22412 95TH PL W.PDFiiiiii iiiiii
9348
22412 95TH PL W
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 16,2005
To: File
cc: Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Jim Kammerer, Street Manager
From: Damon Roth, Stormwater Engineer
Subject: Infiltration Along 95th Place
At the request of Public Works, a percolation test has been performed in fi�221.f-o—f2�241 2 95 �thP-I- �
W to determine the suitability of a proposed infiltration system. On November 15, 2005 a Public
Works crew vactored an approximately 6-foot deep hole within the alignment of the proposed
infiltration trench. Once the hole was in place, the crew drove a length of 6-inch diameter pipe
as far as they could into the bottom of the hole. The following day this pipe was filled with
water for a period of about 4 V2hours to saturate the soils below the pipe. The pipe was then
filled to the top, and the length of time it took for the water level to sink 6 inches was recorded.
The overall length of time it took the water level to move 6 inches was 22 minutes, for an
average infiltration rate of 0.27 inches/minute. For ease of calculation, the maximum infiltration
rate was then assumed to be 0.25 inches/minute.
The amount of paved road surface draining to this area was estimated to be approximately 15,000
square feet; this includes the east half of W" Avenue extending approximately 120 feet south of
224th St., the south half of 224h St. between 96th Avenue and 950'Place, and the west half of 95 Ih
Place extending approximately 680 feet south of 224th St.
Assuming a maximum infiltration rate of 0.25 inches/minute, the dimensions of the proposed
infiltration trench, and using the standard formula used to size infiltration facilities for single
family residences in the City of Edmonds, the proposed infiltration trench could accommodate
approximately 20,800 square feet of impervious surface during a 100-year, 24-hour design storm.
This is substantially greater than the 15,000 square feet of road surface estimated to drain to this
facility. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed infiltration facility will improve
the drainage along 95th Place and reduce the reported ponding in front of 22412 95h Pl. W.
City of Edmonds
- JUL-30-97 WED 13:36
P Z
P. 02
f--, P�� cc
Z
JOL 3 0
CITY OF EDMONDS pLA,��,VB
10
BARA FAHEY
260 STH AVENUg MORT14 * 6C)MONC)S, WA 98020 - (2W 771-0220 0 FAX (2061 771-0221 DIEM AYOR
HEARING eXAMINOR
FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF TRE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPELLANT; Mr. Shawn Yoo
CASE NO.: AP 97-56
LOCATION: 12X-;4 1r2j"k1®r'hVP LZ
APPEAL- 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. ,
REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
MAJOR ISSURS-
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (F-CDC)
Section 20.75, Subdivision Requiremems,
b. Cornpliancc with Edmond5 Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.90.0 10 (Public Hearings Notice Content and Procedure).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chap,er 20. 105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommeadation; Deny the Appeal
Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny the Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory ReporL; 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 verbatirn recording of tile
hearing is availablr, in the Planning Division.
a Incorporared Awsust 11. 1890 a
Sister Cities International — Hekinan. JaDan
JUL-30-97 WED 13:35
P. 01
Planning =d HemIng Exaniher Services
McConnell/Bi-qke, inco�porated
10604 N, E. 3 Sth Place Suitgp 227 Kitkland, ri 98033 (206) 827-6550 FAX 889-0730
FAX TRANSMISSION
Number of pages sent (including cover short)-.
DAM 7/3o
To-. rA,9", C-1 'r
Attn;
J.P-4 w a.V,
FAX
FROM: 0" me
RE:
CONNENTS:
.T I a
a"-&"t ( +),.-�
C.#- a-L-A
If you haVe not received 4 the pages indicatc-4 please caU 206-827-6550.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:36 P.03
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Pagc 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summ&ry 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 -
The code Provides minimum standards and also allows modifications from the
standards if certain criteria are met.
The proposal meets all code requirements except the minimum width reqUirement.
