20170509112121.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File S-2001-11
From: 2? 1: � 0- V, % V, �'� �
Meg G�4/vell, AICP
Project Planner
Date: July 10, 2001
Applicant: Kathleen Burnett
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................
2
A. Application ................................................................................................................................................ 2
B. Decision .....................................................................................................................................................
2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................
3
A. Analysis of Design: ...................................................................................................................................
3
B. Analysis of Requested Modification ..........................................................................................................
4
C. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan: ......................................... ............................................................
6
D. Environmental Assessment: .......................................................................................................................
6
E. Critical Areas Review: ...............................................................................................................................
6
F. Required Improvements and Dedications: ......................... .......................................................................
6
G. Comments: .................................................................................................................................................
6
Ill.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ..........................................................................
7
A. Request for Reconsideration ...................................................................................................................... 7
B. Appeals ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ..........................................................................................
7
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL .....................................................................................................
7
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ..................................................................................
7
VI.
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................
7
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD ......................................................................................................
8
Kathleen Burnett
File No. S-2001 -11
Page 2 of 8
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applica : Kathleen Burnett (see Attachment 2)
2. Site Location: 23620 — 79th Avenue W. (see Attachment 1)
3. Reques: To divide one lot with approximately 11,991 square feet into two lots in a
Multiple Residential RM-2.4 zone. The applicant has also requested a modification request
(see Attachment 4) to reduce the required 15-foot rear setback to allow an existing garage on
the proposed lot one to remain in its current location at approximately 6.7 feet from the rear
property line, as shown in Attachment 3.
4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision.
5. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edrnonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.30.030,
site development standards for the RM-2.4 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85,
criteria for approval of a variance.
d. Compliance with Edrnonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
B. Decision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the
application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds
Planning Division:
The proposed setback modification is AIPPROVIED to allow the existing garage to remain in
its same location as shown on Attachment 3. This is for the existing garage only, and not for
any future structures on this site. This approval is subject to the conditions of the short
subdivision given below.
The Subdivision is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording"
on Attachment 5.
b) If setbacks are to be included in the plat, add to the face of the Plat "Setbacks shown
are for reference only and vest no right, except for the approved modification to
allow the existing garage on lot 1 to intrude into the rear (west) setback of lot 1. This
modification is for the existing garage only. Any future structure must all meet
required setbacks."
c) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in
the final approval for the short subdivision located in File S-2001-1 l."
d) The trees within the 15-foot sewer easement on the south of the property shall be
retained during subdivision improvements, unless they are needed to be removed to
access the sewer lines. Also the approximately 28-inch fir tree and the approximately
8-inch Western red cedar tree that are not shown on the plat map, but are located
between the existing house and the 79b Avenue W. culdesac on the southern portion
S-2001 -1 Ldoc / July 10, 2001 / Staff Report
Kathleen Burnett
File No. S-2001 -11
Page 3 of 8
II.
of the property, shall be retained and protected during the construction of any type of
a pathway along the five-foot strip of property between lot 2 and 79 th Avenue W.
Any of these trees may be removed if an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
certified arborist determines that they are not healthy and pose a risk to life or
property. They may also be removed or pruned by the future homeowner in
accordance with ECDC section 18.45.030, Tree Cutting Code Exemptions.
e) Submit copies of documents for approval by the Planninng and Engineering
Divisions. Once approved, the applicant must record the documents with Snohomish
County Auditor's office.
f) Submit to the City an updated title report with the documents intended for recording.
2. Submit two copies of the recorded documents with the recording number marked on them
to the Planning Division. The City will not consider the subdivision to have been
recorded until this is done.
3. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on
Attachment 5.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Analysis of Design:
1. Lot sizes and dimensions:
a) Proposed number of lots: 2
b) Required Lot Area (RM-2.4 zone):
c) Proposed Lot sizes:
Net sq. ft
Lot 1 7,133
Lot 2 4,559
d) Required Lot Width (RM-2.4 zone):
e) Provosed Lot Width:
Width (ft.)
