22408 95TH PL W.pdfQ.-
CITY OF EDMONDS UIL 3 11997
Pukii-i*,�4--4�i i)EX.
250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
�� S # .1 Q 9,3
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPELLANT: Mr. Shawn Yoo
CASE NO.:
LOCATION:
APPEAL:
REVIEW PROCESS:
MAJOR ISSUES:
AP 97-86
22412 95th Place West
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
Appeal of S-97-50 City staff decision which approved a proposed 2
lot short plat with a modification of the required lot width on lot I
from 70 feet down to 67.4 feet.
Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 20.75, Subdivision Requirements.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.90.010 (Public Hearings Notice Content and Procedure).
c. I Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Deny the Appeal
Hearing Exiiiiiiner Decision: Deny the Appeal
PU IBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory,Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. 'The
hearing on the Yoo application was opened at 9:04 a.m., July 17, 1997, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:47 a.m. Participants at the public
hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording'of the
hearing is available in the Planning Division.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
WjN4.",
r
gi,
-Gl-w A
;"i �Z
Hearing Examiner Decision
-86
Case No. AP 97
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock reviewed the staff report and recommended denial of this appeal. He said:
oi
LUI
LU X 0 The code provides minimum standards and also allows modifications from the
-J
LO U. standards if certain criteria are met.
LU 0
The proposal meets all code requirements except the, minimum width requirement.
U.
The proposal is for a 2 1/2 foot reduction in width for one of the two proposed lots.
z 1--ii Installation of a fence or landscaping along the south property line to mitigate
0!
impacts from the proposed driveway was required as a condition of approval.
z
LU LW
Mi
In order for the City to meet its long term population goals under GMA, either
0— infill in single family areas such as this must be allowed, or more multifamily
a L- housing must be allowed in the City.
UJ UJ
LL The difference in the lot width will not be noticeable to a passerby without the use
0
.. z of a tape measure.
UJ OW!
From the Appellant:
z Shawn Yoo, appellant, said he has lived in Edmonds 18 years. . He submitted several
Exhibits and said the City's conclusions are not based on facts.
The only apparent factor for special circumstance is the lack of ability to make a
more profitable use of the property.
Section B.5 of the Comprehensive Plan which is to.'!protect residential areas from
incompatible land uses" has not been met. Also,
0
0
Privacy will be lost, particularly if a two story house is built.
0
Traffic will be increased.
The modification and subsequent short plat would reduce the value of his home.
He was also concerned the property may be used as rental property.
This project will create more problems, with surface water runoff. Surface water
is already a problem in the area and the lot to the west is like a swamp., He said
the environmental checklist was wrong because it said theproperty had no water
problems.
This project is not innovative and does not fit within the, intent of the
Comprehensive Plan
Cn �
X
Z
Z
fit
2
M
L)
0
a
LU
X
I--
LL
61
Y
0
Z
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 3
The modification and short plat is not consistent with the neighborhood,
The lot width modification and subdivision is not consistent with the zoning
ordinance which requires a 70 foot minimum lot width.
The project will have a detrimental impact on property values of his house. He
cited Exhibit D to support his contention.
He doesn't agree that the request is the "minimum!' variance necessary. Others in
the vicinity have the rights that go along with owning a large lot. The applicant
has that and should get no more.
The lot width modification and short plat should be denied,. however, if it is
approved, then the condition of a 6 foot high fence or hedge should be required
From the Community:
zt
Gerry Grosz, neighbor, submitted Exhibit G and said he opposed the approval of the short
plat for the following reasons:
Traffic will be increased and no traffic study was done.
• The City's Comprehensive Plan does notconsider the impacts of the Westgate
Annexation and did not address traffic issues in the area.
• Previously short platted lots in the area all had immediate str�eet frontage, except
for a few.
This lot could not have been short platted in the County because it is too small to
have two 8,400 square foot lots, which were required in the County.
• The City's Comprehensive Plan supports stable property values, but if this
application is approved, property values and taxes will both go up.
• This type of growth is uncontrolled growth and there is no way to moderate it.
Special circumstances should not be predicated upon the ability to make 'more
profitable use of the property.
He requested a moratorium on all applications before the Planning Commission,
Planning and Building Departments for one year.
From the Applicant:
. . . . . . . . . .
k5i
141,
Chuck Warner, applicant, submitted Exhibit H and said:
Most of the issues raised at the hearing are'planning issues which the City Council
should deal with. This is not the proper venue to address and decide those type of
. . . . . . . . . . .
issues.
0,
0
0
LU
U-
W
0
z
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 4
He wants to address only the issues regarding his application.
TheCity has a Comprehensive Plan which is well thought out. The
Comprehensive Plan has encouraged low cost housing.
This lot width modification request is a very modest request and it will allow the
existing small house to remain.
Infill is encouraged by the plan.
The code has specific criteria which must be met and the City must determine
whether or not the proposal will be detrimental to surrounding properties.
• Mr.Yoo's example of property value impact is not applicable because the
individual circumstances are not known here.
• The staff has acknowledged the drainage problem, which has been addressed. The
area which Mr. Yoo says is a swamp is actually a lawn. The City has installed a
catch basin up above and the City has plans for a storm system. The water Mr.
Yoo,is referring to is now being routed to a drainage ditch. This application will,
be subjected to the City's drainage ordinance and all water will have to be retained
on site.
The environmental checklist was prepared last September and was based on
information provided by the seller of the property. The seller said there were no
drainage problems and now the drainage problems have been addressed.
0 He has a right to build a driveway in the spot where the drivewa I y for the new
house is proposed. He also has a right to build a two story house on the property.
He is willing to mitigate impacts to the neighbors, however.
0 The new lot will conform with the code and the new home will meet all setback
requirements. The existing lot will be reduced in width by 2 1/2 feet.
Response from the City:
Steve Bullock responded that:
• With respect to the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, the staff reiterates
its original position.
• The proposed single family residential use is not m'corripatible with the
surrounding single family residential area.
• He concurred with Mr. Warner withrespect to the wet area on the property to the
West.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 5
The critical areas checklist is very specific. This property is not in a floodway or
in a floodplain. There is no defined channel or stream. The property to the west
is lower than the subject property and is subject to standing water.
The City is looking at storm drainage issues on an area wide basis and they will be
addressed on an area wide basis.
&
LUi
Traffic is also an area wide issue and this short plat will need to address only the
impacts created by it.
Ln U.
—0
UJ
The City has no regulations regarding the size of a home and does not regulate
U. <
whether homes are renter or owner occupied.
There are nearby lots which are 62 feet wide.
Z
6
Special circumstances are based on the Comprehensive Plan and not on whether
Z
W LW
or not the property can make more money.
5
0
0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
W LU
A. HISTORY
U- 0
1. Application Chronology:
W Cn!
a. Facts:
1) April 3, 1997, Charles -Warner and Phyllis Warner submitted an
0
Z
application for a two lot short -plat. This application is really an infill
development in that there is one existing house on the property and the
short -plat will only add one additional lot or potential home (see Short -
Plat Staff Report, Exhibit A, Attachment I for details).
2) The subject property is over 16,500 square feet in area and located in
an RS-8 zone. From a density standpoint, the proposed 2 lot short plat
is consistent with the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. In
fact the proposal is consistent with all the City's development codes
except for lot width on the lot that fronts on 95th Pl. W. Because a 15-
0
foot panhandle must be provided to gain access to the rear lot the front
lot, Lot 1, ends up 67.4-feet in width. This is 2.6 feet less than the 70
foot minimum lot width required (see Short -Plat Staff Report, Exhibit
A, Attachment I for details).
3) The Community Development Code allows for an applicant to request
a modification to the minimum standards as part of the subdivision
process. So, the applicant included a modification request from the
required lot width on lot I from 70 feet to 67.4 feet (see Short -Plat
Staff Report, Exhibit A, Attachment I for details).
4) All modification requests must meet the same criteria a variance does
for the City to approve them. In this case, the variance criteria were
applied to the requested lot width modification and the modification
"P. ,11��,�
7-A
0
LU Luii
gi
0
a
LU LLj
Z
UJ Cn
Z
N
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 6
was found to meet all six criteria (see Short -Plat Staff Report, Exhibit
A, Attachment I Section H.B and C for details).
5) After the expiration of the comment period on this application, the
City issued its decision on June 9, 1997, approving the requested 2 lot
subdivision and lot width modification.
6) June 23, 1997 the City received an appeal letter from Mr. Yoo
appealing the subdivision approval. This appeal was submitted in a
timely fashion.
7) Later in the day on June 23, 1997 the City received a Reconsideration
Request on the same project. Since an appeal had already been filed,
the Reconsideration Request letter will be considered as part of the
anDeal.
B. APPEAL ISSUES
1. Issues raised by the Appellant, Mr. Yoo:
See Exhibit A, Attachment 2, and Exhibits B, C, D, & E for more details.
a. Statements by the Appellant:
1) The appellant states that they feel the applicant did not adequately
address the modification (variance) criteria for the reduction of the
required lot width and therefore the decision is in error.
2)
According to the Appellant, Special Circumstances created by a policy
in the Comprehensive Plan is sketchy at best.
J,
3)
According to the Appellant, the sections of the Comprehensive Plan
related to Residential Development labeled B.S. are not met. These
sections address protection of residential areas from incompatible land
uses by control of privacy, traffic impacts, stable property values and
adverse environmental impacts. This development impacts privacy,
increases traffic, reduces adjacent property values and will create
increased drainage problems in the immediate area.
4)
The appellant states that the portion of the Comprehensive plan that
encourages infill development indicates flexible standards for PRD's
and other innovative development patterns. The proposed short plat is
not an innovative design.
5)
The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance in that lot I
does not meet the minimum lot width of 70 feet.
6)
The proposal is detrimental to my adjacent property value in that as a
Real Estate agent, I believe that my property value will go down.
7)
In reviewing the modification request, city staff applied the variance.
criteria to only the modification request, lot width reduction, but since
the subdivision is dependent upon the approval of the modification the
criteria should be applied to the entire subdivision.
'�p
15
'V
LL
0
LIJ
L)
0
a
UJ
U.
Li;
Y)
8
Z
1*1
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 7
8) The comprehensive plan does not require this and the appellant feels
that approval of the modification and subdivision will significantly
alter the neighborhood.
b. City Staff Response:
1) City staff addressed the modification criteria in detail. It is staff's
opinion that the proposed modification meets all the variance criteria.
2) Special Circumstances: In 1995, the City adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan which encourages flexible standards to allow for
infill development of under -developed property. This property is
under -developed in that it has enough area for two units but there is
only one unit. The ability to request a modification as part of the
subdivision process meets the Comprehensive Plans support of flexible
standards to allow infill development.
3) Comprehensive Plan: The appellant says that sections of the
Comprehensive Plan related to Residential development, specifically
B.5 and G.2, are not being met. These sections address protection of
residential areas from incompatible land uses. The staff's response is
that residential development in a residential area is not an incompatible
land use. Introduction of business or multi -unit development would be
an incompatible land use the existing single family development would
need protection of.
4) Zoning Ordinance: The proposed 2 lot single family short -plat is
consistent with all the uses allowed in single family zones and
consistent with the bulk standards for the RS-8 zone in everything but
the lot width which the applicant is requesting the modification for.
5) Not Detrimental or Significantly Injurious: This criteria must be
applied to the modification request only, and not the entire
subdivision. Since the existing house and any new home constructed
on Lot I does or would conforin to the required setbacks and the
requested lot width reduction is basically imperceptible without a tape
measure, the City feels that the modification request is not detrimental
or injurious.
6) Minimum Variance: The proposed 67.4 foot lot width is the minimum
necessary to allow the lot and the 15 foot access way for the rear lot.
c. Hearing Examiner Conclusions:
After considering the information presented at the public hearing and after
reviewing the file, the Examiner concurs with the staff response.
Furthermore, no substantive information was presented which would
indicate that the proposal would have any impact on adjacent property
values. While Mr. Yoo was concerned about a negative impact to his
property values, one neighbor was concerned that the proposal may
actually increase property values and therefore increase taxes in the area.
I—
Z
U
LLJ
LL
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 8
Also, a 2 V2 reduction in width of the lot will amount to an approximately
4% reduction from the required lot width which the Examiner believes
will be an imperceptible reduction to a passerby.
2. Issues raised by Neighbor, Gerry Grosz:
See Exhibit A, Attachment 3, and Exhibit G for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
1) The proposed 2 lot subdivision is not consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
2) Noise and traffic from the one new lot will be a significant negative
impact to adjacent properties that will not be mitigated by a hedge or
fence.
3) Privacy of adjacent properties will be infringed upon by approval of
the short -plat.
4) Mr. Grosz states that approval of the subdivision would grant the
applicant special rights.
5) Mr. Grosz states that property values are increasing wildly. Since the
Comprehensive Plan talks about controlling incompatible land uses to
maintain stable property values this subdivision should be denied to
control the increasing property values.
b. City Staff Response:
The short -plat may not be consistent with the character of the
neighborhood in the size of the lots and the style of home, but City
codes do not allow staff to regulate the proposed subdivision by those
standards. It is consistent in that it is single family development and it
is consistent with the minimum lot size of the under lying zoning
which is what the City does have the authority.to review and analyze.
2) The noise and traffic created by one new lot will not be a significant
negative impact that is not mitigated by the conditions of the approved
short -plat.
c. Hearing Examiner Conclusions:
After considering the information submitted at the public hearing and after
reviewing the file, the Hearing Examiner concurs with the staff response.
Furthermore, as noted in the Examiner's conclusions above, no substantive
information was submitted regarding impacts on property values. Also,
after examining Exhibit F, it is clear that no special rights would be
I-V
granted to the applicant if the application is approved because there are
many similar sized lots in the neighborhood.
