Loading...
Criteria Update.pdfJune 15, 2016 Jen Machuga City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Variance Submittal for Edmonds Short Plat 18227 80th Avenue West City of Edmonds File No. PLN20150031 / Our Job No. 15370 Dear Jen: We have prepared this variance application submittal for the above -referenced project in accordance with comments we have received from City of Edmonds staff. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. One check no. 21161 in the amount of $795.00 for the filing fee 2. One completed and signed land use application form 3. Responses to ECDC 20.85.010 4. Adjacent property owners list 5. Five full-size copies of the revised preliminary short plat map 6. One 11x17 -inch copy of the revised preliminary short plat map The following outline provides each of the requirements of ECDC 20.85.010 in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: 1. A variance to any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17) except use and procedural requirements may be approved when the findings required by this chapter can be made. Response: Acknowledged, 2. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. PO Box 158 Kent. WA 98035 (2061805-6238 Office (2061550-3189 Mobile Jen Machuga City of Edmonds June 15, 2016 Page 2 Response: The location of the existing house and driveways preclude the design of a 3 lot short plat without the use of panhandle/ flag lots in order to meet minimum lot size. The city has raised concerns that the panhandle/ flag lots are not "practical and could result in the potential future private property issues since the property lines are not located in logical locations". Despite our functional and successful use of this type of design in other jurisdictions, the removal of the panhandle areas from lots 2 and 3 result in lot areas that are slightly less than the minimum lot size required (lot 2 10,340 sq. ft. and lot 3 10,168 sq. ft.). The city also references the code requirement that a proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and relating site design to existing topography. Although the previous design included a smaller shared access easement area, together with two panhandle driveway areas, which combined do not likely materially alter the amount of grading activity as a whole attributable to the site design, we have nevertheless redesigned the layout to provide a larger shared access easement area and no panhandle areas which would appear to better accommodate the city's preferred design; however, this variance application must be approved due to the minimum lot area threshold affected as a result of the enclosed redesigned short plat. b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. Response: We believe the original design of this short plat to be neither impractical nor illogical. We additionally see no issues with future property owners because fencing and landscaping can be installed as we have done in dozens of other projects that would create functional, aesthetically pleasing and practical lot design utilizing panhandles. Grading can additionally be shown to be essentially indistinguishable in the previous design as compared to the current design, which is the subject of this modification request. The special circumstances in this instance are the unique site conditions, location of existing house, locations of neighboring houses and driveways and the city's preference for a site layout more similar to the current proposal. 3. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; Response: The reduction of the minimum lot size in this instance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the city's preferred design issues and is also compatible with other lot sizes in the immediate surrounding area to the North, East and West. We believe our previous design to be consistent with city code, however, the current design at issue requiring this modification approval provides a fair compromise to accommodate the city's site design concerns while not resulting in special privileges to the applicant. 4. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; Jen Machuga June 15, 2016 City of Edmonds Page 3 Response: All comprehensive plan requirements are met in the current proposal. 5. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located Response: The current proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. The current proposal has been designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by using street, house site, and lot placement to the existing topography. We believe the city will find the current layout is practical, logical, and eliminates any concern regarding potential future private property issues. 6. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; Response: There are no detrimental public health, safety, and welfare consequences to this variance approval. 7. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Response: The redesigned current proposal eliminated the panhandles the city disfavored, created a larger shared access driveway area, and reduces the lot sizes slightly under the minimum required by the zone, but no more than necessary. 8. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type 111-A decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Response: Acknowledged. 9. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to the Snohomish County superior court as provided in ECDC 20.07.006. Response: Acknowledged. 10. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Response: Acknowledged, 11. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type 11 decision (Staff decision — Notice required). Response: Acknowledged. 12. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other property. (Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 20091. Jen Machuga City of Edmonds Response: Acknowledged. June 15, 2016 Page 4 We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed plans and application materials, address all of the requirements of ECDC 20.85.010. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, Terrance Randall Wilson Attorney at Law 153700006-S-PRLM-SH PL -Variance enc: As Noted cc: Phong Le, Clear Vision Homes, Inc. Trevor Lanktree, Lanktree Land Surveying, Inc.