Lot I Approx. 70
Lot 2 Approx. 57
None given; 2,400 square feet per dwelling
unit is required
Gross sq. ft
7,133
4,858
None given
f) Setbacks: Setbacks should be as follows (see footnote 2 in ECDC 16.30.030):
Lot 1: Street Setbacks (20 feet)
Side Setbacks (5 feet):
Rear Setbacks (15 feet):
Lot 2: Side Setbacks (10 feet):
From the 79"' Ave. cul-de-sac
From the north and east property lines,
From the north and east property lines,
From all property lines;
Note that the 15-foot easement across the
southern property cannot be built on.
g) Corner Lots: None of the lots will be comer lots.
h) Flag lot determination: Lot 2 is considered a flag lot.
2. Lot arrangement to topography: Satisfactory.
S-2001 -1 Ldoc � July 10, 2001 / Staff RepoTt
Kathleen Burnett
File No. S-2001 -11
Page 4 of 8
3. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
a) 45% maximum lot coverage is allowed.
b) The lot coverage of the existing buildings on proposed lot 1 is 25% with the house and
garage and the breezeway between them.
The lot coverage of the existing buildings on proposed lot 2 is 0%.
4. Zoning: The subject property is zoned RM-2.4 (multiple residential with a minimum of
2,400 square feet per dwelling unit). If the proposed modification is approved, the proposed
development will be consistent with the zoning code. If the proposed modification is not
approved, the proposed development will not be in conformance with the zoning code.
5. Consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance? Only if the
requested modification is approved.
6. Other Notes:
a) The site several trees, including some not shown on the prelimary plat. Significant trees
shown on the plat include those on proposed lot 2, including the 20-inch fir and the 14-
inch cherry, and a 24-inch fir. These are all within the area that is the sanitary sewer
easement so are not within the buildable area. Not shown on the plat map is an
approximately 28-inch fir tree and approximately 8-inch red cedar tree that are located
between the house and the culdesac of 79h Avenue W., on the southern side of the
property. Because these are not shown on the map, it is difficult to tell how close these
are to the five-foot wide access from proposed lot 2 to 79th Avenue W.
b) ECDC Section 20.75.085, Review Criteria, states that "Where environmental resources
exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to
minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be
imposed on the proposal to avoid impact."
7. Conclusions:
a) The trees within the 15 foot sanitary sewer easement on proposed lot 2 should be
preserved, unless required to be removed to work on the sewer line.
b) The approximately 28 inch Douglas fir and the approximately 8-inch Western red cedar
should be preserved and care not to harm them should be taken if and when any path is
created from proposed lot 2 to 79h Avenue W.
B. Analysis of Requested Modification
1. The applicant has requested a modification to a required setback as allowed in
ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the
requested modification is to be approved. The Criteria are as follows:
a) 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.
S-2001-1l.doc /July 10, 2001 StaffReport
Kathleen Bumett
File No. S-2001 -]I
Page 5 of 8
b) 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
zorung.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
2. The Applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of their proposal (see
Attachment 4).
3. Additional Findings:
a) This site also has one other setback irregularity. The existing garage is less than five feet
to the north property line. This setback will be affected by the proposed subdivision.
b) Prior to the proposed subdivision, the required setback to the west property line would
have been five feet, which the existing garage currently meets.
4. Conclusions:
a) The lot has no special circumstances, except for the prior location of the garage. This was
in conformance with the requirements at the time it was constructed, with respect to the
setback on which a modification is now requested. The garage has been in existence for
some time, and has not created any problems. If the garage were to be removed, there
would be no reason that any future buildings could not meet the required setbacks of
either the RS-6 zone (in the case of a single-family house), or the RM-2.4 zone (in the
case of multi -family units.)
b) The setback for the garage is unique on that street because of the shape and location of
the site, but is has been in existence as a legal use for some time.
c) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect residential privacy. As a garage, the structure
does not detract from neighbor's privacy. However, if it were to be removed and a
residential structure constructed, that structure should meet the required setbacks. The
proposal also appears to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and the
zoning district in which the property is located.
d) Because the garage is already in existence, it has proven to be not detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements; in the
vicinity and the same zone.
e) Reducing the setback from 15 feet to 8.3 feet is the minimum necessary to retain the
existing garage.
S-2001-1l.doc /July 10, 2001 StaffReport
Kathleen Burnett
File No. S-2001 -11
Page 6 of 8
C. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan:
1. Conforms to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages flexibility in development standard to encourage infill
development when it will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. This
neighborhood has multi-farnily development to the north and west of this lot, and single-
family residential homes to the east and south. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the
retention of the existing housing stock. This proposal retains the existing single-family house,
and also allows for the creation of a transitional duplex. Therefore, the proposal conforms to
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Environmental Assessment:
1. Is this site identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? No.
2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No.