'T 'T
A
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 9
t-
3. Issues raised by Neighbor, Jane Lagerstrom:
See Exhibit A, Attachment 4, Letter received July 8 for more details.
Z
LUI
a. Statements by the neighbor:
0i
�LU
X!
1) Since the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum lot width
for lot 1, the subdivision should be denied.
U.
—0
LU
2) The neighborhood is madeup of ramblers and Ms. Lagerstrom does
til
not want to have two story homes beside her.
U.
CO
3) Mr. Warner will not live in the homes.
4) Traffic on 95th is busy and this will make it worse.
z P!�
5) The green area at the rear of the subject lot will be gone if the
z
LU W!
subdivision is approved.
0
C3 JU
b. City Staff Response:
W L
X
I The City of Edmonds development code allows an applicant to request
LUL
a change in the required minimum lot width. If that modification
ZI
request is denied, the subdivision will be denied. If the modification is
L) X,
approved, the subdivision will be approved because it meets all the
0
z
other City requirements.
2) The City can not regulate home styles.
3) The City can not regulate or discriminate against absentee property
owners.
4) The increase in traffic is not a significant increase.
c. Hearing Examiner Conclusions:
After reviewing the file, the Examiner concurs with the staff response.
4. Issues raised by Neighbor, Theron Johnson:
See Exhibit A, Attachment 5, Letter received July 8 for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
Property values will be devalued due to this subdivision.
0
This subdivision will impinge on the privacy of the neighborhood.
b. City Staff Response:
1) City staff has testimony from neighbors that says property values will
drop and testimony that property values are skyrocketing. City staff S.
position is that the proposed subdivision will not seriously impact
property values either way. The market will move property values
0 A
�;.'
PE;
z
U
0
a
Uj
14.
W
0
z
5. Issues raised by Neighbor, Yvonne C. Dunham:
See Exhibit A, Attachment 6, Letter received July 9 for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
1) The character of the neighborhood is of large lots and comfortable
living spaces. The proposed subdivision is contrary to this.
2) Subdivision means more homes, more people, more traffic and less
privacy. The subdivision should be denied.
b. City Staff Response:
1) The proposed subdivision meets the standards of the City's
Development Code and City staff can not require the applicant to
provide more unless there is a significant adverse impact.
c. Hearing Examiner Conclusions:
After reviewing the file, the Examiner concurs with the Staff response.
6. Planning Division Comments:
a. Facts:
1) The proposed subdivision meets all the bulk requirements for a 2 lot
short -plat in the City of Edmonds except for lot width on lot 1.
2) The applicant requested a modification to reduce the required lot width
of 70 feet down to 67.4 feet. City staff found the modification request
ication request
to meet the variance criteria and approved the modif
(see Short -Plat Staff Report, Exhibit A, Attachment 1, Section 111.B and
C for details). Except for the lot width issue, the proposed subdivision
met all the code requirements for dividing the existing property into
two lots. Once the modification request was approved, the subdivision
was approved.
3) Many of the comments submitted opposing the subdivision during
both the subdivision comment period and the appeal process tend to
apply the variance criteria to the subdivision in its entirety.
b. Hearing Examiner Conclusions:
1) The variance criteria are to be applied only to the bulk standard the
applicant is requesting to modify. In this case, reduction of the
minimum lot width from 70 feet to 67.4 feet. In other
words, the issue
i� U,
is how does the reduction of the minimum lot width on Lot I from 70
feet to 67.4 feet impact property values, traffic, noise or the other
issues which was brought up by neighbors as detrimental to their
properties. If the lot width reduction is not detrimental, and the rest of
the modification criteria are met, the requested modification must be 17
0
z �- i
0i
i 1-
W W;
0
a
Ui
LL
z
UJ to
0
z
. ME
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the appeal is denied. The City staff decision
is affirmed and all conditions of approval remain in effect.
Entered this 30h day of July, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Z-1, P-1
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his 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 is final. There is no appeal option within the City for the
Examiner's decision in this matter.
Hearing,Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 12
EXHIBITS:
Z
< The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
LUI
cc 21 A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 6 attachments
Mi
B. Map submitted by Shawn Yoo
(n tul
LU X. C. Petition with attached letter from Shawn Yoo, dated 6/23/97
Cn U.
0 D. Information on neighborhood property
LU
E. Photos showing standing water
U_
F. Map showing annexed area and highlighted lots
G. Gerry Grosz hearing presentation
Z 1-11
;: a H. Charles Warner response to.appeal letter,. with attachments including letter from Real
Z 1--!
W UX
Estate Broker
C),
Le
0 1
juPARTIES oF RECORD:
L
X U,
LL o. Shawn Yoo Gerry Grosz
Z 1h
cn 22412 95h Place West 22506 95 Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Yvonne Dunham Chuck Warner
22511 95th Place West 22408 95�h Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020-4523 Edmonds, WA 98020
Jim and Joyce Julius Jennifer and William Budnick
22413 96th Avenue West 9510 224th St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Peter Bennett Jane Lagerstrom
0 Bennett & Bennett 9502 224th, S.W.
400 Dayton, Suite A Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Theron Johnson Bob Hacker
1h
22413 95 Place West no address given
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division
Arthur Nethercot Edmonds Public Works Division
1035 131h St. Edmonds Engineering Division
Bellingham, WA'98225 Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds Fire Department
1
IA
V, fl'lh 6",
]EBOXHIBITS LIST
FILE NO. AP-97-86
(Submitted as of July 17, 11997)
A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (prepared July 11, 1997)
<
LU-U
L) 0 B. fA4/4,,4. tA
V) 01
LO LWU I -
LU X1
i �-
C. T1-nc)t4 c%zr%
V) U.
—0
LU
2t D.
:31
U. E. -Tji%rq�:6 r=g *,,_71 M %-ZIMATIMT.-
F. (9 vor�utur) I-lAr L-ol'5 000
z i
� - Of- G- ?YW1 M� VA%."G- t4DCPQt6, &A e-eT
z Nizwl
Uj LU H.
Tot,
AM
LU J.
U�
K.
z M.
N.
0.
P.
R.
S.
T.
U.
[M-(*)EX/(DATE).REMM\STAFF
Charles R. Warner
20021 88th Ave. W.
Edmonds, Wa. 98026
Dear Mr. Warner,
In reponse to your request I submit the following for the benefit of any pertinent agency
reviewing your application for subdivision in Edmonds. I have over 20 years experience in
the local area in real estate sales and brokerage management. I have been involved with
numerous new construction projects and real estate developments of all sizes.
I would like to state for the record that I am not able to recall even one instance where the
development of real property for the purpose of building a home or homes of greater value
than the surrounding area has caused a decline in home values in proximity to the
development. On the other hand, The fist of projects that have enhanced surrounding
LU Lui
home values goes on & on. It is my considered opinion that perhaps the best thing that can
happen to a neighborhood of 20-30 year old homes, is that builders and developers show
0
0 Ll
enough confidence in that neighborhood to risk building higher priced homes. It is often a
LU LU
signal to buyers that a neighborhood is being preserved or enhanced, thereby increasing
the overall desirability (value) of the area.
U- Oil,
Z!
LU
As proposed, the project you are involved in would seem to be not only compatiblewith
the surrounding area, but a major enhancement to the community. This would seem to
Z
satisfy any number of concerns by many interested parties. 1. The neighborhood, by
solidifying property values. 2. The city, due to concerns of GMA and Urban Growth Area
enhancement 3. Potential homebuyers and new members of the community, by providing
an affordable alternative to other forms of land development that are rapidly becoming
prohibitively expensive. Etc., etc.
As a real estate broker I of course have a vested interest in seeing this type of project
progress because my livelihood depends on it. In many instances my input would seem
merely self serving. However, as noted in the record of public comment and the appeal
being filed by your neighbor, this individual is holding himself out to be an expert based on
the fact that he is a part time real estate agent, and has entered this into the record as
evidence of potential damage to his property value. I suspect the planners of Edmonds
already know this to be faulty logic on the face of it and my input is provided as a credible
rebuttal to this erroneous assertion. Good luck on your project.
in
cerely,
J�' James Mones
ro r, Jo
1��Broker, John L. Scott Real Estate
GUALITY STREET'
]INM
ZINO
"
mij
I Iml
Ism
14"
Ifir-I
ilef'r
RIMS
Im
IM
t
9
F- i
z
W
0
a
W
LL
0
z
J
as a resident in the neighborhood of'95th-Place 96th Place
and 224th street
Strongly agree with �R: Shaun Yoo in this appeal, and agree
with all of the reasons listed on the attatched document.
I believe the construction of this project would be detrimental
to my neighbors and my way of life.
ADDRESS PHONE
T� 5
-76 5 3 1�
2- J-// Y,671�r
9 47v, aLk--v-)
'A v01W
�.O
'z
�,71,506 f-s�-Ap-/ td
A.2 q10 j';4 P�' 41 ail
y�'
W,
Cit y Of Edmonds
Planning Department
:Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Appeal of S-97-50.Decision Granting of Lot
Width Modif
ication and Short Plat for Charles
Warner decided June 9 1097.
01
as a resident in the neighborhood of 95th Place,.96th Place
and 224th street
Strongly,agree with MR: Shaun Yoo in this appeal and Agree
with all of the reasons.listed on thezttatched dFocument.
e
I beli ve the constructioh�of this project.would be detrimental
to my neighbors and my wa of life.
Y�
NA
ADDRESS PHONE
7 74
Z
W
3:
U
6�
z
3-JUL-1997 12:41:34
SIDENTIAL
= = = =
v
=v = = = = = = = =
PEND BR: 3 HTH: 2.25 >>>
L- 199,950 S- MLSO 97 024341
I I
z
5/97 MT: 66 FIN: 1
OMD: 06/0 COU:SNO LT: CIT:ED
AD :22017 95TH PL W
PRJ: PTS:7764312
tu,
OCC:HORST & GISELA DSR: OPH:7764312
OWN:NEUHAUS OAD:SAME
OFF# 7370 206-776-1119 KEY:B,CO3AP
SOC:3.5&1.75 BLD: S REP:GREG THODY 77611*19X214
AR: 730 M: 454 G:H7 POS:SEE R1314ARK
V) L3U
B 1 2 TERMS:C/O,CNV TAX# 54420020010117
LISTDATE:03/31/97
/0: Y FLRS:W/W,VINYL,TILE
ENTRY: X R 08/01/97
V) U.
0
LIV: X D/W: Y WDW CV:MINIS&DRAPES LNDR:
ui
DIN'. X G/D: Y ROO F:BUILT-UP
IN#
LL <
PVDST:Y EXT: WOOD,BRICK
KITCH: E TYPE:
N WTRHTR:ELEC
cn 0=' I
EX FR: UFI:
SDWK: N HEAT:ELECTRlCjBASEBO* BAL$
BDRMS:2 GR: A* LEASED: NONE INT%
F/BTH:l PMT$ T&I
Z
3/4: 1 SEP: VIEW: TAX$ 2174 YR:96
SEWCN:y BUS:CLOSE
1/2: 1 SCHOOL DIST:EDS
ui uk
2:n:
N WTRDIST:OLY VIEW
UTIL: G WFT: SRHI:WOOD/EDS
:30:
FAM: X BCHRT:N HO DUES: JRHI:COLLEGE PL
uw�
00 ;
REC: POOL: N LT SIZE: ELEM:WESTGATE
SF:
W Lul
FPL: 1 1 CBLAV:y APX E,NEW
SEIOVER25K IN PAST 4YRS:NEW ROOF,NEW FENC
STREET APPRAI TRI W/MASTR
X0,
�-t
DONT DOWS(10K)NEW EXT PAINT.UNIQUE
HER HER CPTS,NEW PUD WIN UTCHER BLK.COUNTRS,SKY WINDOW
�kz!
UPSMAIN FL KIT& FAM.R14 W/WET BAR,b STORAGE&BLT-INS.pLUS 20K HOT
FLRSjLOTS OF
SOLID 6 PANEL DRS,TILE
25 BSM:F TUB.BOM K.A STEAL AT THIS PRICE111
STY:13 CAR: 2 AGE:
0
TAX INFOR14ATION
z
OWNER TAX IN
SITE ADDR: 98020 Q-SC-TN-RN:
SITE CITY: MAP: 454 GRID: H7 STRUCTURE $
TELEPHONE: LAND $
MAIL ADDR: TOT ASSMT $
MAIL CITY: EXCISE % IMPROVED:
4 r",
RCDG DATE: LEVY CODE
SALEPRICE$ DEED TYP: TAXES$
ZONING PARCEL TYP:
LAND USE VOL:
PAGE:
0
LEGAL NBRHD*CODE:
SUB/PLAT BLDG ID# :
BLOCK
CENSUS TR: YEAR BLT :
LOT SP
LOT ACRES: .00 EFFYR BLT :
DEV TYPE:
STORY/STY: 13
ABV GRD SF: BLD CND:
BEDROOMS : BLD QTY:
VIEW
VW-MTN:
Q
TOT FIN SF:
BATH-F3H : 0 0 0 BLD MAT:
Bsm FIN SF:
VW-CTY:
FIREPLACE: BSM TYP:
BSM TOT SF:
VW-SND:
VW-LK
SEWER GAR TYP:
TOT BLD SF:
HEAT mTHD: TOT UNT:
VW-LRV:
WTRFR TYP: wTRFRT FT:
----------
-77 77'
K-7
0, ..... ......... .
4
HN.
-2,
L,-jj;.
