S-06-146 Reconsideration Response.pdfDate:
MEMORANDUM
August 17, 2007
To: Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
23507 — 99"` Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Cc: Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno
Jason McKie and Elizabeth Pfau
9812 — 235th Place SW
23512 — 97th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Leah White
Jonathan and Kimberly Prinz
4727-A Evergreen Way
23511 — 99th Place W
Everett, WA 98203
Edmonds, WA 98020
Judith and Richard Cook Karen Milnor
23521 — 97th Place W 23520 — 97th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
From: Jen Machuga, Planner
Subject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RELATED TO
PLANNING STAFF'S DECISION ON FILE NO, S-2006-146
Introduction
Mr. and Mrs. Rapheus and Marci Villanueva submitted a request for reconsideration on July 13,
2007 to staff's decision made on July 3, 2007 issuing preliminary approval for the short
subdivision application by Mr. and Mrs. Carmen and Kimberly Crispeno at 9812 — 235`h Place
Southwest (File No. S-2006-146). Their reconsideration request is included for reference as
Attachment A.
Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva disagree with staff's determination to approve the subdivision of the
subject property into three Iots. They stated that the approval of the requested modifications for
reduced lot size and reduced western side setbacks is a grant of special privilege. The staff report
determined that the granting of the modification requests would not be a grant of special priviledge
because similar modifications to these site development standards were made with the Planned
Residential Development (File No. PRD -2000-21) on the lots directly adjacent to the subject
property. Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva feel that this conclusion is inaccurate because although the
subject property is located adjacent to a PRD, the homes within the PRD were designed to mitigate
for the loss of privacy that comes from reduced setbacks by minimizing windows along common
property lines and positioning the residences so that the sides of the houses were not used for
entrances or garages. The Villanuevas feel that locating the garages for the future residences on
Lots l and 3 on the western side of the residences would expose the homes to the west of the
City of Edmonds .cza Planning Division
Reconsideration Request
File No. S-2006-146
Page 2 of 4
subject property to garage, vehicle, and traffic noise that is closer than what would be with homes
located across the street.
Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva commented that staff's conclusion that the approval of the requested
modifications would 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 is incorrect. The
Villanuevas stated that there is a danger of vehicles in the driveways of Lots 1 and 3 losing control
and rolling into the backyards of the adjacent properties to the west.
The Villanuevas commented that the approval of the modification requests allows the subject
property to be subdivided into two additional lots, and that the subdivision should be limited to
one additional lot to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva stated
that the approval of the subject application contrasts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
They commented that the future homes on the subject property should be designed similarly to the
residences located in the neighboring PRD by orienting driveways and windows in such a manner
that is more compatible with the surrounding properties.
Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva requested that the following actions be taken by the City:
1. Reduce the subdivision approval to only two lots.
2. Require front doors and entrances to be on the north and south sides of the future homes
on the site.
3. Require the use of windows facing the western property line to be minimized for privacy.
Conclusion
The Planning Division upholds its initial decision issuing preliminary approval of the subject
application, File No. S-2006-146. The reasoning behind this conclusion follows.
The subject property is located within the RS -8 zone, which allows lots with a minimum of 8,000
square feet. The subject property is 33,254 square feet in size. The applicant has shown how the
subject property could be subdivided into three lots that all meet the minimum lot size and lot
width requirements established under ECDC 16.20.030. The plan submitted by the applicant
showing how the property could be subdivided into three lots that all meet the minimum lot size
requirement was included as Attachment 7A in the staff report for File No. S-2006-146 and is
included as Attachment B to this document for reference. The requested modifications to lot size
and setbacks were only made in order to create new lots that make better sense with the existing
topography of the lot, and these modifications are not necessary for the applicant to be able to
subdivide the subject property into three lots. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is not resulting
in more density than what is allowed by the underlying zoning, and City staff cannot require the
applicant to reduce the number of lots resulting from the subdivision based on reasons such as the
design of the subdivision not fitting in with the surrounding properties.