E. Critical Areas Review:
1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-00-22
2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A waiver from the requirement to complete a study
was issued.
F. Required Improvements and Dedications:
1. Engineering, drainage and street dedications: See City Engineer's Report
(Attachment 5).
G. Comments:
One comment letter has been received (see Attachment 6). The letter expresses concern that,
although they do not object to the existing garage, they would not like to see a larger structure at
the same setback that the garage is set at. They also question if the there is sufficient road access
given the number of people who already use the access road into the property, and ask if there is
some other, less-impactful way for this property to be developed.
Staff responds that the setback modification will be for the garage only; that the Engineering
Division has reviewed the proposal and finds the access adequate. The Engineering Division does
note that the applicants have shown us a recorded easement for this lot, and if the neighboring
development raises objections to the new lot 2 utilizing the access road, it will be the applicants
responsibility to resolve the issue (see Attachment 5). To address the last point, outside of no
development or another single-family home, the proposal is probably the least impactfal way to
develop this property. If the single-family house were removed, the owners would have the right
to develop a four-plex on the site. Without knowing specifically which impacts are being weighed,
the proposal seems like a low -impact use of this property given its zoning.
S-2001-1l.doc /July 10, 2001 /Staff Report
Kathleen Bumett
File No. S-2001 -11
Page 7 of 8
111. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.095.050.13.2 allows for planning staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is
filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. 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.
B. Appeals
Section 20.095.050.13.3 describe how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall
be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the
project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision,
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 fourteen (14) calendar days
after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.075. 100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have
no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat
approval within the five-year period . .....
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of
the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
VI. APPENDICES
Affachments:
I . Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Plat Map
4. Declarations for a modification
5. Engineering Requirements and Memos
6. Letter from Ken and Karen Nichols -Hoppe dated June 27, 2001
S-2001-1l.doc JulylO,2001 StaffReport
Kathleen Burnett
File No. S-2001 -]I
Page 8 of 8
VIL PARTIES OF RECORD
Ms. Kathleen Burnett
6201 — 9h Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98107
Ken and Karen Nichols -Hoppe
23710 — 801h Lane W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Western Engineers, Inc.
13000 Hwy. 99 S.
Everett, WA 98204
Planning Division
Engineering Division
S-2001 -1 Ldoc / July 10, 2001 / Staff Report
RAf-1
RM-1.5
1.51
SUBJECT
23620-791
7
mi
A
CG
1:1191
Vicinity and Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 1
File No. S-2001-11
M
M1
0
. city of edmonds
,development information
AxcmTwnv.aDur-yNREvIEw
ComnumNsM PLAN ANmZmEN'T
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
HOMOCCUPATM
FORMAL SUBDIVMON
SHORT MDrVIMON
LOT LINEADJUSTMENT
PLANM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL S IREEI: MAP A14DOMENT
STIUST VACATION
RRZOW
SHORELM PERMrr
VAFiANcE / REAsoNAmE Up, ExcEp oN
OnER: P-5ft *vCZ.-
Fm# �C) I 1� Zon—P-M-2--4
DATE W'D By_
FEE 13 5-6, 75 RJECEM 4
aw &
11SA;JXG DATE
UBE U STAFF U PB CIADB OCC
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 23620 - 79TH- AVENUE WEST
PROJECT NANZ (IF APPUCABLE) KATHY BURNETT SHORT PLAT
PROPMTYOWNER, KATHLEEN BUTNETT PH*E # (2o6) 297-1-�1-�
AX)DRM 62ol - 9TH AVENUE N.W., SEATTLE. WA 98107
E-MAIL. ADDRESS, VAX#
- (206) _y
TAX AccomqT # 4244-000--oo5_0003 SEC. 31 TWP. 27N.. RNG. 4E., W.M.-
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE SUBDIVIDE -AN 11,991 %) -FOOT PARCEL OF
LAND (LOT 5 _CF TFE PLAT OF W1 LLQW BROQV,, D=-T.QN No. I.)- _TNTO 2-LOTS.