-A,
x";
V
OT
JULY 15, 1§97
Steven F Bullock
Pr6j ect Planner
CITY . OF EDMONDS
250 5TH AVE NORTH
< EDMONDS, WA" 98020
LU
_j 5
L) 01
V) RE: Shawn Yoo Appeal
LO W
LU Charles Warner Property
V) LU 22408 951th Place West, Edmonds
0 FILE,#AP-97-86
u-< Request for APPEAL sec 20.105.030.0
D a
z Dear Mr Bullock:
0!
-Z
WWI I am writing this letter in response to the PLANNING DIVISION
:31 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION filed on June 9, 1997 for the
above referenced short plat, AND the�APPEAL filed by my neighbor Shawn
Yoo July 7, 1997
� U.
0 We OPPOSE APPROVAL of the short plat for the following reasons:
1) MA=: Dramatically increased traffic, with 'no site of stud I y
z
or impacts in the foreseeable future
�2) IVE PLAN: Comprehensive Plan does not consider the
impacts
of City Policy upon the Westgate Annexation
3) UNCONTROLLED GROWTH: Seeming,lon demand approval' of proposals,on
their 'own merits' with disregard for detrimental aggregate impact
on the whole neighborho I od
4) PROPERTY VALUES: Escalating property value and property taxes
spurred by the activities of item vague Comprehensive Plan (#2)
and Uncontrolled,Growth (#3) which are supposed to be protected
under the Comprehensive Plan.
5) SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE BY MORE PROFITABLE USE: City,Plannin4 has
skirted this issue previously brought.,
Fi
n
N
FILE #AP-97-86 APPEAL pg 2
1) TRAFFIC
Z DRAMATICALLY INCREASED TRAFFIC is the I single greatest detrim�nt to
< IJ
='Z" this neighborhood on 95th Place West.between 220th,and 228th!
X
Traffic increases in the last 2 years created by the followin
LU 9
I 0i
U rezones, short plat approvals and building permits will result
directly in approximately a TOTAL of 87 in reased trips an 9 th
(n U. Short Plats, -and additional three residences on 220th between
LWO 93rd and 95th constructed in 1996 (County F# not available).
9 increased trips on 95th (3xlO trips/30%)
LL Short Plats and additional six now residences on 220th between
93rd and 95th Place West under construction (F# P-96-140).
18-increased trips on 95th (6xlO trips/30%) (plus trips for
the 2 existing residences).
Z �-j
�- 0'
Z Short Plat and additional residence, north of 224th on 95th,
Lul Place,West for Seacoast Construction F# S-97-33.
3 increased trips on 95th (lxlO trips/30%)
0 Short Plat and additional residence, south of 224th on 95th
UJ W Place West for Warner Construction F# S-97-50.
3 increased trips on 95th (IxIO trips/30%)
U. Pending approval of the proposed Paggliacci Pizza place on 228th
Z; and 95th, trips both by delivery trucks and pickup orders.
54 increased trips on 95th (100-10 trips/60%)
0
Z
IN ADDITION - PLUS. XXX increased trips on 9Sth Due to,
Increased traffic created by Westgate School (statistics not
available)
Increased traffic created by Westgate Chapel with recent parking lot
addition and building remodel (statistics not available)
Traffic increase due to the stop light installed on Edmonds Way
Increased rush hour commuter traffic through residential
neighborhood street by people attempting to avoid arterials.
(statistics not available)
FILE #AP-97-86 APPEAL pg 3
Approval of property rezone in question Is inappropriate and has very
serious traffic consequences that the Planning Commission and City
Council need to look at and reconcile.
2) COMPREHENSIVERLAN
NEITHER, the Comprehensive Plan (1995), NOR the Revised Comprehensive
Plan (1997) currently before the Planning Commission.for approval,
have adequately considered the Westgate Annexation as part of the City
of Edmonds Policy and Plan, the Edmonds Way SR-104 corridor
notwithstanding.
3) U D GROWTH: Seeming 'on demand approval' of proposals on
their 'own merits' with disregard for detrimental aggregate impact
on the whole neighborhood
Staff repeated response to property owner comments state the
Comprehensive Plan cannot limit growth or types of development.
Please contrast the following issue as brought up in the 7/9/97
Planning Commission.
Holy Rosary Church requested approval�of the Comprehensive Plan
change of street designation from 'residential' to 'collector' so,
thatit could proceed with its planning process,for seismic .
upgrades and a remodel. Work which has been denied by the City Code
due to the street designation.
Therefore it appears the Comprehensive.Plan and Code has the
capability and can limit growth or types of development via its
interpretations. The question remains does Planning have the will.
4) PROPERTY VALUES
Staff response to Theron Johnson letter (pg 5/7) states that "market
will move property values". This is true only to the degree that the
market follows the Cities actions allowing certain activities, like
approval of this short plat.
• Approvals encourag-a market pressure for higher property values,in
that the Cities action creates a new commodity.
• Denial discourages_ market pressure and maintains property values.
The Planning Staff seems to be poking a bit fun at my�ascertAin.'that
property values are "wildly swinging". Since, I as the, property owner.
am the unlucky bloke to pay the property,taxes, I take, a�,�fairiy keen
look at my assessments and submit the following:
�,Z "A R,
Nr
""�i "j,
FILE #AP-97-86 APPEAL pg 4
My property value has increased 25% since 1991,
Z 47% since.1985
pro jected ainot her 30% with 199 9 assessment coming
LU
cc a not 130* gain since 1985
0! The additional 30% gain is based on the following example-
uj�
UJ Xt REAL ESTATE ESCALATION EXAMPLE FROM RECENT SHORT PLAT:
_j I—
0 L6
W 0 The BELLA PLACE properties (which is the,original Warner subdivision
approved in 1997 currently under construction (F# P-96-140) ) with six, new
residences on 220th between 93rd and 95th Place West. According to their own sales
D prospectus,properties:
Ld
Sell for an average of $292,000
Z 2300sf house @ $90 sf = $207,000 OR @ $100 sf = $230,000
land value = $ 85,000 land value $ 62,000
average land value $ 73,500
uj
01 These original parcels before short platting were roughly the same size area and
configuration as Sea Coast,'Warner and my property.
0
LU US My 1997 assessed land value was $74,000, therefore with the above actual and real,
3m:
life example as a model to predict the future; a similar sized parcel, once short
plated,,nearly doubles in market value. With this City approval as precedence then,
market responds with increased prices.
In contrast, the Coun ty Assessor assesses taxes based on potential future benefit or
QrQfit! He looks at City approvals and real estate transactions to arrive at taxes
based on perceived market-YA111a. They also peg their assessment value to cover
perceived market value action out for four years. I know these observations to be
true as they were relayed to me by a County Tax Assessor!
Actions.of City of Edmonds Planning are forcing demand for short plat
type properties for development causing escalation of property values
and property tax values prematurely.
.r'7
.r7
Traffic impacts created by approval of unlimited developments and
unmitigated traffic impacts will reduce STABLE PROPERTY VALUES as they
0 are to be preserved by via the Comprehensive Plan.
9
F;
LU
U
0
a
UJ
U.
0
z
E
JUIV 10h, 1997
Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA
RE: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION OF S-97-50; FILE # AP-97-86
Hearing Examitter;
1 4
Please accept and enter into the record this response to the appeal letter submitted by Shawn Yoo in this
matter.
Yoo states the burden of proof and persuasion were not met on a!Lpoints for the requested modification.
The City Planning staff disagrees, as do 1. The 'bare assertions and conclusions not based in fact"he
alluded to can be more accurately described as concise statements that addressed the specific criteria stated
in the ordinance. What I did not do was attempt to obfuscate the facts by adding a lot of sarcastic and
inflammatory rhetoric. I feel the planning staff of this City, as well as the hearing examiner, have enough
work to do, and they should not have to spend time picking the facts out of wordy, self serving speeches.
On the specific concerns raised by Mr. Yoo:
A. Special Circumstances: Yoo states none of the examples given in the ordinance were cited on my
application. It is clear to me the examples given were meant to be descriptive, but not limiting. The
purpose of the variance provision is to allow reasonable use of a property when strict interpretation of the
code would prevent it. Development of a single flunily residence in a residential neighborhood is certainly 2:
reasonable, when the underlying density prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan is not exceeded.
The City has consistently accepted the need for in -fill development and preservation of existing housing
stock as "Special Circumstances." Additionally, the planner points out the proportions of the property
preclude maintaining the minimum lot width, and "size, shape, and topography" are specific examples of
"Special Circumstances" cited in the ordinance.
B. Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Yoo has selectively taken excerpts from the plan out of context to confuse
the issues. "Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses ... " does not preclude new residential
development, rather, it encourages itt Also:
1 . Privacy. Yoo's privacy is protected by the required setbacks for any new structure, as well as
a requirement in the original planning decision to build a hedge or fence,
2. Traflic. The Comp, plan specifically refers to protection from non-residential traffic. Any
traffic created will be residential in nature.
3. Stable property values. Yoo's assertion that a new residence in an older neighborhood would
harm his property value is not true! I have attached a letter (attachment A) from the broker of
a reputable local real estate firrn , who has 20 years experience, refirting this assertion,
4. Adverse Environmental Impacts. Yoe asks how this project helps the environment. I am not
aware of any requirement a project must "help"the environment. Drainage problems will not
be increased by Us project, because any new construction will be subject to the drainage
ordinance.
Mr. Yoo states the staff interpretations of the Comp. Plan are incorrect as follows:
1. G.2a reads "Encourage in -fill development ... such as PRU'uses PRD. as an example, but, as
in special circumstances, the example is not limiting.
2. G.2c reads "Provide flexible development standards for in -fill development, such as non-
conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent with the
<
neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable family housing."
Zi
cc
Mr. Yoo correctly states the existing lot is not a non -conforming lot however, the Comp plan
standard is to allow creation of non -conforming lots.
LU
L)
W!
Yoo also states this short plat is not consistent with the neighborhood, because the neighborhood
(n
UJ
is one of large lots. I have enclosed a lot map of the immediate vicinity (attachment B), and have
(n LL
highlighted a large number of smaller lots and "flag lots" in the neighborhood. One of the
0
LU
examples is adjacent to the subject property! Clearly this type of development is consistent with
the neighborhood.
ti
14.
Yoo also incorrectly states other lot width modifications have not occurred in this neighborhood,
however, one of the examples cited by the planners is within the highlighted area on the enclosed
map. Another one is several blocks away, but in the same vicinity and zoning.
C. Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Yoo contends this is not consistent with the zoning ordinance,
LU LUI
because the ordinance requires a 70 foot lot width. His reasoning would preclude any
variance, however, the zoning ordinance also provides for Variances, Section 20.85,00 states a
U W1
variance to any requirement of the zoning ordinance may be approved, except use and
0-
13 t
procedural requirements. As I stated in my application, the use would be single fimily
UJ UJ
residence as prescribed.
D. Not Detrimental. Mr. Yoo contends there is evidence in the record showing a significant
U--
detriment. The detriment cited in a letter from Mr. Yoo's attorney is speculative, imagined, or
Z!
situations allowed by the code and mitigated by the setbacks, building heights, drainage
di fn
ordinance, etc, Additional requirements that.go beyond the prescribed measures were placed
on the short plat, and I have not objected. Construction of a new driveway and home is a
Z
current permitted use, and is not caused by the short plat.
7he planners correctly stated the drainage is art Wft problem that is not ntine to fix-. All new
impervious surface created by construction on the new lot will be connected to an on -site retention
system as required by the drainage ordinance. The City hydraulic engineer does not believe the
new construction will add to the problem because of this requirement. The new construction win
be the only home in the entire block subject to and confonning with the drainage ordinance!
Mr. Yoo further states he is a real estate agent qualified to give an opinion about the effect of new
construction on his property value. Mr. Yoo is a business man who dabbles in real estate part-
time! I have submitted statements from an uninterested third party; professional real estate broker
with extensive full time experience, that refute Mr. Yoo's assertions as to loss of value.
The City Planning staff acted correctly in granting the lot width modification. This land use action
is modest, reasonable and conforms to the intent of the Growth Management Act the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, the Edmonds Community Development Code, and is consistent
with what other property owners are doing.
1 am confident you will uphold the original decision.
S* e el Y,
Charles R. Warner
'X
Applicant
-3.nfi,
— 7---T 5,
Ott-,
71
UA
0
z
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
MEETING AGE I NbA
JULY 17,1997 AT 9:00 A.M.
Plaza Room - Edmonds Libraty
650 Main Stmet
Z
Z
ui w
M,
LU Uj
Z
LU (n
0
Z
E,
E
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 STE AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS9 AND RECOMMENDATION
-J
To: 97-86&
Lui
LU X,
4File
En U0
From:
S ul
Stepp en F. Bullock
Project Planner
Date: JULY 11, 1997
: x ul
I.- UXI
File: AP-97-86
Z
LU LU
TABLE OF CONnNTS
Section Page
0
a
I, INTRODUCTION .................. .............................................................................................
LU ku
XA.
Appellant/Appeal Information ........................................................... ............. .......
�- P
L'- 0
B. Appellee/Application Information ...................................... .............. ....................................................... 2
zC.
Recommendation ......................................................... I .............................................................................. 2
LI;
X
11-FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 2
zA.
History ................................................................................................................ I ........................................ 2
B. Appeal Issues .............................................................................................................................................. 3
III. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 6
A. Reconsideration's and Appeals .............................................. I ........ I .................. ......................................... 6
B. Attachments I through 6 ................................... 6
IV. PARTTES OF RECORD ................................................ .......................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION
0
A. Appellant/Appeal Information
1 . Appellant: Mr. Shawn Yoo (see Attachment 2).
