LL-07-82 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
FILE # LL -2007-0082
PROPERTY LOCATION 21117, 21207, and 21221 Shell Valley Road
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Tim Bowen
APPLICANT Tim Bowen
PROPERTY OWNER(S) Laura Mason and David Thorpe (21117 Shell Valley Road),
Timothy Bowen 21207 Shell Valle), and Linda Wright (21221 Shell Valley Road)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot line adjustment to convey the southeastern 2,494 square
feet of the property addressed 21117 Shell Valley Road (Parcel C) to the adjacent properties to
the south addressed 21207 Parcel B and 21221 Parcel A Shell Valley Road so that the new
lot line follows the existing fence line separatingthese hese_properiies.
A. INTRODUCTION:
The applicant is proposing to adjust the boundary lines among three lots addressed as
21117 (Parcel C), 21207 (Parcel B), and 21221 (Parcel A) Shell Valley Road. The
application is provided as Attachment 1. The subject properties are located in a Single -
Family Residential (RS -8) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square
feet. See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2).
A fence was constructed separating Parcels A and B from Parcel C approximately 20
years ago, according to the applicant. This fence; however, was constructed at a range of
approximately 17 to 19 feet north of the northern property lines of Parcels A and B.
Therefore, the proposed lot line adjustment is intended to convey the approximately 17 to
l9 foot wide strip of property from the southern portion of Parcel C to the northern
portions of Parcels A and B so that the new property line reflects the existing fence line
and the portion of Parcel B that has been a part of the backyards of Parcels A and B for
the past several years will be conveyed to the owners of Parcels A and B. The existing
residences are proposed to remain.
B. ANALYSIS OF DESIGN:
1. Number of Lots Involved: Three lots.
2. Lot Area/Width:
a. Minimum lot area required for RS -8 zone: 8,000 square feet
Bowen, Mason, Thorpe, Wright
File No. LL -2007-0082
Page 2 of 6
b. Proposed lot sizes:
Gross lot area for
ori inal arcels (sq. ft.)*
Gross lot area for
proposed parcels (sq. ft,)*
Parcel A 8,046
9,350
Parcel B 8,047
9,237
Parcel C 49,475
46,981
* Note: Net lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular
ingress/egress easements. Parcels A and B share a vehicular access point via
an ingress/egress easement, and Parcel C shares a vehicular access point via
an ingress/egress easement with the property addressed 21127 Shell Valley
Road (not part of the subject application), Therefore, the net areas for each
subject Iot is less than the gross areas stated above. However, since the lot
areas of the two smaller lots, Parcels A and B, are getting larger with the
proposed lot line adjustment, there is no concern that the net lot areas of any
of the subject properties would become more nonconforming, if currently
nonconforming, following the lot line adjustment. It appears that the
proposed lot line adjustment will in fact bring the net areas of Parcels A and
B into compliance with the minimum 8,000 net square foot lot size required
by the RS -8 zone.
c. Minimum lot width required for RS -8 zone: 70 feet
d. All lots meet minimum lot width?: Parcel C meets the minimum required lot
width for the RS -8 zone. Although Parcels A and B are very close to the
minimum required 70 foot lot width, it appears that these lots may be slightly
under the minimum required lot width by approximately one foot. However,
due to the fact that Parcels A and B are getting larger with the proposed lot line
adjustment, even if Parcels A and B are currently slightly nonconforming due to
a lot width below 70 feet, the proposal would not further reduce the existing lot
width of either lot, and would therefore not be making either lot any more
nonconforming.
e. Number of corner lots: None of the lots are considered corner Iots.
f. Number of flag lots: ots: Parcel C is considered a flag lot.
3. Topographical Consideration: There is a steep slope downwards from the
.northern portion of Parcel C to the approximate center of Parcel C where the existing
residence is located. The portion of Parcel C that is being conveyed to Parcels A and
B contains a downwards slope to the existing residences on Parcels A and B, where
the lots become relatively level. Although there are slopes on the subject properties,
there appears to be no particular topographical consideration driving the lot line
adjustment. The portion of Parcel C that is to be conveyed to Parcels A and B has
been maintained by the owners of Parcels A and B for years and it is due to this fact
alone that the subject lot line adjustment has been proposed.