Per ECDC 20.75.075.C, all of the findings set forth in ECDC 20.85 (Variances) must be made
before a modification request can be approved. ECDC 20.85.010.B, states that the approval of a
variance cannot be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. In order to provide sufficient buildable
area while keeping the future residences as far from the steep slope as possible, the applicant
requested a reduction in the minimum required western side setback for Lots 1 and 3 from 7.5 feet
to 5 feet. By being able to shift the future residences slightly to the west, the applicant will be able
to minimize their impact on this critical area. Although the applicant has requested to reduce the
Reconsideration Request
File No. S-2006-146
Page 3 of 4
western side setbacks by 2.5 feet, the future residences on Lots 1 and 3 will still be at least 20 feet
from the western property line. The existing vehicular access easement will need to be widened to
20 feet for the portion that Lot 1 takes access and can then be reduced to 15 feet in width. The
side setbacks for Lots i and 3 will then be from the eastern edge of this easement. If the subject
property was developed in such a way that an easement was not necessary along the western
property line, a future residence could effectively be only 7.5 feet (without the need for a
modification request) from the western property line as opposed to the 20 feet or more that the
future residences will be on Lots 1 and 3. Since the future residences on Lots 1 and 3 are further
from the western property line than they may be with an alternative short plat layout and since the
proposed modification would keep the future residences further from the steep slope, staff feels
that the granting of the modification request is not a grant of special privilege. ECDC 20.85.010.E
states that the approval of a variance cannot be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The
Villanuevas stated concerns over vehicles in the driveways of Lots 1 and 3 possibly rolling into the
backyards of the adjacent properties to the west. Civil plans for the project will be reviewed by
the Engineering Division for compliance with the Engineering Division's regulations.
Per ECDC 20.10.020.13, single family residences in single family zones are exempt from design
review. Additionally, design review is not required for short plats. Therefore, staff cannot require
the applicant to locate driveways on a specific side of the residence or to use certain design
elements.
The Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that are used for the basis of the regulations
set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Since the Comprehensive Plan itself
does not contain adopted code regulations, its goals cannot be used as regulations on a short plat.
Unless regulations based on the goals of the Comprehensive plan are adopted, proposed projects
cannot be restricted based on Comprehensive Plan goals alone. The City is currently working on a
rewrite of the Edmonds Community Development Code. You are welcome to contact the Planning
Division for further information if you would like to get involved in this process by providing
input on potential changes or additions to the City's current regulations.
Attachments
A. Reconsideration Request by Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
B. Attachment 7A from Staff Report for File No. S-2006-146 (plans showing potential lot
layout that would not require a modification to the minimum lot size requirements)
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.
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.
Reconsideration Request
File No. S-2006-146
Page 4 of 4
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.
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.
Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
23507 99`h P1 W
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Building Department
121 5th Avenue North - 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425-771-0220 Fax: 425-771-0221
To Whom It May Concern:
JUL 13 2007
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDIa ONDS
We are writing to request reconsideration of the city's decision to approve the plan to
subdivide the lot at 9812 235" PI SW, Edmonds into three lots.
1. We strongly disagree with the conclusion stated in part C. 3.b.
"The subject property is located directly adjacent to a Planned Residential
Development (File No. PRD -2000-21) where lots of similar sizes (compared to
the proposed 5,688 net square feet for Lot 1) were approved. Therefore, it
appears that the approval of this modification request would not be a grant of
special privilege."
Granting of the variance for Lot 1 (in reference to the Lot Area Modification for Lot
Crispeno Short Plat, Attachment 7) amounts to a special privilege for the following
reasons.
Although the lots in the Planned Residential Development are similar in size to Lot 1, the
orientation of the building structures in the Woodbury community have common design
attributes that serve to mitigate loss of privacy resulting from the manner in which the
community was subdivided. For example, despite the small side setbacks found among
the lots in the neighboring community, the common design employs either a
minimization or elimination of windows along common side property lines. Generally,
adjacent residences are positioned such that their front -to -rear axes are parallel. The
homes in the Planned Residential Development also do not make use of the side for
major entrances like the garage. ~
In contrast, the topography and easement in the proposed building area limit the
orientation of the proposed residences. From the submitted schematics, these residences
have garage entrances along the western side setbacks that directly face the rear of
adjacent homes. As a result, the neighboring homes are exposed to garage, vehicle and
traffic noise that is much closer than what would be found among opposing residences (ie
homes that face each other across a street) in the Planned Residential Development.