2. Appellants Address: 22412 95th Place West (see Attachment 2).
3. Reguest: Appeal of S-97-50 decision which approved a proposed 2 lot shortL plat with
modification of the required lot width on lot 1 from 70 feet down to 67.4 feet.
4. Review Process Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision,
5. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sec :�0.15,
tion
Subdivision Requirements.
AP97-086.DOC J Rtport
!i'
LU
:2
D
U
0
a
LU
U-
LB
0
z
14.
%
Mr. Shawn Yoo
File No. AP-97-86
Page 2 of 7
b. Comnliance with Edmonds Communitv De lonment Code 'ECDC' Cha -- 20 an ni n
(Public Hearings Notice Content and Procedure).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105
(APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW).
B. AppelleetApplication Information
I . Appellee Mr. Charles Warner and Ms. Phyllis Warner (see Attachment 1).
2. Site Location: 22408 95th Place West (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: A 2 lot short -plat of a 16,500 square foot lot: with a modification request to
reduce the required minimum lot width from 70 feet down to 67.4 feet on lot 1.
C. Re�ommendation
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments in this report and the submitted
comments, it is the recommendation of the �ianning Division that the appeal be denied.
H. FMINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. History
1. Application Chronology:
a) Lacts-
(1) April 3, 1997, Charles Warner and Phyllis Warner submitted an application for a two
lot short -plat. This application is really an infill development in that there is one
existing house on the property and the short -plat will only add one additional lot or
potential home (see Short -Plat Staff Report, attachment I for details).
(2) The subject property is over 16,500 square feet in area and located in an RS-8 zone.
From a density standpoint, the proposed 2 lot short plat is consistent with the City's
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. In fact the proposal is consistent with all the
City's development codes except for lot width on the lot that fronts on 95th Pl. W.
Because a 15-foot panhandle must be provided to gain access to the rear lot the front
lot, Lot 1, ends up 67.4-feet in width. This is 2.6 feet less than the 70 foot minimum
lot width required (see Short -Plat Staff Report, attachment I for details).
(3) The Community Development Code allows for an applicant to request a modification
to the minimum standards as part of the subdivision process. So, the applicant
included a modification request from the required lot width on lot I from 70 feet to
67.4 feet (see Short -Plat Staff Report, attachment I for details).
(4) All modification requests must meet the same criteria a variance does for the City to
approve them. In this case, the variance criteria were applied to the requested lot
width modification and the modification was found to meet all six criteria (see Short -
Plat Staff Report, attachment I Section ILB and C for details).
(5) After the expiration of the comment period on this application, the City issued its
decision on June 9, 1997, approving the requested 2 lot subdivision and lot width
modification.
(6) June 23, 1997 the City received an appeal letter from Mr. Yoo appealing tlie,
subdivision approval. This appeal was submitted in a timely fashion,
AP97-086.DOC/Jul I j Report.
Y
B.
E-.1
Z t.
�_ C
Z P
U.1 1W
UJ
LA_
U
Z
Appeal Issues
1. Issues raised by the Appellant, Mr. Yoo:
See Attachment 2, Letter received June 23 for more details.
a) Statements by the Agpellant:
(1) The appellant states that they feel the applicant did not adequately address the
modification (variance) criteria for the reduction of the required lot width and
therefore the decision is in error.
(2) According to the Appellant, Special Circumstances created by a policy in the
Comprehensive Plan is sketchy at best.
(3) According to the Appellant, the sections of the Comprehensive Plan related to
Residential Development labeled B.5. are not met. These sections address protection
of residential areas from incompatible land uses by control of privacy, traffic
impacts, stable property values and adverse environmental impacts, This
development impacts privacy, increases traffic, reduces adjacent property values and
will create increased drainage problems in the immediate area.
(4) The appellant states that the portion of the Comprehensive plan that encourages infill
development indicates flexible standards for PRD's and other innovative
development patterns. The proposed short plat is not an innovative design.
(5) The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance in that lot I does not meet
the minimum lot width of 70 feet.
(6) The proposal is detrimental to my adjacent property value in that as a Real Estate
agent, I believe that my property value will go down.
(7) In reviewing the modification request, city staff applied the variance criteria to only
the modification request, lot width reduction, but since the subdivision is dependent
upon the approval of the modification the criteria should be applied to the entire
subdivision.
(8) The comprehensive plan does not require this and the appellant feels that approval of
the modification and subdivision will significantly alter the neighborhood.
b) City Staff Response,
(1) City staff addressed the modification criteria in detail. It is our opinion that the
proposed modification meets all the variance criteria,
(2) Special Circumstances: In 1995, the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan which
encourages flexible standards to allow for infill development of under -developed
property. This property is under -developed in that it has enough area for two units
but there is only one unit. The ability to request a modification as part of the
subdivision process meets the Comprehensive Plans support of flexible standards to
allow infill development.
(3) Comprehensive Plan: The appellant says that sections of the Comprehensive Plan
related to Residential development, specifically B.5 and G.2, are not being met.
These sections address protection of residential areas from incompatible land uses.
The City's response is that residential development in a residential area is not an
incompatible land use. Introduction of business or multi -unit development would be
AP97_086.DOC /July 11, 1997 /Staff Report
q�,
Mr. Shawn Yoo
File No. AP-97-86
Page,tof7
an incompatible land use the existing single family development would need
protection of,
(4) Zoning Ordinance: The proposed 2 lot single family short -plat is consistent with all
the uses allowed in single family zones and consistent with the bulk standards for the
Z
<
RS-8 zone in everything but the lot width which the applicant is requesting the
modification for.
cc
<
(5) Not Detrimental or Significantly Injurious: This criteria must be applied to the
LU
-J
,01
modification request only, and not the entire subdivision. Since the existing house
01
and any new home constructed on Lot I does or would conform to the required
UA
setbacks and the requested lot width reduction is basically imperceptible without a
4 1,-
tape measure, the City feels that the modification request is not detrimental or
(n U.
U.1 0
injurious.
(6) Minimum Variance- The proposed 67.4 foot lot width is the minimum necessary to
allow the lot and the 15 foot access way for the rear lot.
U.
2. Issues raised by Neighbor, Gerry Grosz:
See Attachment 3, Letter received June 23 for more details.
a) Statements by the neip-hbor-
03 W!
(1) The proposed 2 lot subdivision is not consistent with the character' of the
neighborhood.
0
(2) Noise and traffic from the one new lot will be a significant negative impact to
a
us LU
adjacent properties that will not be mitigated by a hedge or fence.
(3) Privacy of adjacent properties will be infringed upon by approval of the short -plat.
LL 01
Z11
(4) Mr. Grosz states that approval of the subdivision would grant the applicant special
di
rights.
U
P
0
(5) Mr. Grosz states that property values are increasing wildly. Since the
Z
Comprehensive Plan talks about controlling incompatible land uses to maintain stable
property values this subdivision should be denied to control the increasing property
values.
b) City Staff Response:
(1) The short -plat may not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood in the
size of the lots and the style of home, but our codes do not allow us to regulate the
proposed subdivision by those standards. It is consistent in that it is single family
development and it is consistent with the minimum lot size,of the under lying zoning
which is what the City does have the authority to review and analyze.
(2) The noise and traffic created by one new lot will not be a significant negative impact
0
that is not mitigated by the conditions of the approved short -plat.
3. Issues raised by Neighbor, Jane Lagerstrom:
See Attachment 4, Letter received July 8 for more details.
a) Statements by the neighbor:
(1) Since the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum lot width for lot 1, the
subdivision should be denied.
(2) The neighborhood is made up of ramblers and Ms. Lagerstrom does not want to have
two story homes beside her.
(3) Mr. Warner will not live in the homes.
AP97-086-DOC /July 11 j4OUS Report
M �5
!�:
znq�nl-
'�5
7.7 EF,70'1 �11-Y', , - 0�
-Xg
01 11`�� � I I � �11
4
:J"
�V
Mr. Shawn Yon
File No. AP-97-86
Page 5 of 7
(4) Traffic on 95th is busy and this will make it worse,
(5) The green area at the rear of the subject lot will be gone if the subdivision is
approved.
z b) City Staff Response:
(1) The City of Edmonds development code allows an applicant to request a change in
cc 2i the required minimum lot width. If that modification request is denied, the
subdivision will be denied. If the modification is approved, the subdivision will be
_J approved because it meets all the other City requirements.
uo�
W Luj, (2) The City can not regulate home styles.
Ui X
_J �_ (3) The City can not regulate or discriminate against absentee property owners.
(n U.
W 0 (4) The increase in traffic is not a significant increase.
tow
t-
4. Issues raised by Neighbor, Theron Johnson:
u,
See Attachment 5, Letter received July 8 for more details.
a) Statements by the neip_hbor:
Z t—,
0 (1) Property values will be devalued due to this subdivision.
LU Ull (2) This subdivision will impinge on the privacy of the neighborhood.
21M,
b) Cift Staff Response:
(1) City staff has testimony from neighbors that says property values will drop and
X Ul testimony that property values are skyrocketing. Our position is that the proposed
subdivision will not seriously impact property values either way. The market will
0 move property values.
z
al
5. Issues raised by Neighbor, Yvonne C. Dunham:
0 See Attachment 6, Letter received July 9 for more details.
z
a) Statements b_y the neip—hbor:
(1) The character of the neighborhood is of large lots and comfortable living spaces.
The proposed subdivision is contrary to this.
(2) Subdivision means more homes, more people, I more traffic and less privacy. The
subdivision should be denied.
b) City Staff Response:
(1) The proposed subdivision meets the standards of the City' s Development Code and
City staff can not require the applicant to provide more unless there is a significant
0 adverse impact.
6. Planning Division Comments:
a) Facts:
(1) The proposed subdivision meets all the bulk requirements for a 2 lot short -plat in the
City of Edmonds except for lot width on lot 1.
(2) The applicant requested a modification to reduce the required lot width of 70 feet
down to 67.4 feet. City staff found the modification request to meet the variance
criteria and approved the modification request (see Short -Plat Staff. Peport
attachment 1, Section H.B and C for details). Except for the lot width. issue' th
proposed subdivision met all the code requirements for dividing the existing"property
AP9L086MOC /July 11, 1997 Staff Rep'ort
", 77-1 R 57- ,43!1! g7 --ir
.7
K. - N
1�1 2/
Mr. Shawn Yoo
File No. AP-97-86
Ph— 6 ol`7
into two lots. Once the modification request was approved, the subdivision was
approved.
(3) Many of the comments submitted opposing the subdivision during both the
subdivision comment period and the appeal process tend to apply the variance
criteria to the subdivision in its entirety.
b) Conclusions:
(1) City staff maintains that the variance criteria are to be applied only to the bulk
standard the applicant is requesting to modify. In this case, reduction of the
minimum lot width from 7U feet to 67.4 feet. In other words, how does reduction of
the minimum lot width on Lot I from 70 feet to 67.4 feet impact property values,
traffic, noise or the other issues brought up by neighbors as detrimental to their
properties. If the lot width reduction is not detrimental and the rest of the
modification criteria are met, the requested modification must be approved. And if
the lot width modification is approved, the subdivision must be approved because it
meets all the rest of the subdivision requirements.
III. APPENDICES
A. Reconsideration's and Appeals
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommenda on or appeal should contact e
Planning Department for further procedural information. ti, th
1. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his 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.
2. Appeals
The Hearing Examiner's decision is final. There is no appeal option within the City for the
Examiner's decision in this matter.
B. Attachments I throu.-II.6.6
1. Staff Report for S-97-50
2. Appeal Letter by Mr. Shawn Yoo submitted June 23, 1997
3. Letter from Mr. Grosz submitted June 23, 1997
4. Letter from Ms. Lagerstrom submitted July 8, 1997
5. Letter from Mr. Johnson submitted July 8, 1997
6. Letter from Ms. Dunham submitted July 9, 1997
IV. PARTIES OF RECORD
Mr. Chuck Warner Mr. Shawn Yoo Mr. Grosz Ms. Lagerstrom
Mr. Johnson Ms. Dunham Planniho n—;.;—
CrrY OF EDMONDS
�250 STH AVENXJE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS$ CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
File S-97-50
From: --s
S "pif F. Bullock
te en
Project Planner.
Via; Jeffey S. Wilson
Planning Supervisor
Date: 'JUNE 9,1997
File: S-97-50
TABLE OYCONTENTS
Section
Page,
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... .........
............. .............. ..... .............................
A. Application ........................
.......................................................................................................... 2
B. Decision ...........................
.............................. ....... .............................. 2
u. FiNDiNris OF FAcr AND coNcLusi6i�i"***"**'*****"**""****"****""**
.............. ...... i .................................................. 21
A. Analysis of Design .............. 41
................................................................................................................. 2
B. Analysis of Requested Modificat'
ion .......................................... I ........................... I .................................. 4
C. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan .............. I ....... ....... I ......... I ......... I ................. ............... 6
D. Critical Areas Review .....
....................................................................................... I .................. ........... 6
E. Access ................................................ I ... � 1, -:1. . 11 1.1-11-1- 1 11 1 1
............ ....................................................... 6
F. Required Improvements and Dedications ......
.......... I ............................ I I.., ............................. ! ............. 7
G. Comments ...........................
............................................................ ................................................... 7
M. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
..................................... ........................ 8
A. Request for Reconsideration ..........................
...... 4� ........................... .......... ....................................... 8
B. Appeals .....
......................... ......................................................... 8
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL..
.....................
........................................... 8
V. NOTICE TO THE C06Ri�*A**
.............................................................. 8
VI. APPENDICES ........................................... :8
............................... I ................. I ...........................
V11. PARTIES OF RECORD .............................................. 1 9
:'VA
. .... . .
. . . . . ....
