submitted a survey's declaration tending to indicate that
0
the existing home is located on the property with sufficient setback requirement and therefore
z
no additional modification of the City's setback standards is required. Therefore, at the hearing,
the only issue under consideration by the City Council was whether or not the subdivision should
be approved.
FIN )INGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council adopts the findings, conclusions and decision of its Hearing Examiner and his
response to the Applicant/Appellant's request for reconsideration, except as specifically
o'
supplemented herein. The Applicant/Appellant incorporated by reference in her appeal issues
raised her Request For Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner but argued to the City Council
only the two issues referenced below. Therefore, the City Council adopts the Hearing
Examiner's decision supplementing the Hearing Examiner's decision and response to the Request
For Reconsideration in, but only in, the following respects:
01/29/98
WSS.185895.lX/0006.150.000
0:
7
X-P
I
1. The Applicant/Appellant argues that the provision of ECDC 21.55.020 are
I I unconstitutionally vague citing Anderson v. Issgguah, 70 Wash. App. 64 (1993). The
City Council finds and concludes the following with regard to this portion of the appeal.
Z
1.1 To the extent that the Applicant/Appellant argument requests a finding that the
City's ordinance is void and without application, the City Council notes that it is
required by the provisions of the subdivision code (Chapter 20.75 ECDC) to
0!
0:
determine that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the provisions of
LO LU
rn,,,
the subdivision code, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and flood
X�
-J I--
plain management. ECDC 20.75.080. To the extent that this appeal point argues
En U.
10
for a finding that the provisions of the subdivision code question are
2 �
constitutionally vague and void, the City Council finds that it is without
g _3
jurisdiction to consider a challenge to its jurisdiction based upon general legal
LL 4
0
principles which can be determined only in a court of law. Chaussee v.
C)
X
Snohomish Cou= Council, 38 Wash. App. 630, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984). The
Z I--::,
City Council is obligated to apply the provisions of City ordinance as they exist.
Should the provision in question be overruled or be determined to be void by a
M Lull
court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council will deliberate accordingly in
2 :D:
D 0i
future proceedings.
U ji0
a L-]
1.2 The case cited by Applicant/Appellant, Anderson' involves the application of
UJ UJI
vague, general aesthetic principles. The Washington Court of Appeals stated that:
The Commissioners enforce not a building design
LU 0
U
code but their own arbitrary concept of the
0
provisions of an unwritten "statement" to be made
Z
on Gilman Blvd.
Anderson, at p. 78.
1.2.1 In the case before the City Council, the only determination to be made is
how the word "normally" should be interpreted. Unlike Anderson, the
word appears in the context of a clearly, worded, specific ordinance and
its meaning can easily be determined through the use of standard maxims
and interpretation. The City Council notes the following:
1.2.2 Ordinances should be interpreted in a way which preserves their
constitutionality.
1.2.3 As noted by the Hearing Examiner, the word "normally" has a commonly
accepted meaning.
01/29/98
WSS.185895.IX/OOD6.150.000
M
1.2.4 A zoning ordinance must be read and construed in its entirety and an
unreasonable construction must be rejected. In the case before the
Council, the word "normally" is used in sentence 2 in conjunction with
the exclusion of "... any street rights -of -way and access easements. " The
sentence which follows in the ordinance refers to ECDC 18.80.010, Note
4 and describes a calculation of lot area which includes additional rights -
of -way required under the provisions of Note 4. Note 4 itself provides for
the inclusion of additional street right-of-way or access easements required
in order to prevent the impairment of firefighting or rescue operations.
The City Council finds that the section read in its entirety is clear and that
the Applicant/Appellant's argument is an unreasonable construction of its
provisions.