Bowen, Mason, Thorpe, Wright
File No. LL -2007-0082
Page 3 of 6
4. Zoning Ordinance: The proposal meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Lot line adjustments are not allowed that create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or
division, and this proposal does not. See also "d" below.
b. Lot line adjustments are not allowed if they reduce the setbacks of existing
structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming
setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before. Parcels A and
B will get larger with the proposed lot line adjustment; therefore, no structures
on Parcels A or B, if currently nonconforming, would be made any more
nonconforming than before. Based on the survey submitted with the subject
application, the existing residence on Parcel C appears to be approximately 15
feet from the proposed property line. Since Parcel C is a flag lot, the minimum
required setback for the existing residence from the proposed property line is 7.5
feet. A condition of approval has been added to this decision requiring the
submittal of an updated survey indicating the distance from the existing
residence to the proposed property line. If the residence is not 7.5 feet from the
new property line, the new property line must be moved south or a portion of the
residence must be removed so that it meets that minimum required 7.5 foot side
setback.
c. Lot line adjustments are not allowed if they reduce the lot width or lot size below
the minimum required for the applicable zone. Parcel C meets the minimum
required lot width and lot size for the RS -8 zone. Parcels A and B appear to be
close to the minimum required 70 foot lot width; however, it appears that these
lots may be slightly under 70 feet in width by approximately one foot. However,
due to the fact that Parcels A and B are getting larger with the proposed lot line
adjustment, even if Parcels A and B are slightly nonconforming due to a lot
width below 70 feet, the proposal would not be making either lot any more
nonconforming in respect to lot width. Additionally, due to the presence of a
shared ingress/egress easement on Parcels A and B, it is likely that the existing
net areas of these lots are below the minimum required 8,000 net square feet for
the RS -8 zone. However, since the proposed lot line adjustment would make
Parcels A and B larger, the net areas of these lots will become less
nonconforming than they currently are and will likely become conforming at
over 8,000 net square feet.
d. Lot line adjustments are not allowed if they transform a nonbuildable lot, tract,
parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division. All
three of the subject lots were buildable prior to the lot line adjustment.
e. Lot line adjustments are not allowed if they would result in a lot that is in
violation of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). None of the
proposed lots would be in violation of the ECDC.
5. Comprehensive Plan: Nothing in this proposal seems to be in violation of any goal
in the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the proposal appears to meet the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Bowen, Mason, Thorpe, Wright
File No. LL -2007-0082
Page 4 of 6
6. Access: The existing means of access to Parcels A, B, and C will not change with
the proposed lot line adjustment.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
1. SEPA Determination: Not Required
2. Shoreline Master Program: Exempt from Shoreline Master Program permits.
3. Critical Area Determination:
Critical areas inspection was conducted for the property addressed 21117 Shell
Valley Road (Parcel C) under File No. CRA -1999-0132. The site was found to
contain slopes steep enough to be considered a Landslide Hazard Area; therefore, a
"Study Required" determination was made. The proposed lot line adjustment does
not require the submittal of a geotechnical report because the proposal does not
include breaking ground. Critical areas inspection has not been conducted on the
properties addressed 21207 (Parcel 13) and 21221 (Parcel .C) Shell Valley Road.
Therefore, a critical areas checklist and the applicable fee must be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to any work that involves breaking ground on either property.
D. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS:
The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject application and is not requiring any
improvements or dedications. Additionally, the Fire Department and Public Works
Department have no requirements for the lot line adjustment.
E. DECISION: Approved with the following conditions:
Include the lot line adjustment file number LL -2007-0082 on the documents to be
recorded.
2. Show the shortest distance from the existing residence on Parcel C to the proposed
property line to ensure that the residence meets the minimum required 7.5 -foot
setback from the new property line. If the residence is not 7.5 feet from the new
property line, the new property line must be moved south or a portion of the residence
must be removed so that it meets the minimum required 7.5 foot setback.
3. Show all existing vehicular ingress/egress and utility easements.
4. Provide the old and new, gross and net lot areas for Parcels A,13, and C.
5. Provide the old legal descriptions for Parcels A, B, and C separately.
6. Include signature lines for all current property owners of all three subject properties.
7. Modify the documents to be recorded to show the existing and new lot lines as well as
the outlines of the subject properties more clearly. Also, show the dimensions of the
exterior lot lines more clearly.
8. Indicate on the plans that Lot 3 is not included in the lot line adjustment.
Bowen, Mason, Thorpe, Wright
File No. LL -2007-0082
Page 5 of G
9. Submit documents to be recorded to the City of Edmonds' Planning Division for
review prior to recording. Documents must have the City's approval before they can
be recorded.
10. The applicant must record the approved documents with Snohomish County Auditor's
office.
11. After recording, provide the City of Edmonds Planning Division with three copies of
the recorded documents with the recording number on them. The City will not
consider the lot line adjustment to have been completed until this is done.
F. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Vicinity / Zoning Map
3. Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Map
I have determined that the application is complete and have reviewed the application for lot
line adjustment pursuant to Chapters 20.75 and 20.95 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
ennifer MachuizaoAaGning Division Date
RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION
A request for reconsideration or clarification of this decision may be made by filing a letter
and fee with the Planning Department within ten (10) working days of the date of decision.
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
This decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. In this case, a written letter and other
items needed to appeal must be submitted to the Planning Division within fourteen (14)
calendar days of the date of decision. Please contact the Planning Division for information.
