S-06-141 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File No. S-2006-141
From:
Jennifer Mac , Planner
Date: July 24, 2007
File: S-2006-141
Applicant: Pam Arnhold
Agent: Jesse Jarrell, Western Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision on Subdivision...................................................................................................................2
C. Decision on Modification Request....................................................................................................3
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................
4
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................4
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................
6
C. Analysis of the Requested Modification...........................................................................................
7
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code....................................................................................................
8
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
............................................................... 8
F. Environmental Assessment...............................................................................................................
8
G. Critical Areas Review.......................................................................
........ ........
........................... ..... 8
H. Comments.........................................................................................................................................
8
I11,
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................9
A. Request for Reconsideration................................................................................................
...... 9
B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................
9
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals..................................................................................
9
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................9
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9
VI.
ATTACHMENTS:............................................................................................................10
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................10
Pam Arnhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 2 of to
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 24316— 101" Avenue West, into two lots
(Attachment 1). See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2). The site is located in a
Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet. The
proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). The existing house is proposed to be
retained on Lot 1, while the existing detached garage is to be demolished.
The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required southeastern side setback for
proposed Lot I from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern boundary of the access easement to the
existing house in order to allow for the retention of the existing house (Attachment 5).
A. Application
1. Applicant: Pam Amhold
2. Site Location: 24316 — 1015` Avenue West (Attachment 2)
3, Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 18,534 square feet into two lots in a Single -
Family Residential (RS -8) zone (see Attachment 3). The applicant has also requested a
modification to reduce the minimum required southeastern side setback for proposed Lot 1
from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern boundary of the access easement to the existing
house (Attachment 5).
4. Review Process: Following the comment period, Planning staff makes an administrative
decision.
5. Maior 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 20.85,
criteria for approval of a variance.
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.
Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website at
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
B. Decision on Subdivision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The subdivision as proposed is 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 4.
(2) Two on-site parking spaces that meet the requirements of the Engineering
Division must be provided on Lot 1.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 3 of 10
b) Remove the existing detached two-story garage (and all associated decks) as shown
on the preliminary plans.
c) Remove the existing shed as shown on the preliminary plan.
d) The applicant must either remove the portion of the covered patio on the
northwestern side of the existing residence that projects into the minimum required
7.5 -foot side setback or provide evidence that the covered patio is nonconforming.
e) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) If setbacks are to be included on the final plat, conduct the following:
(a) Correct the setbacks shown to reflect those shown in Section II.A.4 of
this document.
(b) Add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown
are for reference only and vest no right with the following exception:
The southeastern side setback for proposed Lot 1 has been granted a
modification for the purpose of allowing a portion of the existing
residence to remain and be maintained at a 7.2 -foot setback from the
northwestern boundary of the access easement. Any new construction
or additions shall maintain the required setbacks for the zone."
(2) If setbacks are not to be shown on the plat, a note should be added to the
face of the flat stating, "The southeastern side setback for proposed Lot I
has been granted a modification for the purpose of allowing a portion of the
existing residence to remain and be maintained at a 7.2 -foot setback from
the northwestern boundary of the access easement. Any new construction or
additions shall maintain the required setbacks for the zone."
(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 No. 5-
2006-141 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(4) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff's approval block.
f) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
g) Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and
Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the
documents with Snohomish County Auditor's office.
h) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents
proposed to be recorded.
2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City of Edmonds Planning Division with three copies of the recorded
plat, with the recording number written on them. The City will not consider the
subdivision to have been completed until this is done.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 4.
C. Decision on Modification Request
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division;
The Modification Request to reduce the minimum required southeastern side setback for
proposed Lot 1 from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern boundary of the access
easement to the existing house is APPROVED with the following conditions.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 4 of 10
1. The approved modification request applies only to the retention and maintenance of the
existing single family residence as shown on the preliminary short plat plans. Any
additions or modifications to the house must meet the applicable setbacks that are in place
at the time of construction.