L-L <
=)I
1.2.5 Applicant/Appellant's additionally argues that sentence 3 of Section
U)
T
21.55.020 by referencing right-of-way but not access easements creates an
X:.
ambiguity. The City Council notes that no additional right-of-way or
Z
iaccess
easement width was required from the Applicant/Appellant pursuant
WO
to the provisions of ECDC 18.80.010, Note 4. Therefore, this issue is
2 M:
=) 01
not one which impacts the Applicant/Appellant -- that is, the
U Ln
Applicant/Appellant has not been required to provide additional easement
0
a—
width or right-of-way and therefore whether or not the additional area
UJ
X U,
should be included or excluded is not relevant to the City Council's
inquiry. The only issue is whether the street right-of-way/access easement
U-
Z
required should be excluded from lot area calculation and the City Council
..
W W
finds that the "normal rule" as uniformly applied by the staff should
control.
Z
1.2.6 Similar zoning codes must be reasonably construed in order to effectuate
the purposes for which they are adopted. Here the provisions are clearly
intended to provide for a "normal" situation, that is one in which right-of-
way and street width in accordance with the standard table was required
and to provide relief only when additional right-of-way was required by
-J
excluding the additional requirement from lot area calculation.
1.2.7 Deference should be given in the interpretation of zoning and subdivision
0
Codes to the construction of the ordinance by the zoning officials charged
with their enforcement. Here the record indicates a consistent
interpretation of the City's staff to exclude street right-of-way and
easements from lot area calculation, except, when additional right-of-way
has been required pursuant to Note 4. The City Council notes that resort
to the staff s interpretative stance is required only if the ordinance is
0
ambiguous and, the City Council has already found the questioned
ordinance to be clear on its face.
01/29/98
WSS-185895.IX/0006.150.000 -3-
4K, 0
.1r, y L
V r �'V
'.4
ilo,
"FP "W
�A
DECISION
Except as specifically supplemented herein, the. findings, conciusioiis'and decision of this,
z :Hearing , Examiner are adopted, along with the Hearing Examiner , s response. to the
x ApOlicant/Appellant's motion for, reconsideration. Th6l subdivision application is denied.
DONE this -0o day of 1998.'
C.) cr
21
CITY OF EDMONDS:
W
LL
Ld ara S. Fah&y, Mayor
z
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
LU W1
U !A
0
LU"J twu
X tui Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
U
z
0
01/29/98
WSS.185895.IX/0006.150.000 +
�'O It' t� 'Vtv -1
"_g
.... .......
�k�'N j4�tt';' s . ..... -
g
Dennis Jordan Jeff Palmer
Charlotte Swift
4202 Hoyt 7510 76th'AVE W
17619,76th AVE W
Everett, WA 98204
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
z
Jack & Paula Parsons Robin Michel
Jack and Virginia Kostelyk
7520 176th SW 8022 212th Street, SW 8229 212th ST SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
LU
_j
U 01
0
0 LU)
Nathan Coder Brad and Adriana Akers Mr. and Mrs. James Q. King
(n U. 17629 76th Ave SW 1715 76th AVE W 7426 Soundview Drive
0 Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
U.
E
Edith Faste Greg Steen Don and Fern Thompson
17727 76th AVE W
17619 76th AVE W 7413 Soundview Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
LU W
Mr. and Mrs. Handyside Pete Troka Judy Bishop
a L; 7411 Soundview Drive 17527 76th Ave W 17524 76th AVE W
LU Uj
Uj Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Uj 0)
Lois Rousch
0 7501 Braemar Drive
z
Edmonds, WA 98026
t
f;7,idiA q
A P -7 1
A i> 4Q _7
!S
'Qt'
�Az
0
7A. 'FINDIMS 0 DNMUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED
RECORD APPEAL OF i EXADMR'S DECISION HUM BEFORE JEM-=
COMM ON JANUARY 20,1228, (Anpallont/Anplicant: Charlotte Swift / Praerly Locatione
17619 -76th Avenue West / File S-9Z-Z Cbrmerly Consent Azenda
Item IQ
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEDEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 7A (APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION HELD BEFORE TIBE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 20, 1998.
(Appellant(Applicant: Charlotte Swift / Property Locatiow, 17619 -76th Avenue West / File Nos.
AP-97-155, AP-97-119 & S-97-3). MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND
NORDQUIST ABSTAINED.