..... .. .
CharlesWw�a
File No. S-97-50
Page 2 of9
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Appdica : Charles Warner (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 22408 95th Place West (see Attaciament 1).
3. Reauest: To divide I lot with a tot�l area of approximately 16,550 square f
eet (.38 acres)
into 2 lots (see Attachments 2-4). The applicants also request a modification of the minimum
'J CO3! lot width requirement for lot I reducing it from a required 70 feet down to 677.4 feet,
4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
-J t-1 decision.
U0- 5. Mgior _Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030,
u- site development standards for the RS-8 zone.
Ln 8 b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
X subdivision requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff
Z review requirements..
�—
Z
LZU! Decision
0, Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report and the submitted
T comments, the City makes the following decision:
Lu Lu The proposed lot width modification is APPROVED.
� U.
—L- Z The subdivision is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Corrections and additions to the submitted map including:
a) Modify the panhandle access drive of lot 2 to allow for an casement that will permit
Z both lots I and 2 to use the same access point to 95th Avenue. West.
b) Add a statement to the map that says the following, "Setbacks shown for reference
only and vest no right."
2. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the f6llowing requirements:
a) Completion of the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 7.
b) Submit copies of documents and recording fees to the Planning Department.
3. A six foot high fence or a hedge that will reach 6 feet in height within 2 years must be
installed along the south property line between the access road and the adjacent property
0 to the south.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Analysis of Design
1. Facts:
a) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-8 (single residential family with a minimum,
8,000 square foot lot size requirement).
S9LO50.DOC/Jur49,1997/StaffRepost
R
"J,
/-IN
Chules WamAr
File No. S-97-50
Page 3 of9
b) Lot sizes and dimensions:
(1) Proposal: The proposal is for a two lot short plat (see Attachment A house is
already located on the existing lot. The proposed subdivision would create a lot
were the existing house fronts on 95th Ave. W. and a second lot is created behind it.
Because the existing lot is 82.41 feet wide and 15 feet needs to be provided for
access to the rear lot. This leaves the front lot with a lot width less than the
required 70 feet. The applicant has requested approval of a modification request to
allow the lot width on lot I to be 67.41 feet. This is discussed in more detail in
section ILB of this report.
(2) Proposed number of lots: 2 lots
(3) Proposed LotAiges:
Net sq. ft Gross SA—.ft
Lot 1 8,039 8,039
Lot 2 8, . 541 8,541
Tract A or easement None Proposed
(ACCM =S==t fir IN$ I & 2)
(4) Areas, Setbacks and Lot Width: Lot areas, setbacks and lot width are consistent
with the RS-8 zone for each ese lots. The only exception is the proposed lot
width of 67.4 feet for lot 1. See Section ILB of this report for the analysis of the lot
width modification request on lot 1.
(5) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed -Lots: 35% maximum lot
coverage is allowed. Lot I has an existing house which conforms to the lot
coverage requirements. *Proposed Lot 2 is an undeveloped lot.
(6) Corner Lots NIA
(7) Me lot determination: Lot 2 is a flag lot
c) Lot arrangement appears to be satisfactory in regards to topography.
d) The Engineering Division has made a requirement that will affect the lot layout and area
in a ininor way. Requirement #3 of the Engineering Department Requirements (see
Attachment 4) says that Lots I and 2 must utilize a single access from 95th Ave. W.
This will require that a portion of the panhandle on lot 2 be dedicated as an easement for
lot I's benefit,
2. Conclusions:
a) The submitted map and legal descriptions need to be modified to rtflcct the Engineering
Divisions requirement that both lots use the same access to 95th Avenue WesL
b) Lot areas should still meet the minimum area requirements after making these easement
changes for this subdivision to be approved,
c) With approval of the proposed lot width modification request, the proposed development
appears to be consistent with the minimum lot size requirement of the RS-8 zone.
n-
F;1
Z
LU
0
a
LU
U.
0
Z
M11
1. Facts:
a) The applicant has requested a modification of the lot width requirement as allowed in
ECDC 20.15.075. Said section requires a criteria of a variance to be met if the
requested modification is to be approved. The Criteria are as follows:
Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges
permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special
Circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such
as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the
zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more
profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner
or any past owner of the same property.
Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the
property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
• Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That . the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the
comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the
property is located.
• Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will'not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
b) The Applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria (see
Attachment 3).
(1) Special circumstances exist in that the property is currently underdeveloped as
prescribed by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Ile proposal is not a grant of special privilege in that similar modifications have
been granted in the same vicinity and zoning to encourage in -fill development.
(3) The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it allows for
maximum development of under-utilized property in keeping with the prescribed.
density.
(4) It is consistent with the Zoning Code in that the proposed modification will conform
to the uses and density prescribed in the zoning code.
(5) The applicant states that the proposal will not be injurious or detrimental to
adjacent properties.
(6) The proposal is the minimum necessary to allow creation of a new single bmily lot
2
S97 OSOMW Jum 9. 1"7 Staff Rqwt
40
M�
U
0
0
U.1
U.
W
L)
Z
AC.
Charles Wamer
File No. S-97-50
Page 5 0179
C) City Staffs analysis of the proposed 2.5 foot lot width modification and criteria.
(1) Special circumstances appear to exist on this property in that the proportions of the
property preclude the infill development of the property without the grant of a
subdivision modification. The 16,580 square feet typically would be enough area
for two lots. But the 82.4 foot wide lot must give 15 feet to the rear lot to provide
access to the rear lot which reduces the front lot down to 67.4 feet in width. This is
2.6 feet less than the required 70 feet.
(2) Modifications for the reduction of the minimum lot width have been granted in
similar circumstances (S-96-10 and P-96-140).
(3) The Comprehensive Plan has several policies pointed . at providing flexible
develoPment standards for infill development, Housing G.2.a & c, and also the
development of high quality homes, Residential Development B. I & 4.
(4) The,2.6 foot modification will be practically imperceptible without a tape measure.
This coupled with the fact that the existing house and any future homes on lot 1, the
proposed modification lot will meet all required setbacks indicate that the proposed
lot width modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the public or adjacent
properties.
d) On June 20, 1995, the City of Edmonds City Council approved the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with the Growth Management Act. No challenges
have been filed against that Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan generally
encourages flexible standards to allow infill development of properties with less than
50% of the allowable density.
2. Conclusions:
2) The existing lot created in the 1951 Pinecrest Plat, has enough land to meet the zoning
codes density requirement for two lo6 and theComprehensive Plan's encouragement of
infill development appears to create a Special Circumstance in this instance.
b) The proposal would not be a grant of special privilege in that other similar
circumstances have been approved,
c) Since the Comprehensivie Plan encourages flexibility in development standards to
encourage infill development, this proposal appears to be encouraged by the
Comprehensive Plan.
d) The proposed short -plat which is for single-family development in an RS-8 zone is
consistent with the Zoning Code for the City of Edmonds.
e) Since, no views will be blocked or property values reduced, it appears that the proposed
modifications will not be detrimental to surrounding properties or Public Safety.
f) It appears that the applicant is proposing the minimum variance.
g) The proposal is consistent with the criteria of a variance as required for the granting of a
modification.
'Z ;i
r
Ir N,
clil. W.�
Fik No. S-97-50
Page 6 Of`9
C. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan
1. Facts:
a) A portion of the Residential'Development section of the Comprehensive Plan states the
< following:
8.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the carefu
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the followin�
D, principles:
fundamen
8.5.a. Residential privacy is a tat protection to be upheld by local
LUI government.
B.5.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences In a neighborhood must b�
discouraged,
0
uJ
B.5.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view,, traffic or land
use encroachments.
U. <
8.5.d. Pfivate property must be protected ftm adverse environmental
Cn impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
Z 1-1 b) A portion of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan states the following:-
0!
z G.2. Encourage infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding hx
UJ Lul neighborhood.
G.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development bk
55 CUD)
0— considering innovative single family development patterns such as I
0 Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
X U G.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for Infill development, such as'
U. non -conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
z consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal
LU (0, provide affordable single family housing.
0 2. Conclusions:
z
a) Measures should be taken to ensure the privacy of adjacent properties, especially where
the access mad will be installed.
b) The Proposed subdivision and the proposed lot width modification are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Critical Areas Review
V-1
1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-93-196
A waiver from the requirement to complete
2. Results of Critical Areas Review: a study
0 wasissued.
E. Access
Access for the two lots will be obtained from 95th Ave. W. The proposal fivin the applican i t
seems to indicate two side by side driveways. In the Engininfing Departments revieW of the
project and the creation of their requirements state that both lots will have to access 95th Ave. W
through a shared driveway. This will result in a minor modification of the submitted map allow
a portion of the panhandle of lot two to be an casement to allow both lots to access at the saml
point. With this change, the proposed access arrangement is adequate (see Attachment 4).
P
R
gz",tg
S97_030.DOC/ June 9. IM/Shff Repost
X
�Yj
0
Charles Warner
File No. S-97-50
Page 7 of9
F. Required Improvements and Dedications
1. Engineering, drainage and street dedications: See City Engineees Report (see
Attachment 7).
Z
Lut
G. Comments
Four comment letters have been submitted on Us application. The following is a brief summary
L)
of the concerns stated in each letter and the Planning Division's response.
V)
V) UJ:
Letter from Shaun S. Yoo, received 5i22/97.
U.1
_J
V) U.
Mr. Yoo object to the proposal for several reasons, 1) a driveway beside his bedroom, 2)
101
flooding, 3) blocking of a drainage corridor. He also states that modification will be
2 �:
, injurious to him, and that he feels that the subject property is in a floodway and has a stream
_J
or drainage course crossing it.
U.
Staff response:
F-
The site is not in a floodway as defined by FEMA and a site inspection of the property
Z l—;
revealed that there is no stream or defined drainage course crossing the property. The
flooding and drainage problems of die area are not issues that are caused or will be amplified
LU W�
by this subdivision. These are symptoms of a larger area wide problem that can't be solvW
by this property owner. Also, because these problems are not caused by this development it
U ca,
is wrong to require this development to be solely responsible to correct them.
0
2
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Julius, received 5/27/97.
UJ LU,
Snohomish County requires a 30 foot wide fire access.
U_ 0
Zi
Staff response:
Ui U)
The City requires a 15 foot easement to serve 2 lots in the RS-8 zone.
0
Z
Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Budnick, received 5/30/97.
Mr. and Mrs. Budnick have confined the majority of their comments to the variance criteria.
Concerning Special Circumstances, they feel that the modification is solely based on the
ability to make more profitable use of the property. On Special Privilege, this type of
modification would not have been allowed in the county, and this area has been in the city
only for 1.5 years.. Have any modifications like this been granted? Since the apparent usable
size of the lot is less than 7,000 square feet -is it consistent with the zoning ordinance?
Approval of this modification and subsequent subdivision will be detrimental and injurious
to their property both by property value and through an increase in water and storm drainage
problems.
Ot
Staff response:
Staffs response to the variance criteria is outlined in sections H.B. l.c & H.B.2 of this report.
Letter from Peter W. Bennett representing Shawn You, received 5/30/97.
Mr. Bennett focused his comments on the variance criteria "Not Detrimental" with the
knowledge that if even one of the variance criteria is not met� -the'modification (variance)
0
must be denied. He states that the approval of the modification request and subsequent
subdivision will be detrimental in that a new roadway with a whole new set of vehicle trips
will be adjacent to his clients house. Also, there will be a loss of privacy, and the drainage
problems will be increased. These constitute a significant detriment which indicates that the
modification should be denied.
S97 OSO.DOC /June 9,1997 SlaffReport
0
J
C --W r f
F2 N.. S-M-500
Page 8 Qr9
Staff response:
Each of the iterns mentioned by Mr. Bennett are alleged or potential impacts of the
subdivision, and the subdivision as a whole does not have to meet the variance tesL. No
testimony has been given that would identify how a reduction of the minimum lot width 2.6
feet would be significantly detrimental to adjacent propitious.
III.
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
<
L�
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
r 1
Oi
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
V)
V) LU
for further procedural information.
LU
U) U.
—0
LU
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.095.050.B.2 allows for planning staff to reconsider their decision if a written request
is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial d ecision by any person who attends
the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person
0
Lu)
holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
recommendation. The ieconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or
z
the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the ripe of application being reviewed.
z
B. Appeals
Section 20.095.050.B.3 describe how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall
0
be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the
01--
project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision,
LU LU"i
X
their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The
appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days
z
after the date of the decision being appmled.
LU
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
0
z
Section 20.075.100 states "A preliminary approval of a subdivision or lot line adjustment will expire and
have no further validity at the end of three years, unless the applicant has obtained approval of the final
plat or has filed an application to extend the time before the approval expires."
V.
NOTICE TO THE 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.
VI.
APPENDICES
0
Attachments 1 through 9 are attached.
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Declarations
4. Short -Plat N1ap
5. Engineering Requirements
6. Letter from Mr. Shaun S. Yoo
7. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Julius
8. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Budnick
9. Letter from W. Peter W. Bennett
S97-050.DW /June 9.1997 / Staffitepod
Chades Wam
McNix,S-97-30
VII. .:,PARTIES OF RECORD
Applic" Ensinecring Division: pliLilniu�
p Division
Fire I Depa�mnt
11��Iio Wo on
H* Suk Yoo, Jim & 14ci Julius:
fe r i 11 i'
J.mini am
%pefl�.r",O.]j��ftl
A
Jung Ja, Y0'o
Burdick
LU
Reviewed, by Current Planning Superv6or:
—0
.0
I concur:
I do not concur:
Comments:
z P
UJILU
U-M
0—
L
LW
SW 050�m' 14=91., m/i4jjepW
A
cl)
3
(D
cn
S
ct
N
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
T 0 E IT 14-DUU0, THF_QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
_H L§
RIG
Q ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 80ARD
C3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
Z'
Q CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
F 'L E
FILE # I - '3 C; ZONE
tui
Q HOME OCCUPATION
C3,59RMAL SUBDIVISION
- —
D A TE
DATE4-6-9 J REC'D E83
01
a SHORT SUBDIVISION
L3 LOT LINE
F E
FEE RECEIPT#
E
0�
;
ADJUSTMENT
Lwl
'U
CI PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
H RI
HEARING DATE
EA
Ln U.
