307 2ND AVE N.pdf"R,
S
21-
-A
MEMORANDUM
z
Date: September 12, 1997
Cn LU
To: Paul Mar, Community Services Director
(n U.
-0 From: Jeffity S. Wilsor( Planning Supervisor
UJ
Subject: WALDBURGER INQUIRY LETTER OF AUGUST 21ST
U.
9 5
In brief, Mr. Waldburger is correct in both of his assumptions regarding
the Hearing Examinees
z decision on his appeal.
UJ UJI 1. No appeal has been filed related to the decision of the Hearing Examiner, therefore, the
decision is final.
U (A
2. The Hearing Examiner has determined that both
of the subject lots are buildable lots,
therefore, he can either build on each of them separately himself, or he can sell one or both of
them as individual building lots.
0
To ensure that Mr. Waldburger does not run into any problems in the future, he may wish to bttach a
U 35- copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision to any building permits he submits for the lots and/or
provide a copy of the decision to anyone he may sell the property to.
z
I hope this information is of some assistance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
CA me.
%,Irc: File No. AP-97-75
City of Edmonds ca Planning Division
PM-WMZI=
9
�=A
0
0
LU
U-
6;
L)
I--
0
z
ID
August 21, 1997
Mr. Paul Mar
Community Services Director
City of Edmonds
250 Sth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Case No. AP 97-75
Dear Mr. Mar
I am writing to obtain written conformation of my understanding of the decision that Mr. Ron
McConnell has made regarding Case No. AP 97-75.
I Mr. McConnell entered his decision to reverse the staff decision and uphold the appeal on
July 18,1997. As I have not been notified of any request to reconsider the decision I assume
none has been made.
2. Mr. McConnell stated that *the property In question has two non-contbrming buildable lots., I
understand this to mean that I can build on one or both of the lots at any time In the future as
the combination section (ECDC 17.040.030.C) does not apply. Furthermore, I can legally
sell either or both lots now or at any future date.
I would appreciate it very much if you would respond In writing to Indicate that my understanding
of the appeal decision Is correct.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
John & Sue Waldburger
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, Washington 98026
0
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
�Q'st. 189"
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMMR
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPELLANTS: John & Sue Waldburger
CASE NO.: AP 97-75
LOCATION: The subject property for which the staff issued the code
U_
interpretation and for which this appeal has been file on, is located
at 307 2nd Avenue North (see Exhibit A, Attachments I and 3).
Z
APPEAL: Appeal of a Planning Division Staff interpretation of the
UJ Ui
application of the "Nonconforming Lots" regulations pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single-
0
a
family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-
uji
W x UJ
9
6 zone, each with a lot width of less than the 60-foot lot width
�_
requirement for the RS-6 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4
Z'
through 7).
U J f0j)
il
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
0
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal
Hearing Examiner Decision: Reverse the staff decision and uphold the appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory ReporE; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
01 hearing on the application was opened at 9:37 a.m., July 3, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:28 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.
HEARING TESTIMONY:
Gil The following is a summary of the testimony offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the staff report and recommended
denial of the appeal.
* Incorporated August 11, 1890 9
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0
LU
O�
LU W,
U U)
0;
M
W UJ
X U
W
U
Z
L!A
A,
'J�
.... .......
OHearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 2
From the Appellant:
John Waldburger, summarized the history o f the two lots and reviewed Exhibit B which
he entered into the record. He said:
He has to prove the lots were not "undeveloped" and he does not have to prove
they were "developed!'.
The southern lot was partially developed and was not undeveloped. It had a
structure over 120 square feet in size on it.
• The house on the northern lot was built in 1947 and both lots had been in the same
ownership since the 1960s.
• There are sewer stubs and utilities to each lot.
• The lots are 4 blocks from City Hall in a town which has been incorporated for
100 years.
• He disagreed with the staff interpretation of the legislative intent of the City
Council with respect to relief provided to owners of non -conforming lots. He felt
the Council provided a sliding scale to allow some relief.
• He can't understand why the City staff is so bent on destroying a perfectly good
lot in a time when in -fill development is encouraged by the GMA.
• This issue is not a black and white as the staff report has made it out to be. There
has been confusion within the Planning Division as to whether or not one or two
lots exist here.
He has been told recently by staff that he could request a code amendment, or
apply for a variance or short subdivision. He noted there is no guarantee that any
of them would be approved. He also noted that he was told by a Land Surveyor
that it would cost $4,000 to $6,000 to draw lots just as they are now and then go
through the subdivision process. He said that makes no sense.
From the Community:
Jim Wassell, neighbor, said:
The intent of the code is to have the terms "size" and "area!' mean the same thing.
He disagrees with the staff interpretation. In this case, he said the City provided
no history as to when the lots became non -conforming or when ownership
changed. The code says it must have been in the same ownership when the lots
became non -conforming, otherwise it would say "is" not "has been" in the same
ownership since the lots became non -conforming.
He would like to see a common sense approach to this and allow both lots to be
developed.
0
LU Lut
T)
0
z
UJ Cn
0
z
r-]
Lf
H.
/7\
k��"`:ilearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 3
Virginia Stewart, neighbor, said:
• One of the lots was developed and one was partially developed.
• It is no problem for the neighborhood if two houses are built on the lots.
She agreed with the appellant.
Response from the City:
Jeff Wilson responded that:
He was part of the legislative history of this part of the code and he understands
its legislative intent and purpose.
With common ownership comes the opportunity to combine lots and correct
nonconformity.
The sliding scale was meant to address lot area only and was not meant to address
lot width.
The storage buildings on the one lot were accessory buildings and not an
independent use of the property. Therefore, the lots were combined into one.
The City has the land capacity to meet GMA requirements for the additional
projected population.
As presented, this is a policy issue which should be addressed through a code
amendment. As an alternative, a variance or a short subdivision with a
modification of lot width would also be appropriate procedures for addressing this
issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
L
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1 Site Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size and ShgRe: The subject property is comprised of two unplatted
parcels, each with lot area of over 6,000 square feet. Each of the
parcels can be classified as being quadrilateral polygons with the
front and rear property lines having different lengths (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 3).
Parcel 1-019 (northern parcel) has the following approximate
property dimensions:
Front Property Line: Approximately 53-feet.
Rear Property Line: Approximately 62.7-feet.
0
Side Property Line (North): Approximately 124.7-feet.
Side Property Line (South): Approximately 126.5-feet.
Lot Width (ECDC 21.55.050): Approximately 56-feet.
Parcel 1-020 (southern parcel) has the following approximate
property dimensions:
T2_+ D T . �+_I AZQ a
V"V liv-
Rear Property Line: Approximately 46.9-feet.
_J I-
V) U.
Side Property Line (North): Approximately 126.5-feet.
U,
Side Property Line (South): Approximately 135-feet.
Lot Width (ECDC 21.55.050): Approximately 53-feet.
U.
(2)
Land Use The subject property is currently undeveloped.
(3)
Zoning The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential - 6,000
Z�i
square feet minimum lot size (RS-6) (see Exhibit 1).
LU.'11
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
2:3�1
a. Facts:
0
(1)
North: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
LU LU
X L)
Attachment 1).
U_ 0
(2)
South: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
zl�
Attachment 1).
..
UJ M
(3)
East:Multifamily residential (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4)
West: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
0
Z
Attachment 1).
B. H[STORY
1. a. Facts:
(1)
On April 16, 1997, the Planning Division received a request by the
appellant to determine the status of the subject parcels for the
purposes of being able to construct two detached single-family
residences, one on each parcel (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
0
(2)
After review of the applicable regulations contained in ECDC 17.40,
the Planning Division issued a determination on May 8, 1997, which
concluded that the subject parcels did not conform with the
minimum lot width requirements for the RS-6 zone and furthermore,
since the subject parcels adjoined each other and were under
common ownership, they were not considered legally nonconforming
0
and therefore pursuant to ECDC Section 17.40.030.C, for the
purposes of meeting the minimum requirements of the RS-6 zone,
they are deemed to be combined into only one building lot (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
(3)
On May 16th, the appellants submitted a request for reconsideration
to the Planning Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
0
J�
%%earing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 5
(4) On May 20th, the Planning Division responded with a denial of the
appellants request for reconsideration (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
(5) Additional historical information was submitted by the appellant at the
hearing (Exhibit B). Attached to Exhibit B was a letter from the
contractor (Fruhling Inc.) which demolished structures on the subject
property. The contractor wrote that a house, foundation and
underground water and sewer lines were removed from the north lot
and at tm s raLre- buildinLys (one of which was greater than 120
V) LL
W01
square feet) a cement sidewalk and underground water pipes were
demolished or removed from the south lot.
U-
Staff did not dispute the historical information submitted, but did
D 01
dispute the appellant's conclusion.
X W
Z �-; .
(5) On May 21st, the appellants filed there letter appealing the staff
;7 0!;
-
determination (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
Z 1--;
LU UJI
MI
b. Conclusion: The appeal was filed in a timely manner.
0
UJ LU
X
�L- 0;
C. EDMONDS COMMUNI[TY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLLANCE
Z1.
W
1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to a
0
development of a detached single-family residence in an RS-6 zone are set
Z
forth in ECDC Section 16.20.
b. Conclusion The subject parcels do not comply with the minimum lot
width requirements as specified in ECDC Section 16.20.030 and as
defined by ECDC Section 21.55.050 and are non -conforming lots.
2. a. Facts:
J
(1) ECDC Sections 17.40.030.0 (NONCONFORMING LOTS -
Combination) states:
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
0 nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or
width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in
the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the
nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been
combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent
necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may only
be used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code, except as specifically provided
in subsection D of this section.
(2) ECDC Section 18.45.040.R (Undeveloped Lot) states:
"Undeveloped Lot" shall mean a platted lot or parcel of land upon
which no structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) exists. "
-7
0
M�k�- -'My V34�� t, ZZ"'.1" �e'A� �r "Jec, I M." W A I I
I rN
%-YHearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 6
(3) ECDC Section 21.90.150 (Structure) states:
"Structure means a combination of materials constructed and
erected permanently to the ground or attached to something on the
UJI
ground Not including residentialfences less than sixfeet in height,
retaining walls, rockeries and similar improvements of a minor
0i
character less than threefeet in height.
0:
UA;
En U.
b. Conclusions:
W 0
2 �
(1) Under the nonconforming lot standards, the subject parcels would be
ZJ
U. <'
considered to be separate developable building sites because neither of
the lots could be deemed to be "undeveloped" according to the
specifications of the code. The code does not require that a primary
Z
structure be located on a nonconforming lot, only that a structure be
0�
Z
located on a nonconforming lot.
LU Lu�
(2) Buildings which met the definition of "structure" existed on each of
U
the two lots prior to their removal in February of this year. One lot had
0 L
a house located on it and the other lot had a structure over 120 square
LU LU
X U�
feet in size located on it.
1—
LL 01
(3) Zoning ordinances are in derogation of the common law and deprive
Z
LU 0
an owner of property uses of the property which would otherwise be
lawful. When doubt exists with respect to an interpretation of a
0
section of the ordinance, deference should generally be in favor of the
Z I
property owner (i.e. when public health and safety issues do not exist).
In this case, the Examiner believes that after review of the entire case
that little doubt exists with respect to the application of the code, and if
any doubt does exist then deference should be given to the property
owner and the property owner should be allowed to construct two
homes on the subject property.
DMISION
0
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the staff decision on this matter is reversed
and the appeal is upheld. The property in question has two non -conforming buildable lots.
Entered this 18th day of July, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
0
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConn
Hearing Examiner
0
'q'Fhearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 7
LRDWOM 11) pi RN V 0 IYA W V
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
LU
L)
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
LU
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ln LLI
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
LU 01
2 �:l
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
g :31
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
U. 9'
and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
Cn c3i
a: 'j!
which is the sub ect of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
j
�- X!
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
z �-"
�- 0'
governing the type of application being reviewed.
Z �-
LU LU
The Hearing Examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration request and within 5
2 =)
working days issue a written response, either approving or denying the request. If the
0
reconsideration request is denied, the 10 working day appeal deadline of the Hearing
a
Examinees decision shall recommence for the remaining number of days. If, upon the review
LU LUI
X L)!
of the request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner believes that an error or omission is
iL-
significant and may alter his or her decision or recommendation, he or she may at his or her
L11 Co
discretion:
1. Amend the decision to incorporate any omitted material and/or fact or to correct the
0
z
error; or
2. Elect to present a brief to the city council outlining the error or omission and its
anticipated impact on his or her decision.
B. APPEALS
The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of staff decisions on project permit
applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council. Hearing Examiner
decisions on appeals of staff decisions that do not involve project permit applications shall be
appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC 20.105.040.
0
The person appealing shall file the appeal with the Director of Community Services within 14
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. If an appeal is properly filed
within the time limit, the appealed decision shall be suspended until the appeal has been
acted on, and no further development action which was the subject of the decision may be
taken. If no public hearing has been held earlier, the person appealing shall also provide a list
of property owners as specified in ECDC 20.95.010 and whom must be notified by the
Community Services Department.
0
N.
4"0 t7
A-,
71;
"�'Ilearing Examiner. Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 8
EXHIBITS:
z
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments
Cc
B. Supplemental information from applicant
U)
(n LU
PARTIES OF RECORD:
—0
W John & Sue Waldburger Jim Wassell
8107 Frederick Place 342 Sunset
U- Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020
a
�E U1 Virginia Stewart Edmonds Planning Division
z
300 2�d Avenue North Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Engineering Division
LU LU!
M Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
wt Edmonds Fire Department
LU
LL.
z
0
4
0
u-
z
11
al-
TRANSMISSION REPORT
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT
# 9
*** SEND ***
INOI
REM TE STATION I.D.
START TIME
DURATION
#PAGES
COMMENT
1 '1
206 447 0215
7-21-97 6:47AM
7-3o-
9
TOTAL 0:07'30" a
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
N.
LL
D)
ZI
ul
LU
z
M
111
To: Scott Snyder
Ogden - Murphy - Wallace
Phone: 447-7000
Fax phone: 447-0215
CC:
From: Jeff Wilson
Planning Supervisor
Ci!j of Edmonds
Phone: (;06)771-0220
Fax phone: (200)771-0221
REMARKS: 0 Urgent 0 For your reWew 0 Reply ASAP 10 Please conunent
Please review the attached decision from the Hearing Examiner regarding an appeal of a staff
interpretation related to nonconforming lot width. This is one that we had talked about. Do we
agree with his conclusions and decision?
0
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS,WAS8020 (206)771-0220 FAX(206)771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
<1's t . 1 13 9 �')
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
UJ?
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
L)
LU!
LU
APPELLANTS: John & Sue Waldburger
V) LL
0
CASE NO.: AP 97-75
LOCATION: The subject property for which the staff issued the code
U. g
interpretation and for which this appeal has been file on, is located
at 307 2nd Avenue North (see Exhibit A, Attachments I and 3).
Z I' —
APPEAL: Appeal of a Planning Division Staff interpretation of the
Z
application of the "Nonconforming Lots" regulations pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
L) U)
0 ;
17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single-
a
family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-
LU LU
6 zone, each with a lot width of less than the 60-foot 'Lot width
LUL 0
requirement for the RS-6 zone (see Exhibit A. Attachments 2 and 4
through 7).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Z
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal
Hearing Examiner Decision: Reverse the staff decision and uphold the appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING:
er reviewing e o i i ew ic inc u e t e anning ivis on ta visory port; an
after visiting the site, the Hearing Exan-dner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at 937 a,m., July 3, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
0
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:28 a.m. Paiticipants 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.
HEARING TESTIMONY:
The following is a summer
y of the testimony offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the staff report and recommended
denial of the appeal.
7;
a Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0
earing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 2
From the Appellant:
John Waldburger, summarized the history o f the two lots and reviewed Exhibit B which
he entered into the record. He said:
He has to prove the lots were not "undeveloped" and he does not have to prove
they were "developed".
2
The southern lot was partially developed and was not undeveloped. It had a
U
structure over 120 square feet in size on it.
LU
The house on the northern lot was built in 1947 and both lots had been in the same
e _J
LL
ownership since the 1960s.
0
0
There are sewer stubs and utilities to each lot.
Z
0
The lots are 4 blocks from City Hall in a town which has been incorporated for
LU LW
100 years.
0
0
He disagreed with the staff interpretation of the legislative intent of the City
Council with respect to relief provided to owners of non -conforming lots. He felt
LU LU
X
the Council provided a sliding scale to allow some relief.
0
He can't understand why the City staff is so bent on destroying a perfectly good
LU (A
U TC
lot in a time when in -fill development is encouraged by the GMA.
0
Z
0
This issue is not a black and white as the staff report has made it out to be. There
has been confusion within the Planning Division as to whether or not one or two
lots exist here.
0
He has been told recently by staff that he could request a code amendment, or
apply for a variance or short subdivision. He noted there is no guarantee that any
of them would be approved. He also noted that he was told by a Land Surveyor
that it would cosl $4,000 to $6,000 to draw lots just as they are now and then go
through the subdivision process. He said that makes no sense.
0,
From the Community:
Jim Wassell, neighbor, said:
The intent of the code is to have the terms "size" and "area7' mean the same thing.
0
He disagrees with the staff interpretation. In this case, he said the City provided
. . . . . . . . . .
no history as to when the lots became non -conforming or when ownership
changed. The code says it must have been in the same ownership when the lots
"is" "has
became non -conforming, otherwise it would say not been" in the same
ownership since the lots became non -conforming.
..........
He would like to see a common sense approach to this and allow both lots to be
developed.
P.-
R
0
a
LU
U.
z
E
L-11
K
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 3
Virginia Stewart, neighbor, said:
• One of the lots was developed and one was partially developed.
• It is no problem for the neighborhood if two houses are built on the lots.
• She agreed with the appellant.
Response from the City:
Jeff Wilson responded that:
0
He was part of the legislative history of this part of the code and he understands
its legislative intent and purpose.
With common ownership comes the opportunity to combine lots and correct
nonconformity.
The sliding scale was meant to address lot area only and was not meant to address
lot width.
The storage buildings on the one lot were accessory buildings and not an
independent use of the property. Therefore, the lots were combined into one.
The City has the land capacity to meet GMA requirements for the additional
projected population.
As presented, this is a policy issue which should be addressed through a code
amendment. As an alternative, a variance or a short subdivision with a
modification of lot width would also be appropriate procedures for addressing this
issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size and Shape: The subject property is comprised of two unplatted
parcels, each with lot area of over 6,000 square feet. Each of the
parcels can be classified as being quadrilateral polygons with the
front and rear property lines having different lengths (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 3).
Parcel 1-019 (northern parcel) has the following approximate
property dimensions:
Front Property Line: Approximately 53-feet.
Rear Property Line: Approximately 62.7-feet.
0
�1
LU
0
Q
LU
U.
ai
Y)
8
Z
B.
L$]
0
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 4
Side Property Line (North): Approximately 124.7-feet.
Side Property Line (South): Approximately 126.5-feet.
Lot Width (ECDC 21.55.050): Approximately 56-feet.
Parcel 1-020 (southern parcel) has the following approximate
property dimensions:
Front Property Line: Approximately 58.9-feet.
Rear Property Line: Approximately 46.9-feet.
Side Property Line (North): Approximately 126.5-feet.
Side Property Line (South): Approximately 135-feet.
Lot Width (ECDC 21.55.050): Approximately 53-feet.
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped.
(3) Zoning: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential - 6,000
square feet minimum lot size (RS-6) (see Exhibit 1).
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) North: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
(2) South: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
(3) East:Multifamily residential (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) West: Detached single-family residential (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
HISTORY
1. a. Facts
(1)
(2)
(3)
On April 16, 1997, the Planning Division received a request by the
appellant to detennine the status of the subject parcels for the
purposes of being able to construct two detached single-fairily
residences, one on each parcel (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
After review of ihe applicable reguAations contained in ECDC 17.40,
the Planning Division issued a determination on May 8, 1997, which
concluded that the subject parcels did not conform with the
minimum lot width requirements for the RS-6 zone and furthermore,
since the subject parcels adjoined each other and were under
common ownership, they were not considered legally nonconforming
and therefore pursuant to - ECDC Section 17.40.030.C, for the
purposes of meeting the minimum requirements of the RS-6 zone,
they are deemed to be combined into only one building lot (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
On May 16th, the appellants submitted a request for reconsideration
to the Planning Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
W
0
a
UJ
U
I--
0
Z
E
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 5
(4) On May 20th, the Planning Division responded with a denial of the
appellants request for reconsideration (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
(5) Additional historical information was submitted by the appellant at the
hearing (Exhibit B). Attached to Exhibit B was a letter from the
contractor (Fruhling Inc.) which demolished structures on the subject
property. The contractor wrote that a house, foundation and
underground water and sewer lines were removed from the north lot
and that two storage buildings (one of which was greater than 120
square feet) a cement sidewalk and underground water pipes were
demolished or removed from the south lot.
Staff did not dispute the historical information submitted, but did
dispute the appellant's conclusion.
(5) On May 21st, the appellants filed there letter appealing the staff
determination (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
b. Conclusion: The appeal was filed in a timely manner.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1 a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to a
development of a detached single-family residence in an RS-6 zone are set
forth in ECDC Section 16.20.
b. Conclusion: The subject parcels do not comply with the minimum lot
width requirements as specified in ECDC Section 16.20.030 and as
defined by ECDC Section 21.55.050 and are non -conforming lots.
2. a. Facts:
(1) ECDC Sections 17AO.030.0 (NONCONFORMING LOTS -
Corfibination) states:
C. Combination. Ifi, since thg date on which it became
nonconforming due to its fadure to meet minimum lot size or
width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in
the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the
nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been
combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent
necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may only
be used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code, except as speciflcally provided
in subsection D ofthis section,
(2) ECDC Section 18.45.040.11 (Undeveloped Lot) states:
"Undeveloped Lot" shall mean a platted lot or parcel of land upon
which no structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) exists. "
0�
z I
�; 12
Us Lui
Lal
0
a tz
LU LU
z
UA Cn
0
z
liz
1�12
t.�ase f4o. AF gi-mi.)