AppUCANT SAME AS ABOVE PHONE#
ADDRESS
&MAIL ADDRESS FAX#
CONTACT FEMN/A(;XNT WES-TERN ENGINEERS, INC. PHoi;E# (425) 356-2100
ADDRESS 13000-HIGHWAY 99 SO-L]TH, EVERETT, WA 98204
E-MAIL ADDRESS - wei . i ncggtle aet FAX I . _�k25) 3�6-2708
T'he undersigned applicant, and hWharlits heiM and assigns, in oorusideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemriif�, defend and hold the City of Edmon6 hannim ftoni any and all darnages, including
reasonable attomey's fets, arising fiorn any action or infTaction based in whoir, or part upon false, n-tisleading,
ina=rate or incomplete infomiation furnished by the applicant, EvIner/its agcrA2 or employees.
BY mY 94LUUM I certify tW the information W exhibits bercMth submitted am uve aM correct to the best of my
knowledge and tW I am authorized to file this Application on the behMf of the owwx as fisw below.
SIGNATURE OF AMICANVAGENT -DATE
Prop" Owner's Authorization
BY my s igmt-UM I certify that I have autborized the above App] icant/Agent to apply for the subj=t L-Wd Una
application, and grant my permission for the p0lic officisils and thx suff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
Property for the purposes of inspoction and posting a;tendan[ to this applicalion.
SMNATIM OF OWNER DATE / ?
11xis aWicadon form was re0scd on 11271M, To VW* wbedW It is *11 W=4 COU (425) 7714M.
LUUARY\?LANNMGWwm a HwA*utA\rubhc H*watAx4..aad L6t A4VU*1Gftd%
ATTACHMENT 2
LEGEND
0 SET 51e X 24* REBAR W/tAP 'yffl I69f6'
(& FWW MOMLIMMIMSE (FM 99) 236th STREET S.W.
E] StDAM DRAW CATCH EI-MN (CEl)
0 wrrARY SEWER MANHOLE (Asmoi)
(P) PLAT OF VAUOMROOK DIV. I
SLOW OW VALVE
Ior FIRE HYDRANT �T
CONIFEROUS TREE
0 DEriouaus TREE & 24.
(M) MEASURED M21 I
CENTOOK
WDF KOOD FVff
-r"luly
a VIAM K=
-le - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m 01101 vlctf
am OFF 0
0
0 YARD LIGHT
r oi'o gG Jo"'
— W — WATO oics
��s
- - - - - -- _j is
— SS — SANITARr SC*TW 2
— SO — SIM DRAWACE ........... .......... '51" W flow
FENCE UPE
OXE OF PAVbWNT
4 T. 3
Ir i : ... 5 .......... ...... .......
FA= ......... ...
6 46' 1 co
................ CORMIRS 15 . ....
7
Ex rm I Is
V
10
0
A,
4-
NOTM
A MODIFICATION RAS BEEN REQUESTED Ex rpmj Co
TO ALLOW THE EXIS71NO G4RAGE TO Tftf
REMAIN WITHIN THE 15' REAR BUILDING
SETBACK LINE. - - - - - -
"OLS'llorps
g.f,-
SITE ADDRESS
2M20 79TH AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS, WA. 98026
SHORT PLAT DATA
TOTAL SITE AREA: ......................... .. d.275 ACRES
EXISTIN ZONING . ..................................... RM 2400
PROPOLSED ZONING . .................................. RM 2400
PROPOSED USE
SFR LOT (LOt I)
MULTI-FAWILY (LOT 2Y
1101
N 4?rX
.0
. . v 0;...
RESPOND To EDMONDS REmEw LEYIE:R oArm
RFqPfwO To FDMONdS REVIEW LEM DATED
mom 1 14. CE94
M.40
'rvlobol
F'-
It—r GAs.,
..... HOUSE
.
15' Off
PEI= =420. D
Rn cr�
10, IbrLll..F41? 1
sm S
rl
MN? 1 5 nol
—
— — —
pLA"-;�,'z NPT.
-- - - - - - - -
-
oz.'i
sl
t-* 0
WFmTHr MONUMENT CASE AT THE
s
WnRSrCWN OF 234TH & 7aym. EL - W4.36
BAM911LAKE lXRR4CE VERTICAL
oAw OWN
V%o W NO. 234-4)
VICINITY MAP
scALE. 1" = 1000'
PRINTED
Lr 1 5 2ml
r(RN(j's!tEFi'
m", - wC
GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 30 60
SCALE. I' - 30'
EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE
METHOD OF SURVEY
SURVEY PERFORWO BY FIELD TRAVERSE
INtTRUMENTAtION
LEICA TC RM 1105 ELECTRONIC TOTAL STA77ON
P9EaSfON
MEtTS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 322-130-090
BASS OF BEARING
THE MONUMIENTO CENTERUNE OF 791H AVENUE W.