Q OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
01
W I
STREET VACATION
L3 HE
Q HE STAFF El PB Q ADB C3 CC
)d(
REZONE
C3 SHORELINE PERMIT
Q
ACTION TAKEN:
CTIC
U-
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
Ln
EXCEPTION
Q OTHER
C3 PI
13 APPROVED E3 DENIED C) APPEALED
z I-,
PP
APPEAL#
0'
Z 1--�
UJ UJj
2:)
:) 0�
Applicant
Phone
Um
0
Address
4- J.
2( Igo;
Ui Lui
X 0
Property Address or Location
9100-0
z
Property Owner_ j���..Phone
(n.
ux,
Address I 3S' -r
ki
P: f-if
0
Agent
Phone
z ,
TaxAcc# 5"'Y53-000-0SV - - op 15-
Sec.
Q�
Twp. :��J
Rng.
Legal Description 1-0-r q0 ) 6)/,vtczck-r
lIoL � Vz.
W/'< --
,4cff
Details of Project or Proposed Use :Eyuzu-�& 1-0-r , /41vo 7-ao
,4_
0 -Z5 1, ry i -r I J I p 010o ar
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents -or
employees. I
The undersigned applicant grants his/her/ its permission for public officiqls and the r""
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this
ATTACHMENT 2
SIGNATURE APPLICA OWNER/ AGENTJZI-�,,e—L File No. S-97-50
OW
0
N7
n'�71'- q�
Modification Description and Declarations
:'A R
Request amodification in conjunction with a two -lot short subdivision to reduce rdqahre
minimum lot width from 70 feet to 67.40 feet on Lot I to create an access to Lo* 2.
The following declarations are made with respect to the requested modification:
LU
.5[ 1. Special Circumstances exist in that the property is currently unde' rde'veloped as prescribed by
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive plan, which was approved June 20 1995, by the
Edmonds City Council, to comply with the Growth Management Act.
Proposal is not a grant of special privilege in that similar modifications have been granted in
I LL the same vicinity and zoning to encourage in -fill development.
0 3. Proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it allows for maximum
development of under-utilized property in keeping with the prescribed density.
.4. Proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in that all development
will conform to the uses and density prescribed by the ordinance.
5. Proposal will not be detrimental to the public and will not be in urious to:other property or
j
improvements within the vicinity and zone.
Proposal is the minimum necessary to allow creation of a new single family lot.
U UA
L
Z
X
Z
0"
CHMENTI
'.Tild'Noi 'S-97410
z �-,
0
LU L"
0-
a �-
LU LU
L)
!A- 0
z
LU (n
0
z
14�1
Apf? -
SE'114,
SE 1/4, SEC.25, T.27N., R.MPE
FWD. 314- �.P.
SCRIBED 'X'IM
CONCRET FOR POST
:.:,E FEW& N.,QOV8*37 W
aow(W) OF FENCE
EX SHED Tot.4- C3
HE REMOVED LLZ 82 !4JP
11
12jPCT
cn
if
LOT
AREA 8,541
SF
rNEOSS'
61966 SF,
in
_384-
/- — -j
BUDNICK
0.3
1 NO*J5'27r* 5443-000-097-0208
OF
CON(i BLOCK WA L Z40
:q REBARY
N 00'3527 —3
-PVD.
0
0 CAP. A
0.3'(N`L�F PL
-2r%
7:1
w W.
800 1
79
Z5WS6L
Np.)
YOO
543-000-081-00
LAGERSTROM
544J-000-097-otog
SFA
22408
0
AF-379.32
L OT 1
EA = 8,039 V �fq-
SCALE. I'
MODIRCA 17ON
(LOT INOTH)
0 15 .30 60
SA51S OF BEARINQ
FLA r OF PINE ACRES
i
Zj0jP PDIM� DITCH
Mc.
AIL9
CALCULA N 00
PAIN TO CaTWERLOC WO —AD
95TH PL W
�jl='-wa _2'4C� 21 ficp
RFVNO, 1; m.,;r JIJIA
01 WA 366-2700
estern OR
Surveyors 742-5500
TjiL;.
Mgi C17Y OF EDMONDS
I SHORT PLAT FOR.
PHYLLIS WARNER
5- 998 DKR ----4111IV7 I Pit WALLY 174a
ATTACHMENT 4
File No. S-97-50
0
A
P_ig4�&;9f-wqy for. p� et F
bji;c .�!,re.
Dedicate or show proof of dedication for 30 feet of public X
right-of-way from the centerline of 95th Pl. W.
'd -77
Access and utility easement required to be a minimum of 15 X
feet wide.
A
'QP ih-
tX dljzml.� Mdhts:
(A
"'. 19 ;
Construct concrete curb and gutter across entire frontage on X
95th Pl. W. Face of curb to be located a minimum of 12 feet
from centerline of 95th PI. W.
Access to lots I and 2 to be paved to a minimum width of 12 X
feet with curb and gutter or thickened asphalt edge if required
for drainage.
Proposed lots 1 and 2 to utilize a single access from public X
road.
t�onstruct ou-site turnaround tor proposed lot 1. X
Construct on -site turnaround for proposed lot 2. X
==77777=
Construct 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk across entire X
frontage of 95th P1. W.
Provide service to each lot. X
Connect to pubhe water system.
Provide service to each lot. X
Connect to public sewer system. I X
v-onstruct one detention system SIZed to provide adequate X
storage for the access way, proposedlot 2, and proposed lot
1, if existing house is removed.
t-ounect au new iinvervious surtaces to detention system. X
Required for all new sery
X
X
Provide and aid access sign for proposed lot 2 at east end X
of access road. ATTACHMENT 5
S97050.DOC File No. S-97-50
.... ......
0
�'z
7777777=7��'
Req'd�prior Req'd w
Ibldg Bond posted C6mplete
to record
rmi
pe t
.......... - '(p -4*,.�Sdid
N/A
x
�eT�red for all utility construction.
x
x
7 7-
a) Utflity develop!��nt plan
x
64
a) Drainage system design review at $30. per iot
X
b) Sewer connectioncharge/LID agreement
c) Subdivision improvement inspection fee (2.2% of
A
approved construction cost estimate)
d) Other related fees
'�dITYENGMEER, CITY, OFEDMONDS DkTE
The Engineering requirements, have been completed and the subdivision be morded.
Can
Authorized for recordiitk-by:, Date:;
S97QSO.DOC
9
U.1
z
Areas
_6al Checklist
Site Information (SO*Ils/t'DPOgraphy/hydrology/yegetation) kc,
I -
Site Address/.Locatioh-.
2.
Property Tax Accou�t Number:5111'2[�'-,
3.
Approximate.Site Si�'e (acres or square feet): c)
4.
Is this site currently developed? /'
yes; no.
If yes; how is site de�,eloped?_ *5,,A;
5.
Describe the general �te topography. Check all th'at ap ly-
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire Site.
Rolling: sjopeson site generallyrIeSS than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feer over a
librizontal distance of 6&feet).
illY:. slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% a vertical rise
of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: -grades Of greater than 301a on site (a vert cal
present rise of I 0-feet over a
'horizontal distance of less than 33-feety.
Other (pleas e describe):
6.
Site contains areas Of -year-round standing water Approx. Depth:
.
7.
Site co,�taiins areas of -wrial smnaing vriter. Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of theyear?.
Site is in the floodway 1 floodplain wat
of. er course
i — .....
Site contains a creek of, aA area where W2W flows across the grounds Surface? Flows are year-
round? ;�i--_41ows are seasonal? 1'/7 time of
year?
Site is primarily: lbresied
meadow shrubs mixed
urban landscap�d (lawn �Shr'ubsetc)
I
Obvious wetland is pres I ent on site:
—For CitY $(air Use Only-
1',' 1- Zito is Zoned? PIS - 9-..
2. jCS niapped soil type(sp 15-- 1
Wetlaod inventory or C.A. indicates wetland present on site? X6 (ft-j
4-.,, :*,Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? A)-
5. tte Withiii desigitated earthl subsidence landslide h&ufd area?
6. ite designated on th
e Environmentally Sensitive Arm Map?
--STUDY R9*UMED'
CONDMONAL WAIVER
'�'AIVER
Revibwad by: tA4.
Date
7, �KZN
� 0411 �3vkl
Eq
J�
4b,
MAY 3 0 `1997
5 - 97- 50
COMMUNITY SERVrPES
"-1r7A1C- /V
Aie [Gk &-CH c�wsD, i7- /5 wv IFIFST- 1Aj-f-Qc-s—#
77115 VA9W,41VCC
6E
2 1:5 ODP 5HAM Aco
LU, UtRi&x�-
Bly
6'-J11-0A6LE 'IS PARr C'�= 4CTUAc-
1,jo-r
Fa=D ICA, CAP
AC-CfAL
,T7-46 Aou-1—n-, -1r) MA
6r-- -7746 PROPeWY, 't 6V
Uj!
�u
(F- VARIAN mo�pp-oi=lmer.-�
LO U. vu I Lj-
-0
Ay, /I$
LU 7'� IS A /-joc.6Z-.
A5 'He
cup 'r
A
La -S IAJ oc"i Sel�IZ T71A'f- 5A10deWi5,4
gi rry i WAS AijNeFXFp
:3
Ul
T*h"5
7V
z T-1-i 15 TM 1:5-
cm C'
M A -AZ!; V
770AJ &vg.,S ,�,
pZ,
4VAILA,=Lc, f- '"4AVe 6C-EN A4A0eF jjNj oup Aa&:-A,
LU LUI 14 1 �j
WIqlLc 7
MAyr
7V
PLAfq WiTH _He.
U (ni 7 (ZC*1 PIZ EF He-Aj r. i Vr=
iZIC
,HT_ IN c)UZ Xt;�'iCKYAJZD WiLL
VAI-UiE C.�U,2
UJ LU C 2) 1:5 T*RuL:-
01= THC
X L) ON 4V H
LUL. e0*j
5HAPe C--�F
z
ai A WivGWAY AS INCLODEZ5
AC-,M-,AL Fgof7=p�
-T-HAN
0 5,qUAIZ�e ELIcLaWizz
z
wq�j I-T-
p Is-, xt�r
I HIS. AND
-T-H 1:5
VAF
L41 C�� F'R0F=TW 'VALLZ- TC, t746 A
HoLlSe L-�<AT-eD
q
A V G e'7-��N B3-r N OW 5 r*r-S A Nr-> CON C,
7 - MA
T-HE
A MAJC)r,- Tt> : -T74AIr THE AP-,E-,q NA r)
V120R., 6RIGIWATJ�j&
0 T)-49r- CAU5ES 65A5-r OF= PIZOPOSeD
MAIVIA&E R;;
UVATtial- F9be3U2M-3
C tWJ5 VAiZJAt--J(:E
-TAeLe avjvr---pmfjc-
HANWAJ&
70
AL-W-c-Ar,>y j==LzxjDS N IINT
(!:>F 'THC- LAt-J Lr-G'5 OF NA-rwL-.qL- D
"D QA I t'JAOC 646-Ay
kiA i lei RAvit2)- ReP40V'44- "-F TRESS WqICH
-JUST- AND soAj< L�p
c--LIM HcMis� wc-
-V5 THIS �-c Ac� 4'T- We
r-ze POINC, 5ro
WAS T;-415 NATvV-,4i- C;IPCN SPIA
We HAIPM7-o Lxxjie�
AI'JV r-VP THE FAC—,t 7-he-RC- AeAF NC, C,'
Hc�mL=,s -n4e-pae,
ATTACHMENT 8
File No. S-97-50
t
.0
WHILE W (5 "Ptap-15MAND -T+i(-3 ;5 -n-fE MINIMUM VAWIANz Cz
NeEViT F012 ACCESSi 'I-T- A Frr-crs US I N 7HA-r W I LL, NCW
6'C- NO iW AWL, FbL.L-uTjotQ. V-r-Of,4 GAW5. FEIG-i-rr IN 0 01C OACPiAZD,
A'5 VJza-LAS T-HE' LiU4TaV- PRO-E3LJ-=-&j5 THAr JT- J,4ji"
2ACR-VARD 1-S 'SAWC-I-UAP�� A e�ui5lr -PLACE Fbp-
z
< C)LAZ k�IP�5 TO FL44Y ANo 6e. VAR—E 45,opp-,Sc�p TD Cj��p -T- t\y—
VAPP LAJ�fEp-e - =4T'll SW 'RUMS aFA5-r AND W15-457-,
UuiLL- AL.130 AFF7ee--
7- AND L,:!ri-
d 001 GCOA-My Viol-)
M Lu eTwc:l!!N 71,4 E
xt
Le U0
uj
is W15H Tl-(AT- -1'1*115 VAPIAAje�g lVdi-, Oe c-Z4N)-L--D
U. < ReQueST-, #416 A Ccep
W A T-=-.e
FIADBL927� MUST FC- A17
x KKicW THA7-, 10
FLocD I
i4G&I EXTCHAIAP-4
0 W LL Nt�—t
MAV&
-vaqQl
15, A VeP-lY epic�
:3 Ell CAN �T- 3 TA-M-
t:NC--Q G. 14
va
U. 0.
Lu, JiF.NN i FER E KLUNC, 5JPN iCK Wi i.LiA*l M .13UDN i<:��
OAY 2b, 1,)-) 7
ze, /997
9510 ZZ4 R/ u7Z--ZE3'77
WA
O�
PLCASC NOT-&
m A- q,
WC- 13C4-j0.V6- 'rHA-r CHUC-le WARNE9,(AFFL4�ANr)
-HE7 A400tricA r-kW [?��.FlPn6N AN9'Vaci-Ataq-nw Q v
tZA-n-+tr-R( Tp4AM GV--Fe�gw& -5;C-,tkj;rCA lN'F(=er4ATTdN.