Page 6
(3) ECDC Section 21.90.150 (Structure) states:
"Structure means a combination of materials constructed and
erected permanently to the ground or attached to something on the
ground. Not including residentialfences less than sixfeet in height,
retaining walls, rockeries and similar improvements of a minor
character less than threefeet in height.
b. Conclusions:
(1) Under the nonconforming lot standards, the subject parcels would be
considered to be separate developable building sites because neither of
the lots could be deemed to be "undeveloped" according to the
specifications of the code. The code does not require that a primary
structure be located on a nonconforming lot, only that a structure be
located on a nonconforming lot.
(2) Buildings which met the definition of "structure" existed on each of
the two lots prior to their removal in February of this year. One lot had
a house located on it and the other lot had a structure over 120 square
feet in size located on it.
(3) Zoning ordinances are in derogation of the common law and deprive
an owner of property uses of the property which would otherwise be
lawful. When doubt exists with respect to an interpretation of a
section of the ordinance, deference should generally be in favor of the
property owner (i.e. when public health and safety issues do not exist).
.In this case, the Exandner believes that after review of the entire case
that little doubt exists with respect to the application of the code, and if
any doubt does exist then deference should be given to the property
owner and the property owner should be allowed to construct two
homes on the subject property.
DECLSION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the staff decision on this matter is reversed
and the appeal is upheld. The property in question has two non -conforming buildable lots.
Entered this 18th 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 Edmondg.
RonMcConnell
Hearing Examiner
'Ta
UJ
F;;
0
a
LU
0
z
H
El
F.1
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 procedura 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.
The Hearing Examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration request and within 5
working days issue a written response, either approving or denying the request. If the
reconsideration request is denied, the 10 working day appeal deadline of the Hearing
Examinees decision shall recommence for the remaining number of days. If, upon the review
of the request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner believes that an error or omission is
significant and may alter his or her decision or recommendation, he or she may at his or her
discretion:
1. Amend the decision to incorporate any omitted material and/or fact or to correct the
error; or
2. Elect to present a brief to the city council outlining the error or omission and its
anticipated impact on his or her decision.
B. APPEALS
The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of staff decisions on project permit
applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council. Hearing Examiner
decisions on appeals of staf! decisions that do not involve project permit applications shall be
appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC 20.105.040.
The person appealing shall file the appeal with the Director of Community Services within 14
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. If an appeal is properly filed
within the time limit, the appealed decision shall be suspended until the appeal has been
acted on, and no further development action which was the subject of the decision may be
taken. If no public hearing has been held earlier, the person appealing shall also provide a list
of property owners as specified in ECDC 20.95.010 and whom must be notified by the
Community Services Department.
0
�z 4" 'i,
M4-
z�
t N
MEN,
pa
R.'a ,
q
,W2 "Z
M r
"mr
R
%earing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP 97-75
Page 8
EXHMITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Plan ming Division Advisory Report, with attachments
U B. Supplemental information from applicant
C)I
U C11
LU)
PARTIIES OF RECORD:
CO U.
—0
Uj John & Sue Waldburger Jim Wassell
8107 Frederick Place 342 Sunset
LL Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020
Lj: Virginia Stewart Edmonds Planning Division
d
Z 300 2"' Avenue North Edmonds Public Works Division
z Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Engineering Division
Uj LUI
75 :Y Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
U U) Edmonds Fire Department
0
Uj Uj
z
Uj
z
0
71`-,
"W
"W,
i N
q�
�4
Vj
EYjRIBITS LIST.
FILE NO. "-97-75
(Subinitted as. Of July 3,1997)
z
A., Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (prepared 6127197)
U1 B. Additional Idormation Submitted by John & Sue Waldburger (subn-dtted 7/3197)
UJI
Z�l
w Uj
M
U.
7 ZI
LU
z
. . . . . . . . ....
'N
. . .... Aq
7N.
q�
5"
_Q,
&
" m�,�V
ell
.. ..... . . ......
"jo"
�e,
Y-,
z tl
le
I Cal
CS
01
U)
U) Uji
_j t—
Ln LA6
0
300 2nd A v
2 it jt/1 enue N.
f
.9.97 Breakwater'Condominium
LL Edmonds,- WA 96020�
July 3 1997�
Ron McConnell
z I- Planning Division
01
City of Edmonds
W Uji 250 5th Avenue N.
X. M; Edmonds, WA 98020
0 Dear Mr. McConnell:
C3
LU Lu
x Ly Today I attended the meeting regarding John'and
aldburger
on their
appeal on property at 307 2nd Avenue N_ in Edmonds and spoke
Sue,W
behalf.
You stated informally while waiting for the'appeal hearing to
begin that usually neighbors appear at these hearings because
z
they 92ROse granting a ariance. Because I spoke in favor of
granting the a v
t"J
Pproval of these people building 2 single-family
homes, I want You to be aware of the fact that this was the
only time I have seen either Mr. or Mrs. Waldburgei. I am not
speaking as a personal friend.
speak only because I feel approval of their plan is a benefit
to our neighborhood and the city of -Edmonds.
this with several others In discussing
in our building I want You to know
feeling is shared by them. my
0
Sin rely,
Vir nia Stewart'_
cc: Jeffrey Wilson
M�
c
'�r �nia st,
-oi, v
, , W,
M. ..... . ... .
.. ........
i DOW June 30.1997
To: Mr. Ron McConnell, Headnq Examiner.
z
Subject Supplemental Infounation for AP-9746
John & %a Waidbulger
tc
d 01
w U ujl Tabie of G#jMnW
UJ
11 B. Additional History
U.
Il. A. Site Description 2. Neighboring Development Zoning
Il. A- Site Description 2. Site.Dev
eiwnent &Zoning Site Description Size & Shape
Z I. -I
0 11. A. Site Description 2. SfteDevil6p'knent & Zoning �Sfte Description Land Use (Not Undeveloped Lot
Letter f"Xn FfUhl 1WEXcavation
Lui
Picture of Nodhern Lot
M
U fA
0 Ak-Findings of Fact and:Conclusions..-B-HistorY., 2-a. Fact (Section regarding legislative history.)
3:
z
LUU
F
0
z
0
ktl".
EXHIBIT B
File No. AP-97-75
�V
'77
2,
0
MNA—dam
Additional leme tal late Cal frimrm.g.-
October I M - Before Purchasing the lots, my wife and I sought information in Person fram the Planning
Department. Mr. John Bissell provided assistance on that occasion. We Inquired as to the zoning for the lot located at
327 1nd Ave. and the adjacently located Iot. We explained that we were contemplating the purchase of both lots and
wished to know how they were zoned , as there is a nearby condominium. While standing In front of the large wall
map that Is located In the foyer of the planning department wewere assured that Owl both lots were zoned RS 6. A
few weeks later we made a return visit to the planning department to be assured that the City's comprehensive for the
lots would not adversely affect our decision to own the lots. Mr. Bissell produced a fte book that was the
comprehensive plan and In it referred to a map and both lots were located. It was pointed out to us that the primary
plan for the lots was to remain zoned single family zoning. The maps clearly show two lots and no mention was ever
made of the aggregation codes or that only one lot existed. Our purchase was guided by this Information.
U-) 6 1 * ftebruarvIRM On February 3,1997 a City permit was obtained and structures were demolished on both lots.
Z P:
March 1997 - The next encounter of note took place on about March17,199T. An Inquiry was made in person to -
the Planning Department as to any special requirements to build on the two lots because of their SO- foot width. Both
LU LM
lots were,pointed out on the large zoning map in the Department foyer to Mr. VJfk Vinish and he stated that variances
would beineeded .(not to overcome the combination code but because of their -width was just�under 60 feet). Thelssu*7
0 of the combinartlowaf-the lots was never addressed nor meritioned. Thenecessary requirements to secure
a P variances were then obtained (notarized lists of every property owner within,300 feet and proper completion of
UJ I the
required forms).
LL 0!
.. Z!
LU AROJ _1997- The completed paperwork for the variances was hand delivered on April 4,1997, to Mr. Steve BullodL He
T* looked at the applications, stated that variances were not needed and want on to a ftnthat I t
oq he bel eved that the ats;
0 fell under the combination rules of ECDC Section 17AO.030. He observed--syrn ly; I m
Z Pathetical Ight add -that 'you
WISH that all you tied to,do was file a variancd*. He suggested-thetwe canted Mr. Jeffrey Wilson for the final word on -
what we should do nexL The remain history Is as outlined In thwPlanning,Division Advisory Report AP-97-75. The
planning depariment concludes from the history Dud our appeal was filed-Ima timely matter. We agree; but have
additional conclusions based on the entire history.
Conclusion -It is clearfrom the encounter withthe various.City PlannersI.WtImy themselves do not have a clear
understanding of the cuffenLECDC as it appliestothe aggregation. If the,latsare-raquired to be
combinekthen'they,wouldhave been-required.4be combInedJa%A90MMJ.*yhave! been4n thesame owners*,fbi�,,�
many, ffwy-years�(:sincar
19N). The loft we on the tax-rales -21�;�w#A*dldabkimlat& The Snohomish Caunty�.'
Assessors Office has estimated thatthe City has enjoyed the-coll 2.3.tImas theamount of taxes Owl
C) Should have been wilected If the two lots in question truly are combined- Also,,If the4otsreally should be considered
combined, why Is It that -they are shown as separate lots on all of the alficialCity planning -and zoning maps as well as
on all counly,tax;recofds? Even attachment I of this file clearly showstre: lota as separate In spite of the fact that the
map was prepared long afterthe lots would have been combined bythe ECDC. The conclusion from this additional
information is that even within the planning department Itself there is disagreement on this section of the ECDC.
Page I
0
MNA—dam
Additional leme tal late Cal frimrm.g.-
October I M - Before Purchasing the lots, my wife and I sought information in Person fram the Planning
Department. Mr. John Bissell provided assistance on that occasion. We Inquired as to the zoning for the lot located at
327 1nd Ave. and the adjacently located Iot. We explained that we were contemplating the purchase of both lots and
wished to know how they were zoned , as there is a nearby condominium. While standing In front of the large wall
map that Is located In the foyer of the planning department wewere assured that Owl both lots were zoned RS 6. A
few weeks later we made a return visit to the planning department to be assured that the City's comprehensive for the
lots would not adversely affect our decision to own the lots. Mr. Bissell produced a fte book that was the
comprehensive plan and In it referred to a map and both lots were located. It was pointed out to us that the primary
plan for the lots was to remain zoned single family zoning. The maps clearly show two lots and no mention was ever
made of the aggregation codes or that only one lot existed. Our purchase was guided by this Information.
U-) 6 1 * ftebruarvIRM On February 3,1997 a City permit was obtained and structures were demolished on both lots.
Z P:
March 1997 - The next encounter of note took place on about March17,199T. An Inquiry was made in person to -
the Planning Department as to any special requirements to build on the two lots because of their SO- foot width. Both
LU LM
lots were,pointed out on the large zoning map in the Department foyer to Mr. VJfk Vinish and he stated that variances
would beineeded .(not to overcome the combination code but because of their -width was just�under 60 feet). Thelssu*7
0 of the combinartlowaf-the lots was never addressed nor meritioned. Thenecessary requirements to secure
a P variances were then obtained (notarized lists of every property owner within,300 feet and proper completion of
UJ I the
required forms).
LL 0!
.. Z!
LU AROJ _1997- The completed paperwork for the variances was hand delivered on April 4,1997, to Mr. Steve BullodL He
T* looked at the applications, stated that variances were not needed and want on to a ftnthat I t
oq he bel eved that the ats;
0 fell under the combination rules of ECDC Section 17AO.030. He observed--syrn ly; I m
Z Pathetical Ight add -that 'you
WISH that all you tied to,do was file a variancd*. He suggested-thetwe canted Mr. Jeffrey Wilson for the final word on -
what we should do nexL The remain history Is as outlined In thwPlanning,Division Advisory Report AP-97-75. The
planning depariment concludes from the history Dud our appeal was filed-Ima timely matter. We agree; but have
additional conclusions based on the entire history.
Conclusion -It is clearfrom the encounter withthe various.City PlannersI.WtImy themselves do not have a clear
understanding of the cuffenLECDC as it appliestothe aggregation. If the,latsare-raquired to be
combinekthen'they,wouldhave been-required.4be combInedJa%A90MMJ.*yhave! been4n thesame owners*,fbi�,,�
many, ffwy-years�(:sincar
19N). The loft we on the tax-rales -21�;�w#A*dldabkimlat& The Snohomish Caunty�.'
Assessors Office has estimated thatthe City has enjoyed the-coll 2.3.tImas theamount of taxes Owl
C) Should have been wilected If the two lots in question truly are combined- Also,,If the4otsreally should be considered
combined, why Is It that -they are shown as separate lots on all of the alficialCity planning -and zoning maps as well as
on all counly,tax;recofds? Even attachment I of this file clearly showstre: lota as separate In spite of the fact that the
map was prepared long afterthe lots would have been combined bythe ECDC. The conclusion from this additional
information is that even within the planning department Itself there is disagreement on this section of the ECDC.
Page I
2
M
U
0
0
LU
LM
M
ii. A. Site Desdftftonl. N61glLboring-Rlyellopiviept 76nlna
The file (AP-97-75) points out that the lot to the North is zone I d as Single Family Residence, (IRS 6).
What is not mentioned is that that lot is only about 45 feet wide. This fact is Important in' that , the our,
two lots are not inconsistent with the lot vAdth's in.the, surrounding neighborhood.
Ptige 2
0
g
S Lte-D_Mription 2. SiLe'Develloohi6rit & 4aning—S-Ite DescriRgo SIZ6
& Jh-9R2
The county assessors office lists both Parcels in expess; of 7000 square feet which is indeed "slightly.
over 6000 squarefeW as noted in the file (AP-97-75).
L)
Gil
LO LL
-0
3
CD
0
z 1-1
0
0
LU Uj
L
0
0-
0
Page13
0
ma
bl
% Or
1� Ile "S I"
m m;
M
11, &Site De c o navaInnmant A
The appeal file (AP-97.7s) states that the property is *currently undeveloped*. It is Interesting that the word currently was
chosen to modify undeveloped. Before the dimolition of structures on both lots In February 1997 both lots were not
undeveloped. Attached is a letter from Fruhling Excavation attesting to the fact that structures were Indeed removed from
the southern lot The northern lot had a house on It that was demolished and a picture is attached.
it Is Important to emphasize that It is not necessary to prove that the lots were developed to any certain degree only that
they were not mfl42VJo
Cy _Mq as the combination codes apply to mndmm1-o_p_ed lots. In the initial Basis and Statement of
Oi Appeal It was pointed out that the term developed was not defined by the ECDC. This is Only Partly true. The teim Is not
LU
defined In the definition chapter (rdle 21). There is however, some very pertinent definitions of key words elsewhere In the
ECDC. They follow:
U-1
01 Undevelop29 Lot Page 18-27 (18.45.040.R)
'Undeveloped Lot* shall mean a platted lot or parcel of land upon which no structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) exists
LO C) I ftLq—ture Page 21-20 (21.90.150)
Up Structure means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something
X 1,
Z �-� on the ground. Not Including residential fences less than six feet In height retaining walLs rockeries; and similar
� f2l improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height
Uj Uj!
M. :x The attached letter Indicates that the building on the southern lot was In excess of 120 square feeL At this size the City
M would have required -a building permit. Water lines were also removed that ran to the building. In orderto connect the
U Cn
0— water a City plumbing permit would have been required. If the City requires permits for these Improvements then they
0 til cannot later say that the lot is undeveloped.
LU W
X L)
Should the City wish to argue that the lots were not developed it should be emphasized that there is no requirement to
0
prove that they were developed.only that they were not undeveloped. The lots In question were absolutely not
Z,
undevelc�ped. Both had structures on them based on the above definition.
Lii two,
0 Indeed, there is a spechum from undeveloped to developed and the ECDC has a definition to demonstrate that range.
Partially developed lot Page 18-26 (18.45.040M)
'Partially developed lor shall mean a lot or a parcel of land upon which a structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) is located
and,which Is of sufficient area to be capable of accommodating additional development pursuant to the Edmonds zoning
code; or which may be subdivided In accordance with the city of Edmonds subdivision chapter.
The southern lot fits this definition. It does not fit the definition of undeveloped. Again, the combination section of the
codes only applies to undeveloped lots. The ECDC reads as follms:
1 . ECDCZection 17.40.030.0 _CgMpkMja Thissection of code reads as follows: 'if, since the date on
which it became nonconforming due to Its failure ftmeet mbdnran lot size or wkfth criteria, an im
01 nanconfonnhV lot is and shall be coaftied.. . ." (emphasis added).
The combination applies only to undeveloped lots and wherever It may be in the range from undeveloped to developed the
southern lot clearly is not undeveloped and therefore should not be considered combined with the northern lot.
Page 4.
. .. . ....... . . . .
77,
F�
0
a
tu
U.
0
z
El
22-MAY-1997 10:46 #1
RESIDEWTAL
L- S- 156,500 SOLD BR: 2 BTH: 1.00 >>>
OMD: 10111196 MT: 16 FIN: 1 MLS# 96 072408
AD :327 2ND AV N . 98020 COU:SNO IT: CMED
OCC:VACANT DSR:DOWNTONN EDS PRJ: PTS-VACANT
OWN:RRYNOLDS- OAD:20115 44TH OPH:744-8226
SOC:3.0 BID: OPP# 7391 206-771-6444 KEY:B,VB
AR: 730 M: 4S4�G:FS POS:CLOSING + 3* REP:WILLIAM BICKEL 771-6444
B 1 2 TERMS:C/0,CNV TAX# 23270310190006
ENTRY: X R/Oz FLRS: W/W, VINYL, HDWD LISTDATE:09/25/96
LIV: x D/W: WDW CV.- 03/25/97
DIN: x G/D: ROOF:COMPOSITION LNDR:
KITCH: PVDST:Y EXT: WOOD IN#
EX PR: UPI: WTRHTR: TYPE
BDRMS: 2 SDWKz HEAT: BAL$
F/BTH: 1 GR: LEASED. INT*
3/4: SEP: VIEW.MOUNTAIN,SOUND,* PkT$ T&I
,1/2: SEWCN:Y BUS: ON �MAM STREET TAX$i,1474.72 YR:96
UTIL: x WFT: N WTRDIST:]MNMS SMEML-MTSTzEDS
.FAM: BCHRTzN HO DUM:
REC: POOL: N IT SIMSO X 130 iltile-SCHOOL
PPL: I CBLAV:Y "X SF: 1,064 BlimimasTRICT
GREAT LOCA=ON JUST OFF WET & WALK TO DOWNTOWN EDMONDSI.GREAT
VIEW FROM 2ND FLOOR OF A NEW HOME1 BIG FLAT LOT. ALT, Y QUIET ST.
HOUSE NEEDS WORK BUT WHAT A GREAT LOCATION. VIEWS OF FERRIES,
MT BAKER. SELLER HAS PRICED TO SELL NOW1 GREAT POSSABILITIES1
STY:10 GAR: AGE: 55 BSM:N LOT NEXT DOOR$156500. NO FORM 17.
Mg-
0
0
U.
ai
Y
0
z
[A
LA
",V i4v
5
_2
g
h1lay 30, 1997
City of Edmonds
Planning Department
205 e Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
To whom it may concern:
I have been asked to write this lettep on behalf of John & Sue Waldburger In support of their claim that the two lots owned
by them on Im Ave. North In'Edmonds; are developed lots.
In February of this year Ruling Inc. was hired to demolish structures on both lots. A house, foundation and underground
water and sew lines were demolished and removed from the North lot Two storage buildings (one of which was greater
than 120 square feet) a cernerd side walk and underground water pipes were demolished or removed from the South lot.
I attest to the fad that the bulkling-structures removed from both the South & the North lots meet the definition of structure
set forth In the Edmonds. Community Development Code and cited, herein for reference.
Sftqgft"_ Page 21-20.. (ECDC 21.90.150)
S&Lvhffv nwans,�a.cwtkmthnW rnabdals constructed and enicW permanently on the ground or affached to
someft*,M the grow , d.-�:�� , hot Wudrig-rusidanWibrices As= Man.-* W in h*N, refabir;g wafis ra*e*s aW
ofa' mkw dwacter law than three feet in height
:,Page'19-39 (19.97020.Ag
,SoudtWnxmsa:waWd.-and,wafedbui7ding, including a gas oriquid stm-age tank that is prindpoffy above
ground
76-MIT2"11
Fruhling.-Inc. Cordrsctor.Ur_*FR1JHI * 101BORUHU
7624 NE 17e
Bothell, WA 98011
0
C, 11
11. -A. ftdlnas �f ct and Conclusions B. Histont 2.a. Eact , Section regarding legislative history.
If the City (Mr. Wilson) wishes to use the legislative history as an argument to require the aggregation of the two lots then it is
Z important to consider all of that histDryto draw a proper conclusion. Not just the very limited history that is presented In the
< appeal file (AP-97-75). The file Is correct with regard to the history in so far as it goes. The code was amended in 1995 by
Z Ordinance 3024 as stated. However, the Intention of that amendment was not to provide more flejability with respect to lot
LUI
area as state in the appeal file (AP-97-75) page 3. That flexibility was already in existence from an amendment that had
occurred two years earlier as a result of Ordinance 2936.