2. Any new structures on Lot I must meet the development standards that are in place at the
time of construction.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
Introduction
a. Setting:
The subject property at 24316— 10131 Avenue West is located in the Single -Family
Residential (RS -8) zone (Attachment 2). The immediately surrounding properties to the
north, cast, and west are also zoned RS -8 and are developed with single-family residences.
Directly south of the subject property is a private landscape tract, and further south is the
Snohomish County/King County boundary.
b. Topouraphy and Vegetation:
The subject property is relatively flat. Vegetation consists of typical residential landscaping,
including lawn, shrubs, and trees.
Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). Lot 1 will be
created on the northern portion of the subject property, and Lot 2 will be created on the
southern portion of the property. The existing house will remain on proposed Lot 1. The
existing detached garage will be removed as shown on the plans. Both lots will be accessed
via a shared access easement running along the southeastern portion of proposed Lot 1.
2. Environmental Resources
a. The subdivision chapter, ECDC 20.75.085, states that a proposed subdivision should be
designed to minimize significant adverse impacts where environmental resources exist (such
as trees, streams, ravines, or wildlife habitats). The only apparent environmental resource
located on the subject site is the existing trees. The majority of the trees are located on the
southernmost portion of the property. There are no other apparent environmental resources
on the site.
b. The proposal minimizes grading because the subject property is relatively level and the
proposed lots will both take access along a shared access easement, a portion of which is
currently paved.
C. No known hazardous conditions, such as flood plains, steep slopes, or unstable soil or
geologic conditions exist at this site.
d. A drainage plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division when a building permit is
applied for on this site. Any proposed development on the site should be designed to
minimize off-site impacts on drainage. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to a
detention system.
3.
4.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 5 of 10
Lot and Street Layout
a. This criterion requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the lots would ultimately be
buildable. Based on 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 sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area.
Required
Proposed
Proposed
Lot Area
Gross sq. ft.
Nets . ft.
Lot 1 8,000
9,750
8,128
Lot 2 8,000
8,783
8,783
Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS -8 zone is 70 feet. Both lots meet this requirement.
Setbacks and Lot Coverage
a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the
RS -8 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
Lot 1:
Street Setback (25 feet): From the northeastern property line (10151 Ave. W).
Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the northwestern and southeastern property lines.*
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the southwestern property line.
Lot 2: Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From all property lines.
*Note: The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required
southeastern side setback for proposed Lot 1 from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern
boundary of the access easement to the existing house. The modification request is further
discussed in Section ILC of this report.
Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing house is proposed to be retained on Lot 1;
however, in order to be able to retain the house at a reduced setback from the proposed
access easement, the applicant has submitted a modification request for a reduction in the
southeastern side setback for proposed Lot 1 from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern
boundary of the access easement to the existing house. The existing detached two-story
garage overlaps the proposed lot line separating Lots 1 and 2; therefore, the detached garage
(and all associated decks) must be removed prior to recording of the short plat. Additionally,
since a lot cannot contain an accessory structure without a primary structure, the existing shed
located in the northwestern corner of Lot 2 must also be removed prior to recording. A
covered patio is located on the northwestern side of the existing residence and projects into
the minimum required 7.5 -foot side setback from the northwestern property line. A condition
of approval has been added requiring the applicant to either remove the portion of the
covered patio that projects into the minimum required side setback or to provide evidence
that the covered patio was legally constructed and is currently nonconforming.
b. Comer Lots: Neither lot is considered to be a corner lot.
C. Flag or Interior Lot Determination: Lot 2 is considered a flag lot.
d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -8 zone.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 6of10
2.) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing house covers 1,194
square feet, which would result in approximately 15% coverage of the net area of
proposed Lot 1. Following the removal of the existing detached garage and shed, there
will be no structures on proposed Lot 2. Therefore, Lot 2 will have zero percent lot
coverage. Any future buildings or structures on either lot will be permitted to cover no
more than 35% of each lot.
5. Dedications
a. Per City Engineer's requirements, a street dedication is not required. (Attachment 4).
6. Improvements
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 4).
7. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Plain,
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
that apply to this project.
