PLN200400133 Staff Report.pdfInc.1S )11
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
Letter of Transmittal
Date: April 20, 2005'
To: Charlie Nathun
Nalund and Assoc.
9792 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: S-04-133
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Transmitting Planning Division Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments: X
Cc: Aleanna Kondelis
Gerry Grosz
Sincerely,
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File S-2004-133
From: ct . C:'-- C.CJ.,
Star Campbell, Planner
Date: April 20, 2005
File: S-2004-133
Applicant: Charlie Nathan, Nalund and Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application...............................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision................................................................................................................................................... 2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3
A. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 2
B. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance........................................................................................... 3
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan............................................................................................... 4
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code........................................................................................................... 6
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions...................................................................... 6
F. Environmental Assessment: ..................................................................................................................... 6
G. Critical Areas Review: ............................................................................................................................. 7
H. Comments: ............................................................................................................................................... 7
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................7
A. Request for Reconsideration.................................................................................................................... 7
B. Appeals.................................................................................................................................................... 7
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals......................................................................................... 7
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................8
VI.
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 8
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................8
Nathan Short Plat
File No. S-2004-133
Page 2 of 8
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide what is currently one lot at 22413 961h Ave. W. This lot is in a
single-family (RS-8) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet. See Zoning and
Vicinity Map (Attachment 1). The applicant has demonstrated the ability to subdivide the existing 16,633
square feet lot into two lots that are all at least 8,000 square in area (Attachment 5). However, because this
configuration results in lot lines that are somewhat awkward, the application seeks approval for an alternate
arrangement and preferred arrangement that still results in two lots (Attachment 4). The second configuration
does result in one of the lots having an area that is less than 8,000 square feet. For that reason, the proposal
includes modification request to reduce the area of Lot 1 to 6,737 square feet. The following is Staff s
analysis of and decision on the application.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Charlie Nathan, Nalund and Associates
2. Site Location: 22413 96`h Ave. W. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: To divide a lot with 16,633 square feet into 2 lots in a Single -Family Residential
RS-8 zone (see Attachment 4).
4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030,
site development standards for the RS-8 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B,
Critical Areas.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
B. Decision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of Edmonds
Planning Division:
The Subdivision with the proposed modifications should be APPROVED with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans you
must address the following:
(1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 3.
b) Trees that are not hazards as determined by the Planning Department or required to
be removed as part of required plat improvements shall be left in place during the
subdivision process. The remaining trees may later be removed by individual
property owners upon submittal of a development plan that demonstrates the need to
remove the trees.
c) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents
shall have the following revisions made / information included:
Nathan Short Plat
File No. S-2004-133
Page 3 of 8
(1) The location of the lot line that divides that two lots shall be moved to the
east a distance that will result in Lot 2 (the rear lot) having an area as close
as possible to the the net area of Lot 1.
(2) The new lot areas shall be included on the document. The net and gross
area for Lot 1 shall be given.
(3) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be
found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File S-2004-
133."
(4) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staffs approval block.
(Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have
been approved.)
2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the
recording number written on them.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 3.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Lot and Street Layout
a. This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots will each contain
usable building areas. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section staff
agrees that a two lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property.
b. Lot Area:
Required
Proposed
Proposed
Lot Area
Net sq. ft'
Gross sq. ft
Lot 1 8,000
6,737
8,237
Lot 2 8,000
8,396
8396
'The net lot area excludes the area of any access easement on the lot.
C. Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS-8 zone is 70 feet. The proposed lots meet this requirement.
Note that the lot width of Lot 1 includes the width of the access easement since lot width is
not required to exclude access easements.
d. Setbacks: Setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
Lot 1: Street Setback (25 feet): From the west property line
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the north property line and the edge of
The access easement along the lot's south side
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the east property line
Lot 2: Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From all property lines
e. Corner Lots: Neither of the lots are considered Corner Lots.
f. Flag or Interior lot determination: Lot 2 is considered an Interior lot.
g. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
Nathan Short Plat
File No. 5-2004-133
Page 4 of 8
l.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS-8 zone.
2.) Any buildings or structures on the new lots will be allowed to cover no more than 35%
of the lot.
2. Dedications
a. No dedications are required.
3. Improvements
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 3).
4. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
B. Analysis of Requested Modification for Lot 1 Lot Area
The applicant requests a modification to reduce proposed Lot 1 from 8,000 to 6,737 square feet.