-J (J
L) 01
LO Oi The stated purpose of the amendment that occurred in 1995 (Ordinance 3024) was to add even more exceptions to the
LU,
=I combination requirements prknadlyto accommodate nonconforming lots That might be annexed totheCky. Thisfactis
-J t- supported by the statement below. See Exhibit 2. Of the appeal file (AP-97-75). This quote is from a letter addressed to the
rn 1L
LU 01 Mayor and City Council from the Planning Board ecommending passage of the ordinance (3024).
gV_Ianaffon of ftpjx)sed Amen Iment (Taken from Exhibit 2 of AP-97-75)
LL
W C) 'The Cily Council wishes to provide relief to owners ofnon-conforming lots annexed to the City and allow them limited
oppoitunify to develop those lots. Under the current City Code, this opportunity does not exist."
0
LU; it is also appropriate to note that it was not the purpose of this ordinance to change the allowed exceptions to combination of
lots with adequate area based on the sliding scale that was already in the existing Code. This dak-n is supported with the
following excerpt taken from the Planning Board minutes April 12, 1995. (AP-97-75, Exhibit 3, page 2)
Le
0
C1 — I "Mr. Chave note that since the proposed language is intended to replace existing Code, they must make sure the
U:J Lul
E sliding scale which is included In the current Code is added to this document This sliding scale was added in July
U- of 1993."
ZI
di
The Code as amended in 1993 by Ordinance 2936 read in part as follows:
0
Z 17.40.070.C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming, an undeveloped nonconforming
lot has been in the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been
combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the eAent necessary to create a conforming lot and may only be used In
accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, except that.
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot maybe sold or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot
pursuant to the following conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot area specified in the table below
for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; ... (emphasis added).
The lots in question would have been exempt from combination by this language in 1993. 1 have demonstrated it was not
intended to change this section of the code. However with the amendment created by Ordinance 3024 the same section of
01 code now reads as follows:
0
J- Page 5.
-'7 77�
WA
!- 1
Z
LU
2
M
L)
0
a
L&J
LL
0
Z
E
M
17.40.070AE—Me n for Sinale Family D-welfing Units, An applicant may build one single family dwelling unit on a
lot or Parcel regardless of the size of the lot or parcel If but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an IRS zone, such nonconforming lot maybe sold or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot
pursuant to the following conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot Is not less than the minimum lot area specified in the table below
for the zoning district in which the subject property Is located; and ...
Mr. Wilson claims that the word size as used here in the ECDC means lot area. The legislative history does not support this
claim.
I have previously pointed out how the common usage of the term size Is more correctly interpreted as lot dimensions le width
and length.
With this more complete perspective on the legislative history of this section of the ECDC one comes to a much diferent
conclusion than that presented in the appeal file (AP-97-75) where it is stated on the bottom of page 3.
the legislative intent was very explicitlystated that the intent was to amend the nonconforming lot standards to only
allow for development on lots which are nonconforming with respect to the minknum lot area requirements of the zone In
which they are located."
Ell
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 SM AVENUE NORTIL EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENTIATIONq
TO: RON WCONNELL, ]HEARING EXAMINER.
FROM:
I S. WilsonAIC�P
Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: June 27, 1997
FILE: AP-97-75
JOHN & SUE WALDBURGER
HEARING DATE, TIME, ANID PLACE:
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
East
Application................................................................. ...................
2
Recainmendation............................................................................................................. I .............
2
SiteDescription ............................................................................................................................
2
I-fistory ................................................................................................. ...............
3
FAnonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ............................................... i ......
4
Requestfor Reconsideration ..........................................................................................................
6
Appeals........................................................................................................................................
6
Appendices...................................................................................................................................
7
Partiesof Record ..........................................................................................................................
7
Ll
0
IG
Ln #J.
0
1-0,
Z I--
UJ W
0;:
LU
z
UJ (n
0
z
7-
HE
[a
a&sUOWd&UW
o.AP-97-7S
Rum 2 af7
L INTRODUMON
A. Appellant Information
I &MIlant John & Sue Waldburger (see Attachment 2).
2. Site 14=don Ilic subject property for which the staff issued the code interpretation
and fi)r which this appeal has bow file on, is located at 307 2nd Avenue North (see
Attacliments I and 3).
I Reaugg Appeal of a Planning Division Staff interpretation of the application of the
4'Nonwnfi)rmuig Lats!'replations; pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single-fiunily
buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-6 zone, each with a lot width
of less than the 60-foot lot width requirement for the RS-6 zone (see AtUmlimeats 2 and
4 through 7).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend
that the Hearing Examiner uphold the staff interpretation with respect to the subject
property and denial of the appeal.
IL FMItLGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIMON
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size and &IIM: ne subject property is comprised of two unpbtted
parcels, each with lot area of slightly over 6,000 square fed. Each of the
parcels can be classified as being quadrilateral polygons with the fiont and
rear property lines having different lengths (see Machnumt 3).
Parcel 1-019 (northem parcel) has the following approximate property
dimensions:
Front Property Line:
Approximately 53-fect.
Rear Property Line:
Approximately 62.7-W.
Side Property Line (North):
Approximately 124.7-fed.
Side Property Line (South):
Approximately 126.5-fect.
Lot Width (ECDC 21.55.050):
Approximately 56-feet.
Parcel 1-020 (southern parcel) has the following approximate prop"
dimensions:
Front Property Line:
Rear Property Linc:
Side Property Line (North):
Side Property Line (South):
LAA Width (ECDC 21.55.050):
Approximately 58.9-fod.
Approximately 46.9-fect.
Approximately 126.5-fect.
Approximately 135-fect.
Approximately 53-feet.
z
z
LU
.0
-J
L3 0
Ln a
Lt) LU
UJ
-J
Ln Lt.!
0!
UJ
2 � 1
g ti
U-
LLi-,
z
�- 0
Z �-
LU LU
0 4
C3 L-1
W1
U- 0
z
tu Cn
0
z
E%I
La
Pap 3 Of7
(2) land : The subject property is currently undeveloped.
(3) ZoAjW. Ihe subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential - 6,000 square
fed minimum lot size (ELS-6) (see Exhibit 1).
2. Neighboring Development and Zming:
a. Facts:
(1) North: Detached single-fitmily residential (see Attachmetit I).
(2) South: Detached single-ftmily residential (see Attachment 1).
(3) East: Muldflunily residential (see Attachment 1).
(4) West: Detached single-family residential (sec Attachment I).
B. MSTORY
a. EggjF.
(1) On April 16, 1997,� the Planning Division received a request by the
appellant to determine the status of the subject parcels for the purposes of
being able to construct two delachod single-fmily residences, one on each
parcel (see Attachment 4).
(2) After review of the applicable regulations contained in ECDC 17.40, the
Planning Division issued a determination on May 8, 1997, which concluded
that the subject parcels did not conform with the minimum lot width
requirements for the ILS-6 zone and fiirthermore, since the, subject parcels
adjoined each other and were under common ownership, they were not
considered legally nonconforming and therefore pursuant to ECDC Section
17.40.030.C, for the purposes of meeting the minimum requirements of the
RS-6 zone, they arc deemed to be combined into only one building lot (see
Attachment 5).
(3) On May 16th, the appellants submitted a request for reconsideration to the
Planning Division (see Attachment 6).
(4) On May 20th, the Planning Division responded with a denial of the
appellants request for reconsideration (see Attachment 7).
(5) On May 21st, the appellants filed there, letter appealing the staff
determination (see Attachment 2).
b. Conclusion The appeal was filed in a timely marmer.
2. a. Fact: Ile City's Nonconformance Regulations, ECDC Chapter 17.40, were
amended in 1995, pursuant to Ordinance 3024, to provide some flexibility with
respect to development of nonconforming lots which did not comply with the
minimum lot area for the zone in which they arc located. The legislative history
with respect to the adoption of Ordinance 3024 is attached (see Attachments 8
through 10).
b. Conclusion: From the record prepared and presented to the City Council on the
proposed amendments to ECDC Chapter 17.40, the legislative intent was very
explicitly statW that the intent was to amend the nonconforming lot standards to
only allow for development an lots which am nonconforming with respect to
AM-7SMOCN26JM97
REPMIVMAFF%EPMT3
0
a
LU,
LL
0
Ln 51
:C
Z I--
�i 12
LU LU
Z
UJ Cn
0
Z
am
Z I
0
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLL4NCE
1. a. Eag. The finidamental site development standards pertainimS to a development of
a detached sinale-family residence in an RS-6 zone are set forth in ECDC Section
16.20.
b. Conclusion The subject parcels do not comply with the mmimum lot width
requirements as specified in ECDC Section 16.20.030 and as defined by ECDC
Section 21.55.050.
2. a. EIgg:
(1) ECDC Sections 17AO.030.0 & D (NONCONFORMING LOTS -
Combination and NONCONFORMING LOTS - Exception for Single -
Family Dwelling Units) states:
C. Combination. If, since the date on which It became nonconforming
due to Its failure to meet minimum lot size or width criteria, an
undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same ownership as a
contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed
to have been combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent
necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may only be
used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, except as specfically provided in subsection D
of this section.
A Exceptionfor Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build
one single-family dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the
size of the lot orparcel if, but only tf, one of thefollowing exceptions
applies:
I. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold or
otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant
to thefollowing conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than
the minimum lot area specified in the table below for the
zoning district in which the subject property is located,
and
b. Communityfircilifies, public utilities and roads required
to serve the nonconforming lot are available
concurrently with the proposed development, and
C. FxIsfing housing stock will not be destroivel in order to
create a new buildable lot, and
0
LU Lu�
M,
M,
0
LL
0
Z
IM
22
73
P* 3,0f7
d The proposed development of the lot is generally
consistent with the character of the surroun&ng
neighborhood
LOTAREA TABLE
% Neededfor Lot Size Needed
Zone LRUM—al for Le
walLot
(1) RS-20 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-8 80% 6,400
(4) RS-6 90% 5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the
unit within five wars to the date the lot or parcel is annexed
into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created under
provisions of &ohomtsh County subdivision and zoning laws
as well as the laws ofthe state of Washington; or
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence on a
nonconforming lot without regard to the So percent
destruction requirement of ECDC 1740.0200 if a fully
completed building permit Is permitted within one jovar of the
destruction of the residence and all other development
requirements of this code are complied with, or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the
SWohomish County recorder's offlee prior to December 31,
1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or
parcel which fronts on the same access right-ofway
subsequent to December 31, 1972. and the lot or parcel has
access to an access fight -of -way which meets the minimum
requi�emenis established by this code; or
S. For a period of two jwrs from the effective date of the
ordinance codified In this chapter, the owner of a lot which
was lawfully created under the Snohomish County subdivision
and zoning laws and which was annexed to the city of
Edmonds since January 1, 1960, files a fully completed
building permit application for development of the lot in
accordance wish the provisions of this code. 7his paragraph
D(5) shall sunset and be removed from the code two years
ajter the effective dare oj the passage of the ordnance codified
In this chapter and is Intended only to provide a window of
opporlunityfor those persons who comply with the provisions
of subsection A of this section but who are barred due to the
passage of time an equal opportunity to develop a lot in
accordance with the provisions of the code. [Ord 3024 § 1.
1995, Ord 2936 § 1, 1993, Ord 2292,f 1, 1982].
rt& Sue Waldbtnw
k,-40. AP-97-75
Par 6 47
b. Conclusions:
(1) Under the nonconforming lot standards, the subject parcels would not be
considered to separate developable budding sites because each of the subject
Z
parcels does not meet the minimum 60-foot lot width requirement for the
RS-6 zone. Furthermore, since the subject parcels under common
ownership, pursuant to ECDC Section 17.40.030.C, they am deemed to be
< M
combined into one buildable parcel in order to meet the minimum lot width
LU U
-J
00
a
requirements for the RS-6 zone.
V)
Cn LU
3:
(2) The Exception provisions cited by the appellant under ECDC Section
LU
-J �-
17.40.030.1) arc not applicable because the purpose of this section was only
Lo U.!
to address situations related to parcels which do not meet the minimum lot
LU
area of the zone in which they are located as a result of insufficient lot area.
In addition to the clear and explicit language of ECDC Section 17.40.030
U- <;
itself, the legislative recorded which was created when ECDC Chapter
Ln a
17.40 was amended in 1995, is also very and explicit as to the purpose of
= W.
the amendment (see Attachments 8 through 10).
z
�- 0
Z �-
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
UJ LU
The fbflowing is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals.
0
at
Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning
UJ
Department for further procedural inforination.
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
z
uJ cn
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
U —
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
o '7,
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
z
and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a Wad of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. Ile reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances gove
the t3W of application being reviewed.
The Hearing Examincr shall promptly review the reconsideration request and within 5 working
days issue a written response, either approving or denying the request. If the reconsideration
request is denied, the 10 working day appeal deadline of the Hearing Examinees decision shall
recommence for the remaining number of days. If, upon the review of the request for
reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner believes that an error or ornission is significant and may
01
alter his or her decision or recommendation, he or she may at his or her discretion:
I . Amend the decision to incorporate any ornitted material and/or fact or to correct the
error; or
2. Elect to present a brief to the city council outlining the error or ornission and its
anticipated impact on his or her decision.
0
B. APPEALS
The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of staff decisions on project permit
applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council. Hearing Examiner
decisions on appeals of staff decisions that do not involve project permit applications shall be
appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC 20.105.040.
AM-75DOM&M-97
REPM1=AFPRM1MT3
0
z �-,
�- 0�
Z �-:
W L&I
LLJ LU
LL 0
z
Uj Cn
j-
0
z
,MEN
Appellant
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds Fire Department
0 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLE
THIS NOTICE JTI.S DUE TO THk qqAl�". Pf_THE DOCUMENT._.,-
V A
'A
-n >
(D
z >
0
>
m
.!4 z
4 q
n
0
St:
t
1 0
lo
Z
<
0
LO 0,
U) LU,
uj 3:
LL!
C)t
LU - 1,
Z
LU UJ
0
a
U1 UJI
Z
LU (n
L)
0
Z
1�3
EV3
o hp-ql-15
RECEIVED
May 21, 1997 MAY 2 1 1997
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Mr. Paul Mar
Community Services Director
City of Edmonds
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Appeal of staff's interpretation (ECDC 20.105.010.A.3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code Section 17.40.030 as applied to Lot #4, Block B Central Addition, Edmonds,
and Lot #5, Block B, Central Division, Edmonds
Dear Mr. Mar
This letter and the attached documents shall serve as the appeal to the staff 's interpretation of
ECDC Section 17.040.030. You will find attached a list of property owners as specified in ECDC
20.95.010. Also aftached is a check for $100.00 which is for the required appeal fee. You will
also find a statement of the specific reasons and basis for the challenge to the staff 's
interpretation.
Mr. Jeffrey Wilson in his letter of May 8, 1997 and in his personal communications on May 20,
1997 Presented two alternatives to appealing his interpretation. He has stated that his staff at
some future undetermined date may elect to review and possibly at-nend the ECDC by either
amending ECDC Section 17.04.030 as it pertains to lot widths or to amend the site development
width requirements for IRS zones. Mr. Wilson also suggested that a short subdivision would be
another altemative to the appeal process.
I believe that my appeal arguments are compelling and that my interpretation of the code is the
proper interpretation and would be found to be so by the hearing examiner or the City Council if
necessary. However my objective is not to win an argument but to be allowed to build on both of
my legal lots. I would prefer to accomplish this goal with a solution that uses the least amount of
resources both on my part and on the part of the City. I understand that processing my appeal
ties up a fair bit of planning department time and resources, in a department that is already over
worked and under appreciated. Either of the outlined aftematives would be acceptable solutions
and I would consider placing my appeal on hold; thereby, not causing needless work to process
the appeal if I had some written assurance from the City that the aforementioned solutions had a
reasonable chance for success and had the support of the planning department, My concerns
are as follows:
1. If the Planning Department does amend the ECDC (either Section 17.40.030 or the lot widths
requirements for site development of an IRS 6 zone) I have no assurance that the amendments
that they pursue will be favorable to my situation. They may decide to amend the code to allow
lot widths of 55 feet not 50 feet or they may change Section 17.40.030 to contain specific and
explicit language to force lots of anything less than 55 feet or 52 feet to be combined.
2. If I were to pursue a short subdivision I have no assurance that after completing the entire
application process and all of the preparation and expense to do so that a short plat would be
granted. My specific concern relates to the review criteria for a short subdivision as stated In
ECDC Section 20.75.085.B.3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of
the zoning ordinance. The language of this code section seems to be far clearer and less subject
I
t
pgf
W
pp' RX,
!'4 iMl
Ys ii"'"
to interpretation than the lot aggregation code which is under appeal. If I pursued a short
subdivision my two lots would be less than 60 feet wide which Is the dimensional requirement for
width In an RS 6 zone and I suspect the planning department would reject my application on this
basis.
z
Again, I would prefer not to appeal the staff's interpretation but in light of the above concerns I
feel I have no other choice. If I had written correspondence that my concerns were unfounded I
Would reconsider my appeal.
-J
US! Thank you very much for your consideration.
U) UJf
Cn LL Respectfully submitted,
UJ
a
J. Waldburger, MID
Sue Waldburger
Z f-1
0;
LU! 8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 775-5043
0—
LU U1
X
0i
2
Basis and Statement of Appeal
Sublect: Appeal of staffs Interpretation (ECDC 20.105.010.A.3) of the Ed Imonds Community Development Code
Section 17.40.030 as applied to Lot #4, Block B Central Addition, Edmormds, and Lot #5, Block 8, Central Division,
Edmonds
M I have been informed by Mr. Jeffrey Wilson, the Current Planning Supervisor ffor the City of Edmonds, in his letter dated
U
0 May 8, 1997, that by his interpretation of the ECDC Chapter 17.40 (titled Noncconfortning Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots)
a that our adjacent lots located at 327 2nd Avenue North are nonconforming duee to their 50-foot widths. Furthermore, since I
LU
own two adjacent nonconforming lots they are deemed to be combined and msay only be developed as one lot.
U-1
0i I am in agreement with Mr. Wilson that the lots are nonconforming. When the:!se two lots were legally platted in downtown
Edmonds years ago they were platted as 50-foot-wide lots, as were many lots -MMin the City. The current ECDC requires
that lots now be slightly wider at 60 feet. Both of the lots in question are over 66500 square feet in area, well in excess of
the required 6000 and the allowed 5400 square feet.
X Uji, Where Mr. Wilson and I disagree is in his interpretation of the sections of Chal:pter 17AO which deal with aggregation of
Z nonconforming lots and the exceptions to the aggregation requirements. My a irgument that the code does not require the
combination of the two lots is based on:
1. The general intention and historical development of the code, and
W W
2 2. That the language itself does not require the combination
U UN
It is the general intention and purpose of Chapter 17.40 to allow nonconformimg lots to continue; it is both in the interest of
the public and the City of Edmonds to allow them to do so. In addition, I beliaeve Mr. Wilson has misread the specific
UJ LY
X 0 language of the code leading him to an erroneous interpretation and thereby leeading him to the incorrect conclusion that
I— i=1 the lots should be combined.
LJ- 0
.. Z
LU W�.
U Chapter 17.40 of the ECDC has for its stated purpose the following:
are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated. (emp -hasis added)
0
Z 17.40.0 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain no triconforming uses, buildings and lots to
continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. Other nonconforaming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which
The overriding purpose of this section of code Is to provide for the confinuatiorn of nonconforming lots, not their elimination;
unless for some reason they are declared a nuisance. Two 50-foot-wide lots t1nat front on a major street in downtown
Edmonds and that are of similar dimensions to neighboring lots hardly are nuiwances requiring the elimination of one of
them.
A historical perspective of how this section of code has been amended by City Council is also valuable In coming to a
legitimate interpretation of aggregation rules. I would like to cite City of Edmomds Ordinance No. 2936 which came Into
0 effect just three years ago as evidence to further support my argument that it im in the public interest to maintain the two
lots separate. The ordinance begins as follows:
WHEREAS, the City has for a number of years maintained a zoning oredirrance in which contiguous nonconforming
lots in common ownership are deemed combined under the provisions of the ccode, and
and
WHEREAS, the Cily's mandate under the Growth Management Act includes the ability to accept additional density,
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to accept additional density through existing lots
which, while substandaru� may be developed in a manner consistent with the s.-unvurriling neighborhood in situations where
there are no negative Impacts to the neighbors or the general public, NOW TIWEREFORE,
t
U.1,
5
LU
-J
L) 0
V) a
g) LU
LU
-J
v) U.
UJ 0!
Z
LIJ U.1
m
U Cn.
0-1
0 t=J
U.1 K
X
L-L 0
Z
LU (J)
U y
8'7
Z
117�
The ordinance goes on to give the definition of a nonconforming lot, the conditions where by it may continue and the
conditions that cause two adjacent lots to be combined. The ordinance concludes with the exception to the
aggregation rules. The exception allows for two adjacent nonconforming lots to remain as long as they are RS
zoned and meet the minimum lot area stated In the ordinance. It is clear that the exception clause is meant to exempt
RS-zoned lots of acceptable area in order to meet the objectives stated in the preamble to the ordinance. The lots in
question have well over the acceptable area.
The next ordinance dealing with this section of code is No. 3024; it is a litUe over two years old and is the West revision.
Again it is worthwhile to read the preamble to the ordinance in order to properly interpret and execute the code that it
addresses. A citafion of the preamble to that ordinance follows:
WHEREAS, lots created in Snohomish County have been annexed to the City of Edmonds which, due to changes
in the City's zoning code have become nonconforming along with older town lots of the City created at a time when houses
and therefore minimum lot sizes were much smaller and have created a stock of nonconforming lots whose
sizes fails to meet current minimum lot size requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide limited relief to lot owners annexed to the City in order to permit
them a window of opportunity in which to develop their lots, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it OPProPriate to more closely tailor and define its nonconforming lot
combination provisions in order that the requirement of combination of nonconforming lots substandard to size achieves
the RyMo_ses of the code without undo hardship on property owners and permits the development of lots frontirig, on public
streets and allows the City to achieve greater density in compliance with the Growth Management Act goals, NOW,
THEREFORE—. (emphasis added)
The current version of ECDC Seclion 17.40.030 proceeds from the conclusion of the preamble. It is abundantly clear from
that preamble that the City wishes to do three things in regard to the combination of nonconforming lots:
1. Achieve the purpose of the code without undue hardship on property owners
2. Permit the development of lots fronting on public streets
3. Allow the City to achieve greater density in compliance with the Growth Management Act
Mr. Wilson's explanation of the code defeats all three of those purposes and therefore, I believe, is in error. I do not
believe that it ever was the Intention of the City Council In approving these ordinances to deprive me of the privilege to
develop my two lots.