Residential Development
B. 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:
B.I. 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.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
8.6. 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: The proposal will retain the
existing house that was constructed in 1951, according to Assessor's records, and will allow for
another home. The overall proposal should not cause any adverse impacts and appears to be
consistent with the residential development goals and policies.
Pam Arnhold
File No. 5-2006-141
Page 7 of 10
C. Analysis of the Requested Modification
1. The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the minimum required southeastern side
setback for proposed Lot 1 from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet from the northwestern boundary of the access
easement to the existing house as allowed in ECK 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. The applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of this proposal (Attachment 5).
3. Conclusions:
a. It would be possible to remove all existing structures and subdivide the subject property
into two lots that both meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. It is only because the applicant wishes to retain the existing residence with this
proposal that the minimum required side setback come up as an issue. Although the
applicant could conceivably remove the existing house and design the subdivision to
comply with the City's minimum side setback requirements, this would go against the
Comprehensive Plan policy to retain and rehabilitate older housing whenever it is
economically feasible. Therefore, the applicant has a special circumstance.
Similar modification requests have been approved throughout the City. For example,
modification requests were approved at 22608 — 95t" Place West (City File No. S-2003-
141) and 22518/22604 — 95`h Place West (City File No. 5-2005-140). These
modification requests were approved to reduce the minimum required side setbacks on
the lots in order to retain the existing houses. The modification request for the subject
property is similar in nature because it is also to reduce a side setback in order to allow
for the retention of the existing house. Therefore, it appears that the approval of this
modification request would not be a grant of special privilege.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 8 of 10
C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in allowing
the retention of the existing house and will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning
ordinance.
d. The 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.
Since the southwestern side setback for Lot I is taken from the northwestern boundary
of the access easement, the residence will still be 22.2 feet (the 15 -foot wide access
easement plus the 7.2 -foot reduced setback) from the property located directly east of
the subject property. A condition has been added to this approval requiring a statement
to be added to the face of the plat stating that the approved modification is only
applicable to the retention of the existing residence and not to any future additions or
structures.
e. The proposed modification is the minimum necessary to allow for the retention of the
existing residence on Lot 1.
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code
1. If the proposed modification is approved, the proposed subdivision will comply with the provisions
of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
F. Environmental Assessment
1. Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget
Sound)? No.
2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. 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 improvements 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 will issue an
Environmental Determination.
G. Critical Areas Review
1. Critical Areas Review number: CA -2006-0150.
Results of Critical Areas Review: The subject property does not appear to contain any critical
areas as defined by ECDC 23.40. As a result, a waiver from the requirement to complete a study
was issued.
H. Comments
A series of emails from Mitch Legel were received during review of this proposal and are included
as Attachment 6. Mr. Legel commented that an existing covered storage area located on the
northwestern side of the existing residence appears to encroach into the minimum required side
setback from the northwestern property line of Lot 1. He proposed that the short plat approval
should be conditioned to require the removal of this covered storage area. Mr. Legel also
commented that the approval should be conditioned to require the removal of the existing detached
garage (and the residential unit located above it). He stated that the 7.2 -foot side setback
modification request should be limited to the retention of existing improvements only and should
not apply to future additions or new construction.
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 9 of 10
City Response: A covered patio is located on the northwestern side of the existing residence and
projects into the minimum required 7.5 -foot side setback from the northwestern property line. A
condition of approval has been added requiring the applicant to either remove the portion of the
covered patio that projects into the minimum required side setback or to provide evidence that the
covered patio was legally constructed and is currently nonconforming. Since the existing detached
two-story garage overlaps the proposed property line between Lots 1 and 2, its removal is required
prior to recording of the short plat as a condition of approval. The modification request to reduce
the minimum required southeastern side setback on Lot 1 is further discussed in Section II.0 of this
report. The approval of the modification request has been limited to the retention of the existing
residence. All future additions or structures must meet the minimum required setbacks that are in
place at the time of construction.
No other public comment letters were received during review of this proposal.
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a reconsideration or appeal should contact the Planning Division 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 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.