The ability to request modifications is established by ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all criteria
of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved. The Criteria are as
follows:
a. Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic
view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
b. Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in
comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d. Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and the same zone.
e. Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2. Applicant Declarations: The applicant's representative has presented declarations as to how she
feels the proposal meets these criteria (see Attachment 2).
3. Additional Findings:
a. The city of Edmonds is able to accommodate additional growth through infill development.
Certain lots are large enough to develop but, because of shape or orientation, require some
modifications in order for the subdivision to be designed with a desirable lot layout.
Nathan Short Plat
File No. S-2004-133
Page 5 of 8
b. The subject lot is significantly narrower than it is deep with a width of about 82 feet that runs
along 961h Ave. W. and a depth of about 201 feet (See Attachment 4).
The applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to create two lots that meet the minimum
lot area requirement by submitting an alternative layout with lots that are all at least 8,000
square feet in area. See Attachment 5. This layout, however, is less desirable than the
proposed layout (Attachment 4) because it creates odd shaped, triangular lots. Lots shaped
like this would create potentially difficult usable areas, areas that could cause confusion as to
ownership, and would be inconsistent with the shapes of lots in the surrounding
neighborhood.
d. In considering whether or not the modification request is the minimum necessary, it should be
taken into account that the area provided for Lot 2, 8,396 square feet, is more than the
minimum required 8,000 square feet. Also, when the building setbacks for each lot are
considered, Lot 2 has a disproportionately larger potential building area. Note that Lot 2 is
an interior lot and requires only 7.5' side setbacks from all property lines. Lot 1 requires a
25' street setback, a 15' rear setback, and 7.5' side setbacks, with the south side setback taken
from the edge of the access easement.
This issue can be resolved by moving the lot line that separates the two lots slightly to the
east. The distance that the lot line is moved should be far enough to result in as similar as
possible net lot area for Lot 1 as the lot area of Lot 2. Doing this would result in the
modification request being the minimum necessary. A condition that would ensure that this is
done prior to final approval of the subdivision would be appropriate (See above Section
I.B.l.c.(1)) of the Staff Report).
e. The City has approved modification requests in similar situations.
4. Conclusions:
a. The special circumstance for this property is related to the lot's shape and orientation with
respect to 96`h Ave. W.
b. Allowing the proposed lot layout would not be a special privilege for the property owner.
As pointed out above, there is an alternative layout that could be used to subdivide the
property into two lots. The City has approved modification requests in similar situations and
would not hold a similar proposal to different standards in the future.
C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
ordinance. This is addressed in below sections II.B. and II.C. of the staff report.
d. The modification will not be detrimental. It will allow for two lots that are more consistent in
shape and usable area with what the zone and comprehensive plan designation encourage.
This is consistent with the way the surrounding neighborhood is developed.
e. Slight alterations to the interior lot lines of the proposal could increase the area of one lot
and decrease the area of another.
f. The condition that addressed a slight relocation of the lot line that separates the two lot will
ensure that the modification request is the minimum necessary.
C. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
The Comprehensive Plan has a section that addresses residential development and the following goals
and policies have been taken directly from that section:
Nathan Short Plat
File No. S-2004-133
Page 6 of 8
a. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in
accordance with the following policies:
1.) Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
2.) Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do
not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
3.) Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
4.) Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever
it is economically feasible.
5.) Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control
of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
6.) Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local
government.
7.) Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be
discouraged.
8.) Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use
encroachments.
9.) Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of
development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
10.) Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: There are not any aspects of
the proposal that seem contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
will accommodate the continued development of the neighborhood in a manner that is consistent
with its single-family, small lot designation. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code
1. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, particularly the
Subdivision regulations, and the development standards of the zone as detailed in section II.A.2.b.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1. The proposed project is not in a Flood Plain.
F. Environmental Assessment:
1. Is this site identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? No.
Nathan Short Plat
File No. 5-2004-133
Page 7 of 8
2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? If more than 500 cubic yards of
grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point in time, the total
amount of grading for the subdivision is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. If through the
review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be
required, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and issue an
Environmental Determination.
G. Critical Areas Review:
1. Critical Areas Review number:
2. Results of Critical Areas Review:
areas as defined by ECDC 20.15B.
was issued.
H. Comments:
CA-2004-161.