COUNCILMEMMER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILIVIEMBER
NORDQUIST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINIMS. MOTION CARRIED.
8. MAYORS REPORT
Mayor Fahey had no report.
9. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmembers had no reports.
lExecutive 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER
mayor Fahey recessed the Council to Executive Session at 10:21 p.m. for approximately 10 minutes for
discussion regarding a legal matter. No action was anticipated following the Executive Session.
The Council meeting was adjourned immediately following the Executive Session.
4�
d
(A) ROLL CALL
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MMWMS OF JANUARY 27,1998
z !
rove
ain, (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #19491 THRU #22867 FOR THE WEEK OF
arrants JANUARY 26,1998, IN TEE AMOUNT OF $598,401.55
WWVVTWP
(D)
-LJ) 0! H7VAC REPORT ON MAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WASTEWATER
ro
Improve. ?'ATMENT PLANT HVAC EWPROVEMENTS AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF
to
CD LW ments PROJECT
LU
CD LL VnvteR�m
Uj 0 �Vhtcr Grou (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
2 ][NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR' THE EMRIM WATER GROUP AND
9 -j AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYME4 NT NO. 5
LL re
(n IttatZe (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FOUR (4) ONE -TON FLAT BED TRUCKS FROM
Uh rocks
THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT ($80,250)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE ELECTROSTATIC
z ENGINEERING COPIER
6Ave. W/
D 16 St. SW (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BEDS FOR THE, 76TH AVENUE
<j Ln WEST1216TH
ignal STREET SOUTHWEST SIGNAL
LU
j-, (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3188 VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUELT
PjGHT-OF-WAY OF 237TH PLACE SW, WEST OF 107TH PLACE SW LOCATED IN
z THE CITY OF EDMONDS RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND
ul 0)
SUBSURFACE (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. ST-97-157)
-*"8
0
z (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3189 VACATING A PORT[ON OF THE PLATTED BUT UNDUELT
RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF PORTIONS OF 15TH STREET SW ADJACENT To THE
EDMONDS CEMETERY AND PORTIONS OF 100TH AVENUE SOUTH ADJACENT TO
FW.7-1189�
ca� 189
IVw
;t Sw
Cemetery)
THE EDMONDS CEMETERY, LOCATED IN THE CI[TY OF EDMONDS (Applicant:
City of Edmonds File No. ST-97-158)
Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding a Closed Record Appeal
Findingsof
of the Hcaring Examiner's Decision held before the City Council on janualw—ILMI&
C. swift (Anpd1ant/AVVHcant: Charlotte Swift I krop" Location: 12619 76th Avenue West lYjlg
AP-97-155
Councilmember Nordquist said he intended to abstain from the vote on this item as he did not participate
in the decision at the January 20 meeting.
01 Councilmember Miller advised he did not attend the January 20 meeting but had read the minutes. He
asked if he should vote on this item. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested Councilmember Miller
abstain from the vote on this item.
As there was not a quomm to vote on this item, Mr. Snyder suggested it be delayed until Councilmember
White's arrival. He noted the Council was not making a decision on this item, this was only approval of
the Findings of Fact.
Edmonds CitY Councit Approved Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 2
0 x"
- — --------
- -------
COUNCIELMENSER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEEE, TO MOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I TO AGENDA IUM 7A. MOTION
CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.)
ffo—uoci-i--1 Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, Edinonds, thanked Councilmember Nordquist for his invitation to
tLihave lunch with the Council at their retreat. He reiterated his preference that the Council hold their
retreat in Edmonds. He said the comment that Councilmember Plunkett arrange for a bus to drive the
Council to its retreat was a good idea and would save the City money.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to the recent National Sports Day for Girls
and suggested the City consider proclaiming a Sports Day for Girls next year. He encouraged the public
to attend the RTA meeting on Thursday, noting he has suggested the City consider a monorail since
FTA
�� 1992.