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.
Vh ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2, Vicinity / Zoning Map
3. Subdivision Map
4, Engineering Requirements
5. Modification Request
6. Comments from Mr. Mitch Legel
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Pam Arnhold
24310 — 10151 Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jesse Jarrell
Western Engineers, Inc.
13000 Hwy 99 South
Everett, WA 98204
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Mitch Legel
10207 — 244`h Street Southwest
Edmonds, WA 98020
Pam Amhold
File No. S-2006-141
Page 10 of 10
city of edmonds
land use application
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW f +
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE # J '� _!4} ZONE S _g
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
HOME OCCUPATION DATE -7 Q RECD BY
FORMALSUBDIVISION FEEL t� ) -n RECEIPT
X SHORT SUBDIVISION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HE STAFF P13 ADB CC
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
REZONE
SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER: /fl�
PROPERTYAI1bRESsOltLOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER Pi'3M t1WHGL-0 Z 0r1W;04f NE1#L
ADDRESS 2�3 1 D 1 ] ST 1~ GLS L-
E-MAIL ADDRESSHi�JU L . C FLAX # -1010
TAXACCOUNT# WSSq i 000O06(;POO SEC. 3 ~ Twp. R1NSG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE s ` t o I -sker f Vkx+ L'J i TV'
s
APPLICANT ", J , 7 i T� %�fl n PHONE #
ADDRESS oZl� 3J j D ii u w rn rS tc y��i'Cuzd �f
E-MAIL ADDRESS /3,q/Zq/40/-D FAx #
Jesse.
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT W QSi-C-_ 1'1 G��i Z S ! -. cO �% PPHyONE #
ADDRESS l 3 C]h 0 I�w �/ 99 % ka- le 4�``Q+ ll , wA-
E-MAIL ADDRESS1le-1 e1NQ5-k.r n C'n4n9S ,r -'L ALYfAX # y--5 W1 1709
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees"
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized( -is appl" on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT �` DATE '
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. j
SIGNATURE 0FOWNER �o9l t �"� DATE IQ -a3 o,;7
This application form was revised on U27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L.ILIBRARYIPLANNINGSForms&HandoutsTubticHandoutslLandUse Apphea6amdoc • ttachment I
EpM
� o
Zoning and Vicinity Map
File No. S-2006-141 0 100 zoo 400
11, C, i goo Feet
N
A
Attachment 2
T. �� ted_ �� o ► e � =:�
• - i - �:. C 2 i 1!k z2 4. Ej w 3 Y
ff :�
a 1
mss. �I I , 7F E S 6q�3
� � O
Y R
yyy € g$g a z
A 74YH7API
�--------------------------
�
---------------- ---
I �
g y I I Ax
I ! k'
is
g$ i
I
6■�� pgpQ I a i e
J 3
!yam T, pry2 a
c e S$ ori z
�k �iui�*u�_tvu[or �v ¢ � s `�\" � — � ` j VA
q Qty
--------------
0
i' r - -- -
# _ Y
4`�
' i rel
1 •.
_ I
2 F` — +
f � 1
all,
,
Attachment 3
.............. .
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS
Name: Arnhold File No.: PLN20060141
Reviewed by: Jeanie McConnell July 11, 2007 Address: 24316101st Ave W
Engineering Division date
Req'd prior Req'd Bond I Complete
to wlbldgposted
recordina Permit
1. Right -of -Way Dedication for Public Streets
N/Al
2.
Easements (City utilities, private access, other
utilities):
__ ... _._._
Provide all easements as needed.
...................__._._...__._.____._._._..____.__._.___.__ ______.__ _ _ . -
X
_— -.
-_----------------
Lots 1 and 2 shall share a private access.
_-------_-_-----.___
X
-- ----
-- -- -
--- -_-- _------ _-____
Private access easement shall be 15 (fifteen) feet in width.
X
3.
Public Street Frontage Improvements (ACP, curb,
utter, sidewalks and storm drainage):
1015 Ave W to be widened to provide for a minimum 12' lane
X
from the painted centerline or asphalt centerline to the face of the
curb.