The property does not appear to contain any critical
As a result, a waiver from the requirement to complete a study
Two comment letters from the same party were received during the public comment period. They are
included as Attachment 6. The concern brought up by these letters had to do with the minimum lot area
and have been addressed by this report, particularly by above Section I.B.I.c.(I) and (2) and Section
II.B.3.d. of the Staff Report.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in
the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The
appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name
of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the
decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be
wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14)
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
Nathan Short Plat
File No. S-2004-133
Page 8 of 8
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have
no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat
approval within the five-year period."
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of
the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments:
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Applicant Letter
3. Engineering Requirements
4. Proposed Lot Layout
5. Alternative Lot Configuration
6. Public Comment Letters
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Aleanna Kondelis
Cramer NW, Inc.
945 N. Central, # 104
Kent, WA 98032
Gerry Grosz
22506 95'h Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Charlie Nathun
Nalund and Associates
9792 Edmonds Way, PMB 266
Edmonds, WA 98020
Engineering Department
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
Planning Department
LYZL3
22222
22228 22301
22302 22226
22308 22307 22314
223124 22317: 22320
22326 9619 9601
22323
22228
F22304
22309
22310'
22317
22318
9521
9513
9501
Subject Property:
1 29,514 1 19510 9502
22413 96th-Ave.—W.
22405 22408
22413 22412
22421 22420
429
22506
22511
22510'
22514
r22519
22518
22605
22604
22615
22623
22227 1 222,'
22301
22311
22317
rn
22327 cCnm
224TH
22405
22409
22413 2:
22421 22
22507
2
22511
2
22515
2
Ov N-% Zoning and Vicinity Map
22519
Attachment 1
File No. S-2004-133
Cramer Northwest, Inc.
Surveyors oP'lanners sEngineers
City of Edmonds
Development Services
Steve Bullock, AICP
121— 50' Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020
Re: Nathan Short Plat — Modification Request
Mr. Bullock,
December 15, 2004
jI
V FED
L)r- G 2 0 %',')04
NN !o 0rE.
j �- r
The following is a request for modification of lot area requirements for the proposed Nathan Short plat on
96`h Ave W.
Based on previous approved short plat modifications, we understand that City Code requires compliance
with the following criteria for approval; Special Circumstances, Special Privilege, Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Not Detrimental and Minimum Variance.
Special Circumstances
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that modification maybe approved because of special
circumstances relating to the property, if the strict enforcement of the ordinance would deprive the owner
of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
Special circumstance include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property,
public necessity as to public structures and uses environmental factors such as vegetation, streams ponds
and wildlife habitats.
Special circumstances should not be predicted 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.
In this case, the shape of the applicant's property creates a special circumstance that would deprive the
owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The
underlying 82 — foot — wide lot contains sufficient area to be subdivided into three lots. However,
because the underlying lot is long and narrow in shape, meeting the lot area requirements of the RS8 zone
(8,000 SF) would require that lot lines be drawn in an irregular fashion creating irregular shaped lots.
Within these constraints, viable building envelopes can be created after the required setbacks are
provided. However, the function or usefulness of private yard areas would be compromised. However,
we have serious concerns regarding the function and usefulness of the private yard areas.
945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955
www.crameraw.com E-mail: cni a cramernw.com
ATTACHMENT 2
Cramer Northwest, Inc.
Surveyors ®Planners eEngineers
We have provided the City of Edmonds Planning Department with an alternate design for the above
referenced short plat. The alternate design demonstrates that 8,000 SF lots area requirements of the RS8
zone can be meet and further demonstrate the irregular lot shapes that would result.
Under the preferred design, Lot 1 would be 6,737 SF, after subtracting 1,500 SF for the access easement,
which is less gross lot area than a strict examination of the City of Edmonds zoning code allows.
However, under this design, the property lines for Lot 1, and by effect Lot 2, are regular and
perpendicular, allowing future lot owners useful access and use than the alternative.
Special Privilege
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that a modification may be approved if the approval of the
variance/modification 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.
The approval of this modification would not be a grant of special privilege in comparison to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The City of Edmonds Planning Department has approved
other, similar subdivision with similar bulk standard modifications in this vicinity and zone. Further, this
request complies with the remaining modification criterion, indicating that approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege.
