Loading...
S-06-47 Staff Report.doc CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File S-2006-47 From : Jennifer Witzgall, Planner Date: July 12, 2006 File: S-2006-47 Applicant: Michel Construction Inc. 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.Compliance with the Zoning Code .............................................................................................. 6 D.Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions .......................................................... 6 E.Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 6 F.Critical Areas Review ................................................................................................................. 6 G.Comments .................................................................................................................................. 7 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ....................................................................... 7 A.Request for Reconsideration ........................................................................................................ 7 B.Appeals....................................................................................................................................... 7 C.Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ............................................................................. 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................. 7 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ............................................................................... 8 VI. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD .................................................................................................. 8 Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 2 of 8 I.INTRODUCTION th The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 9009 – 196 Street Southwest 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-12) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 12,000 square feet. The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3A). The existing single family residence and detached garage are to be removed. A.Application 1. Applicant: Michel Construction Inc. th 2. Site Location: 9009 – 196 Street Southwest (see Attachment 2). 3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 26,088 square feet into two lots in a Single- Family Residential (RS-12) zone (seeAttachment 3A). 4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, site development standards for the RS-12 zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. d. 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. b) Remove the existing residence. c) Remove the existing detached garage. d) Make the following revisions to the plat: (1) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, conduct the following: (a) Correct the setbacks to resemble those shown in Section II.A.4.a of this report. (b) Add the following statement to the face of the Plat: “Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right.” Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 3 of 8 (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- 06-47 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. A clearing plan must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to any tree clearing. II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance Introduction 1. a. Setting: th The subject property at 9009 – 196 Street Southwest is located in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone (Attachment 2). The immediately surrounding properties are also zoned RS-12 and are developed with single-family residences. b. Topography and Vegetation: The majority of the subject site is relatively flat and slopes downwards slightly from east to west. However, near the western property line, the lot drops downwards steeply to the private road below. Vegetation on the lot consists of typical residential landscaping, including grass, trees, and shrubs. c. Lot Layout: The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3A). Lot 1 will be created on the southern portion of the existing lot and Lot 2 will be created on the northern portion. The existing house and existing detached garage will both be removed. Proposed th Lot 1 will be accessed directly off of 196 Street Southwest, and proposed Lot 2 will be th accessed via a panhandle that joins the lot with 196 Street Southwest. 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). The existing trees on the site are Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 4 of 8 considered to be environmental resources. The majority of the trees are located in the northwestern portion of the site. Most of these trees are located near the two existing sewer easements where houses cannot be constructed; therefore, they are not likely to be impacted by development of the lots. There are no other apparent environmental resources on this site. b. The proposal minimizes grading because the portion of the site that is to be developed is relatively level, and a portion of the proposed access for Lot 2 is currently paved. c. There is a steep slope located along the western side of the subject property. The applicant has demonstrated in Attachment 3B that the lots can be built on using the standard 50-foot buffer from the top of the slope. If the applicant wishes to decrease this buffer, a report by a qualified geotechnical engineer must be submitted. Refer to Section II.F.1 of this report for further discussion of the steep slope. No other hazardous conditions, such as flood plains 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. 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 12,000 12,000 12,000 Lot 2 12,000 13,388 13,388 Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS-12 zone is 80 feet. The proposed lots meet this requirement. 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. The current lot is considered a corner lot because a public right-of-way boarders the property to the south and a private access easement, which qualifies as a street, boarders the property to the west. Therefore, based on the development standards for the RS-12 zone, setbacks for the new lots should be as follows: Lot 1: Street Setbacks (25 feet): From the southern and western property lines. Side Setbacks (10 feet): From the northern and eastern property lines. Lot 2: Street Setback (25 feet): From the western property line. Side Setbacks (10 feet): From the northern and southern property lines. Rear Setback (25 feet): From the eastern property line. Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 5 of 8 Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing house located on the subject property overlaps the proposed property line between Lots 1 and 2. Therefore, the house must be removed prior to final subdivision approval. Since an accessory structure cannot be located on a lot without a primary structure, the existing detached garage must also be removed prior to final approval. b. Corner Lots: Lot 1 is considered a corner lot. c. Flag or Interior lot determination: Neither lot is considered a flag lot. d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS-12 zone. 2.) Since the existing house and detached garage must both be removed prior to recording, there will no longer be any structures located on the subject property. Therefore, both proposed lots will have a zero percent lot coverage. Any future buildings or structures will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of each lot. Dedications 5. th a. A 5-foot street dedication is required along 196 Street Southwest, 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: 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. Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 6 of 8 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 make way for two new homes. 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.Compliance with the Zoning Code 1. The proposed subdivision must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document. D.Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain. E.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. F.Critical Areas Review 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-2005-0096. Results of Critical Areas Review: During initial critical areas review of the subject property, staff was unsure of where the property lines of the subject property were and mistakenly issued a waiver from the requirement to complete a study. However, after reviewing the survey submitted with the short plat application, it was noted that the property contains a slope that is steep enough to be considered a Landslide Hazard Area as defined by ECDC 23.40. As a result, the critical areas determination was changed, and the requirement to complete a study was issued. ECDC 23.80.070 states that the minimum buffer from the landslide hazard area shall be equal to 50 feet; however, this buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet if a qualified professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Since a study was not submitted to allow a reduction in the required 50-foot buffer, the applicant submitted a survey showing the required 50-foot buffer from the top of the slope and the additional required 15-foot building setback from the buffer (see Attachment 3B). This shows Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 7 of 8 that the lots can be developed even if a geotechnical engineer states that it is unsafe for this buffer to be reduced. G.Comments One public comment letter was received during the review of this proposal and is included as Attachment 5. Dean Saksena with Snohomish County PUD commented that the District currently had sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development; however, the existing local facilities may require upgrading. Mr. Saksena stated that the cost of any work to the existing facilities that is required to connect the proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy, and that the developer will be required to supply any necessary easements. Staff response: This letter has been included for the applicant’s reference as Attachment 5. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the District to clarify what requirements the District may have. 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 Michel Construction Inc. File No. S-2006-47 Page 8 of 8 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 3A. Subdivision Map 3B. Survey Showing 50’ Buffer and 15’ Building Setback from Top of Slope 4. Engineering Requirements 5. Comment Letter from Snohomish County PUD VII.PARTIES OF RECORD Engineering Department Dean Saksena, Senior Manager Distribution Engineering Services Planning Department Snohomish County PUD P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Michel Construction Inc. th 7907 – 212 Street SW, #102 Edmonds, WA 98026