.....
... ....... ------ --- -------
Construct 18" curb & gutter along property frontage.
X
Storm system improvements to be installed in gutter line as
X
re uired.
Construct five-foot wide asphalt walkway to City standards along
X
property frontage.
4.
Private Access Improvements:.
Private access road serving lots 1 and 2 shall be paved to 12.0'
X
in width, plus 18" asphalt thickened edge or 6" concrete extruded
curb may be used.
Slope of private access road and driveways shall not exceed
X
14%
Cross slope of private access road shall not exceed 2%
X
5.
Street Turnaround:
Provide on-site tum around on private access road to City
X
Standards.
6.
Street Lights:
........
NIA
X
7.
Planting Strip:
NIA
X
8.
Waters stem Improvements OVWSD
°
Applicant must meet requirements set forth by Olympic View
X
Water Sewer District for connection topublic water system
Provide water service to new lot.
X
Connect to public water system_
X
X
Amhold SP — p1n20060141 Attachment 4
Req'd prior Req'd Bond Complete
to wlbldg. posted
recording Permit
9. Sanitary Sewer System Improvements OVWSD
Applicant must meet requirements set forth by Olympic View X
Water Sewer District for connection to public sewersystem.
Provide 6" service lateral to serve lots 1 & 2 and 4" side sewer to X
serve each individual lot Install a 6 cleanout at property line_
-- ----- -- - _ -- .... -
Connect to public sewer system X X
10. Storm Sewer System Improvements
-
For storm system design of 5000 sq. ft_ or greater of impervious
X
X
area - a Stormwater Management report and plan is required.
X
Compliance with ECDC 18.30 and 1992 Department of Ecology
X
Stormwater Manual required _ Per Ord. 3013
X
-- -- --- .
-is __..._...___..._.....
Construct privately owned and maintained storm detention
--------
X
- -. ..........
....
system sized to provide adequate capacity for proposed single
...........
X
-
family dwellings and private access improvements in accordance
X
with ECDC 18.30. Storm detention system shall be located on
private property. ......
X
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system.
X
X
- - --- - - -- - .. . .....................
Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots.
... ..
X
-
— —-------
- -- -
Connect to Public Storm system
X
X
- -
11. Underground Wiring (per Ord. 1387
.......
Required for all new services
X
X
12. Excavation and Grading (per IBC, appendix j (2003
edition))_
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X I- X
Submit grading an for foundations with building permit. X
13. Signage per City En ineer
Provide fire and aid address signage X
14. Survey Monumentation(per Ord_, Section 12.10.120
NIA X
15. As -built Drawings per City Engineer):
Required for all street and utility improvements_ Provide an X X
AutoCAD electronic copy and a hard copy to City.
16. Other Re uirements:�
-
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legais, survey information
X
X
b) Legal documents for each lot
X
c) Field stake lot comers (by professional surveyor)
X
- ------ ___ ---------...._._ _................_..._._.._....------.._.._...._._.._.
d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines.
X
-- -- --- .
...................... _.._._..... _..... ...... -- ---
e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster
------
................ _............ _
X
-- -............................. _....._.._..__...__
f) Maintenance agreements
...........
X
-
g) Lot driveway slopes must be identified on the development
X
tans as not exceed 14%.
h) 2 parking spaces shall be provided on private property for the
X
benefit of Lot 1.
i) Traffic Impact Analysis required
X
Arnhold SP — p1n20060141 Page 2 of 3
Req'd prior Req'd Bond I Complete
to wlbldgposted
recording Permit
17. Engineering Fees:-:.'--
a) Storm development charge (access road only) $ nla
X
b) Storm drainage connect- fee $4281 each new lot (1 new lot)
X
c) Sewer connection fee-- established by OVWSD
X
d) Water connection fee-- established by OVWSD
.......................
.............. ......................... .. -- -
X
e) Water meter fee -3/4" meter: established by OVWSD
............. _ _.._...._.