Attachment A
2. We also strongly disagree with point D. Ld,
"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."
The east -west direction of the designed driveways present a major safety concern
especially for our residence opposite lot 1. According to attachment 6 (Engineering
Requirements for Short Plats), the proposed private driveways are allowed a maximum of
a 14% slope. As proposed, this driveway and any vehicles parked on it will be 20 feet
from the western property line. The residences along the western property line are built
on a grade approximately 10 feet below this proposed garage level. The wooden fence
along the western property lines would not be a sufficient barrier to protect the residences
and persons from damage or personal injury in the event a vehicle were to roll, or a driver
lose control due to weather conditions or poor driving. There are also children who may
play in the back yard of these properties.
3. The granting of the variance allows the undeveloped area of the Crispeno property to
be subdivided into 2 additional lots. Limiting the subdivision to one additional lot (2
total) would support a more conforming layout with the rest .of the community.
Specifically, a single lot would provide ample space to permit the garage to be accessed
as a north -south driveway and create more space for continuous privacy plantings along
the western property line.
4. The current plan is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan goals where:
"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.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."
To meet this city goal the proposed residences should be designed with a similar layout to
the neighboring, planned residential community. As noted earlier, major entrances such
as front doors and garages are facing the doors and garages of opposing homes across a
residential street and are not located across a reduced side setback. A conforming layout
would place the major entrances for the proposed residences on the North/ South side of
the homes.
B.S. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
2
B.5.d Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
Again the proposed orientation of the driveways and garages expose the quiet areas of
our homes to residential traffic, vehicle and garage noise.
In summary we ask that the city reconsider it's decision to allow the subdivision of the lot
at 9812 235th PI SW. Although the proposed lots are similar in size to the adjacent
Planned Residential Development, there are other factors that determine whether a
building project is harmonious with its surrounding developments in terms of aesthetics,
desirability and public safety. We do believe a special privilege is being granted for the
above-mentioned reasons. If the city upholds its decision we ask that-
- The subdivision is reduced to only 2 lots total. Although this would not eliminate
the safety, environmental and noise concerns to our property, it would reduce it.
- Front doors and entrances are located on the north and south sides of the proposed
homes for the reasons mentioned above.
- Privacy is maximized along the property lines with reduced side set backs i.e.
along the western property line by reducing or thoughtfully planning the
placement and/or size of windows facing this border.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
✓a a ��
Rapheus and Marci Villanueva
3
I g
0 c �
LU LU
z qa
a H V gEll f 3
f
Q
z O1-1
o a
$.o E e V>
1190
z�
i
U
BOG it
9
e � x •�// mz
Q�Z1z wq
Nn S c 652 J,/ 3.' sQK
it �\ , '% � esa t_ n W
W—
o_
Z x Z r c or haze LI
W W Z I 2
C I q
zo
x
x
0 0
MI
i agN
> z
r4
g
�
Y
�00•s2'5]'W
190.02' W
-d-
a
3
q a
I m
" '
couczEiE
x euaowq
Q
w�
N I
d
I p
L) /
i
U
BOG it
9
e � x •�// mz
Q�Z1z wq
Nn S c 652 J,/ 3.' sQK
it �\ , '% � esa t_ n W
W—
o_
Z x Z r c or haze LI
W W Z I 2
C I q
p
1:1 "We L9'L11, 90fVIIAt'ewP'60090L\tWWWL�A'+Y.WMV
zo
x
;E
-d-
a
q a
I m
N I
d
I p
L) /
p
1:1 "We L9'L11, 90fVIIAt'ewP'60090L\tWWWL�A'+Y.WMV