ui� James Holland, City of Shoreline, read a letter from Shorelinels City Manager, Robert Dies (submitted
X - Vacati f
R-04PI to Edmonds today) regarding the proposed right-of-way vacation of 237th Place SW. Ilie City of
01 MtEL§yj Shoreline has been tracking and commenting on the Woodway Highland proposal since the DEIS was
L" LU issued in September 1996. On June 2, 1997, the Shoreline Ci Council approved sev al policy
2 =)! tY er
-n 0: : statements regarding the Woodway Highland project mitigation which were submitted and presented to
Q LAI the Woodway Planning Commission. Shoreline's concerns with the project include tr
0 10 affic impacts to
C3 ;-7-1 Shoreline. The preferred alternatives continue to direct traffic to Shoreline streets and therefore
LU LU
Shoreline continues to encourage Woodway to consider other alternative access points; 237th Place SW
was a potential alternative access point. The only access into the project is onto Timber Lane; the
�L_ 0
.. Z majority of this traffic flows onto 20th NW, a Shoreline street. The additional access point the
UJ Co Woodway Planning Commission is suggesting is at 205th/244 at 15 NW, the Shoreline/Edmonds
th th
border. The letter indicated Edmonds staff was aware of the suggestion to use the 237th Place SW right-
0 of -way. Last week an Edmonds citizen informed Shoreline that this right-of-way process was underway.
Shoreline was unaware of the progress on vacating this property and by the time they became aware, it
was too late. While the City of Shoreline understood the vacation would not require notification to
Shoreline, they expected notification would have been provided out of courtesy particularly in view of
Edmonds' staffs awareness of Shoreline's interest. The letter observed Edmonds' plans to contract with
Woodway for fire, police, and emergency medical services, and pointed out the elimination of 237th
Place SW access, if only as emergency access to the Woodway Highlands property, may have a negative
affect on response time and delivery of emergency services to the development. The letter indicated
Shoreline would like to develop a relationship with Edmonds to address common cross -county issues
with the goal of attaining mutually beneficial solutions. It was hoped the lack of communication
0 regarding 237th Place SW would not be setting a precedent for other issues in the future and that the
Council would postpone consideration on this vacation until all impacted jurisdictions discuss this issue
together. The letter offered to provide flirther information if necessary and indicated the Shoreline City.
Council supported the points made in the letter.
rc ese of Rich Derneroutts, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the proposed purchase of the tidel
iud.h1and and property
rope* and expressed concern with the City Attorney's explanation of why the City must pay $775,000 for under
an acre of sand. He noted the City was not only purchasing the property but also the future development
rights. He referred to a Port study regarding the tidelands in front of Brackett's Landing. After the City's
purchase, it was envisioned day slips could be constructed for use during good weather months only
unless a breakwater was constructed. It was also indicated this would not be a revenue generating efforL
Edrnonds City Council Aplyroved Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 3
0
Z
<
Z
LU!
cc
U) Q
U) LU
LJJ
-J
U) U.1
ot
Ui
cl!
Z
Z
LU LU
Q;
0
�L- 0
.. Z,
Ui Ca
0
Z
E
N1
4.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if emergency vehicle access would be allowed. Mr. Walker answered
staffs intent was not to allow fire access but utilities only. Discussions with the Fire Marshall resulted in
a letter from the City to the Town of Woodway indicating it would be better to extend the existing fire
access road on the south. He identified the fire access to the south on the map.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Jim Young, 23730 107th Place SW, Edmonds (Woodway Meadows), a property owner next to the
easement, was in favor of the City's proposal to vacate the right-of-way to allow construction of the
infiltration system to assist flooding on 107th Place,
Gail Piper, 10629 237th Piace SW, Edmonds, a resident near the proposed vacation, thanked the
Council for listening to residents and for proposing this vacation as a solution to the prospect of this
being a major access into the new 86-home development in Woodway. She said this proposal was
acceptable to the neighborhood and was advantageous to them.