X
- - ----- -- ---- --- - - --- ------ ------------- -----
f) Traffic mitigation fee $840.721 each new lot (1 new lot)X
....._.. ......... -
g) Plat review fee ($864 per short plat) $ 860
X
h) Short plat inspection fee(2.2% of improvement costs) $ TBD
X
Jeanie McConnell July 11, 2067
Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded.
Authorized for recording by:
Amhold SP — p1n2006014l Page 3 of 3
Western
Engineers
iwir Inc.
SURVEYORS • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS
April 17, 2007
City of Edmonds Development Services
121 5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
425-771-0220
Re: Setback Modification
13000 Highway 99 South • Everett, Washington 98204
(425) 356-2700 FAX (425) 356-2708
Dear Planning and Development Services:
A
This letter is in response for the requirement for the 7.5 -foot side setback for structures
located in the R-8 zoning district. Currently the Arnhold Family is planning a two .lot
short plat on their property located at 24316 —101St Ave W. There in an existing
residence on the site which the family would like to keep with the short plat. The
problem is that the single-family residence is located 22.2 -feet from the southeastern
boundary line making it impossible to design a 15 -shared driveway easement and meet
the required setbacks and dimensioning requirements for the current zoning (a 15 -foot
driveway easement and a 7.5 -foot setback which totals 22.5 -feet minimum). Note that a
shared driveway, along the northwestern boundary line of the site, is not feasible dile to
the existing house being located only 7.8 -feet from the boundary line. Access from the
south of lot 2 is also not feasible due to a commonly shared landscaping tract being
located between the site and the public road.
In order to maintain existing features in the area the Arnhold Family would like to
request a modification to the setback code in order to retain the existing house on site
and allow for a 15 -shared driveway along the southeastern boundary line of the site_
The modification would include reducing the required 7.5 -foot side setback to a 7.2 -foot
setback. This is a reduction in the required setback of only approximately 4 -inches.
Variance Applicant Declarations
1. Special circumstances that require a variance for the project include the location
and orientation of the existing residence on site. The existing residence is
currently located in the north central area of the property with side setbacks of
7.8 -feet and 22:2 -feet. In order to retain the existing residence on site, and
maintain the front lot facing 101St Ave/243d Street, a variance is needed to allow
the existing residence to be within the required side setback from the proposed
access easement.
RAI DSERVER12006106756AlEngineering\Setback Modification Letter
LAND USE CONSULTANTS • .CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS • ENGINEERING CC Attachment 5
2. Approval of the variance would not be granting special privileges because the
variance request is related to unique circumstances, due to the location of the
existing residence on site. This type of variance would not be required if the
house was 4 more inches northwest of the southeastern boundary line of the site.
3. With the variance, the short plat still meets the requirements set by the
comprehensive plan with the required density and lot dimensioning.
4. The variance is consistent with the zoning ordinance due to the short plat having
the required minimum lot sizes, dimensions and access width. The variance
would also allow the short plat to retain the existing house on site which
maintains part of the existing design features to the neighborhood.
5. The variance has no effect on loss of property value, scenic view or use of
surrounding properties. The variance would only internally affect the design of
the short plat and would have no effect on the neighboring properties.
6. The approval of the variance would allow the existing structure on site to be
located approximately 7.2 -feet from the proposed 15 -foot access easement_ This
is approximately 4 -inches inside the required 7.5 -foot setback. If the variance is
not granted, the existing house would need to be relocated on site or be
demolished so that a new house could meet the required setbacks.
In conclusion, the approval of the variance would allow the short plat to be design to
maintain existing features of the neighborhood (existing residence) and also provide the
best possible access into the site.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 425-356-2700 or
email me at jessej@westernengineers_com.
Sincerely,
i
Jesse .carrell
Project Manager
RAIDSERVER12006106756AlEngineering\Setback Modification Letter
Message
Machuga,Jen
From: Mitch Legel [lege lmc@woridnet.aft. net]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:28 AM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: Re: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Hi Jen
Thank you. See my comment below. Emails are fine. I do not plan on writing a report style format.