0 The proposal is for a 2 1/2 foot reduction in width for one. of the two proposed lots.
Installation of a fence, or landscaping along the south property line to mitigate
impacts from the proposed driveway wu required as a condition of approvai.
In order for tho City to mcct its long term population goal5 under GMA, either
infill in single famfly areas such as this Must be allowed, or more multifamily
housing must be allowed in the City.
The difference in the lot width will not be noticeable to a passerby without the use
of a tape measure.
From the Appellant:
Shawn Yoo, appellant, said he has lived in Edmonds IS years. He submitted several
Exhibits and said the City's conclusions are not based on facts.
0 The only apparent factor for special circumstance is the lack of ability to make a
more profitable use of the property.
4 Section B.3 of ihe Comprehensive Plan which is to "protect residential areas from
incompatible land uses" has not been met. Also,
0 Privacy will be lost, particularly if a two story house is built.
a Tfaffic will be increased.
a 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. Sufface wate-r
is already a problem in the area and the lot to the west is like a swanip. He said
the environmental checklist was wrong because it said the property had no water
problems.
This project is not innovative and does not fit within the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan
JUL-30-97 WED 13:37
P. 04
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 3
The modification and short plat is not consistent with the neighborhood.
The lot width modificatioa 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
citc,d Exhibit D to support his contcntion.
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 modificEition and short plat should be denied, however, if it is
approved, then the condition of a 6 foot high fence or hedge should bc rr-quircd.
From the Community:
Gerry Grosz. neighbor, submitted Exhibit G and said he opposed the approval of the short
plat for the following reasons:
Ip Traffic will be increased and no traffic study was done.
The City's Comprehensive Plan does not consider the impacts of the Westgate
Annexation and did not address traffic issues in the area.
a Previously short platted lots in the area all had immediate street frontage, except
for a few.
a This lot could not have been short platted in the County because it is too $nIall to
have two 8,400 square foot lots, which were required in the County.
0 The City's Comprehensive Plan supports stable property values, but if this
application is approved, property values and taxes will both go up,
0 This type of growth is uncontrollcd growth and thcrc is no way to moderate it,
0 Special circumstances should not be predicated upon the ability to make more
profitable use of die property.
a He.requested a moratorium on all applicutions before the Planning Commission,
Planning and Building DepartmenU for one year.
from the Applicant-,
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 tho.se type of
issues.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:37
P. 05
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
Page 4
6 He wants to address only the issues regarding his application.
0 The City has a Comprehensive Plan which is well thought out. The
Comprehensive Plan has encouraged low cost housing.
a 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.
0 The code has specific criteria whi.ch must be met and the City must decermirle
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 addrcsscd. Tho
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 addrassed.
Hr, has a right to build a driveway in the spot whcro the driveway 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.
The new lot will conform with the code and the new home will meet all setback
rNuirements. The existing lot will be reduced in width by 2 V2 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 incompatible with the
surrounding single family residential area.
0 He concurred with Mr. Warner with respect to the wet area on the property to the
WW.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:38
.1 opt,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
1 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 strearn.. The property to the west
is lower than the subject property and is subject to standing water-
9 The City is looking at storm drainage issues on an area wide basis and they will be
addressed on an area w1de basis.
6 Traffic is also an area wide issue and this short plat will need to address only the
impacts created by it.
0 The City has no regulations regarding the size of a home and does not regulate
whether homes arc rcriter or owner occupicd.
0 There are nearby lots which are 62 feet wide.
6 Special circumstances are based on the Comprehensive Plan and not on whether
or not the propeM can make more money.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. HISTORY
1. Application Chronology:
a. Facts:
1) April 3, 1997, Charles Warner and Phyllis Warner submitted an
application for a two lot short -plat, This application is really tin infill
development in that Mere is one existing house on the prOpeTty Lind the
short -plat will only add one additional lot or potential home (see Short -
Plat Staff Repoil. 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 shbrt plat
is consistent with die City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. In
fact the proposal is consistent with all the City's development codes
excopt for lot width on the lot that fronts on 95th P1, W. )Because a 15-
toot panhandle musi 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 1 for detail.�).