ZC4,j S I V&PZA 77 OA/ WHEN fZVVj&WjNiG, THIS,
41 Yoo,
RV,
g '04
AV 3 0 1997
COMMUNITY
R
E, J"A
-1�111! It,
BENNETT & BENNETT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 DAYTOM SUITE A
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020
(206) 776-0139 0 FAX (206) 778-6746
CHESTER R. BENNETT (1988) May 30, 1997
PETER W. BENNETT
LEIGH P, BENNETT
RECEIVED
r X
HAND DELIVERED ON MAV 31,1997 MAY 3 0 1997
U;
COMMUNITY SERVICES
0!
Lui
City of Edmonds
�O LL
—0
Planning Department
�u
Edmon#, WA.
U-
Attention: Steve Bullock, Planner
C)
Re: Modification Request in conjunction with Short Plat S-97-50;
Z
Property at 22408 - 95th P1 West, Edmonds, WA
;7-
Z
Mv Client: Shawn Yoo, adjacent property owner
UJ Lui
cl�
Dear Mr. Bullock:
0
L-a
W LU
I represent Mr. Shawn Yoo. He and his wife reside at 22412 - 95th Place West, Edmonds, WA.
,
Mr. Yoo has asked that I submit a letter with comments to the you regarding the above-referenccd
i L�A- 0
Z
matter. I have had Mr. Yoo review the content of this letter and had him sign this underpenaftV of
Cun),
perjurN such that this letter can be taken as his sworn testimony (ie.. a sworn. Declaration).
Z
0
Facts:
M�. and Mrs. Yoo have lived at 22412 95th PI W. Edmonds since December of 1980 (almost 17
years). The adjacent neighbor, and applicant for short plat, apparently purchased the subject
property in October of 1996, The applicant is apparently now asking for approval of a two (2) lot
short plat. To get the short plat, the applicant has asked for a "modification" of ibe city zoning
requirements on the width from 70 feet to 67.40. Apparently.. Lot I (and the existing stiructure)
would be on1v 67.40 feet wide, due to the fact that the "new" Lot 2, would require a I Y foot
access roadway which would take away that width from Lot 1. The required minim um width fo
RS 8000 property is apparently 70'.
0
If allowed. then a new single family residence road would be placed adjacent to the Yoo residence.
just some 16 feet from two bedrooms. We realize that if this application is not approved that.the
applicant could still put in for instance a garage in the back in lieu of a neNv residence and also put
in the neA roadway. However, that analysis fails, since we could live with the garage and roadvvay
under that situation, since a roadway for garage purposes would not likely add many car trips,
0
while a new single family residence roadway will generate a whole new I�vcl of car trips that do
not exist today. Those new car trips will be'going 16* back and forth by Mr. Yoo*s two bedrooms,
The fact of a new single family residence also impacts the Yoos in that they will lose some privacy
in their large backyard. Again, any attempt to say that a "garage" (that could otherwise be placed
now) is the same as a single family residence is simply not truc...People would not be living in the
ATTACHMENT 9
Fih.- No. S-97-50
0
...........
City of Edmonds
Modification Comments
May 3 0. 1997
page V7
z
<
Uji
cc
<
L4
U 01
01 garage (at least on a regular basis); Plus, the likelihood is that a new single family residence in the
W UJI back will be at least two stories, so even if the Yoos build a fence, the privacy would still likely be
Ui
lost since the second story will still easily view the Yoo's backyard.
Cn LL
—0
W
In addition. by allowing this modification and short plat, the already problematic drainage will be
increased many times. Mr. Yoo indicates that he already get large puddling and ponding of surface
LL
water and with a new road and other impervious surfhces, the drainage problem is only likely to get
T a
3: U1 worse.
z I--!!
Code Analysis.
W Wt
2
ECDC 20.75.075 (c) says that the modification may only be approved "...only if allofthe
required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made."
W UJ
ECDC 20.85.0 10 says that ... No variance may be approved unless all the finds in this sections
LL 0
Z. can be make."
ECDC 20.85.0 10 E. is on ofthe criteria and states as follows:
0
z
E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally ap roved will not be
P
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfitre or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
While there may be other findings that can not be made ofthose listed, we feel that subsection E is J
-J the one that can not be found and therefore this modification can not be granted.
It is in fact significantly detrimental to have a new roadway placed 16' from two bedroom windows
of a neighboring house. The increased vibration and noise will be significant, caused by cars
0 coming and going. During the construction phase of the new house it would be evenworsc. See
the attached two pictures of the location of the Yoo house to the red fence line to see the proximity
of the edge of the road to the Yoo house and bedroom windows,
The loss of privacy in the Yoo's backyard, as suggested above, is also a significant detriment to the
Yoos.
By allowance of the modification, the drainage problem increases by creating more water, so that is
a significant detriment.
ffn Y
t?
M�
1: 7 7 -,".7 7 i"'!
Z-
LU
W!
LW
QN
7
T
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR I HA
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE. QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
K�
D
U
0
U.
0
z
ul�
City of Edmonds
Planning Department
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: Steve Bullock, Planner
Re: Appeal of S-97-50 Decision Granting of Lot Width Modification and Short
Plat for Charles Warner decided June 9,1997
Dear Mr. Bullock:
My wife and I participated in the recent S-97-50 decision process which ended with your
approval of the referenced lot width modificationrequest and short plat with conditions.
This is our appeal of that decision. Our neighbor's, Jennifer Eckland Budnick and William M.
Budnick, also are appealing this decision. We also understand that we do not have to ask for
Reconsideration, as a prerequisite to making this appeal. Enclosed is my check for $100 for the
appeal fee.
In the event that our appeal is not granted, then I am stating that we are not appealing the portion
of the decision wherein as a condition of approval, it states:
3. A six foot high fence or a hedge that will reach 6 feet in height within 2 years must be
installed along the south property line between the access road and the adjacent property
to the south. (We would Want this at a minimum if our appeal is denied.)
We have reviewed the entire decision and record provided to us. The reasons that the decision is
in error are as follows:
1. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and persuasion on the points for the
modification. The modification required that all points of the variance ordinance be met
and the applicant failed to provide anything but bare assertions and conclusions not
based on fact.
A. Special Circumstances include a number of examples none of which the
applicant has. He states that the comprehensive plan encourages this type of infill
development which "creates" a special circumstance. This is really stretching things.
The only apparent factor for special circumstance is the lack of "ability to make more
profitable use of the property," which is not a good reason under the code.
B. Comprehensive Plan. I read the same code sections that the staff cited for
why this decision was granted and how the comprehensive plan was supposed to
encourage infill development. We disagree with the interpretations and conclusions
reached by the staff regarding consistency of the comprehensive plan with this lot width
modification and short plat. The sections of B.5 do not seem to be met: (supposed to
"Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses....
Attlachment
n. I
ORIGNAL
0
in
LU
d;
0
Z
1). Privacy. I wrote, as did neighbors, as to the loss of privacy with this
modification and short plat.
2). Traffic. It is increased with this project.
3). Stable property values. I am a real estate agent and stated in the record that
this modification and subsequent short plat would reduce the value of my home. See my
letter and the one submitted by my attorney, which was also my sworn declaration.
Other neighbors stated the same thing. The applicant stated nothing but bare assertions
and conclusions not based on fact.
. 4). Adverse Environmental impacts. How does this project help the impact on
the environment? The neighbors and I wrote how the drainage problem has been very
bad and was extremely understated by the applicant in the critical areas questionnaire.
This project will create more problems with surface water runoff problems and ponding
of water.
The Staff cited portions of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan, section G.2,
as support for this modification and again, the interpretation seems incorrect and also not
to be borne out here by any facts supplied by the applicant and the parties of record:
1). G.2.a says to encourage infill development ..... with innovative single family
development patterns, but uses the Planned Residential Developments as the example.
This project is not innovative nor a Planned Residential Development and simply does
not fit within the intent of the comprehensive plan.
2). G.2.c says to provide flexible development standards for infill development,
such as non -conforming lot, when consistent with the neighborhood ..... This lot is not a
non -conforming lot (unless short platted). This modification and short plat is not
consistent with this neighborhood, as was stated by a number of neighbors. This
neighborhood has large lots. The staff cited some other recent decisions as authority,
however, those are not in this neighborhood. The applicant provided no facts to support
his allegations. The applicant, I've heard, has 32 rental units. He is currently renting the
house on site. I assume that neither the applicant nor his mother (owner) intend to live in
the existing or new home, Basically, the city, by granting this, is allowing the applicant
to come into a owner occupied neighborhood and change it to a transient rental
neighborhood. Granting this modification and short plat will give all others in the this
neighborhood the green light to do the same thing and change the character of the
neighborhood.
So, it is our position that the proposed subdivision and lot width modification are not
consistent with the Comprehensive plan.
C. Zoning Ordinance. Certainly, this lot width modification and subdivision is not
consistent with the zoning ordinance, since the zoning ordinance requires 70 feet
minimum width.
D. Not Detrimental. We think that there is evidence in the record to show that the
granting of the lot width modification and short plat is significantly detrimental. I am a
04
k
e. Z", , ,
Steven F. Bullock JUNE 17, 1997
"r Project Planner
CITY OF EDMONDS
X UJI 250 5TH AVE NORTH
EDMONDS, WA 98020
Lu
d
(D RE: Charles Warner
in 22408 95th Place West, Edmonds
_J I.-
V) U. FILE #S-97-50
UJ 0
Request'for Reconsideration sec 20. 095.050.B.2
U.
LA C3
UA
Z I— Dear Mr Bullock:
UJUJ; I am writing this letter in response to the PLANNING DIVISION
,2 =I
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DESCISION.filed on June' 9, 1997 for the
UU) above referenced short plat.
wuj Incidentally it is impossible to get hold of an entire copy of the
Comprehensive Plan or purchase one from the City, as they.are out of
Z print.
AS an interested property owner, three lots to the south of subject
0 property at 22506.95th Place West, I wish to have this,d4cision
Z
reconsidered and vigorously recommend denial of this application.as is
detailed below. My ultimate goal is maintain the character of this
suburban neighborhood as it is now existent AND has existed for twenty
plus years.
The members of this neighborhood have been somewhat dismayed at the
type of growth that has taken place inadjacent neighborhoods along
224th and 220th over the last three to five years. Short -plated lots
with oversized houses for the lot size ' that looks like an affluent
ghetto. These developments may have more of an appeal WHEN they are
contiguous in nature, which the.proposal isLnot.
We looked at this 'growth' as something toLeventually come down the
pike - in the next ten to twenty years. However, at the time we were
situated in Snohomish County with an 8500sf minimum lot size. The
permitting process, that we trusted in, consistently defended,and
deterred that type of development.
We are now upset to find that the good City of Edmonds,requirements-.
are not only less stringent, they encourage -this type of�overbuildingl
IF we are to believe the proponents quotation ofthe Comprehensive"
Plan.
it, q-"
G�il
Many of us, particular,ly,in-this,neighborhobd,.have fought a ' nnexation
into the City of Edmonds for years. To have thisshort plat crammed
down our.throats ' �adds insult to injury, particularly for a developer/
contractors short term gain and damn,the neighborhood approach. We
are aware.of the fact Mr. Warner just.finished a similar bare minimum
lot size project on 220th between. NO THANKS.
FOLLOWINd-are dome specific comments to the proposal.
-J
L) II A,I.b(5).Does the 35% maximum lot coverage allowed (2989.35sf)
V)W1 for the proposed short plat for Lot#2 include asphaltic pavement
V)
and/or concrete or just the footprint of residence only?,
V) 0
LU If this allowed area is for the residence footprint only, would the
City allow, upon submittal under separate permitil a 2900sf residence
LL. < to be built on this site?
LJ How much area in square footage will be needed for.adequate Storm
X� I L #10) ?
detention as required by EngineeringL L (item
01
Z Is there adequateLland forLthis,provision? Can this be resolved
LU Lul before the short, plat is approved?
R) Lai 1401 SE
*Additional protection.from noise is addressed under,environmental
W WW 5.6).
X 0" impacts Lsec. II,C,l.a) (B.5.d) 'and, traffic sec.II,C,I.a (B-L
UJ= The required 61 privacy fence would only provide a visual screen.
LU U)i The alternate privacy landscape buffer reallyL won't help much more'.
As the Engineering Requirement item #3 necessitates'a .121 wide curb
Z and gutter, leaving only a 3' wide area for a andscape buffer,
with the possibility of that width being cut in half or split on
either side of the drive.
As a contrast, I have a 101 and a 15" side.yard setbacks,Lwith
sometimes 4-61 of landscape buffer and/or.fence that,provideS L
minimal noise reduction. I wonder what it will be like toLhave
cars blasting past the bedroom at two'clock in the morning?
TRAFFIC
0: 1 believe the City Traffic Engineers are not adequately considering.
traffic impacts this type of irresponsible construction is bringing
City L
to bear on our streets. As the Proponent and the are so fond
of saying - the Comprehensive Plan prescribes subdividing,these
'marginally' used lots.