Page 1 of 3
The "Public Records Request" and "Code Enforcement Request" form attachments did not come through. I'll contact Linda and
Mike.
Thanks again.
Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: Machuga,_Jen
To: Mitch_L.egel
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Hi Mitch,
I'll look into your questions as I conduct my review of the short plat, but yes, the second structure would need to be removed
prior to final approval of the short plat since it overlaps the proposed property line.
Would you like me to include your emails as comment letters in my staff report, or are you planning on submitting something
else? Emails are fine. I do not plan on writing a report style format.
As far as the property to the north goes, I'd suggest submitting a public records request (see attached) to our Building Division to
find any building permits for the property. You can either mail the form in, drop it by, or email it to Linda Ross at
ross@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Also, if you'd like Code Enforcement to look into the business use, you can fill out our code
enforcement request form (see attached) and submit it to Mike Thies, Code Enforcement. His email address is
thies@ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Take care,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga (Witzgaif), Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 12.24
Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message -----
From: Mitch Legel [mailto:legelmc@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:15 AM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: Re: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Jennifer:
Thanks for your timely response. I'm not sure if you received my second email prior to your response.
5/29/2007 Attachment 6
Message.,
Page 2 of 3
1.) It seems that as one of the conditions for short plat approval, the structurally attached covered storage area to the
existing house, along the north line of proposed lot 1, should be removed. This covered addition extends all the way to
the northerly property line, disregarding the setback requirement.
2.) Will the second residential structure (proposed southerly lot) require demolition and removal prior to short plat
approval? It would seem required to ensure setback requirements are met.
On another issue ..... It is interesting to see the rear setback is 15 feet. The Arnold's property to the north (common line to
my east property line) where they live includes a two story structure comprising a garage and an office (second story)
where they operate a "Mail N Stuff' business. A portion of this structure is visible in the preliminary short plat layout. This
structure grossly does not meet the 15 foot rear setback which has a significant impact on light, view and air. Who issued
the building permit? Are the Arnold's permitted to operate a business? They occasionally operate noisy business
machinery (copiers, printers, etc.) in the evening hours. I know this is a separate issue, but what can be done if anything.
Thanks again.
Mitch
206-546-4867
----- Original Message -----
From: Machuga, Jen
To: Mitch Legel
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Hi Mitch,
I'm glad you emailed me...l had tried to respond to your voicemail on Friday, but you hadn't left your name, so I didn't
know what extension to ask for when I called back.
I am attaching a pdf of the proposal. The applicant is proposing to create one new lot on the southern portion of the
existing lot. Both lots would be accessed via a shared access easement running along the eastern side of the property
(near the existing driveway). The existing main house would be retained, but the second building would be removed.
The proposed modification is to reduce the minimum required side setback of 7.5 feet from the western boundary of the
access easement to 7.16' to allow for the retention of the existing house only. Any future development would need to
meet the applicable minimum required setbacks. Modification requests on short plats (subdivisions resulting in four lots
or less) do no require council approval. The applicant does have to show that they meet all of the criteria of approval for
a variance, but modification requests are administratively approved/denied by staff in conjunction with the
approval/denial of the short plat.
I hope this helps answer your questions. Feel free to stop by our office Monday through Friday from 9:00am to noon or
from 1:00pm to 4:00pm if you'd like to look through the file.
Take care,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga (Witzgaff), Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message -----
From: Mitch Legel[mailto:legelmc@woridnet.att.net]
Sent;: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:18 AM
To: Machuga, Jen; Machuga, Jen
5/29/2007
Message
Subject: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Jennifer:
I left a voicemail for you last Friday regarding the same.
Page 3 of 3
I'm inquiring about a Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141, subdividing one (1) lot into two (2) lots
and a modification request to reduce the required side setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet. Site is zoned SFR RS -8.
We received the application last Wednesday.
The property is currently owned by MLT Properties LLC, consisting of Pam Arnold and other partners. Mrs Arnold
lives on the tax parcel abutting to the north where they operate a "Mail N Stuff' business in the upper story of their
garage.