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 modificacion request froin 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 mevat the same criteria a variance does
for the City to approvc them. In this casc, the variance criteria were
applied to the requested lot width modification and the modificabon
JUL-30-87 WED 13:39
F. 07
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
1 Page 6
was found to mect a six critcria (sm Short -Plat Staff Rnport, Exhibit
A, Attachment I Section 11.B and C for details).
5) After the expiration of the comment period -on thi5 application, the
City Issued its decision on June 9, 1.997, approving die requcsted 2 lot
subdivision and lot width modiEcation,
6) June 23, 1997 the City rcccivcd an appeal lcttcr from Mr. Yoo
appealing (be 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
appeal.
B. APPEAL ISSUES
1. Issues raised by the AppeUant, Mr. Yoo:
See Exhibit A, Attachrricnt 2, and Exhibits B, C, D, & E for more details.
9. Statements by the Appellant:
1) The appellant states diat they feel tha applicam did not adequately
address the modification (variance) criteria for the reduction of the
required lot width and therefore tha 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 valve5 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 valu-. in that as a
Real Estate agent, I believe that my property value will go down,
7) in reviewing the modification request, city stal� 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 he applied to the entire subdivision.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:39
P. 08
Hearing 2xaminer 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 Lhere is
only one unit, The ability to request a modification as part of the
subdivision process meets the Comprehensive Plans support of nexible
standards to allow infill development.
3) Comprehensive Plan: The appellant says that scction5 of tho
Comprehensive Plan related to Residential development, specifically
B.5 and G.2, are not being met. These sections address pivection 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. Litroduction of business or multi -unit dcvelopment would be
an incompatible land use the existing single family development would
need protection of.
4) Zoning Ordinance: The proposed Z 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 docs or would conform to the requircd sctbacks 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 Variancr,: The proposed 67.4 foot lot width is the rninimurn
necessary to allow the lot and the 15 foot access way for die rear lot.
c. Heartng Examiner Conclusions:
After considering the information presented at the public hearing and after
mvicwing the filo, the Examiner concurs with the staff response,
furthermore, no substantive Information was presenced 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.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:40
P. 09
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No, AP 97-96
1 Page a
Also, a 2 1A reduction in width of the lot will amount to an approximately
401 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 ExhiblE A, Attachment 3, and Exhibit 0 for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
1) The, proposed 2 lot subdivision is not consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
2) Nciqe. 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 ghort-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 �table_ 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 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 minimurn 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 riot mitigated by the conditions or the approvcd
short -plat.
c. Hearing Examiner Conclusions;
After considering the information submitted at the public hearing and after
reyiewing the file, the Hearing Examiner concurs with the staff re,.ponw.
Furthermore, as rioted in the Examiner's conclusions above, no substantive
information ww� submitted regarding impacts on property values, Also,
after examining Exhibit F, it is clear that no special rights would be
granted to the applicant if the application is approved because there are
many sin -Mar sized lots in the neighborhood.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:41
P. 10
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No, AP 97-86
1 Page 9
3. Issues raised by Neighbor, Jane Lagerstrom;
See Exhibit A, Attachment 4, Letter received July 8 for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
1) Sinco the prupasl--d 5ubdi-vision does not mez-.t the minimum lot width
ror lot 1, the subdivision should be denied,
2) The noighborhood is made up of ramblers and Ms. Lagerstrorn does
not wan( to have two srory homes beside her.
3) Mr. Warner will not live in the b.omes,
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.
b. City Staff Response:
1) The City of Edmonds development code allows aa applicant to request
a change in the required minimum lot width. If that inodification
request is denied, the subdivision will be denied. If the modification is
approved, the subdivision will be approved because it meets all the
other City requirements.