Not only is the interpretation offered by Mr. Wilson contrary to the purpose of the code, but it is also incorrect based on the
language of the code itself. The language of the code exempts the aggregation of the lots on two accounts detailed below.
1. ECDC Section 17.40.030.0 Combination This section of code reads as follows: "if, since the date on which it
became nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or width criteria, an nadtKeloped
nonconforming lot is and shall be combined..." (emphasis added)
The key word here is yunadRX212W. The lots in question are demelove lots not 1!a42mq12W. As separate building
lots each lot is served by water, power, telephone, cable, stubs of the main City sewer, curbs, storm sewers, access off a
main City street and secondary access via a legal alley. In addition, they both have had permanent structures on them that
were legally demolished wfthin the last two months after obtaining appropriate City permits. There can be no queslion that
they are develop
The term Ae�� is not defined in the ECDC or in Black!s Law Dictionary. However, Webster's New World Illustrated
Dictionary of Real Estate defines the term as follows:
Developed: Improved land; any manmade addition to real property that adds to its value. Land that has been
Improved in such ways as road building, grading, bringing In utilities, construcling buildings, adding sidewalks and sewers,
landscaping, etc.
0.
2
D
U
0
0
LU
X
W
Z
This description certainly applies to the lots in question and thereby disqualifies them from the combination
requirements of this subsection of the ECDC.
2. ECDC Section 17.40.030.C. (the combination subsection) states that two adjacent gagoLetoged
nonconforming lots are deemed combined if they have the same owner. However, this section of code provides an
exception to this combination rule: '...except as specifically provided in subsection D. of this section."
Subsection D. (ECDC 17.40.030.D) lists five different exceptions, only one of which need apply. The initial wording of the
subsection reads as follows:
D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build one single-family dwelling unit regardless
of the size of the lot or the parcel if but only if one of the following exceptions appfies.* (emphasis added)
The key word here is size. In order to make a proper and correct Interpretation of this section of code it is imperative to
have a definition of size. The logical and legal steps to a proper Interpretation are as follows: first has the word been
defined In the definitions section of the ECDC; if not Is it defined In Black's Law Dictionary. If it Is not defined in those two
sources, what is the recognized definition Eiccording to a commonly used dictionary. The word size is not defined by the
ECDC nor Is it In Black's Law Dictionary. The word size, according to the American College Dictionary, means 'the
dimensions, or proportions". The word dimensions is defined as "a measure of spatial extent especially width, height, or
length".
With this Proper definition of size the section of code can be properly interpreted and read as follows:
D- Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build one single-family dwelling unit regardless
Of the size (dimensions, or proportions le width and length) of the lot or the parcel if but only if one of the
112110144ng MOO= applies. (emphasis added)
Since the lots In question are in a RS zone and exceed the lot area required, then the two lots are exempt from the
combination rule. The lots can be developed without any variance or subdivision required as long as all other site use and
development standards are met (17AO.030.B.).
In summary, I have made the argument that it Is not the intention of the City Council to order via the code the combination
of these two adjacent nonconforming lots. It does not promote the City's interest the public Interest, nor any worthy
purpose to require their aggregation. I believe I also have argued successfully that the code language Itself exempts these
two lots from combination.
Respectfully submitted,
� 4, � 1 WJ4.j-,_�
John J. Waldburger, MD
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
775-5043
b
5;
April 16, 1997 A PR
Jeff�� S. Wilson, AICP
Current Planning Supervisor
City of Edmonds, Community Services Department
U, Planning Division
25051hAvenue N.
n U31
-U jE! Edmonds, WA 98020
LO U.
—0 Dear Mr. Wilson:
LU
LU < I am in the midst of readying two lots in the bowl of Edmonds for the building of single-family residences.
Two separate in -person discussions with two different planners in the Planning Division have resulted in
two widely differing opinions as to what I must do in order to conform to City zoning regulations as I
Z prepare for the buildin process. I would appreciate it if you would review my situation and tell me exa
9 ctly
what I must do in order to build on my lots.
W LUI
I The two lots are located at 327 2nd Avenue North and adjoining (the property at 327 2nd Avenue North had
0 a house on it which I had demolished several month ago; that is where I intend to build the single-family
C3 dwelling. I hope to build another like dwelling on the adjoining lot at a future date). The lots were
LU LU
V
purchased in November of 1996 from the same owner.
U_ 0
Z j.
As detailed on.the attachments, each lot measures approximately 7,405 square feet-, apparently they are
slightly narrow according to the current lot -size requirement but are well over the total square -footage
requirement The first planner with whom I spoke said I had to prepare variance requests, which I did,
Z complete with the 300-foot-list labels and notarized documents. When I attempted to turn in the variance
requests on April 4, another planner informed me that the variances were not necessary, but a sub -division
process MIGHT be.
I would appreciate it if you would look into my situation and notify me as soon as possible as to what I
must do in order to build on my lots. Thank you for your time and help on this matter.
0 Sincerely,
Sue Waldburger
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
775-504.3
ATTACHMENT 4
File No., AP-97-75
. 0
P
r
jN,n'141� eb'
M�V'
311
jj
dg,
. . . . . . . . . .
ft
'7o e'—' -f-0y" YoF11-1
S2
a
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
L
ai
PARCEL
9
All that portion of Goverment Lots I and 2, Section 23, Township 27
North, Range 3 East, W.M., described as follows;
BEGINNING at a point o the North line of Edmonds Street in City of
Edmonds, North 60-41127� West 276 feet from the Northwest comer of 3rd
and Edmonds Stmet;
thence North 60-41'2V� West along said North line of Edmonds Street 99
feet;
thnc: North 32:28:001'1� Ea:t 120,77,,feet,
then North s5 is oo W t 60 6
thenc . North 32 . 21 , 3S " Be. t 43.77 fe:tt;
to the true point of beginning
of t his description;
th:n e North 32:21:35:: East 50.07 feet;
th nce South 60 41 57 East 147.74-feet;
thence South 29-18:03:: West 500feet;
thence North 60 , 41 57 West 15 . 41 feet to the point of beginning;
EX CEPT E t 20 for street purposes;
feet
(ALSO KNOWN AS Lot 4, Block B, Central Addition, Edmonds, Washington,
according to the unrecorded plat thereof);
. . . . . . . . . .
ri. r
z
Ui LU
2D
0-
0 t�
LU LU
LU (n
U
15
FA
�z
F
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LO
PARCEL
All that portio of Government Lots 1 nd 2, Section 23, Township 27
North, Range 3 Ea t, W.M., described s follows:
BEGINNING at a poi on the North line of Edmonds Street in City of
Edmonds, North 60041' 711 West 276 eet from the Northwest corner of 3rd
and Edmonds Stieet;
thence North 6004112711 est al g said North line of Edmonds Street 99
feet;
thence North 3202810011 Ea t 0.77 feet;
thence North 55018,00,, Wes 60.66 feet;
thence North 3202113511 Eas 3.77 feet to the true point of beginning
of this description;
thence North 3202113511 E st 5 07 feet;
thence South 60041,57:: ast 1
3.'5 4 74-feet;
thence South 29018103 West -50 et;
thence North 6004115 est 150 feet to the point of beginning;'
EXCEPT East 20 feet f street purp ses;
(ALSO KNOWN AS Lot Block B, Centr Addition, Edmonds, Washington,
according to the unrecorded plat thereof);
L aA—
P"CEL B:
Part of Government Lots I and 2, Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3
East, W.M., described as follows:
BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the North line of Edmonds
Street in the City of Edmonds, with the West line of Third Street;
thence North 6004112711 West, along the North line of Edmonds Street, a
distance of 375 feet;
thence North 3202710011 East 120.77 feet to the true point of beginning
of this description;
thence from said point of beginning, run North 5501810011 West 60.66
feet;
thence North 3202113S11 East 43.77 feet to the most Westerly corner of
land conveyed to W. A. Harman and Cara B. Harman, his wif e, by deed
filed for record under Auditor's File Number 904310;
thence South 60041'r,711 East, along the Southwesterly line of said
Harman tract, 150.41 feet;
thence South 2901810311 West SO feet to intersect.a, line running South
6001412011 East from the true point of beginning;
thence North 6001412011 West 92.36 feet to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT the Southeasterly 20 feet thereof conveyed to the City of
Edmonds;
AM EXCEPT that portion, if any, lying within the boundaries of land
conveyed to Alberic P. Brandt and Marie D. Brandt, his wife, by deed
filed for recorded under Auditor's File Number 86393S;
Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington
Z 1._�
0
!i I.-
Lu LU
0
8
UJ U111
LL 0
Z
Lu U)
Z
[a
Im
�Zst. 189'
May 8,1997
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-02Z1
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works - Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering
Ms. Sue Waldburger
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
Subject: RESPONSE TO INQUIRY REGARDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
ADJOINING LOTS WITH NONCONFORNIING LOT WIDTHS
Dear Ms. Waldburger:
In response to your inquiry regarding the legal building status of the two adjoining lots located at
327 2nd Avenue North, I have reviewed the situation with our City Aftorney,s office and offer the
following conclusions for your information,
Pursuant to ECDC Section 17.40.030, -when two adjoining lots are nonconforming (e.g. lot width,
lot area, etc.) the nonconforming lots are deemed to be combined into one lot in order to meet the
mimmum zoning requirements. Therefore, the two adjoining lots which you currently own, both
of which have nonconforming lot widths, for the purposes of complying with zoning regulations
are deemed to be combined into one lot in order to comply 1kith adopted City regulations, and
therefore, only may be developed as one lot.
While there are provisions under ECDC Section 17.40.030.13 to allow for the continued use of the
noncon ' forming certain lots as separate building sites provided they meeting the criteria under
Section 17.40.030.D, this exception only applies to lots with nonconfonning lot area and not to
lots which are nonconforming due to lot width.
In you letter of April 16th, you indicated that you were ven co icting i o ation om my
gi nfl nf rm fr
staff regarding how to proceed in order to attempt to be able to develop each of the subject lots
as a separate single-family building site. After discussion with the City Attorney's office, it
appears that both responses you received, either the variance process or the short subdivision
process, are available as a means to attempt to receive a modification to the minimum lot width
requirement. However, while both means are technically appropriate means to attempt to address
the issue, it may be more difficult to meet the criteria for a variance, than it is to request a
modification through the short subdivision process.
Alternatively, as we discussed at the counter last week the Planning Division is wifling to pursue
review of an amendment to the Edmonds Community Devielopment Code to either amend the
WALDkOLDOMMAY-97 Incorporoted August 11, 1890 e
CORRES4XMRS
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
ATTACHMENT 5
File No. AP-97-75
a
0 .9
I � A..
nonconforming Provisions of ECDt Section 17.40.030, or the minimum lot width requirements
for single-firrdly residential lots. Based on the issues raised in reviewing your situation, we
believe it is appropriate to pursue a formal code amendment to address similar situations in the
future. However, while we consider a review of the regulations to be an appropriate course of
action, I can not at this time give you any firm schedule for processing such an amendment� at this
time.
One additional option which is available to you to address the staffs determination you do not
have two single-family building sites, would be to file an appeal of the staffs interpretation of the
Edmonds Community Development Code. Any such appeal of the staff s determination must be
filed within 10 working day's of the date of this letter, must state the specific reason and basis for
challenging the stafTs interpretation of the code, and must include the required $100.00 appeal
fee.
I believe the above information should address the questions raised in your letter of April l6th. If
you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-
0223.
Sincerely,
Community Services Department - Planning Division
�Jeffrey S. AICP
Current Planning Supervisor
Enclosures
pc: ACorrespondence Notebook
Paul W Cornmunity Services Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Steve Bullock, Planner
PXV 2 af2
May 14,1997
Mr. Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP
Current Planning Supervisor, City of Edmonds
250 Sth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Request for reconsideration of interpretation: L4P
Lot K Block B, Central Addition, Edmonds and Lot #5, Block B, Central Addition, Edmonds
V) U. Dear Mr. Wilson:
01:
Please accept this letter as our initial response to your letter of May 8, 1997, Informing us that the City has Invalidated the
legal conformity of our two building lots. Our initial response would be to Immediately appeal this decision as it will have
LL <
M significant impact on us financially and emotionally. However, what we would prefer and hereby request Is that you
C3
reconsider the applicability of ECDC Section 17.40.030.0 as it relates to our two lots.
LV
z I— We admit that we are novices at reading complicated legal text and experience is on your side. HoweverSec:tion
17.40.030.0 Combination seems to apply to MDA@Xelo ed nonconforming lots and the lots in question are develo
z pe—d
LU LUj nonconforming lots. As separate building lots, each lot is serviced by water, power, telephone, cable, stubs off the City
2 Mi
:D 0� sewer, curbs, storm sewers, access off the main street, and secondary access via a legal alley. In addition, they both have
U U) had permanent structures on them that were legally demolished within the last two months after obtaining the appropriate
0—
a L- City permits. The combination section does not apply to developed lots.
LU Lul
= SU? �
1-9 1 In addition to the above, we question why the City Council, when drafting this ordinance, would have elected to utilize a
U. 1!_1
— O� generic word such as'slz6"to specifically mean "lot area". If they meant *lot area", why would they not have used the
.. Zi specifically defined term of "lot area"?
UJ (n
We also would like to know if there are any applicable legal statutes that give a municipality the authority to combine and
z invalidate legally subdivided properties. Are there any RCWs that apply to this situation? It just doesn't seem to us to be
in the public's interest nor the Citys interest to require the combination of two perfectly good downtown building sites.
It is our desire to work w4th the City and the Planning Department to solve this problem without resorting to appealing the
staff's determination or code revisions and the like. We would kindly request that you reconsider your determination in light
of the fact that these are separate developed lots and it serves no useful purpose to anyone to destroy one of them.
If you elect to reconsider, please inform us of that fact by 5 p.m., Tuesday, May 20. If you elect not to, we request
notification by the same time and date. We also request an appeal extension of 10 working days from the date of your
response to us. In addition, as you prepare your written response to this letter, we ask that you Include a description of the
purpose and value your decision has to the City and what methodology was used to form your interpretation. Please use
layman's terms.
Respectfully submitted,
1j,
Dr. John J. Waldburger, M.D.
Mrs. John J. Waldburger
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 775-5043
�M
z
Lu Lu
0 Ln
a L-i
Lu 6
X 6
z
UJ Co
:F
0
z
M
Icst. JS9,
May 20, 1997
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works 0 Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering
Dr. & Mrs. John J. Waldburger
8107 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
Sub ect: RESPONSE TO LEI"TER DEUVERED ON MAY 16TH
4
Dear Dr. Waldburger
Thank you for your letter delivered to our office on May l6th.
Upon review of the commenti contained in your most recent letter, there does not appear to be any thing
that alters the facts or the conclusion reached in my. letter of May 8th.
The issues you have raised in your letter are very important policy issues which should be discussed.
However, as the Code is presently written, the goals and policies that you have articulated cannot be
applied. As I indicated in my letter, the Planning Division is willing to pursue review and potential
amendment of the applicable provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code in order to develop
regulations that allow for the continued use of certain existing nonconforming lots in order to provide
property that can accommodate infill development to meet the City's housing needs.
Should you wish to appeal the my determination issued in my letter of May 8th, regarding the subject
property, as outlined in my letter, your appeal must be subn-dtted by no later tim 5:00 PM on May 2 1,
1997, (10 working days of the date of my original letter of determination). Your letter of appeal, must state
the specific reason and basis for challenging the staffs interpretation of the code, and must include the
required $100.00 appeal fee (see Enclosed).
Finally, I will be out of the office beginning on May 21st, returning on May 28th. If you wish to discuss
this matter during my absence, please contact Rob Chave, Planning Manager at 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Community Services Department - Planning Division
le ey St�lso
Current Planning Supervisor:
of Enclosure
F,
Z
;7-12:
Z
LU LU�:
0-1
0 �,-
LU Ui
Z
LU Cn
UY
15 �-
Z
IN
0006.150.003
WSS/are
03/28/95
R: 04/13/95jeh
ORDINANCE No. _ 3024
10,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 17.40.030
NONCONFORMING LOTS OFTHEEDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO BETTER DEFINE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NONCONFORMING
LOTS SMALLER THAN MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DEVELOPED AND FD(ING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, lots created in Snohomish County have been annexed to the City of
Edmonds which, due to changes in the City's zoning code have become nonconforming along
with older town lots of the City created at a time when houses and therefore minimum lot sizes
were much smaller and have created a stock of nonconforming lots whose size fails to meet
current minimum lot size requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide limited relief to lot owners
annexed to the City in order to permit them a window of opportunity in which to develop their
lots, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to more closely tailor and
define its nonconforming lot combination provisions in order that the requirement of combination
of nonconforming lots substandard as to minimum lot size achieves the purposes of the Code
without undue hardship on property owners and permits the development of lots fronting on
public streets and allows the City to achieve greater density in compliance with Growth
Management Act goals, NOW, THEREFORE,
1-1-7AW
-I-
ATTACHMENT 8
File No. AP-97-75
0
P
&I
2
M
LU
LL
di
Y
0
Z
E;
oc
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 17.40.030 NONCONFORMING LOTS is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.40.030 DIONCONFORMING LOTS.
A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met
applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width,
depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on
which it was created but which, due to the passage of a
zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation
of property to the City, no longer conforms to the current
provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not
legally created in accordance with the laws of the local
governmental entity in which it was located at the date of
the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for
development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for
any use allowed by the zoning district in which it is
located, even though such lot does not meet the size,
width, depth and other dimensional requirements of the
district, so as long as all other applicable site use and
development standards are met or a variance from such site
use or development standards has been obtained. In order
to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum
lot size standards established by the provisions of this
Code, subject to the provisions of Paragraph D below.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
nonconforming due to its fhilure to meet minimum lot size
or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has
been in the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the
nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been
combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent
necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may
only be used in accordance with the provisions of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, except as
specifically provided in Paragraph D below.
98223.1 -2-
0
D. Exc§ption for Single Family Dwelling Units. An applicant
may build one single family dwelling unit on a lot or parcel
regardless of the size of the lot or parcel if, but only if,
one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold
or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming
lot pursuant to the following conditions and
J1 standards:
6.
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not
less than the minimum lot area specified in
the table below for the zoning district in
which the subject property is located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and
roads required to serve the nonconforming
Ui lot are available concurrently with the pro -
DI
a posed development; and
98223.1
C. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed
in order to create a new buildable lot; and
d. The proposed development of the lot is
genemily consistent with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ut Area T-abi
% Needed for Lot Size Needed
Zone Legal Lot for Legal Lot
(1) RS-20 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-8 80% 6,400
(4) RS-6 90% 5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to
construct the unit within five (5) years to the date
the lot or parcel is annexed into the City and the lot
or parcel was lawfully created under provisions of
Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as
well as the laws of the State of Washington; or
-3-
.. ..... .....
jj�
?
0)
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence
on a nonconforming lot without regard to the fifty
percent (50%) destruction requirement of ECDC
17.40.020(F) if a fully completed building permit is
permitted within one (1) year of the destruction of
the residence and all other development
requirements of this Code are complied with; or
L) Ot
Lq LU
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were
L4
recorded in the Snohomish County Recorder's
V) LL
LU 0
Office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or
parcel has not at any time been simultaneously
owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel
which fronts on the same access right of way
subsequent to December 31, 1972 and the lot or
Z
parcel has access to an access right of way which
meets the minimum requirements established by this
Z
W Lui
Code; or
5. For a period of two (2) years from the effective
0
date of this ordinance, the owner of a lot which was
lawfully created under the Snohomish County
subdivision and zoning laws and which was annexed
to the City Edmonds
of since January 1, 1960 files
a fully completed building permit application for
development of the lot in accordance with the
Z
provisions of this Code. This Paragraph D(5) shall
sunset and be removed from the Code two (2) years
after the effective date of the passage of this
ordinance and is intended only to provide a window
of opportunity for those persons who comply with
the provisions of Paragraph A above but who are
barred due to the passage of time an equal
opportunity to develop a lot in accordance with the
provisions of the Code.
0
Section 2. EMctive Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
CaUy delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
0
title.
98M.1 -4-
0
w,
t 'i� t��
ON 4
Al
APPROVED:
HALL
AITEST/AUTHENTICATED:
cn
cl�w
0
CfrY CLEM, RAONDA J. MARCH
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE crry ATTORNEY:
saui wk BY
2
0 FILED WITH THE errY CLERK: 04/13/95
uJ UJ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 05/16/95
x
PUBLISHED: 05/21/95
U. 0 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/26/95
ORDINANCE NO. 3024
0
0
98=1
z 1--;
L,- �? :
LU LU
0
0
z
LU U)
U T
81- ,
z
:01
IV]
CY
!I
Item #
W
IBM& EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Memo
TW .
Originator. Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
Subject: BEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON.
NONCONFORMING LOT PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING ECDC SECTION
17.40.030.