Hearing no fin-ffier public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said this vacation is done under City ordinance and State law, Chapter 35.79
of the RCW, which delegates the power to vacate public easements to the City and must be done in
accordance with those principles. While it may accomplish a valid objective for Woodway Meadow's
citizens, the City's position is that the property is excess to the needs of the City and the vacation serves a
valid public purpose by providing drainage and utility easements.
Council President Haakenson advised the Council received a letter from Janet Cadip, 23919 106th Place
W, Edmonds, who also supported vacation of the parcel.
COUNCIIAVMNSER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIIMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBERE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE
ORDINANCE TO VACATE TEUS RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Councilmember Earling thanked former Councilmerriber Myers for pursuing this issue and bringing it to
the Council's attention.
MOTIONCARRIED.
Mayor Fahey applauded the citizenship of an 8-year-old in the audience, Alora Knapp, "who sent a le
to the Mayor.
8. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF ME HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION TO DENY
V�V�
Closed APPEAL OF THE ]PLANNING Divisms DECism To
Record RMDMSION QF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17619 76TH AVENUE VMST INTO 2 LOA
Appeal
(Swift - File TO DYM M BEQUEST FOR A h=MCATION To RED-XJCE TnE RFA)-XM= L&:OM
AP-97-155) OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET. TO 10,334 SQXJABF FEET EQR 331E PROPOSED LOT 21��
DENY THE REQUESTED SETBA K X
ODMCATION FROM nX
PROPERTY LINE OF LOT I FOR THE EMSTING SINGLE FAM� RES-
(AgpellarittApplicant: Charlo is, AP-97-155, AP-97-119 & S-97-3)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 20, 1998
Page 14
0
In
Z
LU
_J
r-) 0:
V) a
rJ) UJ
UJ
_J
LI) LL
0
W
2 j�
C2
M
3:
z I—
z
LU LU
0—
Ql
uJ LU
z
UJ CA
z
E
X
Councilmember Earling said he had an opportunity to review Council President Haakenson's packet
regarding this item, noting it contained much of the same infonnation as the packet he did receive. He
indicated he was comfortable having the hearing and taking a vote tonight.
Councilmember Nordquist preferred the Council not take action tonight but offered to excuse himself
from participation on this item.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a closed record hearing which would include a
presentation from staff, argument from the applicant and comment from parties of record; no new
testimony is permitted. He pointed out the attorney for the applicant, Dennis Jordan, submitted an
affidavit from the surveyor. As this is a closed record hearing, he requested staff treat this information as
a withdrawal of one of the modification requests. Therefore, the record is not being supplemented, rather
an item is being withdrawn.
At Council President Haakenson!s request, Mayor Fahey asked those involved in the appeal to indicate
whether they would prefer to have the matter resolved tonight or postponed to another date. Four
participants present indicated their preference to resolve the matter tonight, none of the participants
indicated a desire to postpone the decision.
Councilmember Nordquist excused himself from participation on this item.
COUNCMMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON,
TO MOVE FORWARD WIlL THE HEARING TONIGHT WITH FIVE COUNCELMMBERS
PARTICIPATING, COUNCH.MAIBER NORDQUIST NOT PARTICIEPATING. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey explained the Closed Record Appeal hearing procedures. She asked if any
Councilmenibers wished to make a disclosure. There were no disclosures made by any Councilmember.
Mayor Fahey asked if any participant had an objection to any Councilmembers' participation. There
were no objections to the participation of any Councilmember.