The property described in the application more particularly includes the improvement of two (2)
residential properties. Snohomish County records only mention one of the residential structures, a one story
home. The structure not mentioned is a two story home in the backyard (1 st floor is a garage, 2nd story is the
residence). Both residential structures are rental units.
Given the lot size of 0.43acres (18,731sf) and the RS -8 zoning, the maximum lots allowed appears to be 2 lots as
requested in the application.
Questions:
1.) Why is the setback modification requested?
2.) My understanding setback modifications require council approval of a variance?
3.) Are the two residential structures to remain or will they be demolished?
4.) Are the two residential structures legally conforming to City zoning and structural building codes?
5.) Is a plot plan available depicting the two lot layout?
6.) If the residential structures are to remain, will they lie within each proposed lot and setback requirements?
Based on the application and existing improvements, it appears one of the structures is currently non -conforming
and is within the 7.5 building setback requirement, hence the 7.2 setback variance.
Look forward to hearing from you. Somehow I ended up with two email addresses for you, hoping one will reach
you.
Mitch Legel
206-5464867
5/29/2007
Pagel of 2
Machuga, Jen
From: Mitch Legel [legelmc@woridnet.att.net]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:26 AM
To: Machuga, Jen; Machuga, Jen
Subject: Fw: Notice of Development Application File #S-06-141
Jennifer:
4, follow up to my email below.
The single story residential improvement on the Arnold property appears to encroach the entire side setback along the northerly
property line. The encroachment is a covered storage area structurally attached to the house. I'm assuming the side setback
modification is for this structure. If so, the covered storage area would need to be removed as it is part of the setback, unless you
are granting a "zero lot line" setback.
The 7.2 foot side setback modification request should be for existing improvements only and approval of the development
application should be conditioned with the following:
1.) If the existing residential improvements are remodeled (% of value), then the remodel should include a remedy to comply with
the 7.5 side setback.
2.) New construction will require the 7.5 side setback. (This applies to removal of either of the two existing residential structures,
replaced with new construction.)
3.) For Short Plat approval, the covered storage area along the northerly property line should be removed regardless the 7.2 side
setback modification request.
I'd be happy to discuss if you wish.
Mitch
206-546-4867h
425-673-5559w
---- Original Message -----
From: Mitch Legel
ro: Jennifer_Witzgall ; Jennifer Machuga
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Notice of Development Application File #5-06-141
Jennifer.
left a voicemail for you last Friday regarding the same.
I'm inquiring about a Notice of Development Application File #5-06-141, subdividing one (1) lot into two (2) lots and a modification
request to reduce the required side setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet. Site is zoned SFR RS -8. We received the application last
dVednesday.
The property is currently owned by MLT Properties LLC, consisting of Pam Arnold and other partners. Mrs Arnold lives on the tax
parcel abutting to the north where they operate a "Mail N Stuff' business in the upper story of their garage.
The property described in the application more particularly includes the improvement of two (2) residential properties. Snohomish
County records only mention one of the residential structures, a one story home. The structure not mentioned is a two story home
in the backyard (1 st floor is a garage, 2nd story is the residence). Both residential structures are rental units.
Given the lot size of 0.43acres (18,731sf) and the RS -8 zoning, the maximum lots allowed appears to be 2 lots as requested in the
application.
Questions:
5/21/2007
Page 2 of 2
1.) Why is the setback modification requested?
2.) My understanding setback modifications require council approval of a.variance?
3.) Are the two residential structures to remain or will they be demolished?
4.) Are the two residential structures legally conforming to City zoning and structural building codes?
5.) Is a plot plan available depicting the two lot layout?
3.) If the residential structures are to remain, will they lie within each proposed lot and setback requirements? Based on the
application and existing improvements, it appears one of the structures is currently non -conforming and is within the 7.5 building
setback requirement, hence the 7.2 setback variance.
Look forward to hearing from you. Somehow i ended up with two email addresses for you, hoping one will reach you.
Mitch E_egel
206-546-4867
5/21/2007