Agenda Time: 15 Minutes
Agenda Date: May 16,1995
Exhibits Attached:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Board Report
3. Planning Board Minutes
4. City Council Community Services
Committee Agenda & Minutes
Clearances: Departmentlinitials
Admin Svcs/Finance
Community Svcs
_
City Attorney_
---0-
Engineering
City Clerk
Parks & Rec
_
Court
Planning Wv—"
—
Personnel
Public Works
Fire
Committee
Police
Mqy-d�r-,
Comments:
Expenditure Amount Appropriation
Required: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0
Funding Source: N/A
History And Summary Statement:
The attached ordinance has been prepared pursuant to the City's desire to address special circumstances in
the application of the nonconforming lot provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). Ile current provisions contained in the ECDC appear, in some instances, to impose undue
hardships or restrictions on development that are not consistent with the City's goals to maintain consistent
development standards while encouraging single &mily development. The ordinance specifically provides a
5-year grace period for newly annexed areas (pg. 3, §D.2.), provides a one-year exception for rebuilding a
destroyed house (pg. 4, §D.3.), and also provides relief for nonconforming lots that are adjacent but front
on different access rights -of -way (pg. 4, §D.4.).
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the ordinance on April 12, 1995. The Board recommended
that the City Council approve the ordinance with one change, that the general grace period contained in
§D.5. on page 4 be increased from one year to two years in order to provide an adequate time period for the
filing of a completed building permit.
ATTACHMENT 9
File No. AP-97-75
0
Ew!
!2
Uj
0
0
LU
U.
1B
0
Z
01
0006.150.003
WSS/are
03/28/95
R: 04/13/95jeh
ORDINANCE NO. -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 17.40.030
NONCORNF-0-M-N-0 LD1--S OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO BETTER DEFINE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NONCONFORMING
LOTS SMALLER THAN MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DEVELOPED AND FD(ING A
TRVIE WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECONIE EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, lots created in Snohomish County have been annexed to the City of
Edmonds which, due to changes in the City's zoning code have become nonconforming along
with older town lots of the City created at a time when houses and therefore minimum lot sizes
were much smaller and have created a stock of nonconforming lots whose size fails to meet
current minimum lot size requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide limited relief to lot owners
annexed to the City in order to permit them a window of opportunity in -which to develop their
lots, and
V111MAS, the City Council deems' it appropriate to more closely tailor and
define its nonconforming lot combination provisions in order that the requirement of corribination
of nonconforming lots substandard as to minimum lot size achieves the purposes of the Code
without undue hardship on property owners and permits the development of lots fronting on
public streets and allows the City to achieve greater density in compliance with Growth
01 Management Act goals, NOW, THEREFORE,
98223.1
-I-
Exhibit 1
En U.
;_1 0
M
U
0
0
LU
LL.
Z
0'
X
THE CrrY COUNCIL OF THE CrrY OF EDMONDS, WAS11INGTON, Do
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 17.40.030 N-ONCONEQRMM LOTS is hereby amended to
read as follows:
98M.1
I k � �K# 0416H
A. Definition A nonconforming lot is one which met
applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width,
depth and, other dimensional regulations at the date on
which it was created but which, due to the passage of a
zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation
of property to the City, no longer conforms to the current
provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not
legally created in accordance with the laws of the local
governmental entity in which it was located at the date of
the creation is an illegal lot and-wil]. not be recognized for
development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for
any -use allowed by the zoning district in which it is
-located, even though such lot does not meet the size,
width, depth and other dimensional requirements of the
district, so as long as all other applicable site use and
development standards are met or a variance from such site
use or development standards has been obtained. In order
to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum
lot size standards established by the provisions of this
Code, subject to the provisions of Paragraph D below.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size
or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has
been in the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the
nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been
combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent
necessary to create a conforming lot and thereafter may
only be used in accordance with the provisions of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, except as
specifically provided in Paragraph D below.
51a
0!
01
LW
XI 11
4
LU i
U
0
0
us
IL
0
Z
F]
99223.1
D. for Single Familv Dwelling Units. An applicant
may build one single family dwelling unit on a lot or parcel
regardless of the size of the lot or parcel if, but only if,
*one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold
or otherwise developed as any other -nonconforming
lot pursuant to the following conditions and
standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not
less than the minimum lot area specified in
the table below for the zoning district in
which the subject property is located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and
roads required to serve the nonconforming
lot are available concurrently with the pro-
posed development; and
C. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed
in order to create a new buildable lot-, and
d. The proposed development of the lot is
generally consistent with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Lot Area Tab]
% Needed fbr Lot Size Needed
Zone Legal Lot for Legal Lot
(1) RS-�O 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-8 80% 6,400
(4) RS-6 90% 5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to
construct the unit within five (5) years to the date
the lot or parcel is annexed into the City and the lot
or parcel was lawfully created under provisions of
Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as
well as the laws of the State of Washington; or
9--
0,
0
a
LU
LA.
Z
1�1
31
51
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence
on a nonconforming lot without regard to the fifty
percent (50%) destruction requirement of ECDC
17.40.020(F) if a My completed building permit is
permitted within one (1) year of the destruction of
the residence and all. other development
requirements of this Code are complied -with; or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were
recorded in the Snohomish County Recorder's
Office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or
parcel has not at any time been simultaneously
owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel
which fronts on the same access right of way
subsequent to December 31, 1972 and the lot or
parcel has access to an access right of way which
meets the minimum requirements established by this
Code, or
5. For a period of one (1) year from the effective date
of this ordinance, the owner of a lot which was
lawfully created under the Snohomish County
subdivision and zoning laws and which was annexed
to the City of Edmonds since January 1, 1960 files
a fully completed building permit application for
development of the lot in accordance with the
provisions of this Code. This Paragraph D(5) shall
Aunset and be removed from the Code one (1) year
after the effective date of the passage of this
ordinance and is intended only to provide a window
of opportunity for those persons who comply with
the provisions of Paragraph A above but who are
barred due to the passage of time an equal
opportunity to develop a lot in accordance with the
provisions of the Code.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
caUy delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall. take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
of title.
98M.1 -4-
W4
uAg
10" Wi� -111R - 'N `�g
vM
— ..... " "I V-11
.00'
N,
i�g
�` ON
d
APPROVED.,
MAYOR, LAURA M. HALL
ATTESTIAUTHEI-MCATED:
L) 0;
ri) al
LI) Ull
U) LL
-0
w CITY., CLERK,RHONDA J. MARCH
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LJ
OFFICE'OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
z 01
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 04/13/95
Lu Lu' PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -
PUBLISHED:
Lu b EFFECTIVE DATE:
z
Lu ORDINANCE NO.
9rm.l
.11'�''Iwlli� -nm'
ku
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.,
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
1z I!.
ELn LL
— 0
�=j
LU
L)
0
a
Uj
Y
0
z
0
0
On the day -of _, 19�_, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
17.40.030 NONCONFORMING LOIS OF TIRE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE IN ORDER TO BEITER DEFINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
NONCONFORMING LOTS SMALLER THAN MMIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS
MAY BE DEVELOPED AND FD(ING A TOM WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _ day of '199
CITY CLERK, RHONDA J. MARCH
Me's
P.
U.
U)
Ld
Z �-i
LU Uj�
0
a ;7-
LU LLI
Z
LU tn
uy
�- I.-
0
Z
F3
F1
M
City of Edmonds
May 11, 1995
Mayor L. M. Hall
and Council Members
RE: Amendment to ECDC 17.40.030 Non -conforming Lot Development and Timing
On the evening of April 12, 1995 the Planning Board convened a public hearing to discuss an
amendment to ECDC 17.40.030. Official notice of this hearing was previously published in accor-
dance with ECDC 1.03.020 and advance copies of the amendment were made available through the
City Clerk and Planning Offices. One person, representing a property owner, commented on the
proposed amendment. That name along with the audio tape of the testimony were deposited with the
City Clerk.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment
The City Council wishes to provide relief to owners of non -conforming lots annexed to the City and
allow them a limited opportunity to develop those lots. Under the current City code, this opportunity
does not exist.
Background
During the past couple of years, a few situations have arisen that are not adequately addressed by
current City codes. Typically when an area is annexed into the City, there may be a parcel of prop-
erty or two that were subdivided earlier under County regulations that are somewhat different than
current City code provisions. When these parcels are annexed, they may become "non -conforming"
lots through no fault of the current property owner. * If the property owner is not allowed to develop
tile lot to realize its potential, a significant loss of property value can result. If this property is part of
a "retirement investment" package, the loss can be substantial.
With several impending annexations before us, it would seem to be appropriate to remedy this
situation at this time, as a continuing effort of "code scrubbing."
Comments to the Proposed Amendment
The only public comment received was favorable. While the intent of the amendment was generally
applauded, the Planning Board had two concerns: time limits and notification process.
The Board felt that a two year sunset clause would be more reasonable than the suggested one year.
Staff concurred with that point. Exhibit 2
0
A
The Board also expressed concern with the notification process to the property owner upon comple-
tion of the annexations process. There is currently no fail-safe method of notification of property
z owners regarding the non -conforming lot issue and this amendment does not address that issue.
Recommendation
cc
L) Wi Based upon public testimony, Staff input and disrussions,,the Planning Board on April 19, 1995
unanimously approved the amendment toECDC 17.40.030iLraLwA. Ibis amendment will satisfy
the goals of the City Council in granting relief to those owners of newly annexed non -conforming
lots.
LU 0
Respectively submitted,
U) Ken Mattson, Chairman
z Phyllis Becker
77 0
k� 1-1 1 Gary Grayson
LU W� Chris Keuss
Rob Morrison
0— Melody Tereski
Submitted on behalf of the Board by Gary Grayson
z I;;-- I
0'
W LU:
0
0�-
LU LU
P
X
U.
.. Z!
Uj W.
0
Z
FA
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 12,1995
The regular meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Ken Mattson in the Plaza Meeting
Room of the Edmonds Library Building.
PRESEN ABSEN STAFF PRESENT
Ken Mattson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Phyllis Becker Jim Haney, Port Attorney
Chris Keuss Karin Noyes, Recorder
Gary Grayson
Melody Tereski
Rob Morrison
Mr. Mattson announced that Mr. LaFon resigned from the Board for medical reasons.
ANNOUNC
There were no changes to the proposed agenda.
REQUESTS FROM THEAMME=
There was no one in the audience wishing to participate in this portion of the agenda.
PUBLIC H
Jim Haney, Port Attorney, introduced himself and indicated that he was available to assist the Board on the non -conforming
lot public hearing.
Exhibit 3
Mr. Chave said the City currently has non -conforming lot provisions in the Code. A few situations have arisen in the last
year or two, and staff has been researching how other cities deal with these situations. It has been suggested to the staff that
the City correct some of the fallacies of the current regulations (i.e. annexed non -conforming lots, non -conforming combined
lots which front on different streets).
Lu!. Mr. Chave referred to the draft ordinance and pointed out a few clarifications to the Board. Page 2, Item C refers to
X combination lots and contains the general rule for these non -conforming lots unless a -person meets one of the exceptions
.0 listed on the following pages under Item D. Five lines down in Item C there is the phrase "fronting on the street." He
recommended this phrase be removed. It makes no difference whether a lot is fronting on a street or -how the lots are
arranged. The exception to this is where they get into street frontage later in the document. Page 3, Item 3 describes that if
UJ,
LU X, the non -conforming lots are contiguous but front on different streets, they can be separated for the purposes of building.
_J l_
V) U. There is a problem with the existing wording in that the code defines the term "street" as something serving more than three
7 Oi,
J lots. Therefore, he recommended that the term "fronting on the street" be replaced with "fronting on the same access." This
would cover those situations where an access serves less than three lots.
LL <
Mr. Chave referred to Page 3, Item 4, which refers to a Paragraph D which will sunset and be removed from the Code.
x Up Paragraph D gives one year from the effective date of this ordinance to allow those lots which have been previously annexed
into the City to take care of the non -conforming lot situation. This one year sunset period would begin as soon as the
Z ordinance is adopted.
;7- 0
Z I—
LU UJ
Mr. Keuss inquired if after the one year sunset period, would a person be able to change his non -conforming lot through the
variance process. Attorney Haney said this ordinance is intended to deal with the combination of lots and there is no
variance procedure to separate these lots at this time. This ordinance allows small combined lots, which have come into the
a City through annexation and are currently non -conforming, to be built upon as two lots in spite of regulation provisions in
LU L"i
X LY the Code. The type of items a variance can be received for would be to adjust requirements such as set back, building height,
etc. Attorney Haney continued that after the one year sunset period, if a person cannot meet Items 1, 2 or 3. they will be
unable to divide their property as allowed in Item 4.
Z!
LU tnl
U �Z
Mr. Keuss inquired if a citizen will have the right, after the one year sunset period, to be able to request a division of the
property. Are the mechanisms for this process available? Attorney Haney said the mechanisms would be available, but the
Z chances of an individual receiving a variance for this would be small. Mr. Chave agreed. Attorney Haney continued that if a
person does not apply for the building permits within the year, the two adjacent lots will become one and they will only be
allowed to have one single family unit on the lots. No second dwelling unit will be allowed on the lot,
Mr. Grayson inquired if non -conforming lot owners will be notified of this opportunity so that they do not lose their right to
divide. Mr. Chave said there is no requirement that the City notify each property owner. However, they are advertising to
their best ability through the agenda. Ile City could try to get addresses of these non -conforming lots from the County
Assessor , but it would be difficult to obtain the address of all lots which fall in this category. He pointed out that those
property owners most eager to divide their combined lots will be following this issue closely.
Mr. Chave noted that since the proposed language is intended to replace the existing Code, they must make sure the sliding
scale which is included in the current Code is added to this document. This sliding scale was added in July of 1993. It states
that in single family zones when there are two non -conforming combined lots and one is only a percentage of the minimum
lot size, the scale will be used to determine whether thelots can be divided. it is not the intent of staff to repeal this
provision; and therefore, this section should be included in the proposed language.
Mr. Keuss suggested that it is too restrictive to require that the building permit for combined lots be flled within the one year
period. It is one thing to require the application for a building permit, but requiring the building plans is too restrictive. Mr.
Chave said the purpose of this requirement is to allow a window of opportunity but not a long one. These lots were annexed
into the City some time ago. Unless the owners are clamoring to have this done now, the staff is concerned about creating an
open season. He said the whole intent of this provision is to bring lots into compliance with the zoning Code regulations.
Planning Board Minutes
April 12,1995 Page 2
Attorney Haney said the intent of the lot combination provision is to try to encourage conformity and bring non -conforming
lots into compliance with the Code. If the lots come into single ownership they should be considered combined. This
provision is an exception to allow those people annexed into the City a one year opportunity to separate the lots into two lots.
If a property owner does not take this opportunity, the lot combination ordinances will still apply and the lot will become a
single conforming lot according to that Code.
Z
Mr. Mattson referred to Page 2, Item A, last sentence. He inquired if there are no exceptions or provisions in the Code for
.0
_J the illegal lots which were created as part of another local government entity. Attorney Haney said these lots would not
0 qualify under these provisions. A person would have to go through the process of making the lots legal by submitting a
n LU subdivision application. The City does not recognize illegally created lots.
.0 X,
_J I— �
Ln LL i Mr. Morrison arrived at the meetina at 7:35 p.m.
01
Jeffrey Eustice, 505 Madison Street, Suite 209, Seattle, said he represents some people who have a lot in Edmonds which
was legally created as part of the County and was later annexed into the City in 1967. This lot is located on a street with
LL
cn M)
several other lots which are the same size. The owner purchased the lot thinking they could put a house on the other portion
of the lot. The way the Code is currently written, and although there are second houses on almost all of the other lots, the
Z ir- owner cannot put another house on the lot because the lot size is less than 80 percent of the minimum lot size requirements.
1.- 0 This lot would be just as large as the other lots in the area, but because the builder did not build on it wl�fle it was part of the
Z �- County this lot was cut short. This lot has sewer, water, access, etc. but it cannot be built upon at this time. Some people
LU Lu,
may think this is great because it provides for a vacant lot in a cul-de-sac, but things have changed. Under the Growth
Management Act there are requirements that the City allow for affordable housing and create policies to prevent sprawl and
accommodate the future growth within the City. The easiest way to do this is to recognize the lots that are available and
UJ allow them to be built upon. This ordinance does this and does not completely throw open the door. The one year sunset
period is probably a good measure. As was suggested earlier, those individuals with legal combined non -conforming lots
know them because they get additional tax statements once a year and are reminded that they pay taxes for two separate lots.
�L_ 0
Z To allow one or two yeals is reasonable and lies within the policies of the City. This is a good ordinance and provides relief
to the owners of the lots. This will get these lots into circulation and satisfy some of the requirements of the Growth
Management Act in a relatively painless way.
0
Z THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Keuss referred to Page 3, Item D, in the opening paragraph. He inquire if it is necessary include the phrase "but only 0"
Mr. Chave noted that this phrase is a matter of emphasis.
Mr. Chave pointed out that also in the opening paragraph of Item D on Page 3, rather than using the term "detached dwelling
unit" staff recommends "single family dwelling unit" since this is a defined term and would not change the meaning. Mr.
Chave noted again that the sliding scale on Page 127 of the existing Code identified as 17.040.30 (C) (1) would be inserted
as Item D.I. The remaining items in this section would be renumbered. This would include the sliding scale'as one of the
exceptions.
PUBLIC H
ARCHITE
Mr. Chave explained that this draft ordinance contains some provisions which are intended to clarify and/or improve the time
lines and processing of ADB permits. Overall, they are talking about trying to give more definition and standards for
appeals. They are also trying to describe minor reviews or approvals which can be done at the staff level rather than having
to be reviewed by the entire ADB. He described the two most significant changes. As part of the process of reviewing the
ADB and its reviews they also implemented a procedure where they save two weeks of time on the permitting time period.
When the ADB makes a decision, they do so in the form of a motion. What had happened in the past was that there was a
Planning BoardlAinutes
April lZ 1995 Page 3
two week lag time between when the decision was made and when it was set in writing as part of the minutes so that the
appeal period could begin. Now this action is recorded in writing and issued the following day. It is not necessary to wait
the additional two weeks for the minutes to become available.
Ms. Tereski reminded staff that at the last meeting, she requestpri that this draft Code revision be presented to the Board in a
I format which would show the existing Code language and how it was changed. She thought the Board would receive the
original Code plus the draft document combined into a highlighted document. Mr. Chave indicated that he did not provide
Lui this type of document.
0 Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid Drive, addressed her remarks to Page 2, Item 23, which would require a $200 appeal fee�—She
a, suggested that this implies two.things: that people who make appeals are capricious and not serious, and that the residents do
LU
not care for their town or they are too poor to fight for it. None of these implications are true. in the early 1980's the ADB
routinely superseded the sign code in their project approvals. As a result, every time they did she appealed their decision to
LL I
0 the Council. Eventually the ADB started to comply with the Code and dropped the business of arbitrarily overturning the
sign code. She would have done this whether she had to pay a $200 fee or not, and she would have reminded the Council of
the fee each time she addressed them. As a result, the fee would not have lasted very long. Citizens have the right to appeal
an ADB decisions. They are not capricious and whoever is proposing this fee should give examples of what they feel is
0�� capricious. There is nobody so right that the citizens do not have the right to appeal
Z P : Mr. Mattson said part of the discussion regarding appeal fees was that there were capricious appeals anddelay tactics. Yet
0 when the Board inquired how many appeals were filed each year, they were told four or five. Perhaps the appeals process is
i �-
Lu Lu not as bad as it seems in some peoples mind. If a citizen's'board is not upholding the Code, why should someone be charged
S200 to point this out to the Council9
0— Ms. Shippen said she felt the assumption is that someone is trying to shut down a projectjust because they don't like it. But
0 != her interest in the signs was not personal and shelwould have pursued it as much if she had to pay $200. Most of the people
Lu Lul
0� who make appeals are serious people with a legitimate appeal. She said she does not agree with the assumption that appeals
p
LL are capricious. Therefore, she did not feel it was appropriate to require a fee for ADB appeals. The assumption should be
Z that people have a valid and genuine interest in making an appeal.
Lu
Mr. Mattson said part of the reason for the fee is that it takes staff time to set up the appeal process. Ms. Shippen said she did
0
Z not feet this was a valid reason. Mr. Grayson pointed out that this is a new fee and has not be charged in the past. Ms.
Becker inquired if other cities charge a fee for appeals. Mr. Chave indicated that they do, but the amount varies.
Doug Dewar, 121 Fifth Avenue North, said he was the chairman of the committee which has been revieiving the ordinance.
They had numerous meetings over the past nine months to go through this document in detail. The purpose of the ordinance
is to try and make simple things simple. Right now if you want to paint your building and your neighbor wants to give you a
hard time, they can complain to the City and you will be required to go before the ADB for review. He did not feel this was
right. If you are a property owner of a commercial building, you would agree that this is not right.
In answer to the appeal fee concern, Mr. Dewar said there are good points to be made for either side. The fee is designed to
discourage frivolous appeals and to compensate to the City for processing the appeal. If you are a land owner and your
project has been approved by the ADB, a person can appeal the decision and your project can be stopped for up to two
months or more. This causes the developer to lose a considerable amount of money and time. The appellant loses nothing.
In regard to the sign issue, Mr. Dewar said it is the hope of the committee that they will continue to look at signs and the -
ADB in general in the future. As this draft ordinance is written, an existing sign can be changed, but a new sign would have
to go though the ADB review. For those who are familiar with the sign code, this review is extensive. Once a person
complies with the sign code provisions and receives ADB approval, it seems superfluous to have to go back through the
design review to change the existing sign.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
a
Z I-
�_ 0
Z �—
Uj wt
U
0
LL 0
LU U)
0
Z
M
3
Mr. Mattson said part of the new ordinance identifies who has standing to appeal and ADB decision. This is found on Page 3
and should discourage those people without a valid reason to appeal from doing so. Mr. Chave said this section has been
amended and is designed to control frivolous appeals. This requires the appellant to show an interest in an appeal to make
sure it is not frivolous. Mr. Chave said the $200 fee will not recover the entire staff cost in processing an appeal, but there
are no requirements that the City recover the costs of an appeal. Fight now the City has no fee for appeals. Mr. Chave said
the discussion at the committee level revolved around the extremely high cost for the proponent when an appeal is filed.
