S-06-40 Staff Report.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To:
File S-2006-40
From
:
Jennifer Witzgall, Planner
Date:
July 19, 2006
File:
S-2006-40
Applicant:
Louie Koopai
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2
A.Application ................................................................................................................................. 2
B.Decision on Subdivision .............................................................................................................. 2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 3
A.Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance ............................................................................... 3
B.Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................. 5
C.Analysis of the Requested Modification....................................................................................... 6
D.Compliance with the Zoning Code .............................................................................................. 7
E.Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions .......................................................... 7
F.Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 7
G.Critical Areas Review ................................................................................................................. 8
H.Comments .................................................................................................................................. 8
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ....................................................................... 8
A.Request for Reconsideration ........................................................................................................ 8
B.Appeals....................................................................................................................................... 8
C.Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ............................................................................. 8
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................. 8
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ............................................................................... 9
VI. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 9
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD .................................................................................................. 9
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 2 of 9
I.INTRODUCTION
th
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 20216 – 76 Avenue West into two lots
(Attachment 1). See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2). The site is located in a
Multiple Residential (RM-3) zone that allows one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet. The proposed lot
layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). The existing single family residence and detached
garage are to remain; however, a portion of the existing residence is to be removed. The applicant has
submitted a modification request for a reduction in the required minimum side setback in order to retain the
existing house at a 2-foot side setback from the northern boundary of the ingress/egress easement on
proposed Lot 1 (Attachment 5).
A.Application
1. Applicant: Louie Koopai
th
2. Site Location: 20216 – 76 Avenue West (see Attachment 2).
3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 13,500 square feet into two lots in a Multiple
Residential (RM-3) zone (seeAttachment 3). The applicant has also requested a modification
to reduce the minimum required side setback of 5 feet (following RS-6 setbacks) to 2 feet
from the northern boundary of the ingress/egress easement on proposed Lot 1.
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 16.30.030,
site development standards for the RM-3 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 proposed minimum side setback modification for Lot 1 is APPROVED with the
following conditions. The subdivision as proposed is also 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.
b) Remove the portion of the existing residence that is indicated on the plans as to be
removed so that the house is at least two feet from he northern boundary of the
ingress/egress easement.
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 3 of 9
c) Remove the existing shed from Lot 2.
d) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) Under “Development Notes,” change the gross area of Lot 2 to 7,200
square feet, and change the easement area to 1,433 square feet.
(2) 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-
06-40 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division.”
(3) Include on the plat all required information, including owner’s
certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff’s approval block.
e) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor’s
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
f) 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.
g) 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 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.
3. The existing residence (excluding the portion that must be removed prior to recording)
may be maintained in its current location; however, if any additions are made or if the
house is replaced in the future, all new construction must meet the required setbacks that
are in place at that time.
4. The modification to the required setback on Lot 1 is to reduce the required side setback
from the northern boundary of the ingress/egress easement to 2-feet for the existing
house only. Future demolition and construction of a new residence would require
compliance with setbacks.
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
Introduction
1.
a. Setting:
th
The subject property at 20216 – 76 Avenue West is located in the Multiple Residential
(RM-3) zone (Attachment 2). The properties to the north and south are also zoned RM-3,
while the properties to the west are zoned RS-8. The properties to the east are located
outside of City of Edmonds limits. The immediately surrounding properties are developed
with residential uses. A school is located southeast of the subject property.
b. Topography and Vegetation:
The subject property is relatively flat. The western portion of the property slopes
downwards slightly from east to west. Vegetation on the lot consists of typical residential
landscaping, including grass and shrubs. There are no large trees on the site.
c. Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). Lot 1 will be
created on the eastern portion of the existing lot and Lot 2 will be created on the western
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 4 of 9
portion. The existing house and existing detached garage will be retained on Lot 1;
however, a portion of the existing house will be removed to make way for the ingress/egress
th
easement providing access to Lot 2. Both lots will be accessed directly off of 76 Avenue
West via a shared access easement along the southern portion of Lot 1.
Environmental Resources
2.
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). There are no apparent environmental
resources on this site.
b. The proposal minimizes grading because the site is relatively level and the current access
drive is located within the proposed ingress/egress easement.
c. No 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 Department when a building permit
is applied for on this site. Any proposed development on the site must be designed to meet
current code in order to minimize off-site impacts on drainage. All new impervious
surfaces must be connected to a detention system.
Views in this location are local. It does not appear that they will be negatively impacted by
this proposal.
Lot and Street Layout
3.
a. This criteria 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 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 sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area:
Required Proposed Proposed
Lot Area Gross sq. ft Net sq. ft
Lot 1 3,000 per 6,300 4,867
unit
Lot 2 3,000 per 7,200 7,200
unit
Lot Width:
There is no required lot width in the RM-3 zone.
