Reconsideration decision S-07-76 with attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION
To: Eric and Christine Thuesen
From: Mike Clugston, Planner
Date: January 16, 2008
File: S-07-76
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1) Ms. Thuesen filed a request for reconsideration of the decision on short subdivision file S-07-
76. The decision was mailed on November 28, 2007, and the reconsideration request and fee
were received on December 6, 2007 (Exhibit A). The applicant requested the City's response
be delayed until such time that Mr. Thuesen returned to the state, on or about January 15,
2008. The applicant agreed to waive the RCW-required 90 -day review timeline to enable this
request.
2) The issues to be reconsidered are several:
a) The Engineering Division requirement for a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3.
b) Denial of the modification request.
c) Decision Condition 1.B.1.b.3 —"If setbacks are to be included on the plat, add the
following statement to the face of the plat: `Setbacks shown are for reference only and
vest no right."' Applicant claims this condition is vague and requires clarification before
applicant can determine propriety of condition.
3) Response:
a) The Engineering Division has reexamined the access issue for Lots 2 and 3 in light of the
request. Due to the low volumes of traffic on 8h Avenue and the relative grade of the
southern portions of Lots 2 and 3, Engineering has determined that a shared access
driveway for Lots 2 and 3 is not required.
b) The applicant submitted a modification request with S-07-76 to reduce the eastern
property line setback of Lot 1 from 10' to S'. The intent of the request was to make the
existing detached garage a conforming structure with respect to current zoning. The
request was denied because it did not satisfy all of the variance criteria necessary to
approve a modification.
Thuesen Reconsideration
File No. S-07-76
Page 2of3
In the reconsideration, the applicant has presented additional explanation in support of the
modification request. However, the issues described in the staff report have not changed
with respect to the modification request. The detached garage was initially approved with
a reduced rear setback of 5'; this setback became a 10 -foot setback when the applicant
later subdivided the property (Staff Report, Page 6, #3a and 44a). The choices to build a
detached garage and to subsequently subdivide the property were both solely the
applicant's. While the garage is currently non -conforming, it may be used, maintained
and even rebuilt to some extent according to ECDC 17.40.020. If the garage was
damaged in excess of the 50% threshold defined in 17.40.020, it would have to be rebuilt
to comply with the zoning code. It is possible that site conditions would not allow
reconstruction of a detached garage. However, nothing would preclude an applicant from
rebuilding it as an attached garage, assuming it met all other zoning requirements.
c) An applicant determines whether or not to include zoning setback information on the
final plat. If he so chooses, the vesting statement must appear in order to inform future
owners that the plat indicates the setback requirements at the time of subdivision only.
Setback requirements applicable to a given parcel can change for a number of reasons:
rezoning, subdivision of the parcel, applying for certain kinds of building permits, etc.
Future owners are not bound by the property line setbacks shown on a plat unless those
setbacks are agreed to in a development agreement as part of subdivision review and
approval.
RECONSIDERATION DECISIONS
1) The request to allow for two separate driveway accesses to Lots 2 and 3 is approved. The
Engineering Requirements for the short subdivision have been modified accordingly (Exhibit
B). The applicant must submit revised civil drawings for the short plat and must comply with
Engineering requirements.
2) The denial of the modification request is affirmed.
3) If the applicant wishes to show setback information on the Final Plat, Decision Condition
I.B. Lb.3 requested for the face of the plat "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no
right" shall be amended to read "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right,
subject to the terms of the July 2007, settlement agreement for this property." The Final Plat
shall indicate the applicable 10' property line setback along the entire length of the eastern
boundary of Lot 1.
Entered this 16th day of January, 2008, pursuant to the authority granted to staff under Chapter
20.95.050.13.2.
& e eX%
Mike Clugston
Planner
Thuesen Reconsideration
File No. S-07-76
Page 3 of 3
APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person
wishing to file an appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural
information.
Section 20.095.050.B.3 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.
RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS:
The following reconsideration exhibits were offered and entered into the record:
A. Request for Reconsideration from Christine Thuesen, dated December 6, 2007
B. Amended Engineering Requirements, dated January 16, 2008
PARTIES OF RECORD:
Eric and Christine Thuesen
509 9`h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Vivian Olsen
503 9€h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Duana KolougkOVa
Johns Monroe Mitsunaga
Bellefield Office Park -
Alderwood Building
1601 114th Avenue S.E.
Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Planning Division
Engineering Division
nectr
ieb
December 6, 2007 DEC 61007
Reconsideration for File 5-07-76 PFRMq ODUNtER
I am filing a reconsideration on the following items:
1) Engineering requirement for shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3
2) Denial of setback from 10' to 5'
3) Re: Section I.Part B -Decision on Subdivision -#1.b)3) "If setbacks are to be
included on the plat, add the following statement to the face of the plat:
""Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right"". This request
is vague and requires clarification before applicant can determine
propriety of condition.
Eric will be out of the country until January 15, 2008, therefore would
appreciate the City waiting until then for a decision. 1 am waiving the 90
day review requirement.
Christine Thuesen
509 91h Avenue North
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
425 7721-0791
Exhibit A
File 5-07-76
t am concerned about the following items
1. Introduction
a. Decision on Subdivision
b) item 2) hold harmless agreement and staffs approval block
b) item 3) "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right"
B. a) Engineering conditions
Shared driveway for Lot 2 and 3 required
The request engineering drawings show 2 driveways. The grades of the easement road are 10% and
The width is 15'. This prevents the design of a driveway for Lot 3 that would have a code compliant
turn around and would create a driveway slope of greater than 1494x. The road (8t' Ave N) serves
only 3 houses to the adjacent subdivision (traffic is not an issue)
C. Decision on Modification Request (Denied)
A request for a Lot 1 setback modification from 10' to T was made prior to the approval of the 2 Lot
short plat on 1-16-05. This was overlooked by the City Planner (a mistake) even though the fees were
paid.
Il. Findings of Fact and Conclusion
8. Compliance of Comprehensive Plan
8.3. "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes" There is a view easement recorded on
the property (Lot 1) in favor of Vivian Olsen. The existing garage is at the maximum height
allowable under the view easement.
8.6. The garage was built complying with the existing codes in 2004 and was designed to allow
the home to be built within the setbacks dictated by the critical areas steep slope.
Setbacks on back from the top of the slope -see site plan. There was no room to go down the
hill (slope constraints) See attachment #8 and site plan --bid permit #2005.0142
Approval of lot modification from 10' to 5' does not guarantee ADU approval. A conditional use
permit is required and the building must be attached to the house. (This all could be accomplished
by moving the garage 10' and attaching it to the house)
C. Analysis of Modification Request
1.a. Special Circumstances
Because of the steep slope buffer, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would have
prevented the owner from reasonable use of a 2 car garage. Nonconformity does not allow
the reconstruction of the garage under the same code should it be destroyed more than
50%. In other words, if we had an earthquake or a fire which destroyed the garage more
than 50%, we would have to rebuild under the new setback code. The owner requested a
lot modification on 1-16-05 but it was overlooked by the planner.
b. Request was not for entire 5' -only envelope surrounding garage -see attachment #4
c. Vivian Olsen's view is protected by a recorded view easement which runs with the land
see title report Lot 1
d. Structure -existing garage -cannot be built higher than it is now because of view easement
e. The request was not for ENTIRE S' of east setback_
Vivian Olsen's letter attachment #12
Finding A -Special Circumstances There was unusual topography. There was and is a steep slope
Buffer required which reduced the building envelope. The garage was built complying with code
(bldg permit 2005-0141) According to Sec 20.65.010A2 -There was not plenty of room to build a
house and 2 car garage. Reasonable use (2 car garage) was limited by steep slope buffer conditions
B. 25' Structure vs 15' The garage is at the maximum height allowable according to the view
easement recorded on the title. Could never build 25' above average grades. Granting lot
modification would not change conditions of building envelope or height ever.
B.S.c. Adjacent zoning is RS 6000 sq ft -side yards are 5'
Finding D -Consistency with Zoning "applicant was certainly able to place the residence and garage on
It easily without a modification request" Not true. Steep slope buffer restricts envelope.
Moving garage S' if it had to be reconstructed would place it too close to the existing
house -fire code states 10' between structures
Print Message
From "Clugston, Michael" <clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Date 2007/12/04 Tue PM 12:55:15 CST
To ericthuesen@verizon.net
Subject RE: Decision 5-07-76
Chris,
If you want to file a reconsideration of the decision, do so ASAP, The
period for reconsideration is up 12111. If you file a recon by that
time, we can wait to issue the decision until 1115108. At this point,
you only have 6 days left for reconsideration (including today). Keep
in mind, the sooner you file for reconsideration, the more days you
would have remaining to file an appeal if that were to happen after
1/15/08.