There is also a high cost to the City in processing the appeal. Yet, there is no cost to the appellant. This all comes down to a
policy decision because the fee does not recover the processing costs.
Mr. Mattson said he would like to see a revised ordinance before making a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Grayson said he is not so much concerned about reviewing a revised ordinance, but he is concerned about Page 3, Item
4. He felt the one year sunset period was too restrictive. People who may own a non -conforming lot who did not receive
information about this opportunity would lose the opportunity. He is also concerned about people who own lots which
would fall under this ordinance, yet they are not ready to build at this time. This opportunity will be lost after one year. Mr.
Mattson said that would be incentive to either build on the lot or lose the opportunity. Mr. Mattson suggested that the Board
could consider recommending more than a one year period.
Mr. Morrison said it seems to him that a lot of this would be resolved if the City, as required under annexation laws, provided
a general bulletin to the general property owners describing the new rules and ordinances. This would call attention to the
new regulations and encourage people to approach the City if they are interested. Mr. Mattson suggested that this type of
discussion occurs as part of the annexation process. Mr. Chave said when the City applies zoning to an annexed area, they
apply zoning which is the nearest equivalent of the existing zoning. There is almost always a smaller lot size zoning
designation than the property was zoned in the County. Very rarely do they ever increase the lot size requirement.
Mr. Chave said it does not make a difference to staff whether the sunset period is one or two years, but if it is extended to
five or 10 years this would concern staff because it would make it difficult to track. If the City makes this opportunity long
term, they may as well drop the non -conforming provision in the first place. Mr. Chave suggested that if someone was
annexed into the City 10 years ago, they surely would have come forward by now requesting information if they were
interested in creating two lots. There will always be those who are uninformed, but the City will do the best they can to
advertise this ordinance and let people know of the change. If this ordinances goes forward, there would be an opportunity
for some citizens and it would be in the City's best interest to get this information to the public.
Mr. Keuss said he is not convinced that the average citizen knows if their lot is conforming or non -conforming. If they don't
know if they have a non -conforming lot, they probably are not going to do anything. Later, when they learn of this non-
conformance, they may approach the City only to find out that they missed the deadline. Mr. Chave said that is the reason
for the other provisions. There will be very few lots which do not fall under the previous provisions.
Attorney Haney said this is a fail proof provision which would apply to these lots which do not fall under the other
provisions. Right now the lot combination ordinance has no lot combination provision to allow separation of the lots. the
one year sunset period is not a restrictive provision. It is opening up the situation for a limited period of time to allow people
the opportunity to divide their combined lots. Without the provision, people would not have the ability to develop as two
lots. How long the sunset period is would be a policy question the Board must address. He suggested that if the City opens
the sunset period too long, the lot combination provision has no meaning and it should probably be thrown out.
Mr. Chave said the reason for the sliding scale which was created earlier and included in the Code is that it dealt with lots
size but still maintains the width and setback requirements. From the public's point of view these lots would be similar to
Z �-:
01
Uj LU:
C3
0
a
LU LU
U- 0
Z
LU in
0
Z
EF
EV
kJ1
requires the development to meet the provisions of the Code. The scale was designed to provide and maintain some
consistancy and compatibility in the residential zones. %
Ms. Becker noted that this would not be a problem in the downtown area because these lots have always been there and were
not annexed into the City. Mr. Chave agreed that these areas would not fall under this ordinance, but there are subdivisions
which date back to the 60's that would fall under this ordinance. Attorney Haney said the reason the downtown lots were
mentioned previously was in regard to all lots being treated consistently. If the City starts treating annexed lots a lot better
than other lots within the City, there will be people in other areas requesting provisions similar to the annexed lot provisions.
The Board continued to discuss the length of the sunset clause. Mr. Grayson said he foresees difficulty five years from now
when individuals begin making these requests again. He felt the intent of the provisions is appropriate, but he is concerned
about limiting it to a one year period.
The Board concluded that staff should bring this document back to the Board at the next meeting with the recommendations
made earlier.
Mr. Keuss referred to Page 3, Item A.2. The last sentence includes the word "should." He recommended that this be
changed to "shall." On Page 4, Item 20.12.000, Mr. Keuss requested further clarification. Mr. Chave said this means there
will be a replacement list of like plants to enable staff to make a decision on substitution of an ADB requirement. Mr. Chave
said this gives staff more latitude in being able to replace not only species for species but also other replacements which will
achieve the original intent of the landscape provisions. Mr. Chave noted that this only applies to commercial and multiple
family developments. Single family development is exempt from ADB review.
Ms. Becker inquired if there is a provision for being late with the landscaping or for inadequate landscaping or maintenance.
Mr. Chave said there is a maintenance bond which is required to cover the early stages of the landscaping. Long-term
enforcement is handled on a complaint basis.
Mr. Keuss referred to Page 5, Item B and requested clarification. Mr. Chave said according to the proposed provisions, a
person wishing to change their existing sign would not have to receive ADB approval. However, if they are proposing a new
sign, this sign would have to be approved by the ADB.
In regard to the appeals fee, Mr. Keuss said if there is no real concrete basis for setting the fee at $200, he would recommend
the Board consider lowering this fee to $100, which seems a little more reasonable. There may be a concerned citizen who
would be discouraged from making a legitimate appeal because of the $200 fee.
Ms. Tereski said Ms. Shippen's point is well taken. Staff has indicated early on that there is no real support in the Code for
the City to recover expenses for appeals. Right now there are no charges for recovery costs of an appeal. She agreed that
there needs to be a value put on the appeal to prevent people from using it to their advantage. But the $200 fee is too higil
and perhaps S 100 is even too high.
Mr. Mattson felt that requiring a person to present something in writing regarding their appeal and then requiring them to
attend the meeting to address the appeal, would take care of the frivolous appeal problem.
Mr. Grayson inquired if there is a way to streamline the appeals process for those issues which are frivolous. He would like
to see no fee for appeals, but that appeals be streamlined to take care of the appeal quicker. Mr. Mattson said that at this time
Planning Board Minutes
April 12, 1995 Page 6
13
M
The public needs to be told that:
M
• None of the Edmonds Financial Center partners were on any Council Membees campaign committee.
• There are no commissions or fees going to unnamed agents or individuals.
• The purchase has no bearing on the current lawsuit against the City regarding the former Anderson property
just south of the ferry dock
Nothing short of Iiill disclosure can dispel the uncertainty surrounding the purchase of this property. What are the
total costs and why a price considerably over appraisal? It's the public's money that is being used and they should
be fully informed."
Mr. Morrison requested that the Board members be provided with a copy of the minutes from this meeting prior to the City
Council hearing on this subject.
0
z 1--.
O�
J.—
Mr. Chave noted that the City Council has approved, on the consent agenda, studies and reviews which are necessary before
LU W�
the purchase of the building. They also have begun the process of space planning for the building. The Council is working
,2 M,
toward providing the answers to the public's concerns.
0—
LU LU
X L)
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON NON-CONF-ORMING LOT PROVISIONS OF ECDC SECTIO
17,40,030
U_ 0'
Z.,J
Mr. Chave said each Board member should have received a corrected version of the draft ordinance which reflects the
U.1 Sar,
Board's comments made at the last meeting.
z
Mr. Grayson said he remembers that the Board discussed the one year time limit of Item 5 on Page 4 at the last meeting. Mr.
Mattson said this was discussed, but there was no action taken to change the time frame. Mr. Grayson said he would like to
discuss this item again to determine whether it should be increased or not. He is concerned that someone with a non-
conforming lot will not receive notification in time to meet the one year deadline.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board of their discussion with the City Attorney that one or two years was reasonable, but if the
City starts getting into a 5 year or more time frame, this could cause trouble. It will become very difficult to start tracking
these properties. Basically the City is looking at situations which have been in existence for many years. At this point,
people should have come to the knowledge that they have a problem. This ordinance will give these people an opportunity
they do not now have. He hesitates to extend this period to five years. Mr. Morrison inquired who is responsible for getting
this information out to the public. Mr. Chave replied that staff attempts to get this information out through advertisements
and news releases. It is difficult to notify each property owner in which this situation exists since the City does not have a
knowledge base that ties people to their property.
Ms. Becker said as she understands the proposal, these property owners are not losing anything if they miss the deadline.
Mr. Chave said these people will have the same situation which currently exists. During the one year period the City will try
to notify as many people as possible through press releases, etc.
Mr. Grayson said a person has five years to get the necessary permitting after an annexation. Why not five years for the
people who fall under this section? Mr. Chave said the idea is that someone who has already been in the City for some time
should know the rules. Those people who live in a newly annexed area may not know the City rules and may have plans for
their property which would have been possible under the existing County codes.
Planning Roard Minutes
April 19,1995 Page 5
Ms. Tereski inquired if there is an appeal process available which could be used for those people who for some unforeseen
reason did not know about the one year time period. Mr. Chave said he would have to ask the City Attorney if this would be
possible. Ms. Becker said she has a concern with bending the rules and making exceptions for certain people which are not
consistent with the ordinance.
Mr. Chave noted that there are several exceptions listed which allow people to develop their properties as two lots. The
sliding scale covers the majority of these situations.
01
0,
Lul
U) LL f
W 0�
Z I.-
;: 0
Z 1--'
LU Uj
0-
W=
LU LUI
X L)
0
Z
Z
-OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Mr. Chave requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting.
The meeting of April 26, 1995 was canceled. Mr. Chave indicated that the next Board meeting will be May 10, 1995. At
this meeting there are three public hearings scheduled. He noted that the Board does not normally like to schedule this many
public hearings for one night, but this may be necessary since the April 26, 1995 meeting was canceled. Mr. Grayson said if
the public hearings are issues that are not highly sensitive and controversial, the Board can get through all three. Ms. Becker
suggested that when the Board has longer meetings, they should provide a five minute break. Mr. Mattson indicated that
anytime a Board members wishes, theyocan recommend a five minute break.
Mr. Grayson inquired regarding the City Council's discussion of the Transportation Plan. Mr. Chave said the discussion
dealt with the LOS and was patterned after the discussions the Board hadwith Natalie Shippen. Mr. Chave said he felt the
Council understood how the LOS works. There were some comments made that they felt the plan, in its present form, is
more reflective of a policy of containment rather than a policy of accommodation. The signals he has received is that the
Council is reacting very positively to what they have been reviewing.
Mr. Morrison said it was his understanding that the handicapped tower with the elevator which is being proposed at the
existing ferry terminal was to be transportable to a new location, along with the ramp. Mr. Chave suggested that Mr.
Morrison speak with Paul Mar, Community Services Director, regarding these details.
Mr. Mattson said Mr. Chave is workin- on a final edition of the Transportation Plan for the Code. He inquired when this
will be available to the Board. Mr. Chave said this draft will track the changes Bell/Walker was supposed to have made in
the draft. He received mark ups from the City Engineers, as well as from Mr. Mattson and Ms. Tereski. He will use these
mark ups to make the corrections by Friday morning. Mr. Chave said once the document has been revised and reviewed they
will get copies to the Board members. It will then be made available to the public. Citizens who requested copies of the
oriainal Bell/Walker studv will receive a conv of the undated rsion
E
Wal
Z
�p
LU Lu
0
a
LU
�L- 0
Z
UJ U)
0
Z
E
3
rt"
AJIf
MEMORANDUM
X
February 9, 1995
City Council
Community Services Committee
Mayor Laura M. Hall
Robert Chave, Planning M;anager.P-'***'
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMM]TrEE, 2114/95 AGENDA
DISCUSSION ON NON-CONFORM[NG LOTS
Discussions to date have identified several situations in which non -conforming lots could be
addressed diffi:rently than they currently are in the city. We have contacted several jurisdictions to
find out how they handle lots which aie non -conforming in area (see table on next page). For your
reference, the ciWs current regulations addressing non -conforming lots are also attached.
Based on our research and the discussions to datc� it appears that the following situations should be
considered:
L Existing small -lot Pattera& Existing parts ofthe established city (such as the Bowl),
mcludc Ongmal planed lots Wfuch are much smaller than current zoning would permit
A possible approach for these areas is to allow deMopment on non -conforming lots
when these lots were planed prior to their inclusion in the city (or alternatively, prior
to a specified date — see Bothell exarriple), and where a house is not demolished to
nuke way fi)r new or more new houses (pattemed after Seaftles solution to the
"skinny house, problem).
2. Newly annexed are= Normally, we annex new areas and apply comparable zoning
that provides for minimurn lot sizes that are similar to those in the county. Because of
the transition from county to city, and to allay fears of property or development rights
being changed, it may be desirable to provide a window of relief for newly annexed
areas. In this scenario, people owning newly annexed iots would be allowed tobuild on
non -conforming lots within, say, five years of the annexation date. This would provide
some relief due to the change injurisdiction while retaining lorigterm compatibility
with the character offt neighborhoodL This would not provide reliefto someone who
wished to hold a non-wnforming lot for a long period oftime without building on it
See Kirkland example.
3. Special situations. Kirkland includes a unique condition addressing certam non-
conforming lot situations (see condition #3 under Kiddand). This would address a
City of Edfnonds cza Planning Division Exhibit 4
N
0
U
LJJ
U.
0
Z
E
U]
situation in which lots are arranged end4o-end, with each lot having access on a
diffiacut street. IGrkland also provides for situations in which a house on a non-
conforming lot may be remodeled or rebuilt without running afoul ofthe non-
conforming lot area provisions (condition #2).
4. General approach. The situations listed above address ways in which specific
circumstances may affect how we wish to address non -conforming lots. The current
Edmonds code language does provide for a general remedy, based on a sliding scale of
lot sizes. For maniple, in the RS-20 zone, a non -conforming lot of 12,000 sqA can be
built on regardless of ownership. T'his is broader than the approach taken in either
Mercer Island or Mukilteo, but not nearly so broad as that of Lynnwood or Bothell
(see table). Kiddand takes a more situational approach, identifying situations
(annexation, access to different streets) in which non-confornung lots can be built on.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) has afforded the city the opportunity to re-evaluate its
regulations. For example, we adjusted our non -conforming lot provisions in mid-1993 to allow for
the sliding scale (ref. 17.40.030.C.1, pp. 126-127). Because GMA encourages efficient use of
urban land, this in turn ambles us to pursue ways ofproviding for innovative housing .
opportunities that are compatible with single &may neighborhoods (e.g. the code provisions
allOwing accessory housing). E=ninn the Ws non -conforming lot regulations within this
context is consistent with GMA and with the city's historical commitments.
Examples from other Jurisdictions.
Can build on adjacent
Jurisdiction non -conforming lot if
sindor camo ja�omhlnl
Conditions
Bothell
Yes
Must be lot of record as of 1971. Variance of area
width oryard requirements may be obtained.
Yjrkland
Situational
May only build if any of the following apply.
(1) Build w1in 5 years ofannamtion;
(2) Remodel or rebuild where a house already mists,
(3) Lot recorded prior to 1972 AND has not been
owned by the owner ofa contiguous lot which fronts
on the same right-of-way shice 1972.
Lynnwood
Yes
Lot established Prior to incolpotation, annexation. or
the ordinance making the lot non -conforming.
Lot width/dimensions must be ;-- 8V19 of zone min.
Mercer Island
NO
Lots combined if owned at any time since 1960.
Similar to Edmonds.
Mukilteo
NO
Combined if under single owneiship at any time.
Similar to Edmonds.
Pap 2
0
ck,
the full restoration of a building which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, The Washington State
Register of Historic Places or the Washington State Cultural
Resource Inventory.
D. Maintena_nce and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming
building shall be permitted.
2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of
the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk
standards, and which -do not expand any nonconforming
aspect of the building, shall be permitted.
3. Alterations required by law or the order of a public
agency in order to meet health and safety Tegulations
shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming structure be moved for any
reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter come
into conformance with the setback 'and lot coverage
reqhirements for the zone in which it is located. Movement
alone of a nonconforming structure shall not require the owner
thereof to bring the structure into compliance with any other
bulk or site development standard of the City applicable
solely to the building itself.
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building is destroyed or is
damaged in an amount equal to 50% or more of its replacement
cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in the conformance with the provisions of
the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made
by the building official and shall be appealable as a staff
decision under the provisions Of ECDC 20.105.030. Damage less
than 50% of replacement costs way be repaired, and the
building returned to its former size, shape and lot location
as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such
repair is initiated by.the filing of an application for a
building permit within one (1) year of the date such damage
occurred.
40,030 M CONFO
A. 12efinit on. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable
zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and other
dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created
but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the
amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the City,
(07/15/93)
125
U.
0
4
LU
2
M
U
0
a
LU
U.
Z
NE
E'
17.40.030
B.
C.
126
N
IN
no longer conforms to the current provisions'of the zoning
ordinance. A lot which was -not legally created in accordance
with the laws of the local governmental entity in which it was
located at the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will
not be recognized for development. -
Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any
use allowed by the zoning district in which it is located,
even though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and
other dimensional requirements of the district, so as long as
all other applicable site use and development standards are
met or a variance from such site use or development standards
has been obtained.
Cgohination. If , since the date on which it became
nonconforming, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in
the same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the
nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been combined
with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to
create a conforming lot and may only be used in accordance
with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
except that:
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold
or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming
lot pursuant to the following conditions and
standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is
not less than the minimum lot area speci-
fied in the table below for the zoning
district in which the subject property is
located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities
and roads required to serve the noncon-
forming lot are available concurrently
with the proposed development; and
C. Existing housing stock will not be
destroyed in order to create a new
buildable lot; and
d. The proposed development of the lot is
generally consistent with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
(07/15/93)
17.40.040
I z % Needed for Lot Size Needed
Zone Legal Lot for Legal Lot
F- Uji
CC M! (1) RS -2 0 60% 12,000
< Mi (2) RS-12 70%
W U! (3) RS-8 80% 8,400
I
CJ 6,400
W (4) RS-6 90% 5,400
U) LU;
LU M,
I �_J [Ord. 2936 §1, 1993; Ord. 2292 §1, 1982.
W U.
0
Ui 17.40.040 NONCONFORMING SIGNS
U_ <M Nonconforming signs are injurious to the health, safety and welfare
(n and destructive of the aesthetic and en ' vironmental living condi-
tions which this Z(?ning ordinance is intended to preserve and
Z J.-; enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance with
;7- i
z the provisions of Chapter 20.60 of this code under the following
terms and conditions:
LU LW
2 M!
Q� A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt,
0 reconstructed or altered in any way., provided, however that
0 the following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in
UJ
and of themselves require conformance with the provisions of
P', Chapter 20.60:
!A- 0!
1. Normal maintenan6e of the sign;
F- R
0 2. A change in the name of the business designated on the
z sign; or
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the
event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident
or an act Of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign Shall be brought into immediate
compliance with the code in the event that:
1. An act prohibited by the provisions of subparagraph A of
0 this Section occurs;
2. The building to which the nonconformingLsign or signs is
appurtenant is remodeled or receives an addition equal to
twenty-five percent (25%) of the building's value prior
to the addition or remodeling;
3. A change in the use Of the building to which the sign is
appurtenant or the land upon which the sign is located
occurs; or
(07/15/93) 127
, ;' " ' - 'f - " ", " - ' _� ;� 'Z" _�' -t'� -� ' ' ii�
jl_'�"11`111 6."S
8�
Z_
�12'13'
NO p"-p� ... ...
v,
M
17.040.040
4.
An, application for th
Made by �the e erection of a new s
Owner or lessee o Ign or sign, is
which the sign is a f the business prem.
PPurtenant. Ises to
z C- Wone of
the 'foregoing
s relating
CC me 'vation of the sign under
maintenance, name change or preseX to permitted
Provision
tPara7aph A shalt be construed so as to p,
ion r res
for pq ervation of AnY nonconfo ermit.the continua-
d 242 ,
19841 rming Off -premises sign.
LU
_j
C0 LL
0
Ui iO�
LU LU
0
LUU
L
z
LU
z
0,
127-1
(167/15/93)
M
Z/,
MIMI
0
01
5
�- 0
Z �-
LU LU
0
0—
(3
LLJ LU
L)
Z
LU Cr
Z
Dill
t
ultimate goal is to come out with a three year phin. CAiief Miller stated that this is a philosophy and wont
change regardless of the size and resources available. Councilmember Earling cornmented that as the
Program grows, there will be lc9dMate reasons for le&imaft fituding. He again asked for a sense of how
the Project will go in a 3-5 year period and the kinds of potential other resources that could legitimately be
requested to make it work more effectively.
COuncilmember Kasper said that the police department has gone from 360/. to almost 440% of the General
Fund. He verified that at the end of the three year grant program, the City would pick up the additional
officer.
Councilmember Earling left for the remainder ofthe meeting.
(C) REVIEW OF FIRE DEPARTMENT VOLUNTEERS
J. P Assistant Fire Chief Tim Whitman advised the Council that the department has gone ftom a time in the 60's
,��,�),w,here it was mostly comprised ofvolunteers to a time where there is one active volunteer, one volunteer on
a leave of absence for EMT class, and a third volunteer that is gone more than here, and seven positions
open. There is still a lot ofvaluc to the service. No new volunteers have been taken in since 199 1. A test
is planned for March I to fill the vacancies. He advised there is enough money in the budget to do what
they must with these people. He indicated volunteering is a good chance for an education -in fire service
which is a benefit for both the City and the individual.
Cquncil President Tom Petruzzi confirmed these additions to bring the total to 10. He expressed his
support of the volunteer program. Asst. Chief %itman indicated that the duties of the volunteers has also
changed over the years. It has been explained to them that theirposition is in a support role, including
filling air bottles, help out on fire scene overhaul, and fire prevention. Council President Petruzzi
expressed his pleasure they are going ahead with the program and voiced his support.