AS THE WARWO Of N OO'5j'Or & PER THE PLAT
OF WILLEWBRW DIV. NO. 1. VOL 31. A 87
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
tor 5, WILLOWBROOK DIVISION Na 1. ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME JI OF PLAYS ON
PAGE 67. RECORDS OF' SNOHaWSH CCIUNry. WASHINGTON-
roGEYRER YAYH AN EASEUENT FOR WGRE$S. EGRESS AND
uTjuTIES OVER THE EAST 24 FELT OF LOTS 1. Z A AND 4,
WILLOWBROOK DIVISION NO. 2. PACE ft IN SNIONOWSH
COUNTY WASHLOCTON. AS DISCLOSED IN N077CE OF
EASDirNr RECORDED UNDER AUDIWR'S FILE NO. 2410932.
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT FOR
74 FWeRezm (425) KATRY BURNETT
Li gpAineers
356-2700 IN THE NW 114, SW 1/4, SEC. 31, T.27N., R.4E.. r.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
LAND USE CONSULTANTS ORAW BY 0"' V. a, CIAIrLol - UMAGCR SCALE
IAII 10/9/00 4 MNB 5110 IPPOR.CAC.TMEALEY 1' 30'
OUT -- 0510211071 CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS 1� 1�11 N
'/G, I NAUl
S".
DL8 031211011 ORAMM 'E 00-040-A I
13000 HWY 99 SOUTH - EVERETT, WA 98204 --- 00040p d.9 RAH 1 3650 JXV No
TE
NITIAL DATE
ct)
z
w
KATHLEEN BURNETT 2-LOT SHORT PLAT
CITY OF EDMONDS — FILE NO. S-2001-11
MODIFICATION REQUEST TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE EXISTING
GARAGE TO REMAIN WITHIN THE 15 FT. BSBL
MODIFICATION REQUEST:
[t is requested that a variance be granted to allow an existing garage to remain on
proposed lot I of the Kathy Burnett 2-lot short plat. In order to achieve this goal, it is
necessary to grant a variance to the required 15 foot building setback for the existing
garage on the proposed lot 1.
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
I . Special Circumstances: The building setback line of the proposed lot 1, will be 15
feet. The existing garage on proposed lot 1, is 6.7 feet from the west property line at
it's nearest point. A portion of the garage will therefore encroach into the garage
setback area. A hardship would be incurred by the property owner if required to
remove or relocate the garage to accommodate the setback requirement.
2. Special Privilege: This is not granting of a special privilege since the garage structure
already exists
3. Comprehensive Plan: One goal of the comprehensive plan is to support retention of
older housing when economically feasible. Though the garage is not housing per se,
it provides a functional element expected with residential housing. It can therefore be
argued that retention of the garage supports the overall goal of the comprehensive
plan to retain older housing.
4. Zoning Ordinance: The subject lot is located with the RM 2400 zone. This is a
residential zone and detached garage structures are not uncommon in such a zone.
Furthermore, allowing the garage to be 6.7 feet from the property line does conflict
with the intended residential character of the RM 2400 zone.
5. Not Detrimental: Allowing the garage to remain in the same location should not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the
property of improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. Typically, if a structure
is a least 5 feet from a property line, it will not pose a threat or inconvenience to other
surrounding properties. In this case the garage is 6.7 feet at it's closest point well
above the 5 foot generally accepted threshold.
6. Minimum Variance: The minimum variance is a reduction in the setback of
15' — 6.7. = 8.3'. An 8.3 foot reduction of setback requirement is the minimum,
since the garage structure already exists, and is proximity to the west property line is
fixed.
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: 4 June, 01
To: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner
From: Lyle Chrisman., Development Services Engineer 41�e
Subject: Proposed Burnett 2-lot Short Plat- (S-01-11)
After looking at the short plat closer, we don't have a problem with two accesses since the short
plat is at the end of the road. I will call the Bumett's Engineer and let her know.