Comprehensive Plan
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that modification approval can be granted if the approval of the
variance will be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a section entitled Residential Development Policy
that calls for constructive (development) policy options where the result enhanced quality of life, high
quality residential development and the balancing of economic and aesthetic considerations. The
preferred short plat design provides a higher function and better use of space therefore results in both a
higher quality project that will bring higher value to the created lots and is aesthetically more appealing;
all of which are in the intent of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that granting of the modification may be given if 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.
The primary purpose of the zoning ordinance and zone district is to facilitate the development of single
family dwelling units in the RS8 zone in accordance with the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the immediate neighborhood. The proposed lots of the Nathan Short Plat comply with all the
applicable zoning regulations for a development of this size and scale with the exception of lot area. We
are not asking for a rezone, nor are we attempting to deviate form the use standard. Rather, we are asking
for a modification of one bulk standard. The approval of this modification would not conflict with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance or the zone district. Therefore the proposal is consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district.
945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955
cvivw.cramernxv.com E-mail: cni a,cramernw.com
Page 2 of 3
Cramer Northwest, Inc.
Surveyors ®Planners +Engineers
Not Detrimental
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that an approved or conditionally approved modification 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.
While gross lot area would be reduced for Lot 1 from the standard of 8,000 SF, net useable space would
increase under the preferred design. Standard building setbacks will be observed. Adequate utility
service is available to the site for a development of this size and scale. Approval of the modification
would lead to the most responsible residential infill development possible for the subject site and
therefore would not be detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety and welfare or to property or
improvements in the vicinity and RS8 zone.
Minimum Variance
City of Edmonds Municipal Code states that approval of a modification may be granted if the approved
variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
The applicant could legally divide this site into two lots without a modification, as demonstrated in the
alternate design. However, doing so would result in lots that are irregular and less functional. The
preferred design uses right angled lot lines which allows for better placement of future homes and useful
recreation space. Approval of the preferred design would therefore allow residents the maximum
practical usage of all areas of each proposed lots. Therefore, the modification request is the minimum
variance necessary to allow the applicant to develop the site in such a way that would lead to the most
responsible residential infill development for the subject site.
Thank you for your consideration,
Aleanna Kondelis
Project Manager
945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955
N«v-xv.cramermv.com E-mail: cniAcramernw.com
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: NALUND AND ASSOC. File No.: S-04-133
Approved by�i�tev+ /- /y �,� Vicinity: 22413 961h AVE W
Engineering Program Manager date
Req'd
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond posted
Complete
prior to
Permit
recording
1. Rights -of -way for public streets:
x
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities):
Provide all easements as needed.
x
Total access easement width shall be 15.0'
X
3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter):
Construct 18" concrete curb and gutter along the property
X
frontage on 96th Ave W
4. Street turnaround:
Provide an on -site turn around to City Stds.
X
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:.
Construct 5' wide concrete sidewalk along property frontage on
X
96th Ave W.
6. Street lights:
N/A
X
7. Planting strip:
N/A
X
8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, etc)
OVWSD
Provide service to each lot.
x
Connect to public waters stem.
X
9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations etc) OVWSD
Provide new service to each lot
X
Connect to public sewers stem
X
10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, DOE,
fisheries, etc.):
Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
X
Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate
X
capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access
improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30.
Connect to Public Storms stem
X
11. On -site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013):
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system.
X
12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387):
Required for all new services
X
X
13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70 :
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
X
✓Advnv\.sp\04-133na1und plt.doc ATTACHMENT 3
Req'd prior to
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond
Complete
recording
Permit
osted
14. Signage (per City Engineer):
All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen
X
signs will be permitted
Provide "Private Access Ends"
X
Provide fire and aid address si nage
X
15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120):
N/A
X
16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer):
Required for all utility construction.
X
X
17. Other requirements:
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information
X
X
b) Legal documents for each lot
X
c) Field stake lot corners (by professional engineer)
X
d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
X
e) Maintenance agreements
X
18. Engineering fees:
a) Storm drainage connection charge for plat road ($ )
b) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($ 428 )
X
c) Sewer connection fee per SIR ( $ )
X
d) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full.
X
e) Water connection fee per SIR (based on meter size)
X
d) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $
X
e) Plan review fee: ($ 860.)
X
f) Traffic mitigation: $ )
X
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded.
Authorized for recording by:
Date:
✓Advrw\sp\04-133na1und plt.doc
2Z4TH ST S. F
"War la.M- FL40
ze LL sx� Wo
, wr S. 31M
tr FIC IL- J07.W
Iwo =it
if aL Mr, MA
Larr im
NOSE
/A� T ML Am
51
(IV BE Ralmm)
81
LOT I
8.2371 = Fr.