Planner Meg Gruwell noted, as Mr. Snyder indicated, the setback modification on the south side of the
property is no longer necessary, therefore, both setback modifications have been resolved. She displayed
a site plan, noting it originally appeared to be an easy subdivision as there was access to Soundview
Drive, 76th Avenue and a 28,000 square foot lot in a 12,000 square foot minimum zone. However, due
to the steep slope to Soundview Drive and springs in the area, access could not be obtained from
Soundview Drive and must be provided from 76th Avenue West. There is an existing single-family
residence on the site which they prefer not to demolish or remove which results in a slightly longer
easement than may otherwise have been required. Subtracting the access easement from the lot area
results in a lot size of 10,334 feet. Staff reviewed their proposal using the variance criteria, and denied
the lot size modification and subdivision as it did not meet the criteria. The applicant requested
reconsideration and an appeal to the Hearing Examiner, neither of which resulted in a change in the
original decision. one explamed me applicant7s issues include the use of the word "normally" the lot
area definition which the applicarifs attorney indicates violates the right of due process. In reviewing the
matter, staff has determined the access easement has always been subtracted from the lot area. She noted
the word "normally" was added when the lot area definition was amended so that if the Engffieermg
Department needed to require excess access easement above the standard, the applicant could use the
excess in their lot area calculation. Regarding the use of special circumstance criteria, the applicant
stated this was not a use variance but a dimensional variance. As the City does not allow use variances,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 20,1998
Page 15
L*1
LU (n
0
Z
1*1
M
0 0
all variances are dimensional and must address the special circumstance criteria including past action of
the owner such as location of the house. Staff has determined the applicant did not meet the criteria; this
decision has been upheld on reconsideration and appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
Dennis Jordan, 4202 Hoyt, Everett, attorney representing Charlotte Swift, said the materials
regarding their position on the lot size variance are included in the materials presented. He referred to
page 24 of the packet (ECDC 21.55.020) which states, "Lot area shall normally exclude any street rights -
of -way and access easements." The Hearing Examiner noted the position of the City of Edmonds
Planning Division is that they always exclude any street rights -of -way and access easements. Mr. Jordan
pointed out the word "normally" was included in the 1986 amendment and must have some meaning.
His concern with the word "normally," supported by case citings included in the Hearing Examiner
appeal, is that it is unconstitutionally vague. The City's Planning Division states it is not
unconstitutionally vague because the word "normally" refers to the addition of the third sentence of the
ordinance which states, "If additional right-of-way has been required in accordance with the provisions
of ECDC 18.80.010, note 4" which, by his interpretation, referred only to the City's requirement for
additional street rights -of -way and not access easements. He said the word "normally" also modifies the
words "access easements" and not only "street rights -of -way." The word "normally," as applied to
access easements must mean there are some cases when the access easement will not be excluded and
that this is one of those cases. He explained the access easement is only for the benefit of Lot I as Lot 2
still owns the fee under the access easement and has the tight to use that access easement in any way they
see fit so long as that use is not inconsistent with the use Lot I will be granted (access). In that context,
he said it was not appropriate to exclude the access easement from the lot area requirements. He pointed
out under Whatcom County's ordinance, access easements are excluded, including all access easements
and easements not usable to the present or future surface owner of the parcel. This ordinance clearly
would not exclude an access easement that Lot 2 had a right to use. He summarized it was his belief that
it was not the intent of the ordinance to exclude the easement area in this instance.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Jeff Palmer, 17510 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the Findings, Conclusions and
Reconsideration decision of the Plarining Division as well as the letter he submitted. He said the focus
should be on this proposal's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan by 1) granting special privileges
and 2) the possibility of setting a precedent that could have a dramatic aFfect on the neighborhood and
the City as a whole. The staff report states all the requirements in Chapter 20.85 must be met to grant a
variance and no variance can be approved unless all findings in the section are met. One of the findings
is the special circumstance criteria which he felt had not been met. He pointed out the staff report
included nine letters submitted by neighbors who did not feel granting the variance and short subdivision
would enhance their neighborhood.
COUNCIELMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
EARLING, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MEWTES. MOTION CARRICED.
(Councilmember Nordquist did not participate in the vote.)
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Councilmember White asked if the lot size would be adequate if the access easement was included. Ms.
Gruwell answered the lot would then be 12,444 square feet but staff has never included the access
easement in the lot area.