2) The City can not regulate home styles.
3) The City can not regulate or discriminate against absentee property
0 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. LetteTreceived July 8 for more details.
a. Statements by the neighbor:
Property values will be devaluod duc to this subdivision.
This subdivi-gion will impinge on the privacy of the neighborhood.
b. City Staff Response:
1) City staff has testimony from ncighbor3 that says property valuci will
drop and t ' estimony that property values are skyrocketing. City scafrs
position is that the proposed subdivision will not seriously impact
property values either way. The market will move property values.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:41
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-86
1 Page 10
c- Hearing Examiner Conclusions -
After reviewing the file, the Examiner concurs with the staff response.
5. Issues raised by Neighbor, Yvonne C. Dunham:
Ser, Bxhibit A, Attachment 6, Letter recoiyed July 9 for more drtails.
a. Statements by the neighbor-
1) ne character of the neighborhood is of large lots and comfortable
living spaces. The proposed subdivision is contrary to dils.
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 Exmniner concurs with the Staff response.
6. Planning Division Comments:
a. Facts -
I ) The proposed subdivi-5ion meets all the bulk rr-quircrncnt5 for a 2 lot
short -plat in the City of Edmonds eXcept for lot width on Wt 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 Report, Exhibit A, Attachment 1, Section 11.13 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 subdlvlsion comment period and the appeal process tend to
apply the variance criteria to the subdivision in its entirety.
b. Hcaring Examiner Conclusions;
1) The varimice criteria -are to be applied only to the bulk standard the
applicant is requesting to modify. In this cuse, reduction of the
minimum lot width frorn 70 feet to 67.4 feet. In other words, the issue
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 critcria are met, the roqucstcd modification must bc
JUL-30-97 QED 13:42
I . I
P. 12
DECISION
Hearing Examiner Decision
Cue No, AP 97-86
1 Page 11
approved. And, if the lot width modification is approved, the
subdivision must be approved because it meets all the rest of the
subdivision requirements.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusiows, the appeal is denied. The City staff decision
is affirmed and all conditions of approval rcmain in offect.
Entcrcd thi,5 30'h day of July, 1997, pursuant to tho authority grantcd tho Hearings Exuminer
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary ol� the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should con(act the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010,0 allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his dezision 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 th.e attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
5ubjcct of such decision or recommcndation. The rccon3iticration rcqucst rnu3t citc specific
references to the findings andior the criteria contained in the ordinances governing [be type of
application being reviewed.
Appeals
The Hearing Examiner's decision is final. There Is no appeal option within the 0Ly for the
Examiner's decision in this matter.
JUL-30-97 WED 13:43
P. 13
EXHIBM:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Cue No. AP 97-86
Page 12
A. Planning Division Advi5ory Rrport, with 6 attachments
B. Map submitted by Shawn Yoo
C. Petidon with attached letter from Shawn Yoo, dated 6/23/97
D, Information on neighborhood property
E. Pboros showing standing water
F. Mapshowing annoxcd area and highlighted lots
0. Gerry Grosz hearing presentation
H. Charles Warner respouse to appeal letter. with attachments including letter from Real
Estate, Broker
PARTIES Of RECORD:
Shawn Yoo Gerry Grosz
22412 95,h Place West 22S06 95h Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Yvonne Dunham Chuck Warner
22511 95th Place West 22408 95th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020-4523 Edmonds, WA 99020
Jim and Joyce Julius Jennifer and William Budnick
22413 96" Avenue West 9510 224h St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 99020
Peter Bennett Janc, Lager3tram
Bennett & Bennett 9502224 th S.W,
400 Dayton, Suite A Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Theron Johnson Bob Racker
22413 9Jh Place West no addmss given
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division
Arthur Nethercot Edmonds Public Works Division
1035 13" St. Edinonds Engineering Divi.4ion
Bellingham, WA 98225 Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds fire Department