Setbacks and Lot Coverage
4.
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
RM-3 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
Lot 1: Street Setback (15 feet): From the eastern property line.
Side Setbacks (15 feet): From the northern and southern property lines.
Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line.
Lot 2: Side Setbacks (15 feet): From all property lines.
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 5 of 9
Note: Since proposed Lot 1 is developed with a single family residence, RS-6 setbacks may
be used. The applicant has indicated plans to develop proposed Lot 2 with a single family
residence; therefore, RS-6 setbacks may be used for that lot as well. The current RS-6
setbacks are as follows: Street Setback – 20 feet; Side Setback – 5 feet; and Rear Setback –
15 feet.
Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing house is proposed to be retained on Lot
1; however, a portion of the house projects into the proposed ingress/egress easement. This
portion of the house, as indicated on the plans, must be removed prior to final subdivision
approval. The applicant has requested a modification to the minimum required side setback
to allow the portion of the house that is to remain to be located at a two-foot setback from
the northern boundary of the proposed ingress/egress easement. The existing detached
garage is proposed to be retained on Lot 1. There is also an existing shed located on the
southwestern portion of the site. Since an accessory structure cannot be located on a lot
without a primary structure, the existing shed must be removed from Lot 2 prior to final
subdivision approval.
b. Corner Lots: Neither lot is considered 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.) 45% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RM-3 zone.
2.) According to Snohomish County Assessor’s records, the existing house covers 1,550
square feet and the existing garage covers 380 square feet, which would cause
proposed Lot 1 to have approximately 40% lot coverage. The existing shed is to be
removed from Lot 2; therefore, Lot 2 will have a zero percent lot coverage. Any future
buildings or structures on either lot will be allowed to cover no more than 45% of each
lot.
Dedications
5.
a. No dedication is required, per City Engineer’s Requirements (Attachment 4).
Improvements
6.
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 4).
Flood Plain Management
7.
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:
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 6 of 9
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.
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.
B.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 1955, according to Assessor’s records, and will make way
for another home. The overall proposal should not cause any adverse impacts and appears to be
consistent with the residential development goals and policies. The natural environment does
not provide too many constraints in this area.
C.Analysis of the Requested Modification
1.
The applicant has requested a modification to a side setback as allowed in ECDC 20.75.075,
which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be
follows:
approved. The Criteria are as
Special Circumstances:
a.
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).
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 7 of 9
Conclusions:
3.
a. It would be possible to subdivide the subject property into two lots that both meet the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code; however, this would require
the removal of the existing house. According to Snohomish County Assessor’s records,
the existing house was built in 1955. It is only because the applicant wishes to retain the
existing house with this proposal that the side setback comes up as an issue. Though the
applicant could conceivably remove the existing house and design the subdivision to
comply with the City’s 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.
b. The minimum required side setback for the existing single family residence is five feet (as
required by RS-6 setbacks). By removing the existing house, the applicant would be able
to subdivide the subject property into two lots that meet this requirement of the Edmonds
Community Development Code without the need for a modification request. However, in
order to retain the existing house, a modification to the requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code would need to be made. The modification request is only
to reduce the setback from the northern boundary of the ingress/egress easement; therefore,
the residence would not be any closer to the property lines than what would normally be
allowed. Thus, it appears that the approval of the modification for the minimum side
setback would not be a grant of special privilege.
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 allow for the retention of the existing house and 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 a portion of the existing
house is to be removed, the house will in fact be further away from the southern property
line than it currently is.
e.
The proposed modification is the minimum necessary to retain the existing house while
providing sufficient access to proposed Lot 2.
D.Compliance with the Zoning Code
1.
If the proposed modification is approved, the proposed change to the 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 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.
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 8 of 9
G.Critical Areas Review
1. Critical Areas Review number:
CA-1998-0135.
Results of Critical Areas Review:
The 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
One public comment letter was received during the review of this proposal and is included as
Attachment 5. Gvara and Richard Kirschner commented that they are against the proposed
modification request because they are afraid that they might have a harder time renting their
property if there is a house located closer to the property line than what they originally expected.
Staff response: The modification request is to reduce the side setback from the existing house to
the northern boundary of the ingress/egress easement from five feet (as required by RS-6
setbacks) to two feet. The modification request is not to reduce the setback from the property line
adjacent to the Kirschner’s property.
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 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.
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Louie Koopai
File No. S-2006-40
Page 9 of 9
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. Application
2. Vicinity / Zoning Map
3. Subdivision Map
4. Engineering Requirements
5. Modification Request
6. Comment Letter from Gvara and Richard Kirschner
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD
Engineering Department Gvara and Richard Kirschner
7503 Braemar Drive
Planning Department Edmonds, WA 98026
Louie Koopai
th
20216 – 76 Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026