Councilmember Barbara Fahey asked where the 25 applicants came from and whether they have training
when they apply for the position. Asst. Chief Whitman said some have some experience, some have gone
to school. There are some that have tune in at Bates Vocational in Tacoma, but most of the training they
do have is in the first aid area. Councilmember Fahey asked about the baining program at Shoreline
Conummity College and whether they had been made aware of the opportunity to volunteer. Asst. Chief
VAutman responded that with most of the fire science classes through the college, the prerequisite is that
you are a member of a fire department.
Councilmember Kasper asked Asst. Chief Whitman what the rate of pay was for volunteers and was
advised it is $6 ner hour.
01
2.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(A) DISCUSSION ON NONCONFORMING LOTS
I Planning Manager Rob Chave reported this itern has beeri looked at a couple of times in the past. Since
then there has been some research of some other jurisdictions' way of handling these situations. It was
concluded that Edmonds was neither the least restrictive nor the most restrictive. He called Council's
attention to the chart on page 2 of the Agenda Memo which gives an idea of the range of options available.
Tlus range goes from allowing just about any type of development on non -conforming, legal lots to the
most restrictive end which says nonconforming lots are combined if under single ownership. Edmonds is
toward that end of the scale but provides a sliding scale that provides some relieE At this point, it is time to
APPROVEDCrry COUNCIL MINITM
FEBRUARY 14.1995
PAGE 3
"R
Z
V)
U) UJ
LU
-J
V) LL
C)l
LLI - i
Z I-
0
�i �-
LU UJ
L) (1)
0
Z
LU (n
0
Z
El
F71
COunCilruculber Kasper brought up the subject of amexatiolL Mr. Chave indicated that in Bothell and
LYnawOOd, if You are anrcxed� you are fine as long as you have a legal lot. Kirkland has a more
situational Approach. They give a five Year grace period upon annomfion to do something with the
nonconforn"ng lot- 11crc WAS discmi0a about lots that are ead4o-end as opposed to adjacad And the fiml
that as long as there is access to two streeu, both lots can be built m
Councilmember Fahey expressed concern over the idea that a lot is still deemed to be a buildable lot under
ownership by one particular person when the exaid- lot is not buildable if it is under ownership by someone
who owns the adjacent lot. She does not see why one person should be deprived of the use of their land in a
manner f6r which someone else could ideally use the land. Mr. Chave said the overall goal is to try and
have standards that apply equally. He discussed some of the possible approaches to the problem.
Regarding density� Council President Petruzzi confinned dW Edmonds can reach the mandates of growth
management under the current zoning and that zoning would not necessarily have to change. Mr. Chave
commented that there was more reason for them to look at lot sizes has to do more with affordable housing
rather than density. Council President Petruzzi elicited Mr. Chaves opinion that it is difficult to determine
how many nonconforming lots there might be. Council President Petruzzi asked if this is the rhost equitable
thing the City can do.
Mr. Chave asked if the Council was most interested in a broad open approach to the matter, or if it was
interested in a situational approach where problems are anticipated such as annexation. Situational aspects
Mr. Chave feels can be dealt with rather rapidly. If a broad approach is desired, that will take more time to
do the adequate research.
Council President Petruzzi said he, himself� was not interested in the broad approach because of density
and would prefer the situational approach.
Courieftember Kasper Agreed with Council President Petruzzi. He reminded Council that the city was
built with 3W lots. He would like to see something along the lines of Kirkland where hardship cases are
solved first rather than go out and create all new approaches. He would like to have provisions so they
don't have to go through variance processes, etc., unless the situation is very clear. From his standpoint,
the equity areas are the ones that should be first addressed.
Mr. Chave said that if consensus could be reached on situational issues that: are fitirly easy to draft, those
should be pursued. He also suggested Staff could do some research on some of the more broad issues so
Council knows the general parameters with which it is dealing. A broad -based approach may not have the
overall effect that one might dtirk Councilmember Kasper suggested the possibility of reducing the Area of
coverage on the IoL Mr. Chave says that was partially why Staff looked at the first fix to the
nonconforming lot problem. 'Me approach was to try and scale it to the size of the lot. lie logic was the
larger the lot, the more setbacks therewould be towork with before you got into a situation where you
were cramming a house on a piece of property. Then, on small lots, there would be less flexibility on the
nonconforming situation.
. t) .
Mr. Chave asked if Council would like Staff to start working on some of the situational suggestions
through the Planning Board and get them back to Council. 'Mere was Council consensus.
APPROVED Crff COUNCIL MORMES
FEBRUARY 14, 1"5
PAGE4
0
10
should be dealt with in a very time -efficient and cost-efficient mariner. She supports the proposals
completely.
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED9 SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Z TOM PETRUZZI, THAT COUNCIL "PROVE ORDINANCE 3023. MOTION CARRIED.
X 2, HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON NONCONFORMING LOT
< od PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING ECDC SECTION 17.40.030
3
V) Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced the subject by reminding Council it had reviewed this matter
Cn Ul
LU previously. He went on to state that essentially what was being attempted was to address specific
Ln LLI situations that in effect encourage single-fan-dly development to meet GMA goals without changing the
LU standards for development. He then introduced Gary Grayson of the Planning Board for comment.
Gary Grayson, Planning Board, indicated that the ordinance submitted was unanimously approved by the
Ln Planning Board. Mr. Grayson stated there had been discussion concerning § D.5. They were concerned
UJ' that one year may not be sufficient time to allow for proper notification. They would also like to see some
Z type of mechanism for non -conforming lot owners to register their intent. There may be people who may
�- 0 not be able to build on a lot within a two year period for financial reasons. Mr. Grayson reiterated that
Z �-
LU W with the exception of the time period of one year being extended to two years, the proposed ordinance was
unanimously approved.
to,
0— t
Q1-- City Attorney Snyder advised that Council received a letter through the City Clerk from Doug Purcell of
LU LUI
Purcell and Russell. He explained the origin of the ordinance. Mr. Purcell represents one of the appellants
in a prior administrative review process before the Council. Mr. Eustis was the other attorney (and in the
15
Z audience tonight). Mr. Snyder reviewed for the record what the Citys process has been. As the Writ of
UJ U) Certiorari went forward Mr. Eustis and Mr. Snyder, by agreement, have continued the preparation of the
U —
�- transcript. It is generally Mr. Snydees policy on appeal not to try to resolve or negotiate an administrative
0
Z appeal or review by Writ of Certiorari by any proinise of Council action. He indicated he can not
determine what Council as a legislative body can do, nor what the Planning Board!s recominendation has
been. For the record, Mr. Snyder's recollection on this matter was that at the end of the hearing
Councilmembers Fahey and Kasper had indicated a desire to review the nonconforming lot provisions.
This matter went forward independently through the staff The Council committee process has been
noticed in accordance with standard changes in the City zoning code. Mr. Snyder wanted to confirm that if
J Mr. Eustis testifies on behalf of his clients, it would be appreciated that he would note that the two men
7' have not attempted to resolve this suit by negotiation and exclude Mr. Purcell, but rather step back ftom
the administrative proms, let his independent action go forward to see if it would resolve the situation that
his clients had. If the Council desires at the conclusion on the hearing to continue the public hearing in
0 order to provide Mr. Purcell or his clients an opportunity to testify, that is within Council discretion.
Mr. Chave described how this proposal came forward. He noted that these provisions are patterned in
large part after an ordinance * Kirkland has on the books dealing specifically with these types of cases. 1hey
were not considering any previous administrative actions that were taking place in this city. It was purely a
legislative process they were following,
0
Councilmember Earling asked about annexations and how notification would be sent to owners of any
nonconforming lots. Mr. Chave responded that during the annexation process there are a number of
opportunities. He suggested that as part of that there would be included a packet of information that would
highlight certain things that take effect when you are a residcnt of the city of Edmonds. One item would be
ATTACHMENT 10 APPRom crrycomcALY1 mKul=995
File No. AP-97-75 PAGE 12
0 10
remove responsibility for ADB review of remodeled commercial buildings not be approved. She feels this a
major change and not a minor amendment. Ms. Shippen feels it makes substantial changes in the authority
of the ADB and takes a great deal of responsibility away from it permanently. Ms. Shippen then called
attention to page 3, Section 20.60,020 on signs. It says that a replacement of an existing sign does not
require ADB approval unless there is a significant change in the general characteristics of the sign. She
Z
Lu� cited these as two examples where Staff would be required to make decisions in areas where they have not
previously had that responsibility. She thinks this is a major reduction in the authority and responsibility of
the ADB. She feels they have served the citizens very well over the last 20 years and should not have this
0
n , responsibility removed from their domain.
LU
Doug Dewar, 121 - 5th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Dewar explained that not all remodels would be
LL:
0 exempted, only those relatively minor remodels that don't change the footprint of the building or the basic
form of the materials of the existing building. With regard to the sign issue, Mr. Dewar explained that if an
owner desires to repaint a sign in the same form it previously existed, the matter would not need to go to the
ADB for review. If a completely new sign is wanted, the matter must be taken before the ADB. He feels
94 Ms. Shippen's concern that this is a major change is not wan -anted if everything is read in context.
LU �
Z �—
�- 0 Jeff Oaklief, 169 Etruria, Seattle, is the Vice -Chairman of the Architectural Design Board. He believes the
Z �- ,
W UJ intent of the Oversight Committee was to streandine the commercial building aspect so that minor projects
using similar materials and similar colors would not need to be taken to the ADB.
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the meeting and remanded the matter to Council.
LU U,
X 01
When questioned by Councilmember Fahey as to the language contained in paragraph "ell on page 5, Mr.
�L- 6
Z' Chave indicated they were trying to keep away from tampering with existing language as much as possible
W (n� and deferring that for the detailed look at signage provisioas that will hopefully be dealt with next year. He
U —1 "
indicated they were trying to add some latitude and discretion for some minor projects.
0 4,
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that one of the complexities of the City's Code is that if a citizen
objected to the Staffs interpretation and application of that provision, that citizen could appeal under a
separate section of the Code involving staff interpretations, and that'does; not have an appml fee.
Council President Petruzzi staW he and Councilmernber Fahey were mernbers of the conunittee, and that
throughout the meetings it was the intent to streandine where major changes were not being made on
buildings or signs. The committee found that a lot of the language was cumbersome and difficult to work
with. He discussed further rationale used.
E
lsli
Mayor Hall inte�ectcd a reminder that the reason Edmonds is liked is because the ADB has been doing
something right for approximately 20 years. She expressed appreciation for all the work done. She
indicated there were some changes needed, some of which were being incorporated into this plan. Like
anything else there are fluctuations. She reminded there is a method of appeal. She said Staff may have to
be somewhat more subjective.
Councilmember Fahey feels that the changes reflect concurrence and acceptance of the ADB members.
These members did not feel threatened or that any of their ability to influence the architecture or ambiance
of the city would be diminished. She also feels that the changes reflect very well vocalized concerns
coming from the business community via the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmernber Fahey feels that
with the changes the ADB will be able to morc effectively deal with the more critical issues of evaluating
new projects and major remodels and not waste their time with things that are pretty much standard and
AMOV111MYCOUNMhMUTES
MAY 16. 1 "S
FAOE I I
M<1
u?,
Z I-
�R
LU W
0
a ;—I
LU UJI
Z
Ui Cn
0
Z
a
[a
CW
to highlight to a perspective new resident that they have a window of opportunity to develop a
nonconforming lot. Mr. Chave indicated that more challenging was notification of those already owning
nonconforming lots. Discussion followed on various methods whereby notice could be given of the window
of opportunity.
City Attorney Snyder advised that two forms of notice that the City has reviewed over the past seven or
eight years that he does not recommend be considered: 1) Recording the ordinance which would show on a
title that provisions of the zoning ordinance are excluded. It is unlikely to produce any prompt notice to a
current property owner. 2) Mailing actual notice to property owners which can under some circumstances
produce substantive due process problems.
Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing.
Janis McClain, 20704 - 82nd Ave. W., Edmonds. Ms. McLain spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She
noted that the original Hearing Examiner on this issue said safety was not an issue in subdividing
nonconforming lots. Ms. McLain disagreed and cited several examples of damage and potentially
dangerous situations. She then went on to describe a tragic event in which her daughter's leg was badly
injured. She feels safety is a big concern here and asked Council to not allow nonconforming lots
Kettie Brownwill, 8211 - 208th S.W., Edmonds. Ms. Brownwill is represented by Mr. Purcell and wished
to confirm receipt of his letter to Council.
Jeffrey Eustis, 505 Madison, 4209, Seattle. Mr. Eustis is an attorney representing Wilma Snyder who
would be a beneficiary of the ordinance. He does not feel the dispute is on any one specific lot or road in
the city. He thinks it involves a city-wide planning decision. Edmonds has a circumstance where lots were
created before through the County and these lots no longer meet the minimum requirements for zoning, and
zoning changes. The problem is there are people who own these lots that were created as legal building
lots. With the Growth Management Act; Council is also confronted with an obligation to try to make
accommodations for the population that is expected to reside here in the next 20 years. That also means a
certain amount of indecision as to how to accommodate that population. Mr. Eustis says one of the easiest
ways of doing so is to allow previously legally created but currently nonconforming lots to be built upon.
Iley were designed to be served by roads, sewers, water, and everything. It would simply acknowledge the
pre-existing status. Mr. Eustis restated his belief that he did not think safety concerns were a particular
problem. Mr. Eustis thinks the ordinance addresses the need to accommodate more population with only a
slight adjustment.
George McClain, 20704 - 82nd Ave. W., Edmonds. Mr. McLain feels that the proposal to amend the City
of Edmonds zoning requirements should not be approved by the Edmonds City Council. He and his wife
purchased their home in Edmonds because the City demonstrated the courage to restrict unreasonable
development that does not concur with the well-defined zoning laws. Purchasers of the substandard lots
have known these lots were unbuildable, and they should not now be allowed to build on these lots in order
to profit at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood. He feels the proposed change greatly diminishes
his property value in terms of lifestyle, quality of fife, and resale value. He asked the Council to consider
the precedent the change would make and to show courage in maintaining the lifestyle the homeowners have
in the community.
Wilma Snyder, 8217 - 208th S.W., Edmonds. Ms. Snyder discussed some of her safety concerns which
dealt primarily with automobile speeds. She also. said that people in her fixed income position might have
their retirement funds stretched by being able to sell their other lot. - She urged passage ofthe ordinance.
APPROVEDWYMUNM LOWTUS
MAY 16, 1 M
PAGE 13
W
10
Mayor IWI closed the public portion of the meeting and remanded the matter to Council. She also again
reminded Council of the letter received from Purcell and Russell.
r-
COuncilmember Fahey stated she was pleased with the proposal and the way Staff W worked on it. She
expressed her
previous concern over the way nonconforming lots were handled. One of her primary
UJ'
concerns dealt with diminishment of a piece of property as a result of an annexation. She was sympathetic
of the McClains' situation, but believes all the negative she heard dealt with one lot on one street. She
0
0
supports the ordinance and is very glad that Staff came up with a solution for this problem and that there is
Ln
�n LU
the support of the Planning Board.
JJ X
-J �-
LO U-1
0i
Council President Petruzzi commented on Mr. and Mrs. McClain's tragic situation. The issue, however, is
LU
not this particular lot on this particular street. The Council has for many months now looked at the issue of
nonconforming lots. Council was looking for equitable ways to accommodate some of the property owners
LL <�
:)I
who were annexed into the city and thought they had two lots and wound up having one. Council has been
V) 0!
looking for a solution that is fair and equitable and yet has a time limit in which people can step up and say
LLe,
3:
they plan to build on the property. Council President Petruzzi is in favor of the on on the
reco=endati
Z �-
0
nonconforming lots and would go along with the Planning Board's recommendation that the window of
opportunity (page 4, item 5) be increased to two years from the effective date of the ordinance.
W LU
mm
:D a
(J (ni
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCH.,MEMBER FAHEY,
0-1
0 t
THAT COUNCIL PASS ORDINANCE NO. 3024, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT § D.5 THAT
THE TIME PERIOD
BE CHANGED FROM ONE YEAR To TWO YEARS.
W
X
�- P
Councilmember Earling will support the motion but asked Rob Chave to come back with recommendations
�i- 0
Z
on public notification. He is concerned that someone may lose considerable investment if they do not
LU CD
receive the proper notification. Councilmember Kasper also will support the motion. He noted that
annexations are largely built around taking over the debt and taking over police and fire but seldom get into
Z
the intricacies of who owns what and how they got there. He believes this is something that needs to be
addressed. Councibnember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Earling regarding public notification. He
believes that maybe something we can come up with during the annexation process.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS
(,PAO
Council President Petruzzi asked that detailed minutes be taken during this section because he wishes to
establish an easily understood record.
0 Community Services Director Paul Mar said there are three major item to be discussed. He cafled
Council attention to the goldenrod report which is the normal reporting on the progress of the tasks that go
along with the acquisition time frame. Council President Petruzzi confirmed with Mr. Mar that items 27,
28, and 29 have been accomplished. The primary portion of the discussion tonight is on the two reports
that have been subn-dtted to Council. One report is on the engineering inspections, and the other repoM
which is a bound repon, is the Phase I Site Assessment. Mr. Mar asked if there were questions on this
0 portion before moving along to the next topic. Council President Petruzzi asked to make some comments.
Council President Petruzzi told Mr. Mar he had been asked to inspect the buildiM not rebuild it. He
finther advised this comment was only half tongue-in-cheek. He was overwhelmed by a number of issues,
AP=VEDcnycotw=mNT=
MAY143M
PACM 14
10
LLS
LU
UA
z
Z �_
�_ 0
Z I—
LU LU
0;:
a
LU LU
LL 0
Z
LU (f
0
Z
�*l
[a
1. Call to Order
2. Public Hearinp
a. FILE NO. P-97-65 . Application by Classico Homes, Inc. fbr a Preliminary Subdivision of
approximately 2 acres (87,171 square feet) into 6 single-fiamily buildings sites, each with a minimum
lot area of 12,000 square feet. Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification of Edmonds
Community Development Code requirement for the instaUation of sidewaLks within the private road
tract; and, a modification of the required street improvements Wong Maplewood Drive. The proposed
subdivision will retain the existing single-fiunily residence located adjacent to Maplewood Drive and
include the development of private road to access the remaining 5 building sites from 88th Avenue
West. Ile proposed private road will located adjacent to the north property line. The subject
property is located at 20605 Maplewood Drive and is zoned RS-12.
b. FILE NO. V-97:6,7 Application by Al & Batoul Ansari for a Variance to increme the maximum
permitted height for a single-fiunily residence from 25-fbet to 30-fect to allow the construction of a
new two-story single-family residence. The subject property is located at 16008 75th Place West and
is zoned RS-12.
C. FILE NO. AP-97-75 Appeal by John & Sue Waldburger of a Planning Division Staff interpretation
of the application of the "Nonconforming Lote' regulations pursuant to Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single-
family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-6 zone, each with a lot width of
less than the 60-foot lot width requirement for the RS-6 zone. The subject properties affected by this
appeal are located 307 2nd Avenue North and are zoned RS-6.
3. Administrative Reports -No Reports.
4. Adjournment
PARTUNG AND MEETING ROOM ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours a&ance noticefor special accommodations)
8MWM0CAaMA3=
Notice of Development Application & Hearing Examiner Public Hearing
Date of Notice: June 19, 1997
File # AP-97-75
Applicant Informati,op
Permit lnlbrmatlon�
Name of Applicant:. . ...... John & Sue Waldburger
Requested Permits Appeal
and Approvals: .
Date of Application: May 21,1997
Other Required Permits Unknown
Date Application June 12.1997
not yet applied for (if
Complete: ..............
'known): ........... .
Project Location: ............ 307 2ml Ave. N., Edmonds
Required Studies related Unknown
Project Description: Appeal of Planning MAston Staffinterpeatation
to the project: .................
of the application of the 'Nonconforming Late
regulations pursicent to ECDC Section
Related Environmental N/A
17,10.030 related to requesttodevelop two
Documents: -, ...............
adjoining smgle�fmmly lots, andereciamon
ownership, each with a lot width of less than
Public Comments Due:.. July 3, 1997
the 60-ft lot width requirement. The properties
affected by this appeal am amed RS-6.
City Contact: Jeff Wilson
Public Hearing Information
Date: July 3, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. piece: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds
Infiermationion this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City ofEdmonds Community Senices Dep-tormat,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 771-0220. Public curcureents should also be sent to this address.
The decision an this shothipment application will be made within 120 days. ofthe care, ofthe Letter ofCompleteness, ivith allonances, sumbefor swishes and
additional information requests Note tbatabilareacypearladecistom is contingent ulumparficipatlen hotheperieftolecishimprecess.
The mmoval, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notion may be moved
Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after: July 3,1997
fine and Imprisonment.