E
El
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked for an interpretation of Mr. Jordan's statement that the use of the
word "normally" was unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Snyder answered three standards of interpretation
used by the Hearing Examiner are, 1) words, if not defined are given their ordinary (dictionary)
definition, 2) ordinances are interpreted as a whole to give meaning to each of their provisions, and 3) the
interpretation placed on zoning ordinances by Zoning Officials who apply them on a daily basis is given
weight by the court.. In this instance, staff and the Hearing Examiner are reading the second and third
sentences in ECDC 18.80.010 together, the second sentence refers to normally and the third sentence
gives the section and refers to Note 4 of the street standards. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Jordan raised an
alternative theory but that the Hearing Examiner's and staffs position were valid and defensible.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed this was a difficult situation and unfortunately there were
circumstances such as the location of the existing house that prevent the City from achieving a win -win
situation. Although Mr. Jordan made an interesting point regarding the interpretation of law, staff has
shown they have consistently subtracted the access easement from the lot area. He indicated he would
,rote to uphold the Hearing Examines denial.
Councilmember Earling observed staff has consistently subtracted access easements from the total
square footage. This clearly results in a substandard amount of property in this instance. He observed
the Council has consistently respected the zoning size of various areas of the community. He indicated
he would also uphold the Hearing Examinees interpretation.
Council President Haakenson pointed out the packet included 18 letters, nine in favor, and nine opposed.
His interpretation of the word "normally" was that the lot area shall exclude any access easement unless
additional right-of-way has been required. He said he would support the Hearing Examinees decision.
COUNCILMEMBER, VAN HOLLEBEIKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCHAMMMER
EA,RLING, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND DENY THE
REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED. (Coundimember Nordquist did not participate In the vote.)
Councilmernber White suggested Mr. Snyder and the Planning Division review the ordinance to
determine whether it needed to be revised.
(Councilmember Nordquist resumed his seat on the Council.)
FV 31 M.
.1 UO'LUC I )JZ1L6J DIJ), I DW V DI 4'ff.1�111791 N V (MITI)
lue�B V * I b
91,4 D Al
mprn.j DI" *.M�
0
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map identifying the two right-of-way areas adjacent to the
Edmonds Cemetery. He explained this was a request to vacate undeveloped portions of right-of-way.
Staff has determined both areas are not necessary for any future use or expansion of the right-of-way.
The original resolution provided for retention -of surface and subsurface easements. However, City
Engineer Walker has indicated there are no existing utilities within rights -of -way proposed to be vacated
nor would there be a need to locate utilities within those rights -of -way. He asked that the Council not
require retention of a surface or subsurface easement in these rights -of -way, noting the easements would
preclude the future use of the vacated right-of-way by the cemetery. The purpose of the vacation is to
provide additional area that can benefit the public through expansion of the cemetery.
Lo
LU
U.
UJ
z
Z
UJ LU
LU LL
2
LU U
0
z
�11
LA
C)
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Memo
Originator Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
Subject: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD "PEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINERq
DECISION HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 20, 1998.
(APPELLANT/APPLICANT: CHARLOTTE SWIF17 / PROPERTY LOCATION:
17619 76TH AVENUE WEST / FILE NOS. AP-97-155, AP-97-119 & S-97-3).
Agenda Time:
Agenda Date:
Consent
February 3, 1998
Exhibits Attached:
1. Draft Minutes from the January 20, 1998,
Council Meeting
2. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Clearances: Department/initials
Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcsd e ?-,Pm
City Attorney Engineering
City Clerk Parks & Rec
court Pi
Personnel Public
Fire Treatment Plant
Police City Council
Mayor
Reviewed by Council Fmance
Committee: Commu)4 SeMces
Pub& Safdy_
Approvedfor Consent Agenda.
Recommend Review by Full Council.
Expenditure Amount Appropriation
Reguired: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0
Funding Source:
Not applicable.
Previous Council Action:
On January 20, 1998, the Council held a closed record appeal meeting on the appellant's appeal (see
Exhibit 1).
Narrative:
On January 20, 1998, the Council held a closed record appeal meeting and upheld the decision of the
Hearing Examiner which denied the appellant's proposed short subdivision applied for under City of
Edmonds File No. S-97-3 (see Exhibit 1).
Recommended Action:
Paplof2
01