Lerr m
R MRNRt Fr.
--- - - --- -------- ---------- \-
F cow
V& :)
"RI
loMw FAYMeIr
— tMW2Y11aw-.,-
tm WA" 202M'
HWK
sw M99mm
w 0 ME N W.
iv IL.Mmw U far
LOT vs
IW JPW
#LA17
VALCU
ZOOM ST S. jr
OMTRUMDrr I GEMACTIR WO NV/OR NOON UFWAVOLG
WEnM MERSE D=nM RWLNMeRS OF K44 3n-130--M
NEW DATA: &C 114. 3Z 116 = = T. MWwft Ot Mt WX
f
if
2
M Fr.
U2 R. VF FW. Cat
mm
am
r, Lar AI
f-20,
20 0 20
RM Or ArAMWM
BFAfmlas "WWI WEN AM SOW ON TIECV4MW
0' =4M SnW IAWP#MW mw Sam arvlr FAST
AS SIOM CM 7w Ra w MOM M WRAC
11 OF MM a mw 5% MMW OF = WWW.
ot%N$MM
"El"k 1. Ua*MWM WT VWW ON 0--22-ft
VMM= DOW
MMM AWWW Mn= OMM Or I=
BENCMUM-
sma"m C"ff aDocl"m Na *-M
FMM Jr &VM a= M caverm a lom
ASOW AM =M VMW MffiRNT
sm
wr ow wa x uruff ms
aMWK - JMM U& F.
COMOM n"MAL,
zm a&pw.
ZZGMMD.
0 Ma M MMAWff AS VOMEW
0 svmw mm wmaz
0"o MM FM H"xW
• INM Im" K7Mt N6CM
a WM FAV=
0 ow WOE
M FOM AWYM
UMW POEL
oormwo 71tEr
Docuom Tiar
3-r MW FDOW
BUM SENN LM PAW
VJW OM LM PAW
II A. V-7- E�A
224TA Sr s T
MMMS 4M
SW IMUT 46tm' 9F AO
FOUND CONOME NONUrIM
t,p
I
L-10
I
m
Z p
F.F.
F. -
lTa BE NmwmWE )
.�.
0
oilIww
aBmWSO Fr
=qA�p�l
1i
Zx�
h �'
larleb
Ibµj3SYJ.1T-
mm
I q urt°°m a +
I
oamR
\
h I
I
ME-W2>rY eW.M- Gu
NNl7P>oY �37. 6Lfl
Na{R
�0
Sff
I
sTMOMINBR
JO' I B.- ]I6M flt FFET
I
w
LOTI�
tr Mum r ""
LOT 2 l
ROWS S0. FT.
ramp
------------2
1
� I
I
\ I
I
I
I
1
1
i
I Loral
w
I
GBAMC SCM
:r=
W 0 20
8Iffi8 CF B duffm
I
IB7uomm MINN foam Ar mm ON TFE manner
OF mm SIIEiT NOB fmr MHO s vm armlS aw
AS mow ON TW RAT OF FIRMI . MORED x SaLUNE
tip 7. M FMW 0a A = OF .-MMO t COUNW..
rm
t�IMAI M7 LAST MSIFD ON 9-22-07.
NORM A MMM ion= 0q= OF ISM
IMeMISH
mm BENCN1 m xi R-as
LOUD r MIIS " 0 C01ASE7E AT IMM
bt
AftM MW AM MOM =MT SaRNYEW
F]LURION - — •O = FW..
am
.W am me IN ttm" R2E
I
@EUR/Ott - .ae " Fkg..
CUNT= IlVSMM,
as
b
aoo a& RET.
mum Na usaff m 0ommom
O &MMM W" ttxtLntE
m CAM am
FM NN7MNT
I
I RM W%T
mm WIM
+may
m W WW
a FONFR 11ETFt!
Q.