The decision process so far looks like this:
Application complete: 10/17/07
Decision issued: 11/27/07
Reconsideration due: 12/11/07
90 -day review period expires: 1/17/08
If the City waits to issue a reconsideration decision until his return
in January, Eric must be willing to waive, in writing, the 90 -day review
requirement from complete application since that will expire on 1/17/08.
It is possible that the appeal period could extend beyond 1/17108 if a
reconsideration is filed very quickly.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Mike
-----Original Message -----
Prom: ericthuesen@verizon.net[mailto:ericthuesen@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: Decision 5-07-76
Mr. Clugston,
Eric is out of town until January 15 and 1 would like to clarify a
couple of things. First of all, when is the final deadline for a
reconsideration? And secondly, can the decision on the reconsideration
either be put on hold until Jan 15 or at least stop the clock until
then? If it is possible to stop the clock until he can review it on
January 15, what would the deadline be for filing an appeal? Thank you.
Chris Thuesen
Close this window
hup:llnetmail.verizon.net/webmaillservletlHttpNimletDriver?nimlet=ManageEmailDetailN... 12/5/2007
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: Thuesen Custom Homes File No.: PLN20070076
Reviewed by: Jeanie McConnell January 16, 2008 Address: 509 9th Ave N
Engineering Division Date
REQ'D PRIOR TO REQ'D W/IILDG COMPLETE
RE=RDIIVG PERMIT
X
4. Private Access Improvements:
a) Private access road, if any, shall be paved to 12.0' in width, plus 18"
asphalt thickened edge or 6" concrete extruded curb may be used. X
b) Slope of private access road and driveways shall not exceed 14% and
shall be noted as such on the civils. X
c} Cross slope o1 private access road shall not exceed 2% X
5.
Street Turnaround:
a)
Provide on-site turnaround to City Standards,
X
6.
Street Lights:
NIA
7.
Planti Strip-
tri :N/A
N/A
8.
Water System Improvements
a)
Provide new water service to each lot.
X
b)
Connect to public water system.
X
X
9.
Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
a)
Provide new 6" service lateral to development with 6" cleanout at
property line.
X
b)
Provide new 4" side sewer to each lot
X
c)"_Connect
to public sewer system.
X
X
10.
Storm Sewer System Improvements:
pin20070076 Thuesen SP Reqs-Modification.xis
Exhibit s
REq'o PRIOR TO REBID W/BLD(B COMPLETE
RECORDING PERMIT
a)
Provide a Stormwater Management report and plan. Compliance with
ECDC 18.30 and 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is
required.
X
b)
Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
X
c)
Connect to public storm system; Shell Creek Diversion Pipeline,
X
X
11.
On-site Drainage Ian per Ord. 3013):
a)
Connect all new impervious surfaces to public storm system; Shell
Creek Diversion Pipeline.
X
X
12.
Underground Wiringer Ord. 1387):
a)
Required for all new services.
X
X
13.
Excavation and Gradin(per IBC
a)
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
X
b)
Submit grading plan for foundations with building permit.
x
14.
Signage(per City Engineer):
a)
Provide fire and aid address signage.
X
15.
Survey Monumentation(per Ord. Sect. 12-10-120):
N/A
16.
As -built Drawings(per City Engineer):
a)
Required for all street and utility improvements. Provide an AutoCAD
electronic copy and a hard copy to City.
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 surveyor)
x
d)
e)
Field stake utility stubs at property fines
_ ...................
Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
X
X
1)
Maintenance agreements
X
g)
Traffic impact Analysts
X
-
18.
Engineering Fees:
a)
Storm development charge (access tract) N/A
X
b)
Storm system development charge $428.00
X
c)
Sewer connection fee $730.00
X
d)
Water connection fee _ $908.00
X
e)
Water meter fee - 314" meter $550.00
X
f)
Traffic mitigation fee $840.72
x
g)
Short Plat review fee $860.00
X
h}
Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) TBD
x
�easri��fBanfre,/G
Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS
gatwaay76, 2008
Date
pIn20070076 Thuesen SP Reqs-Modification.xls 2 of 2