D
10
3243 25XII
Irvin Pinyerd
James & Sally Wassall
344 Sunset Ave N
342 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA g8o2o Edmonds, WA 98020
Tyra Scott
336 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Delmar & Christine Mack enzic
320 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Btu Joyce Jones
103 nds St
I
Union . WA 98020
Walter Payne
900 Walnut St
Edmonds, WA 98020
JoscpkCharlcs & Sandra Sue Ross
6406 93WI SW
Lynnw?N�A 98036
1
M a
Jac'
3 15 '=- ve N
Edn?'� WA 98020
George & Shirley Rothwill
300 2nd Ave N fla
Edmonds, WA 98020
Maxine Kirkpatrick
300 2nd Ave N #le
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jean Hoggan
6220 128th St
EDMONTON AB
CANADA
Donald 'Memo
332 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
John Pauls
3 10 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bruce & Joyce Jones
103 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Audrey Hirst
115 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Joseph Charles & Sandra Sue Ross
6406 93rd PI SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Winda Russell
311 3rd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Eugene & Fidclia Crumrinc
300 2od Ave N #I b
Edmonds, WA 98020
Louise Drake
300 2nd Ave N #If
Edmonds, WA 98020
Merle & Veva Carpenter
Vivos Inter
300 2nd Ave N #2a
Edmonds, WA 98020
Joh' aul
ftn
310 Sk-�-
Ed;�;'t Ave N
ds\,'WA 98020
J J hNPaujr
01
NO EETNAMEOrNUMBER
. WX N
Eric Oslin
121 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
' ' WA 98020
3�
ED��
.ADXCITY OF
t� _
25CI ' I CN
lidmoAs.'" 98020
Barbara Zawacki
300 2nd Ave N #lc
Edmonds: WA 98020
Eusebia Rentas
3002ndAvcN#lg
Edmonds, WA 98,020
Richard Estrada
300 2nd Ave N #2b
Edmonds, WA 98020
�j
N
Mrs. Ethel Nielsen
Roy John,& Lillian Williams
Molly Foster
300 2nd Ave N 02c
300 2fid Ave N #2d
300 2nd Ave N 02c
Edmonds, WA 98020,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Z
4
Zdenka Spatz
LorrayneThomas
Vera Powlesland
300 2nd Ave N #2f
300 2nd Ave N #2g
300 2nd Ave N
'Edmonds. WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
U1
(all
k1l
Phillip & June Johnson
Mabel Vincent'
William Taylor
300 2nd Ave N
300 2nd Ave N #3b
300 2nd Ave N #3c
—0
LU
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Ca C)
Virginia Stc%%iirt
Robert Nelson
Mildred Shcalian
1-: ui
300 2nd Ave N #3d
2nd Ave N 03c
XX) 2nd Ave N #317
Z�f
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
01
LU Wi
M
um
Bonnie Kirby
John & Joan Pock
Robert Harrington & Jane Tobin
0 ;7.
300 2nd Ave N #3g
300 2nd Ave N #3h
6761 38th Ave SW
LU
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Seattle, WA 98126
U.
Z
Shirley I lobbs
Richard & Mivis Wade
AlbeitTodd
234 2nd Ave N
308 E Lochwood Dr
221 2nd Ave N
Z
Edmonds, WA 98020
Camano Island, WA 98292
Edmonds, WA 98020
Muriel Gant
Ann Cotham
Dorothy Tuson
227 2nd Ave N
Edmonds. WA 98020
120 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
232 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds. WA 98020
0
US BANK OF WASIIINGTON-,FKA
PEOP Sproule McGinucss
WD2 &
Dorothy Tuson
PO Box 147
511
250 h c N
PO Box 720
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmon A 98020
Seattle, WA 98111
Lcroy Middleton
Franklin Rrown
Williant Tuson
417 2nd Ave N
411 2nd Ave N
403 2nd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds. WA 98020
"Pe®r,
Gone Stretch
James Maloney
James & Norma Murphy
402 2nd Ave N
406 2nd Ave N
410 2nd A�6 N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Ednionds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA
4C.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Martha QdUn
4i4 2nd Ave N
Edmonds. WA 98020
z
Douglas Hcrman
321 3rd Ave N
'Edmonds� WA 98020
74
01
Cn U11
William Locke
W
.229 2nd Ave N #3
U) LL
Uj
Edmonds, WA 98020
Frances Blasko -
323 3rd Ave N 0102
Z
Edmonds, WA 98020
us Usi
Stephen Rose & Myrna Luna -Sutton
CO
0
a
323 3rd Ave N #201
Edmonds, WA 98020
LU W
U.—
'Edward & Patricia Pepin
323 3rd Avc N #204
Edmonds, WA 98020
4,
James Winifred Savery
HelenBack
I&
411 3rd Avt N ,
407 3rd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
jam
"2eN Murphy
James & Norma Murphy
Z%t
229 2nd Ave N #2
M20
Edmonds, WA 98020
a d& Jr.
Agncs Beresford
V,
323 3rd Ave N #101
S 9 8
Edmonds, WA 98020,
Robert & Joann Grimm
Kathleen Kunz
323 3rd Ave N #103
323 3rd Ave N #104
EdmoW WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Rose Esparza
Fred Dracobly & Donna Granbcrg
323 3rd Ave N #202
323 3rd Ave N #203
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
3ohn & Sue Waldburger
8107 Frederick PI.
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
S
"i 7" t
...... "iV
�g
1, �4
P;
012ERTY
Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent pro
party owners list.
U11,
LU
-J iE� On my oath, I cerfify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
U) &L
10 located within 300 feet of the subject property.
("I A n t I
Ticant's Represe ive
of nt br App
ZAX
Subscribed and swom to before me this day of
Residing at
APO-doc\LATcmp\fbms
lic!K4nd for the State of WashingtpW.
A 5 L I
t4 X
- V A *
VA S,'�
-7
7M"
Pf
FILE NO.:AP-97-76
APPLICANT: Waldburger
U1
NOTICE OF HEARING
Lu!
LU
ACCIMAXII'lr nt: MnQ"1r1K1r-%
July sworn, on oath, depose and say:
...................
of June, 1997, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted
dinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and
i or near the subject property.
Signed
)m to before me this day of
Notary Public in and for t of Washington.
7ate
Residing at��
2.
20
-97-75
FILE NO.: AP
APPLICANT: Waldburger
NOTICE OF HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
:3 STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
1, DIANE M. CUNNINGHAM, sworn on oath, depose and say:
Lai
That on the'19th day of June, 1997, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as
required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the
applicant.
Signed A AA -A
-in and for tl�e fate of Washington.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day 0
Notary Public
Residing at4,z"a-"�
A li- �"�J
'0
tv,
DocumenC
S
-, m., w"'mm
0
'A
'Affidavit of Mlication
sTATc or wAsmw=ox,
coumry or SNONOWSIL
B-2-1
At 0:
"F-CEIVED
JUN 2 5 1997
EDMONJ)$ C17Y CLEM
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper
printed and published in the % City of -Everett, County of Snohon-dsh,
and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of
general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................
...... Public ... He.a.r.i.nA.A ... icat ion
.... .. .. .... . .............. . . ..............
Classico Homess Inc.
................................................................. 1 ...... ...... .......................... I ........................
File No.: P-97-65
...................................................................................................................................
a printed copy of which Is hereunto attached, was published. in said
newspaper proper and not In supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
June 20, 1997
1 4 .......
.. ....... = .......................
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ......... jqth
day....... :��n.e ..................... .... ...............
. ........... .......
.... . �N;otary..-Yub.1ic in.. -a ior.- th-e;- St te. Washin . gton .
�r
t-Y . at �� Q' mi,
residing at Everett, Snoho Co Y.
,,i&E i
-St -q A%
TAR�,
1*fj 13 or,
7
S 19-98
WAS
10^7171M "rRANSPA17-170-O'
t4UM131MIR C)F PAc3E=-S, 9=04,
(Inclucilrig aover Page)
Flealplents*relaco I N mber,
actutplVISN'T':
Autorriatic/Giroup It
up ill
<2.3 mins.); �Gr
�PMMit ttiarn are any Problarns
clurina transmission or
I—) ciocumarits ora raceivecl
Incomplete. please cult
08) 771-0220 ancl ask
Ser%c!F=No1w4c=o ler Numt�ier: (200) 771-0221
0
1890
Sister Cities Intwt*nmttQn.I Hakins". Japan
w w %0 16- &.1 %.Frnlvll L-L- r"% L.0 W V L—f
N T
COUNT
# 2
*** SEND ***
NOI
REMOTE STATION I.D.
START TIME
DURATION
#PAGES
COMMENT
11
12063393049
6-17-97 3:14PM
1.25-
2
TOTAL 0:01'25" 2
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
�Zst. 189'
Now Are,! C6de (425)
CITY OF, EDMONDS, Effedive , April 2 BARBARA FAHEY
7-199T�
MAYOR
260 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works Planning Parks and Recreation Engineering
TELECOPIER COVER PAGE
& t
TO: DATE TRANSMITTED:—. CIT
NUMBER OF PAGES:
(including Cover Page)
Recipients Telecopier Number:
FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT:
Automatic Group It
(2,3 mins.); Group III
FROK if there are any problems
during transmission or
documents are received
incomplete, please call
(206) 771-0220 and ask
for
Sender!s Teleconier Number: (206) 771-0221
*.incorporated August 11, 1890 *
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
THIS IS A tEGALAMQV<z,")'EMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED DEPARTMENT
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Z
't .1
Name of Applicant:
Classico Homes, Inc.
r
File No.:
P-97-65
Project Location:
20605 Maplewood Dr., Edmonds
Project Description:
Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 2 acres (87,171 square feet) into 6 single-
L)
family buildings sites, each . with a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet,
n
Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification of Edmonds Community
Development Code requirement for the installation of sidewalks within the private
Ln LL
0
road tract; and, a modification of the required street improvements along
Maplewood Drive. The proposed subdivision will retain the existing single-family
residence located adjacent to Maplewood Drive and include the development of
U-
private road to access the remaining 5 building sites from 88th Avenue West. The
Lo d
proposed private road will located adjacent to the north property line. The subject
X 0
I-- -F,
property is zoned IRS -12.
Z F-1
City Contact:
John Bissell
!0!
j 1--i
Public Comment Period Due By:
7/3/97
W Lul
Is :)�
5 0�
U
0 ;7-
Name of Applicant:
Al & Batoul Ansad
a
File No.:
V-97-67
LU LU
X
Project Location:
16008 75th Pl. W., Edmonds
�- ;:4
U- 0
Project Description:
Variance to Increase the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence
Z
from 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family
residence. The subject property is zoned RS-1 2.
City Contact:
Meg Gruwell
Public Comment Period Due By:
7/3/97
Name of Applicant:
John & Sue Waldburger
File No.:
AP-97-75
Project Location:
307 2nd Ave. N., Edmonds
Project Description:
Appeal of a Planning Division Staff Interpretation of the application of the
'Nonconforming Lots" regulations pursuant to Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining
single-family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-6 zone,
0
each with a lot width of less than the 60-foot lot width requirement for the RS-6
zone, The subject property affected by this appeal are zoned RS-6.
City Contact:
Jeff Wilson
Public Comment Period Due By:
7/3197
0
TIME: 9:00 AM
DATE: July 3, 1997
LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St, Edmonds
1-4
9
Z
0,
LU LU;
0 D)
Z
Uj (n
Z
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Waldburger:
Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed
below.
Action: Appeal of Planning Staff InIMretation
File No. Assigned: AP-97-75
Date of Hearing: JULY 3,1997
Time: 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible.
Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
Hearing Body: -- Hearing Exan-tiner
Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative
is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Item not reached by the end of the hearing
will be continued to the following montWs agenda.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220.
0 Sincerely,
gpity Services Department - Planning Division
on, AICP
Jeffhq'y S�Vils-
Current Planning Supervisor
pc: File No. AP-97-75
ff-M-14= * Incorporated August 11, 1890 *
ONW.CORRESORNancs Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0 N
-i.-
7 Z
-c- �
<
LLJ
LU
Ln LL
0
LU
cc
LL
M
LU.1
z I—
0
Z �—
LU LU
L)
0
LU LL1,
Ll
z
LU Cl)
L)
0
z
rQ
L
X
RECEIVED
AY
M 131991,
ROUTED TO:
EDMOND9 FIRE DEPr�
ETURNED.
Engineering 5/23/97�
Engineering
Fire.
Public Works 5/23/97,
P6 bllc:VfdrK�
Parks ex Rec. 5/23/97
Parks la" Rec.
Staff Comments: wv_
h
*PER WHATSECTION OFTHE:COD E?�
*COMMENTS WIT14OUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Additional Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner 1OHN at SUt WALDBURGER
• Property Address__JL+07-��
e]S 0-1 ZOA Ave— KD
Date of Applicadon 5/21/97
Typ APPEALING STAFF INTERPRETATION OF ECDC 20.105.010.&1 NON
CONFORMING LOTS
Hearing Required: Yes—X_ Nq-_
Date of Hearing (if known)
x —Application
_--site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
X —Fee
—Site, Plan (I I x M
X APO List
____jegalsr (EA'sting & Proposed)
-ritle Report
_--avironmental Assessment
Vicinity Map
—proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU)
Elevations
_Declarations (Variance) .....
Petition (Official Street Map)
_,.�Environmental Checklist
Critical Areas Determination
Z
LU
u
-j
JO
LLI
V) LL
LLJ
LL
D
LLI.
z
0
Z
LU LU
U
0
LU LLI
M
U- 0
z
L Lj (j)
0
z
i
Owner ]OHN ex SUE WALDBURGER
Property Address 107 FREBE . RIC*jIt. 30-1 2,vt6L Avt-, k-21
Date of Application 5/21/97
1.1
�M
k
Z
LLJ U
_j
L) 0
V) a
Lt) LU
Uj
_j
U) LL
0
LLJ
cc
<
D
0
Uj.
z
1.- 0
Z 1-
LU LU
0—
LU UJI1
r L)
f P!
�L_ 0
z
Uj Ln
U
0
z
0
R E6 W tv fs
2 31097
ROUTED TO:
RETURNED� NGI,N EEFjlrL4j§
E".
W"o
rl 'g ,
Englnie n
FI re:,.
Public Works-
Public.Works
_5/23/97'
Parks ex Rec. 5/23/97
Parks Rec
Staff Comments:
MA J,
60
*PER WHAT SECTION -OF THE CODE?
*COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Addiflonal Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner 1OHN ex SUE WALDBURGER
• Property Address 8 t0ZFREDE&tGK-Pl:-.
I Date of Applicadon 5/21/97
• Type APPEALING STAFF INTERPRETATION OF ECDC-20.1105.011O.A3 NON
CONFORMING LOTS
• Hearing Required: Yek X No_
Date of HearIng (If known)
X _Application
_____Site Plan for Short Sub&iSion (8.5X�11)
X Jee
______Site Plan (11 x 17)
X —APO Ust
—Legals (Usting & Proposed)
_'Title Report
__lEnvironinental kisessment
Vicinity Map
___�_�Proof of 2 -Year Occupancy (ADU)
Elevations
(Variance)
Petition (Official Street Map)
_____5nvimnmentW CheWist
Critical Areas Deterinination
[E
___""RM4M6
0 � _. � I
d
Vl�
'14
Ail
...................
MEMORANDUM q*Af
CrrY OF EDMONDS
ENGV4EEWGDIMON
< J_:
z
LIJ
<
W L)
0
W
LU
_j
V) U.
0
LU
2
cc
LL_ <
D
D) 0
LLJ.
0
Z �-
LU LU
p
U
0
LU W,
LL 0
z
LU Ln
U
z
T,
1*1
El
ON ROUTING1-FORM
FILE: AP-97 75'
Imn H
LA'
FROM::, P NNING
ROUTED TO: �:AE
T*
URNED:.., .
En neering 5/23mi
Engineering
Fire .5/23/97
re"
Public Works 5/23/97�'r,_.:'�'!
PubilcWorks
Parks & Rec'.- - 5/23/97�
Staff Comments:
*PER W I HAT SECTIO'N-:O'F THE CODE?
*commmirs WITHOUT C1tATi1bNSw1LL+kbT BE,CONSIDERED
,*Additional Information Requinad for Complete Applicafion
*Additional Studies Required.to Complete Rev'
iew.
• Owner 1OHN ex SUE WALDBURGER
• Property Address
tn'.
I Date of Application 5/21/97
Type APPEALING STAFF INTERPRETATION: OF ECDC 20.105.01 O.A.3 NON
CONFORMING LOTS
Hearing Required: Yes.-X— No
Date of Hearing (if known)'
X _Application
X —Fee
X -APO Ust
Titte Report
— Vicin ity Map
Elevations
Petition (Offidal Street Map)
Critical Areas Determination
E
11
C11)
CITY OF EDMONDS NO. 22924
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Date:
Received of:
r
ash 4
Tax
Date of Hearing: Time:
By: Permit
0
�A S
"M
m;
Nil
`Z
T. g*
, M.
Ow lvi�
N !,�LO
V%,
"'R
AJ-�t� t
ADjACENT,PROPE&TY OWNERS LIST
i 80 feet of
z On my oath I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located %ee subject
property.
, '441
St
Subscribedand swom before me this 21 day of May 1997
%th
Notary Public in an or the state of Washington
Residing at
WA
Jean Hoggan
George & Shirley Rothwall
6220 128th St
300 2nd Ave N fla
Edmonton Ab
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Bonnie Kirby
John & Joan Peck
300 2nd Ave N f3g
300 2nd Ave N f3h
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Eugene & Fidelia Crunrine
Mildred Sheahan
300 2nd Ave N fib
300 2nd Ave N #3f
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Robert Nelsen
Virginia Stewart
300 2nd Ave N #3e
300 2nd Ave N f3d.
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
William Taylor
Mabel Vincent
300 2nd Ave N f3c
300 2nd Ave N 13b
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Phillip & June Johnson
300 2nd Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Maxine Kirkpatrick
300 2nd Ave N fle
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Lorrayne Thomas
300 2nd Ave N f2g
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Louise Drake
300 2nd Ave N Af
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Roy John & Lillian Williams
300 2nd Ave N #2d
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Barbara Zawacki
300 2nd Ave N f1c
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Vera Powlesland
300 2nd Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Zdenka Spatz
300 2nd Ave N #2f
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Molly Foster
300 2nd Ave N j2e
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Mrs. Ethel Nielsen
300 2nd Ave N #2C
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
0
Richard Estrada
Eusebia Rentas
300 2nd Ave N f2b
300 2nd Ave N 019,
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3152
Merle a Veva Carpenter
%Tohn &'Geraldine Kraski
300 2nd Ave N-02a
326 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020-*3152
Edmonds WA 98020-3142
V
Delmar & Christine Mackenzie
John Pauls
320 Sunset Ave N
310 Sunset Ave N
Cn U.
Edmonds WA 98020-3142
-Edmonds WA 98020-3142
U-
Eric Oslin
Audrey Hirst
L'O 0,
121 Edmonds st,
115,Edmonds St
ZI--,
Edmonds WA 98020-3125
Edmonds WA 98020-3125
0
LU LU,
Walter Payne
0
900 Walnut St
Edmonds WA 98020-�335
UJ LU
4
Donald Thorne
332 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020-3142
William Tuson
403 2nd Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020-3105
0
OW-4
�i
LU
0
a
LU
LL
0
z
Irvin Pinyerd
344 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tyra Scott
336 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Delmar & Christine Mack enzie
320 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bru ' '&Joyce Jones
'2 "
103 'nds St
Edmon , WA 98020
Walter Payne
900 Walnut St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Joscphfha�lcs & Sandra Sue Ross
640693 1 SW
WA 98036
James & Sally Wassall
Priscilla Elfers
342 Sunset Ave N
6823 Ripley Ln N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Renton, WA 98056
Donald Thorne
John & Geraldine Kraski
332 Sunset Ave N
326 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
John Pauls
'o hnVa
3 10 Sunset Ave N
JOS
3 et Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bruce & Joyce Jones
103 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Audrey arst
115 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Joseph Charles & Sandra Sue Ross
6406 93rd PI SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
98020
Joi!N
,ZPau
N ET NAME or NUMBER
, W7
Eric Oslin
121 Edmonds St
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jack Zapara
315 3rd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
ackvapaea
3 3 ve N
15
A
Wanda Russell
311 3rd Ave N
ED CITY OF
250 Z4- �,
c N
Edm WA 98020
ev
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmoils,.F 98020
George & Shirley Rothwall
Eugene & Fidelia Cruntrine
Barbara Zawacki
0 300 2nd Ave N #Ia
300 2nd Ave N #lb
300 2nd Ave N #Ic
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Maxine Kirkpatrick
Louise Drake
Eusebia Rentas
300 2nd Ave N #lc
300 2nd Ave N #If
300 2nd Ave N #Ig
0 Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
lean Hoggan
Merle & Veva Carpenter
Richard Estrada
6220 128th St
AB
Vivos Inter
300 2nd Ave N #2b
.'EDMONTON
300 2nd Ave N #2a
Edmonds, WA 98020,
CANADA
Edmonds, WA 98o2o
0
`7, 1
i77,
N
E-4
Z
LU
2
D
U
0
a
W
LL.
0
Z
Mrs. Ethel Nielsen
Roy John & Lillian Williams
Molly Foster
300 2nd Ave N 42c
300 2nd Ave N #2d
2nd Ave N #2c
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Z&nka Spatz
Loorrayne Thomas
Vera Powlesland
300 2nd Ave N 42f
'300 2nd Ave N #2g
300 2nd Ave N,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phillip & June Johnson
Mabel Vincent
William Taylor
300 2nd Ave N
300 2nd Ave N. Ob
300 2nd Ave N Oc
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Virginia Stewart
Robert Nelsen
Mildred Sheahan
300 2nd Ave N Od
306 2nd Ave N Oo
300 2nd Ave N Of
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bonnie Kirby
John & Joan Peck
Robert Harrington & Jane Tobin
300 2nd Ave N Og
300 2nd Ave N #3h
6761 38th Ave SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA �98020
Seattle, WA 98126
Shirley Hobbs
234 2nd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Richard & Mavis Wade
308 E Lochwood Dr
Camano Island, WA 98292
Albert Todd
221 2nd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Muriel Gant
Ann Cotham
Dorothy Tuson
227 2nd Ave N
120 Edmonds St
232 Sunset Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edm ends, WA 98020
US BANK OF WASHINGTON;FKA PEOP:
Sproule McGinness
&
0
Dorothy Tuson
PO Box 147
�2�O 5�th N
Ze
PO Box 720
Edmonds, WA 98020
11
Edmon , A 98020
Seattle, WA 98111
Leroy Middleton
Franklin Brown
William Tuson
417 2nd Ave N
411 2nd Ave N
403 2nd Ave N
0
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 9SO20
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gene Stretch
James Maloney
James & Norma Murphy
402 2nd Ave N
406 2nd Ave N
410 2nd Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
A�
0