Note that per ECDC 20.105.010.A.2. appeals of lot line adjustments are limited to appeals by
the applicant only of a denial of a requested lot line adjustment application.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The time limits for reconsiderations and appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock"
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Bowen, Mason, Thorpe, Wright
File No. LL -2007-0082
Page 6 of 6
Once the staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for
filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on
day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal
after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request.
City of Edmonds, Attn.: Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
PARTIES OF RECORD:
Planning Division
Tim Bowen
21207 Shell Valley Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
Laura Mason and David Thorpe
21117 Shell Valley Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
Linda Wright
21221 Shell Valley Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
city of edmonds
land use application
L:ILIBRARYIPLANNINGTom & Handouts%Public Handouu\Land Use Applicatioa.doc
Attachment 1
Attachment 3
p= 3
S<
s s x
j� �p �N 4x
69
uN
m�
�.T
mos
W
o=1YS'~f' Ys �K n
<m
cp m
t
sm
4
E
m`>o
q SYS of i d�
A S
n.
V)
>
m
xyid o E' Wh'3
z9
9z S.
U
m
zv E3 3 �� o�
¢s
En
Y
m
O �
UZ m
C7 Go V
(O EE
rn � n P
,:�
_jw0 �^
i-2'm�n 3
Z
tIj d " c
N 9
t!!11
4
4
U O
€ $no€
a
w
s -H nm�
gg�
�7sol%
rys j wm
��=a
1$
HE
SsF o� Qom$„ mSsgs j 4�N
�
3 S ik`�t
Z,����
i
G pbb 8i qq O y�qq �o��
oo I�
S3
< 5— Sr=
ry I
ia;
€wi �� ju
Q�_
`�
< El -pw
d �� 4 hN z� "Gg
vd mi
����g �o•.� W ��ma`s i'WCzax q .r
§i
9 ff °a SH a^ -M a °small W'd
z°
a
`mac
u
)I
duS
E�Y<I�I
Ya
U
g
�E�ol��
SER
n
a
elm
N
�
= _ �a „ ��e o•
0 3 Suri a - •a-inF � ' E
c"meg
.�� 8
8 d u
€' g. i-5
m °
NI� I
Q
No IX = g'5 -x 6 `s
wo a
v sh.5
•�4
fi $S
�
s
1° I Is
��y
=
� l � w 8 ��g$1i � �
.4LO1'55
$
..Y
°� i �
� � �
S �4 to I C
1
Y Y ij ff
g _
��
� ��c
�� I1�
N
a�sa��
•G
'9a
o�
4
apip
�e
Yz
.E6�
•.sz RA
_ I a
Attachment 3
P
�
_
n
10
S
N
t
u $ r
CC
uj
�3 1 ai
r
C:)
c-
�y
0
w
>
O
i
'\ b�sWa�
P 6i
(i1 U
rm
m
�
ea�_
~Q
t�
Q
o�.
Y
t!lff101
i i01
I"gW SL.t7�S
I [wta�z j- I s ,ra '9 toy
11 Nous°d ^ ." g s azs-Y3ar „
°am w xiwN 91a I a o. �a i 1141
'AIN al'0
Y6afi{ dY] SVM
KZL 1 _
NY93a 'iSIY3 'UNi L� ^1 r'yt�Ll
V.s 13�JO S�QvV
\r1,3Rfit! x -L
'9L f
IL
,18.13 XIVd = I
ti a GZ11y/
l�_°�
z'%Ys iib
9956 q /M
WN °rm AS
9B a
a31is� h
N
l'I
L W -ll -t
93L5H dY�
59ra9 '6NJ
3L4
x Aa3100a 1•L
law
f�
.0N 130'Uyd
x
so -62-9 ds SGRO CR AS Jd 3
�I
h i01
S
6# aNyV aG OAH30U
913019
0 167
v im !0 3Nn 'N
6Z.-
oxo
UZ v
<Nr, Lon O
agrM)(m a
N Ir M`� t✓3 Z.
JWX�W'
>m 1` LOp
zo04 C
SLL
=8(L- O
Q a
ZE
La
�
_
n
10
S
N
t
O
z
I
r
0
w
>
a
d
Z
i
„3
(i1 U
rm
m
L,J
o
a31is� h
N
l'I
L W -ll -t
93L5H dY�
59ra9 '6NJ
3L4
x Aa3100a 1•L
law
f�
.0N 130'Uyd
x
so -62-9 ds SGRO CR AS Jd 3
�I
h i01
S
6# aNyV aG OAH30U
913019
0 167
v im !0 3Nn 'N
6Z.-
oxo
UZ v
<Nr, Lon O
agrM)(m a
N Ir M`� t✓3 Z.
JWX�W'
>m 1` LOp
zo04 C
SLL
=8(L- O
Q a
ZE
La