If you care to do the math, of the existingL31 lots on 95th between
224th and 228th, 22 lots are,able to be short plated.� With Lal 1 22,
lots short plated and built on' -an additional 33-44. cars,will,beL
added to this piece of roadway alone. Now, let,Ls'say that all takes..
place in the next five years!
�9
Ui
0
a
LU
LU
0
z
. ..... .....
The increased traffic on 95th has been increasing significantly.
since signaliztion at-95th/Edmonds Way. Cars are constantly
speeding from thesignal to 220th. LI have several times in the last
�year or so nearly incurred head on collisions wh ' ile traveling
westbound on 224th by vehicles failing to stop at the,stop sign on
95th (224th is a through street with right of way)L' twice by the
SAME driver no less.
The City encouragement of doubling the residential density will
.lead to more vehicle accidentsi heavier traf,fic,Lmore. signals,
=Lgrid lock. city Staff now how has the opportunity to deny this
application so that futher study traffic consequences canbe
considered.
PRIVACY,
II,B,lb(5) "not injurious or detrimental to adjacent,propert es" is aLL
highly subjective and prejudicial phrase, used purely to the
benefit of the.proponent.
*Right to privacy is central to the issues at hand. It is incumbent
upon the City to protect our privacy, sec. II,C,l.a)L(B.5.'a),
Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by
local goverment..
This development IS significantly detrimental to theambiance and
character of the L neighborhood, the privacy of our back yards and
the mental well being of its residents. The Comprehensive Plan does
not want to consider or take stock in the residents feelings of
dep I rivation of privacy.A.potential two story behemoth house AND an
additional driveway and parking lotin.the back yard, privacy do
not make.
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE BY PRESCRIPTION
II,,B,l.b)(1) - Special Circumstances
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Pla L n does not "prescribe" granting
Special Circumstances to 'underdeveloped', property.,This phrase
twists the intent of the language in theLCriteria..set forth,
in II,B,I.a) for granting Special Circumstances.—,,
*Although the Comprehensive Plan may,encourage "in,fill developmentll�—
it certainly does not "prescribe" it or "mandate" L I it
*There is no deprivation of prescriptive underdevelopment. This is
pure gobbledegook!
*Approval wou ld then Grant the proponent SpecialLRights.
*These properties are, in our estimation,quite adequately developed
property
*Granting a variance under Special Circumstances�to this,
g S of
owner contravenes existing owners use and ri ht their.pr6p6tty.,
W, i 1i
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE BY MORE PROFITABLE USE
II,B,la - Minimum variance
I can hardly be sympathetic to an 'owners rights' whose intent is
simply to extract the most financial gain. This premise of owners
rights is entirely contrary to the criteria as established in
Z i
< *' II,B,la. "Special circumstances should NOT be predicated upon ---
the ability,to make more profitable use of the property"!
:C 21
LU 'The proponent is a developer.
L.) 01 s into this project for the economic gain - he will never, ever
LO 01 He i
V) LUf live in these houses! This property can become profitable only if it
LU
is short plated. To deny the short plat, from an investment stand-
U) point, would require a raze and rebuild on the existing 16550 sf
UJ
parcel, not as economically feasiblef and surely less profitable!
STABLE PROPERTY VALUES
I1fB? L 2e Although the City of Edmonds, does not consider decreased
property values an issue, perhaps the City will pay the additional
Z
property taxes endured because of this proposal.
Z
W LUI
2ZI *Stable property values must not be threatened.by ---land use
e Cr
n caches; sec.1I,C,l.a')(B.5.c). We have suffered wildly
escalating property values in the last threeLyears (200% gain
Approval of this proposal will only serve to stimulate the upward
LU LU
XV spiral of land values. Denial will help maintain current land
values and property tax stability.
Under the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element sec.F Goal. to provide
affordable housing --- affordable housing, no matter what kind or for
Z what market will not be available -even for�thoseLcurrently living
here because property values AND SUBSEQUANTLY PROPERTY TAXS are on
an uncontrolled increase.
The Comprehensive Plans lenient:viewpoint of encouragingL11infill
development" increases demand for less available.property thereby
e increases in the marketplace, and
stimulating speculative pric
--a continually vicious
thereby increasing property taxs assessments
cycle consuming itself.
0 IN SUMMARY The Staff comments hold that there may be profitability
issue, but more importantly that the reason for approval is the
-Plan encouragement of marginally used property.
Comprehensive
I submit that the over riding value is motivation for this request of
a short Plat is an issue of PROFITABILITY and should be' denied.
Sin rely,
L
:>
Gerry Gros
22506 95th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 778 4353
?70� U1,
My
M
T7
4
P...
D i
z
LU 1
2'
M
C-)
0
a
LU
U-
di
z
3 S =Ilmf--3 3 --11-0 N —SI 1
630a 3HI Al :331ION
Ai
, 01.
an�
City Planning Commission
7bis, letter is to register my no vote in letting someone subdivide his lot We bought our lot so that we
pould have our privacy. And now you want to take that away from us. is, the city of Edmonds that
I
cc
hard up for a tax base, that you would devalue our property , and take awa y the privacy of.one of our
neighbors. This would also, open the door for every one with large lots to subdivide. Let me put it this,
X'M
way if this were happening in your neighborhood would you stand for it. ,
L)
61,
V,
to
LU
Since
0
h he"
e o
Uj
Z �—1
LUAU
RECE,
IvErj
0
1997
LU WO
PERM11T
Uj
0
z
01�
NI
4�
%
Z�
Jviiy 7. 1.9,9-,
-Jl
Attn: Steve Bullou'l?. planner i*�i`�'8'iQ
City of E-hlIC111,13
Phtnriins DePkultment
r Lut-tonds,WA 5>802()
Ul
-j & Re. Support fcll, shllwn Y
j OC�6� appCq] of344-50 ;je(.'iqjClj
l'or Charles Warner 4e(: ided J1.1ne 199-! 1 V,anting 161 width rtiodificat;,in and short 1,181,
jj
Ig
V) LL tice rtgarding Charlvs WxTwr's mquoit
fOr Lot W;dt1h lAodification and Short Plat, NOW 1111" UjjdW_ lodirli
—0
�u rA, -Z is fflut his; reqUest was pIanted and
Shavi Yoo has forimlly requ"ted art appe-at
W- While I havo- not
re a d any v f at e do,� urn eill q Mr. Yo C, re f to I I I' f k i S JL Irl e 2 3N I c t I ei vid kiavt.- 0 t ll t terldt!, C.1,
ally j*,
f the n
C) S011le(,Xv� eV.,epLion to tl,le ftiles. 11-1 thi��t eas" the excepti011
is a 10t Wift) naJTCfWOr than WITent. Zoning Q11CAUS, 1171LIF, enRI)ling tht.- lot to be sp�it into two lot
3: S mly ha",
flut follow theqn? 011cp the fit
z 17 wf d tk -st Pet-soll ih, allemed
Will follow Sjcon this will (wr br a neighbol-hood Orlarge lot,; with (,Omfortabl-e livin
nei.,-,hbL g
vs, b
LU UAI ut �' crOWded city atmomphere�
I -i-a"t'. lived hei-e for ovel- 24 yeftr�� I chot;f., thi,
-1-tetvvef -,wd d civv
(I it MAN 2h it -0 vf the I:xv e
th"tt ;Jrld the f�oufjtry'4t-yl',- (�;lt I'd Preft-T llf land have bt�,ell dev�d,:TtA with
A-larlY ha-ge henises nquet-ced intow-rlail gpar-e-.; witilina Coupl,: t-A blocks of here. 11lis husalready
ln1.1rr1R11q(1d tht- trilffic. whiiAl not only ir, 11(tioy, but Disc dutsn't'stick tc, the proper VeC6 IV[Ckr;r- h0neS
X
)I*kf people, which momi; les� pl-iv CY. fftt-We traffic,and tric%re diatu4xVlf:E-s to the quipf
LL wl-, DOw havf.�, -No tl)ktrjk-,;.
z
LU
mol-C horims in inf-i-mic.5 tjl,� prvipe �h�t goo.4 is th?)t tv Inc'? I haw. no �nterfnm in
u �jjy valij I,
mming. RiL
0 jierpt-opejj�y��alue I would hmetop�iy llifjlef tazea. 7hus
z Ft-W rr'Wielf vvl irty rieqLhL-,vrs, thjji� i,.I jl�q the good C4 tht- poopl'�`, it -,-I only
f'N'the �,00rl Of thc cily. Atgaiz
no
1A... Y"No al"'o 6ttlted U-nit the c'W"Ll' cif thf: ICA. iflvOhh�d ig re-kit-q- fit. home 1-:1-IlTet-LOY Oil the lot undhas
1Vj- th-�jt tile cWnerkjftj- p
le �ro C-11Y, MJ'. rxedt; to do
thistype oblevelcipt-nent in a nei4mbodiood wiltrp it is C01-13istent wiffitbe chai,ar-Lerof the --it-ighborho'Od,
This is R neir)1boffiond where. ttle lots Rre large, and mc)st vilffir rt.$)dmitz are thcowntrs TIe.
Aer' of thifs nei4-tU)l'li`-'1Od is 1-40t thElt Of fffla!l kkt,� and rental imits. it' tIly lleitj11j,3r1; @md I had watlt,�d
to bive in an am�. or*lml! lof� ilrld�e,�Ial units: wv -xildn't. have bou'joit hert in the fir -A place. We dldn,t
then arld we doll't now. PllCL;q" dorilt let prorul-seekel-s contit-tue to njill Aur neii4ibxboodwith thio typp
,speen-A privilegcs, Pf
0" S %dy,
Oini-er:
-Dunharn
95th Place welit
Edmonds, WA 9*02()-4523
PAP
R
-A"
�:Cejv ED
JUL
�91997
Jul y, 9 1997
City of Edmonds
.0
Planning Department
Edmonds, Wa 98020
.0
Attention:�Steve Bullock, planner
Rd: Appeal of S-97"50 Decision,.Gri�ntiig�of,:.,Lot,Width-:
LO
Modifi6ation.and.Short Plat,for..Charles:Varner:
decided June -9,1997
U1 UJI
Dear Mr. Bullock:
U
My hearing date was July 9,7:PM 1997.
a t
Uj LU
But I was notified of a July 8 :to be head on,july 17,9AM .1997.
But I had preprevious business.-�plans already scheduled for
that,day. It's very difficult to change my plans for that day.
LU U)
U
It would be more convenience to reschedule the hearing for
the second week in August 1997 in the PM17:00
0
z
If possible & Please notify me of your desicion.,1.
Thank you
Sincerely,
au 'g CA)�O
S I i �n �SLtoo
22412 05th P st
i W�
Edmonds, Wa 98020-4523
(425) 776-6273
. ....... ..
M, W
Z"
July7,1997
JUL — 9
P, Q 7
Attn; Steve But lock, Plamer PLANIVINri D&q.
City of Edmonds
Planning Department
cc Edmonds, WA 98020
-J 0i
U Re: Support for Shawn Yoo's appeal of 3-97-30 decision granting lot width modification and short plat
L"I for Charles Wamer decided June 9,1997
ui X,
Due to circumstances in June, I was unable to respond to the notice regarding Charles Warmer's request
—0 for Lot Width Modification and Short Plat, Now my understanding is that his request was granted and
U.1
Shawn Yoo has formally requested an appeal,
While I have not read any of the documents Mr. Yoo refers to in his June 23rd I tter and haven't attended
CAI e
any of the meetings, I too, object to allowing someone exception to the rules. In this case the exception
ul
is a lot width narTower than current zoning allows, thus enabling the lot to be split into two lots, Whyhave
Z rules if people can be allowed to not follow them? Once the first person is allowed exceptions to the
01 rules, others will follow. Soon this will not be a neighborhood of lar-ge lots with comfortable li
ving space
between neighbors, but a crowded city atmosphere.
I have lived here for, over 24 years. I chose this location because it was an in-between of the crowded city
0 areas that I don't like, and the country style that I'd prefer, Other pieces of land have been developed with
CO3 many large houses squeezed into small spaces within a couple of blocks of here. 7his has already
LU LU
increased the traffic, which not only is noisy, but also doesn't stick to the properspeed, More homes
means more people, whichmeana leas privacy, more traffic, andmore disturbances to the quiet
�L- 01 neighborhood we now have, No thanks,
If more homes in less space increases the property value, what good is that to me? I have no interest in
0 moving. Higher property value would mean that I would have to pay higher taxes. Thus; my housing cost
Z would continue to rise, For myself and my neighbors, this in not mfor the good of the people", it is only
for the good of the city, Again, no thanks,
Mr. Yoo also stated that the owner of the lot involved is renting the home currently on the lot and has
many other rental units, Mr. Yoo also stated that the owner of the property, Mr. Warner '. needs to do
this type of development in a neighborhood where it is consistent with the character of the'n'eighborhood.1
I agree. This is a neighborhood where the lots are large and most of the residents are the owners, The
"chai-acter, of this neighborhood is not that of small lots and rental units. If MY neighbors and I had wanted
to live in an area of small lots and rental units, we wouldn't have bought here in the first place, We didrit
then and we don't now. Please, don't let profit -seekers continue to ruin our neighborhood with this type of
special privilegcol
Sincerely,
Critic C, Dunham
22511 - 95th Place West
M�
Edmonds, WA 98020-4523
(425) 774-1826
'a
0
W FIRE! 5 W
A�j
ui
U-
uj
0
z
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR TFTAN
0 E JT Is. DUE TH U,�LITY OF THE DOCUMENT,
T"!S NOTIC TO