Since their Engineer indicates less than 2000 sf of proposed impervious surface, a detention will
not be required unless they replace the existing paving and the total impervious surface exceeds
2000 sf. At this time the proposed short plat application is complete. The applicant will be
required to follow any future pen -nit requirements.
jr,
-CPT.
puk
City of Edmonds
ATTACHMENT 5
��Edmondsfile�DATA�USERS�chdsmankdvrw\sp\01-1 1c mem.doc
MEMORANDUM
Date: 7 May, 2001
To: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner
From: Lyle Chrisman, Development Services Engineer 4v—
Subject: Proposed Burnett 2-Lot Short Plat at 23620 79h Ave W.
Western Surveyors have submitted a site plan showing total buildable area and a previously recorded
ingress/egress easement for lot 5. If the neighboring development raises objections to the new lot 2 utilizing
the access road, it will be the applicants respoinsiblility to resolve the issue. Based on the total buildable
area and proposed additional paving area, the applicant will not have 2000 sf of new impervious surface
area and therefore not required to provide a drainage plan. The application is now complete.
City of Edmonds
1:�kEdmondsfilekDATAkUSERSIchrismankdvrw�sp101-11b mem.doc
t -
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS
Name:— Burnett File No.: 23620 79h Ave W
Approved by: 510�'101 Vicinity:
Assist. Citv Enp-ineer / date
Req'd prior
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond posted
Complete
to recording
Permit
I . Rights -of -way for public streets:
x
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities):
Provide easements as needed.
x
3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter):
Lots I and 2 shall share a single access
x
x
4. Street turnaround:
Provide an on -site turnaround is required for lot 2
x
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:
N/A
x
6. Street lights:
N/A
x
7. Planting strip:
N/A
x
8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump
stations, telemetering, D.S.H.S., etc.):
Provide service to each lot.
x
Connect to public water system.
x
9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
Stations, telemetering, health district, etc.):
Provide new service to each lot
x
Connect to public sewer system
x
10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
Stations, DOE, fisheries, etc.):
Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate
x
capacity for proposed single family dwelling and access
improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30 should the total
impervious surface area exceed 2000 sf
11. On -site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013):
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system.
x
12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387):
Required for all new services
x
13. Excavation and grading (per UBC,- Chapter 70):
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
x
14. Signage (per City Engineer);
Fire and aid address sign required for lot 1.
x
15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120):
N/A
x
\\Edmondsfile�DATA\USERS\chrisman\dvrw\sp\O I -I I p1t.doc
Req'd prior
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond
Complete
to recording
Permit
posted
16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer):
Required for all utility construction.
x
x
:17. Other requirements:"
18. EngineeringfiposliT,
a) Drainage system design review at $50 per lot
x
b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full.
x
c) Drainage system inspection fee.
x
d) Plan review/inspection fee of 2.2% of improvement costs
x
plus $250.
1
1
1
JXely/4-9
ST. CITY ENGINEEP, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded.
Authorized for recording by: Date:
\\Edmondsfile\DATA\USERS\chrisman\dvrw\sp\01-1 I p1t.doc
'ECEIVED
JUN 2 8 2001
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
June 27, 2001
Meg Gruwell, Senior Plamer
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 5h Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Ms. Gruwell:
I am writing with regard to a Notice of Development Application that we received 9
days ago. This notice refers to File # S-2001 -11, and the project description is: "to divide
an existing lot into a two -lot subdivision with a setback modification to allow an existing
garage to remain." We are the neighbors inunediately to the south and west of the lot in
question, and we have lived here since 1975.
Our first concern involves the "setback modification to allow an existing garage to
remairf'. We have no objections to the existing garage remaining, but we are concerned
z:1
that the setback modification be worded such that it apply only to the existing garage. Our
concern is that once obtained, the setback modification might be used to replace the
existing garage with a structure which would, in its placement and size, negatively impact
the value of our property.
Our second concern involves the issue of subdividing the lot in question. Of
course, we are concerned about the possibility of this having a negative impact on our
property. We understand that the intent of the application is for the development of at least
one duplex — on a flag lot irnmediately north of us. Questions we have include: a) is there
sufficient road access for this duplex given the number of people who already use the
access road into the property, and b) is there some other, less-impactful way for this
property to be developed?
We appreciate this opportunity to express our concerns, and we would like to be
kept up to date with developments regarding this application.
Sincerely yours
d9n
�ZK�en n:d Karen Nichols -Hoppe
23710 80" Lane West
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425)775-0288
ATTACHMENT 6