:0: UeIM POLE
CaOFIINJIA i}SE �
I•�
I
� O®Ib04 7FEE �-'
e000 M=
N
-$- Maw ass L/F PAW
O
-k- BUM Mm Idr PANT
N®B1tlY !L.®' Ou0 �J FOUND OOOM%W
P2BTA S7: s,I• - - -
BLSImmm LEMcammom LW AMLvw NlOTN mm-Alaum
MMMMEW =MM tdOLQn MM OF K&C. 14-0.A-M
mom" um 4E 7/4 zE V'k = = T. 2 m.% R ]Ar.0 KM
March 22, 2005
Star Campbell
Steve Bullock
City of Edmonds
425 775 2525
425 771 0221fax
RE: Short Plat Application #S-2004-133
Site Address: 22413 96th Avenue West
Proponent: Nathan & Associates
Dear Ms Campbell:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I received your phone message on Friday March 18a' that you would be out of town the following week. I
am therefore making these comments, regarding the above referenced Short Plat Application, to both your
and Steve Bullock's attention to insure that my comments may be incorporated into the staff review in a
timely manner.
I wish to be made a party of record to this action. The following are my reactions and recommendations for
rejecting the application in its current submitted status:
1) The proponent has decided to split the 16,630 SF lot in a manner that results in two components:
Lot 1, towards the front containing most of the existing house at 8237 +/-SF and
Lot 2 at 8,396 +/- SF with a new residence of some undetermined square footage.
• The Lot 1 square footage of 8,237 +/- SF, inappropriately includes a 15' x 100' Ingress,
Egress and Utility Easement.
• The 1,500 SF egress and utility easement area, needs to be deducted from the Lot 1 area as
labeled on the Proposed Layout w/Lot Area Modification on Lot 1. This would net a true Lot
1 area of 6,737 SF; as well noted on the Staff Notice of Development Application
• The existent proposal creates a lot size imbalance with Lot 1 as 84% of the minimum
legal lot size, and also represents only 41% of the existent available lot size;
• The remaining Lot 2 area of 8,396 +/- is 105% of the minimum legal lot size, while
representing 51% of the available lot size.
RECOMMENDATION: Adjust the size of both lots to be near equal in area, This could be
accomplished by moving the proposed lot line 15'easterly so that Lotl would be 7,523 SF and
Lot 2 at 7,387 SF, and the Ingress, Egress and Utility Easement increasing to 1,225 SF.
2) The proponent has placed the storm detention/retention system in the front yard of Lot 1 so that there
are two storm structures in the front lawn. This would require the entire front yard of Lot 1 to be under
an additional access easement to the City of Edmonds, rendering the new Lot 1 owners property nearly
useless for their own purposes.
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 2
Perhaps this expediency of design is a City Kent standard, however this is the city of Edmonds. The
detention/retention system needs to be redesigned so that it is under the already proposed 15' Ingress,
Egress and Utility Easement. This solution may be a bit more expensive, but that is the cost of
development business.
3) Resolve the .7" +/- fence encroachment at the SE PAL onto LOT 105.
Thank you for the opportunity for comment and making me a party of record.
Sincerely, /
Gerry Grosz
22506 95th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 778 4353
March 17, 2005
04
Star Campbell 17
City of Edmonds , 2D05
425 775 2525
425 771 0221 fax
RE: Short Plat Application #S-2004-133
Site Address: 22413 96th Avenue West
Proponent: Nalund & Associates
Dear Ms Campbell:
i spoke with Steve Bullock this morning regarding the above referenced Short Plat Application. As time
has gotten away from me, I am forwarding this notice via fax, aitd w ill forward a letter with more specifics
after I have had time to review the file, which Steve said he would 11c a copy of the pertinent
information for me at the front desk for me to pick up Friday morning.
Forthwith, I wish to be made a party of record to this action.
The following are my initial reactions and recommendations for rejecting the application in its current
status; (please excuse some of the inaccuracies as I do not have the Notice of Action before me):
1) The proponent has decided to split the 16,400sf lot in a manner that results in two components of
approximate)ty 6400 sf and 10,000 sf.
* The existant residence remains on the proposed 6400sf portion which is 80% of the minimum
legal lot size;
* 6400sf also represents 39% of the existant available lot size;
* while maintaining 10,000sf for a now residence that represents 61 % of the available lot size.
" Although the proposed building is not known Iexpext the proponent to have maximized the
housing area based on that much square footage.
* The developer is asking for a variance in order to maximize his investment and profit potential
at the expense of the cbarachter of the neigborhood and disregard for the codes.
Make the developer play by the rules and create lot size proportions that meetminimum lot size
critereia.
Thank you for the opportunity for comment and making me a party of record. Further comments to follow,
Sincerely,
Gerry Grosz
22506 95th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 778 4353